Seeking Truth
Reading comments from other posts about this, I felt the urge to write.
I see it in my own country, amongst family members too, that believing open dialogue can resolve disagreements is increasingly challenging. In an article by Rob Henderson, he noted that many people no longer trust the Enlightenment ideal that words can lead to shared understanding. Henderson highlights a perspective that challenges the notion of objective truth, citing Ezra Klein in The New York Times:
“Everything you believe was invented by someone. Your ideas, the books you’ve read, even the words you speak, were all made by powerful people with their own interests and blind spots. The values of speech and open inquiry carry the soiled fingerprints of the societies that championed them.” (Klein, as cited in Henderson, 2025)
Henderson elaborates on this perspective, noting that many conclude from this view that “nobody can give an objective account of reality. There is no neutral truth. Every political system, they say, was designed by someone with a hidden agenda”. This rejection of objective truth, Henderson argues, leads to a troubling outcome:
“It is one thing to admit that we are all biased but still try to be fair. It is another to give up on truth entirely and simply impose your will on others”. Together, these ideas paint a picture of a world where dialogue is undermined by a belief that all truths are constructed and power becomes the ultimate arbiter.
When people have a disparity in how they think others believe the source of their truth is vs. how they obtained their truth, they feel entitled to spread their version of it.
That's the root cause of all disagreements: when one party can't step into a worldview different from their own. My family members prefer to disengage to psychologically distance themselves from the tension. Others may take a different approach to silence the voice.
And I'm here hoping a third option is available.
I see it in my own country, amongst family members too, that believing open dialogue can resolve disagreements is increasingly challenging. In an article by Rob Henderson, he noted that many people no longer trust the Enlightenment ideal that words can lead to shared understanding. Henderson highlights a perspective that challenges the notion of objective truth, citing Ezra Klein in The New York Times:
“Everything you believe was invented by someone. Your ideas, the books you’ve read, even the words you speak, were all made by powerful people with their own interests and blind spots. The values of speech and open inquiry carry the soiled fingerprints of the societies that championed them.” (Klein, as cited in Henderson, 2025)
Henderson elaborates on this perspective, noting that many conclude from this view that “nobody can give an objective account of reality. There is no neutral truth. Every political system, they say, was designed by someone with a hidden agenda”. This rejection of objective truth, Henderson argues, leads to a troubling outcome:
“It is one thing to admit that we are all biased but still try to be fair. It is another to give up on truth entirely and simply impose your will on others”. Together, these ideas paint a picture of a world where dialogue is undermined by a belief that all truths are constructed and power becomes the ultimate arbiter.
When people have a disparity in how they think others believe the source of their truth is vs. how they obtained their truth, they feel entitled to spread their version of it.
That's the root cause of all disagreements: when one party can't step into a worldview different from their own. My family members prefer to disengage to psychologically distance themselves from the tension. Others may take a different approach to silence the voice.
And I'm here hoping a third option is available.
Note: this was written with the aid of Grok and proofread by ChatGPT.
Comments
Post a Comment