Truth in a Post-Truth Era: Consensus and the Shaping of Subjectivity

Rethinking Objectivity

In our pursuit of knowledge and understanding, the concepts of truth and objectivity traditionally serve as the bedrock upon which we construct our worldviews. Objectivity, in particular, is often envisioned as a beacon of unalterable facts, guiding our interpretations and judgments with its purported clarity and immutability. However, a deeper examination of the nature of these concepts reveals a landscape far more complex and mutable than previously acknowledged.

The transformation in understanding objectivity from an absolute to a consensus-based concept marks a significant shift in traditional thought, one that aligns closely with skepticism of universal truths. This evolution in thought is a recognition of the inherent subjectivity that underpins all human understanding. This realization stems from the understanding that truths, even those as fundamental as the properties of geometric figures or the definitions of words, are not etched into the fabric of reality but are, instead, agreed upon by societies.

Take the simple truth: "All triangles have three sides." This statement is universally recognized as a geometric fact. Yet, imagine a scenario where, through a cultural shift or persuasive argument, the definition of a triangle is universally accepted as a four-sided figure. This shift in understanding would challenge our notion of geometric truths, revealing the subjective foundations upon which they are built. That meaning in this case is tied to words and the symbols we give them. The word "football," which means different sports in different regions, serves as another example of how even the meanings of words we consider straightforward can vary significantly depending on cultural context. Such explorations highlight that many things we take for granted as objective are, upon closer inspection, agreements based on shared beliefs.

Thus, as we navigate this post-truth era, where objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion, and where individuals believe what they want to believe, it becomes imperative to understand the underlying processes through which this post-truth era can make sense. Acknowledging the constructed nature of truths encourages a more critical engagement with the world around us, urging us to question the foundations upon which our perceptions of reality are built. It compels us to consider how our own biases and the societal contexts we inhabit shape our understanding of the world, pushing us towards a more conscientious and inclusive approach to discerning truth in an increasingly complex society.

Subjective Consensus

These ideas stems from the idea that all knowledge is subjective. Even the seemingly universal statement “all knowledge is subjective” is subjective, stemming from an individual perspective, without which the statement wouldn’t exist. Truth is a human construct rather than an external foundation existing independently outside of perspective. What we then accept as truth is rather an agreement amongst individuals or a subjective consensus.

The reconceptualization of objective truth as a construct rather than a discovery challenges the very foundation of how we perceive knowledge and reality. This perspective argues that what we call "objective truth" is merely a reflection of the dominant consensus, an agreement so pervasive and ingrained in our societal structures that it mimics the guise of universality. In reality, these truths are as susceptible to change as any aspect of human culture—they evolve, adapt, and shift according to the whims and designs of human consensus.

Consider the transformation of the heliocentric theory in astronomy. For centuries, the geocentric model, which placed Earth at the center of the universe, was accepted as an objective truth across various cultures, deeply ingrained in both scientific thought and societal religious beliefs. This perspective was supported by the dominant consensus of the time, rooted in the observations and philosophical frameworks of influential figures like Aristotle and Ptolemy.

However, with the advent of the Renaissance, thinkers such as Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler challenged this model, presenting the heliocentric theory which posited that the Earth and other planets orbit the sun. Initially met with intense skepticism and resistance, this idea gradually gained acceptance due to accumulating empirical evidence and changing philosophical views about the universe. This shift was not just a simple update of facts but a profound transformation in the foundational views held by society about the cosmos.

This example illustrates how what was once deemed an objective truth was, in fact, a consensus that shifted dramatically with new evidence and changing societal views. It underscores that objective truths are not static but are subject to the evolving understandings and agreements of human societies. Just as the geocentric view was replaced by the heliocentric model, many of today's accepted truths might one day be revised or overturned as our knowledge and societal consensuses evolve. This reinforces the notion that objective truths are more about widespread agreement than about immutable facts existing independently of human perception.

The implications of this view are profound, for they suggest that our most fundamental understandings of the world around us are not discoveries of how the world truly is, but agreements on how we perceive it to be. This shift from viewing truths as discoveries to understanding them as constructs opens up new avenues for questioning and reevaluating the basis of our knowledge.

Even widely accepted observations, such as the roundness of the Earth, rest on a foundation of subjectivity. Assuming there is a shared understanding of what 'round' and 'world' mean, and acknowledging that no amount of dissent will physically alter the shape of the Earth, our recognition of its roundness is still filtered through our subjective perspectives. This belief depends on the assumption that your experiences and mine align closely enough that we can agree we are observing the same phenomenon. This mutual agreement leads us to believe that we are perceiving reality as it truly is. However, when we assert 'the Earth is round' as an objective truth, what we are really engaging in is a subjective consensus and maintaining a belief rather than possessing incontrovertible knowledge. The fact that this belief can even be debated or denied within certain segments of our society further underscores that what we often consider objective is not beyond dispute.

Our sensory experiences and cognitive abilities, shaped by millions of years of evolution, determine how we interact with the world. Yet, what we perceive as reality could be a fraction of what exists. Consider how different species perceive the world: a dog’s acute sense of smell or a bat’s echolocation offers them a very different reality than our human senses provide. This diversity in perception among species suggests that what we accept as objective reality is actually filtered through our subjective experiences.

