Skip to content

The Many Facets of Truth: Liars as Philosophers

March 5, 2008

There are matters which by their constitution and makeup are mysterious and beyond easy grasp of human understanding. The origin of the universe, for instance, or the nature of consciousness, or time and space, life and death, love, powers of the mind. Indeed these issues and the like encompass a whole gamut of human knowledge and wisdom, if even we could safely presume them sufficient. No easy answers could be had as far as these are concerned for with all the advances in human knowledge to this day no one could yet fathom these concepts fully, let alone claim a franchise to the most acceptable explanation. For the most part, they remain mysteries, and life is perhaps made more exciting by their being so.

On the other hand, there are simple questions in the world requiring simple answers: what’s your name? where were you this time of the day? do you know Mr. James Bond? how tall is the Empire State Building? what color do you see if you look at the sky? Such are straightforward questions no profound reckoning is ever demanded, just straightforward answers. The world is likewise made of elements which are by nature manifest and self-evident, simple as they are, they are not meant to be the object of any philosopher’s questioning and deep discernment. Your hair is long and black, is a straightforward fact. Your mother is a woman, is another. You are x years old. Earth is round. At night, it is dark. You fall down if you jump out of the window. These are easy, uncomplicated facts.

What do you know, of late, the NBN-ZTE and Hello Garci scandals, if we go by some pronouncements, have entered the realm of philosophical reckoning. You are one of those pushing to know the truth about these scandals? Listen how some spokesmen and supporters of the Palace have developed rhetorical questions of so much profundity: what is truth? can there be only one version of truth? could anybody have a monopoly of truth? who could know all the facets of truth?

Doesn’t it sound like we’ve just walked in on some great philosophical quest into one of the deepest mysteries of life?

How such a scandal could evolve into a metaphysical puzzle of sort, quite like a mystery of cosmic proportion is astounding, but let’s see… What I remember from recent memory was that these scandals started off as any scandal would– explosive and shattering! In the Hello Garci scandal, there was a recording of a wiretapped conversation allegedly of a President and a known election manipulator about a million votes. In the NBN-ZTE, there was a Cabinet secretary half-spilling the beans on an alleged humongous bribe on an allegedly overpriced multi-billion dollar IT project. As expected, these provoked a people who naturally would want the rest of the story exposed beyond the “alleged” level. But each scandals were followed by acts and pronouncements unlikely emanating from one who would be curious of truth and its many facets. In normal reading of everyday social affairs, as far as we know of reactions and causes that impel them, stonewalling does not go quite in harmony with transparency, the byword in so-called good governance– which every government by the way owes its sovereign. You stonewall and prevaricate, you must be be hiding something. If not hiding something, how must we fix logic to make EO 464 and like official edicts fit in in our normal understanding of human tendencies? These are serious efforts to know all the facets of truth that the whistle blowers omit for their purpose? Truth seekers do not gag or threaten or kidnap witnesses then argue that truth could be as evasive as any secret of the universe.

Something is wrong somewhere and we know it because it smells; we gather our hints from mysterious turns of events such as when a spokesman turn to philosophy to explain scandals and the affairs of the state. It should be hilarious if not that it also assumes the audience has the IQ of Mr. Bean.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. March 6, 2008 4:06 pm

    Over at Ricky Carandang’s blog, one GMA apologist said, in a comment about the Spratlys deal with China – “In this case, yes, ‘treason’ is relative.”.

  2. March 7, 2008 1:04 am

    That is what happens when you run out of sane argument.

    Can’t comment on Spratlys yet. But seems like documents have similarly lost their way too eh.

  3. March 9, 2008 6:12 am

    am having difficulty reading your posts, ricelander. maybe it’s the blog layout? hope you make the necessary corrections. more power to you and good day!

  4. March 10, 2008 3:02 am

    The site was acting up when you last accessed it perhaps, Bystander. Try another browser.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: