My last article completed a series of seven articles I wrote on the topic of truth. I felt compelled to write about truth because the tactics of deceivers — spin, false narrative, and gaslighting — are spreading like wildfire. This is made possible through forms of communication so vast, so pervasive, and so feral that truth has become the proverbial needle in a haystack. Unless we become dedicated students of the truth and discipline ourselves to seek it and live by it, without compromise, civilization as we know it will continue to spiral into chaos and bondage.
Do you want to know the truth? Before you answer that question, you should know something about the truth — it is painful before it is liberating.
Truth is unyielding. As we often say about things we cannot change, “It is what it is.” Truth cuts against the grain of the human desire for self-rule. We don’t like it, and we rebel against it. We want to believe that freedom comes from being the masters of our own destiny, of getting, doing, and being what we want without resistance, restriction, or judgment. That belief does not lead to freedom; it leads to bondage. Truth leads to freedom.
Much has been said in the past few weeks about the Socratic Method and the search for wisdom and truth. Charlie Kirk was a master of this method of debate, a method not designed to win arguments, but to arrive at truth. If you’re not familiar with the Socratic Method, here is a summary:
Step 1: Receive
Listen to the view or premise of the other person.
Step 2: Reflect
Sum up the person’s viewpoint and clarify your understanding of their position. Allow them to correct misunderstandings and try summing up their viewpoint again. Continue this process until agreement on their position is reached.
Step 3: Refine
Respectfully cross-examine the person’s position. Ask them to provide evidence that supports their view. Discover the thoughts, assumptions, and facts underlying their beliefs. Challenge these assumptions to test their validity. “Why” questions are frequently used in this stage to identify any fallacies in their reasoning.
Step 4: Restate
Describe the new assumptions or discoveries arising from the process of cross-examination.
Step 5: Repeat
Start the process again, but with the new assumptions or discoveries accepted. This ongoing process helps truth-seekers drill down into the core issues to strip away all fallacies and to arrive at the truth, best answer, or most appropriate decision.
Pain
I don’t like to be proven wrong, but as a student of truth, I must bear the pain of being proven wrong if I am going to gain knowledge of the truth.
I play ping pong. I used to be a very serious player, and I was good at goading opponents into playing against me. They thought they were better than me, and I thought I was better than them, but the only way to find out the truth was to risk losing. Very rarely did I lose, but when I did, I painfully accepted the truth that the other person had greater skill and knowledge of the game. To arrive at truth, you must risk the pain of losing. By the way, you will only get better at something if you are willing to compete against people who can beat you. The pain of losing actually leads to increased skill.
And that’s the rub that got Charlie killed. He invited people to prove him wrong. He was a master of the Socratic Method, and his unyielding and unapologetic desire for truth often caused people pain. Charlie’s assassin could have accepted the invitation, but he knew he couldn’t win. So, instead of entering the arena and risking pain, he took the coward’s way and silenced Charlie. That’s what cowards do when they discover they can’t win. Instead of debating the position, they resort to attacking the person. The result is a chaotic, hateful, and divided culture.
As a seeker of truth, I live by a simple creed: If what I believe to be true cannot withstand withering cross-examination, then I must be willing to question my belief, and either sharpen my ability to defend it, or accept the pain of being wrong and adopt a new position. Ignoring or denying truth always leads to chaos and bondage, and as Socrates famously stated, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” I would add, “An unexamined truth is not worth believing.”
How badly do you want to know the truth? Do you want it enough to be willing to admit you are wrong? If you are not willing to accept defeat, confess your wrong beliefs, and be open to learning the truth, then you are not a seeker of truth; you are an ideologue. If you remain uncompromised in your defense of untruth, you will spiral into a dark world. You will be held in bondage to defending lies, and you will seek to silence anyone who confronts or exposes them. You will cut family and friends out of your life. You will surround yourself with people who create an echo chamber for your lies. Your anger will escalate until you have done something violent to silence the enemy. That’s what Charlie’s assassin did. Sadly, his bullet took more than Charlie’s life: it also took his own. If proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the assassin will be in bondage for the rest of his life.
The only way we (Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Straight, Gay, Trans, White, Black, Brown, Male, Female, Muslim, Jew, Christian) can protect ourselves from becoming violent radical ideologues (yes, every ideology has produced radical ideologues, and Christianity has produced more than its fair share) is to be uncompromising in our desire to know and live by the truth.
Charlie asked just one thing of those who disagreed with him, “Prove me wrong.” He invited them into the arena — a free marketplace of ideas. He probed and prodded their positions. Yes, he created pain, but he also invited them into the quest for truth, no matter the cost.
Knowing truth requires the pain of exposure and confession. If we are unwilling to admit we are wrong when presented with adequate and compelling evidence, then we are choosing lies over truth, and bondage over freedom. What will you choose today?
