Between truth, perception and injustice
As a philosopher and a fanatical debater, I have noticed that a bottleneck is often formed by the truth during many discussions. The borders it shares with perception fade – particularly when tempers flare – hence causing injustice on more than one occasion. Between truth, perception and injustice.
What is truth?
I’d like to answer this question truthfully, so let’s see what the dictionary says. That way, there will be no discussion about the definition I’m about to give. Three meanings of the word ‘truth’ have been given by the Oxford Dictionary: ‘the quality or state of being true’, ‘a fact or belief that is accepted as true’ and ‘that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality’. In my opinion, the latter is explains the term the best. That being said, it all seems rather easy and uncomplicated. As long as you base your words on facts, you speak the truth.
What is perception?
Multiple definitions are given by the Oxford Dictionary of the word ‘perception’. The one I believe to be the best described the term as follows: ‘a way of regarding, understanding or interpreting something, a mental impression’. A pesky characteristic of a perception is that it doesn’t necessarily have to be based on facts. As a consequence, it may be subject to discussions lasting a lifetime. For example, whenever you feed a true cheese lover a piece of French cheese, you’re likely to get a reaction along the lines of ‘hmm, that’s delicious’. In the perception of that person, the cheese tastes really good. Should you feed the very same piece of cheese to me however, I won’t say anything but throw up right away (hence indicating that my perception is entirely different).
What is injustice?
The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘injustice’ in two ways: ‘lack of fairness or justice’ and ‘an unjust act or occurrence’. So when is something considered to be unjust? Aha, that’s where we start seeing the link between truth, perception and injustice. The latter can only be deemed to have occurred by either a group or an individual, yet it will never have factually taken since people’s perceptions differ. The only way in which we have reached some sort of consensus can be found in judicial systems across the world. After all, law books have – for the most part – been written in order to protect us against injustice or, in other words, against practices which in the eyes of many cause injustice.
The border conflict between truth and perception
If Truth and Perception were two countries, there is no doubt in my mind they would be engaged in an absurdist border conflict. Truth would claim that its borders are and always will be fixed, whereas its significantly bigger neighbor tends to be rather imperialistic: typically based on shaky and questionable arguments, it claims that even Truth’s capital belongs to its territory. After all, Perception has traditionally had a tendency to annex Truth, which has resulted into permanently embattled borders. As a consequence of this protracted conflict, instability has succeeded in infiltrating both countries, forming a feast for terrorists who refer to themselves as ‘Injustibles’. They hunger for the day on which unfairness triumphs in both countries, after which they intend to proclaim the state of ‘Great Injustice’. Needless to say, the bigger the conflict between Truth and Perception, the more opportunities will be presenting themselves to the Injustibles to carry out their malicious plans.
Since Truth values justice and therefore doesn’t want to have anything to do with the Injustibles, the latter is forced into doing business with Perception in order to feed the conflict. And what better way to establish an alliance is there than having an enemy in common? At this point, the rapprochement between Perception and the Injustibles has forced Truth into waging a war on two fronts, which has left it vulnerable and continuously balancing on the brink of destruction. Only one person is able to save the noble country from going under:
Never stop distinguishing
Whatever may happen to you, whatever you may experience and regardless of what influences your reference frame, never stop distinguishing truth from perception. Only then you will be enable truth and justice to prevail. A perception is and always will be based on personal views and experiences. And because everyone experiences things in different ways, they can never be based on facts, even though you may consider them to be as such since they have been proven from your point of view.
I’m extremely allergic to injustice in any shape or form. As such, I cannot stand victims becoming victims twice because of courts refusing to rule in their favor, I hate when people generalize and I’m utterly disgusted by good Samaritans who get punished for their deeds rather than rewarded. An allergy brings natural reactions along, so if I get confronted with it, I will always stand up and draw my sword. However, before I do so, I always turn around first and thoroughly check behind me for any Injustibles or Perceptic assassins lurking in the shadows and waiting to claim my soul.
© 2015 Victor Brenntice