A Little on "Truth" and "Reality"

There were approximately two major theories that evolved in ancient Greece around 500BC. Both theories are philosophical, and both are rhetorical. Meaning, philosophers use them to question the way things are, and rhetoricians use them to analyze language and communication. Each theory has its own merit, and each theory is interesting. They actually give us the foundation of how we view everything in our world, even today.

The first theory was proposed by Gorgias and the Sophists. Gorgias believed that nothing existed at all. He wasn't referring to physical objects, though. He was referring to our perceptions of things. In other words, what he said was, "This object means something to you, yet it means something else to another person, and so on and so on, so the true essence of that object, the true reality of that object, cannot exist because everyone creates different realities of that object in their own head." This is absolutely true, and there can be no argument about it. We are all keepers of our own realities, and our perceptions do define the world around us, so there is no one single truth. Gorgias would say Truth doesn't exist, but truth does exist.

The second theory was proposed by Gorgias' arch-enemy, Plato. Plato didn't believe Gorgias' point of view. He believed that there was a definable reality -- he believed in an existing Truth; however, he believed that there could only be one true object, and that everything else was a copy of that object, and therefore, each copy was different from the original. He would say, "Look at this chair. It is a beautiful chair crafted by a master chair-maker. This chair-maker has the blueprints, and he makes one chair every day of the week off of his blueprints. Yet, each chair is different. Each copy of the original chair is different. None of the chairs are the same as the original one from where the blueprint was made; therefore, copies of the original chair are one step removed from the original and cannot be the same."

Like I said, these theories were very important turning points in the way Western civilization developed because it forced people to consider all of the ramifications of these theories. In Gorgias' instance, Nietzsche, for example, made the claim that God didn't exist. There has been considerable debate as to what he meant when he said this, and recently, scholars believe he was using Gorgias' theory to state that, since God is perceived differently by everyone, God is different to everyone; therefore, God, as a single, unified entity cannot exist. Now, I do not believe this at all. I believe that God does exist as a whole, and I think that the fallacy of mankind is that we are not able to perceive God due to our position on earth and our inadequacies; however, that being said, the theory is accurate from a human's perspective. God does mean something differently to all of us, and no single definition of God can be attained. The same holds true with every definition of a word that exists. When I say "blue," you immediately think of your perception of "blue." Your perception, and my perception are different, and so is everyone else's, so there is no true definition of "blue."

Equally, Plato has similar relevancy to our current belief-systems. Let's look at the concept of God again so that we can make a direct comparison. Under Plato's philosophy, God would be one and whole, and He would exist as a real entity; however, as humans, we would create a "copy" of God in our mind, and that copy of God is always going to be one-step removed from God. Take this further to the church environment. The priest or minister is going to teach you about God, but his teaching is going to be based upon his "copy" of God, and your beliefs are going to be another "copy" of God, and your "copy" will now be two-steps removed from the original. And so forth and so on. Plato believed that the more something is passed around and the longer it is passed around, the original entity is further removed from its original form. Again, from a language standpoint, let's take the word "blue." According to Plato, at one point in time, there was a real "blue," and it stood alone as the one true "blue." But over time, through many centuries, and through many artists and printers, "blue" is not the same because it has been removed from the original "blue" thousands of times over.

I used to believe in Gorgias' philosophy, and to a degree, I still do when it comes to many things. I believe our perceptions of things are very influential to who we are, and from a rhetorical point of view, I think that his theory is very valid. In fact, I wrote a book about Gorgias' Sophistic philosophy in regards to how writing and language is taught, and I designed an entire writing curriculum around this philosophy.

However, over time, and as I mature more and have lived life longer, I am beginning to see more relevancy to Plato's point of view, and I see how it can also be used to describe many phenomena we encounter each day. Since my days in graduate school, I am becoming more of a Platonic than Gorgianic rhetorician, and that has changed my outlook on life significantly.

As I have said, both theories are important concepts for the development of Western thought, and they have relevance in every aspect of our lives should you wish to consider them. From a practical standpoint, this is what philosophers and rhetoricians ponder as they develop new theories and make new arguments, but, to the general population, they are irrelevant on the daily level. They are not irrelevant to how we live our lives and think about things, though.

I wanted to introduce these concepts today because I want to make an argument over the next week that will use Plato's theory to prove a point that IS meaningful to the way we view one thing in particular, and this one thing HAS shaped our world in a significant way. It will be an interesting study, and, I am sure, a little bit controversial for some of you out there.