Life in the Sphere of Our Perspective

Building on the theme of subjectivity and truth, it becomes clear that every individual navigates reality in a shared, yet unique circumstance. Reality is confined to our direct experiences, each influenced by their unique perceptual circumstance, and the interpretations shared by others. Consequently, truth transforms into a construct that is deeply personal, significantly shaped by the specific contours of our individual lives and the extent of our interactions with the world around us. Imagine all of your individual experiences, perceptions, interpretations, and the history built from them existing within a sphere. This sphere is the sum of your knowledge and experiences. All of it filtered through your perspective.

In this sphere of perspective, truth is not a static or universal element but an evolving narrative crafted from our ongoing interactions and the cumulative knowledge of our community, yet also signifies a cognitive boundary. This narrative is inherently flexible, changing as we expand our experiential horizons or as societal consensus shifts. Thus, what we hold as true is not an absolute but a reflection of our current understanding, always subject to revision and reinterpretation as new information and experiences come to light.

Moreover, this conceptualization of truth underscores the limitations inherent in any attempt to fully understand experiences or phenomena that lie outside our immediate perceptual capabilities. Just as we rely on others to expand our sphere with their shared experiences, we must acknowledge that each addition is still a filtered version of reality, passed through another's subjective lens.

Therefore, while we strive for objectivity in our understanding of the world, the sphere of perspective reminds us that our truths are, by necessity, personal and rooted in the subjective nature of human experience. This realization invites a more humble approach to knowledge, one that values diverse perspectives and recognizes the provisional nature of our own truths.

When multiple individuals’ spheres overlap—a common occurrence in shared environments like communities, cultures, or even online platforms—a subjective consensus begins to form. This consensus helps stabilize and standardize the myriad personal perspectives into a cohesive group understanding, an even larger sphere, which in turn influences individual spheres by introducing new information and norms.

For example, consider the understanding of environmental issues like climate change. An individual's sphere of perspective might initially not include much knowledge about such topics. However, as they encounter more information through media, education, and discussions within their community—a reflection of the broader subjective consensus—their sphere expands to encompass these new understandings. Conversely, the individual's experiences and reactions to this information can also influence the wider community's perceptions and consensus, particularly if they share unique insights or persuasive arguments.

Consider another example, an instance where a person would likely feel more empathy for a starving child upon witnessing their struggle to find food. To actually see them in person suffering, compared to simply hearing about starving children from an external source. Observing a starving child directly carries a more profound impact on an individual's perspective, subsequently influencing their emotions and beliefs to a greater extent. The sphere of perspective serves to illustrate the varying degrees of influence and proximity that diverse experiences hold over our subjectivity.

This sphere-centric view of reality becomes particularly relevant in the context of a post-truth world, where facts often become entangled with personal beliefs and emotional appeals. In such a landscape, the sphere of perspective not only dictates how we interpret new information but also plays a crucial role in determining the weight and truthfulness we assign to different pieces of information. As a result, individuals might dismiss credible data that falls outside their sphere, clinging instead to familiar but potentially misleading information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs.

The influence of this sphere is also evident in the polarization seen in many societies today, where disparate groups can have vastly different perceptions of the same events or facts, each shaped by their distinct spheres of perspective. This divergence can lead to a fragmentation of societal consensus, making it challenging to reach common ground or foster mutual understanding.

In the sphere of each individual, truth is tailored to fit the personal narrative constructed from direct experiences and reinforced by those within their immediate social or informational circles. This phenomenon underscores the challenges of navigating a post-truth era, as the sphere of perspective limits exposure to a broader array of experiences and viewpoints, potentially curbing empathetic and comprehensive understandings of global or communal issues.

In essence, the sphere acts as both a lens and a barrier. It shapes our view of the world and defines the boundaries of our understanding. This encapsulation of reality highlights the subjective nature of truth and the importance of expanding our horizons to encompass a wider range of experiences and viewpoints. As we encounter new information and perspectives, our sphere adjusts and reshapes, though always under the influence of our subjective lens. Thus, our approach to knowledge and truth remains deeply personal, guided by what enters our sphere and how it aligns with or challenges our existing beliefs.

Ultimately, the sphere is what’s relevant to me and what makes up my reality. If it’s not in the sphere, it doesn’t exist.

Beyond Absolute Truths Yet Embracing a Collective Understanding

In grappling with the concepts of truth and objectivity, we arrive at a pivotal recognition: our perceptions of reality are significantly shaped by a complex interplay of individual experiences and societal agreements. The sphere of perspective and subjective consensus serve as two critical frameworks through which we can understand this interaction. Each individual's sphere of perspective encompasses their unique experiences, perceptions, and cultural conditioning, framing their personal reality. However, as these individual spheres overlap within communities and societies, a broader subjective consensus emerges, shaping collective understandings and beliefs about the world, and what we ultimately accept as truth.

This realization encourages a nuanced approach to knowledge, emphasizing the importance of humility and openness in our pursuit of understanding. Acknowledging the subjective foundations of our truths allows us to embrace a richer and more inclusive perspective, enhancing our collective comprehension of the world. By valuing and exploring diverse viewpoints, we not only enrich our individual and societal experiences but also foster a more empathetic and understanding global community. This approach transforms our quest for knowledge from a solitary pursuit of absolute truths to a collaborative exploration of our complex, shared reality.