10. Truth as Aletheia.
Our concept of "truth" comes from the Latin *veritas*, which means: "That to which the mind can and should give its consent." In contrast, in ancient Greece, this word was used as *Aletheia*, which, deconstructed etymologically, is composed of a prefix with a privative value -a- and a root -leth- which is found in the verb that means "to be, or to remain hidden, unknown, ignored, escaped from..." as well as in the word *lethe*: oblivion.
The possibility of displacing the word "truth" as a dogmatic and objective idea is feasible without much effort, since the notion of "non-oblivion" in the Greeks can be easily conceived as subjective and, consequently, we speak of "awareness" which is progressive, neither binary nor absolutist.
"In the realm of knowledge itself, there is an original sin, which is to have an origin; it is to fail in the glory of being timeless, it is not to await the lion of light from the dark world."
We learn to speak throughout a lifetime. The understanding of our own perceptive world, with all its kinds of states and changes, is the discovery of the subject we are. We hide an enigma that, in turn, does not deny itself the pleasure of movement. Therefore, there are no absolute answers, but attempts that set ourselves in motion.
However, I observe a will, if not a pretension, to organize knowledge as unchangeable objects outside of experience, where every alteration due to different perceptions would threaten the stability of **knowledge** instead of enriching it. A **"good"** thought that tries to verify and validate each of our reflections, which, when normalized, is spread through authoritative reports and which, due to its weight, leads to self-censorship on the relevance of our thoughts. We are afraid of making mistakes.
We can very well criticize being victims of a certain objectivity, foreign to us, that demeans our ideas and ridicules our most sincere actions. But this feeling of objectivity is subjective and, therefore, can be dissolved with the help of this concept that we are exploring together. I observe this behavior in each of us; each victim is in turn an executioner, because identifying with the stability of knowledge is understandable in a context where the normalization of a technical thought constantly measures us, measures our cultural and social value, and creates a hierarchy of knowledge; we are judges who feel judged.
Obviously, I am only sharing my perspective here. The current of my thought will change throughout my life. I am simply creating a beacon in time. Therefore, I have no ambition to convince, only to make sincere observations.
How can we reflect with the fear of being wrong? Truth becomes taboo when we identify with it. Scientists and religious people, those on the right or on the left, share the same problem: they all believe they are **right**, and many of us are trapped in this scheme. We think we are right because we reason, and we spend our whole lives building our own coherence, often surrounded by people who agree with us from the start. Generalization simplifies the problem, since when we believe we possess the truth, as if it were an **asset**, we consider it immutable and objective. From this arises fanaticism, the source of all kinds of conflict. We often avoid listening to all those who question our interests, our ideals, or our actions. We feel helpless in conflict and, because of this situation, we isolate ourselves in our groups and build borders, all justified by our reason. The outside world is quickly perceived as a threat. Two people who agree generally construct a monologue for two, patting each other on the back. We rarely reflect with those who disagree with us, always on the defensive.
If we manage to understand that each person is right in their own way and that each subject is a world of **organized coherence** around a specific perception, we can begin to create a collective coherence through listening and the exchange of our different points of view. This theory is a practical provocation that in daily life opens up the field of possibilities on a path towards the **concept of *epokhē*** or the suspension of judgment as a mental state.
It's not that I don't trust humanity, but it seems to me that doubting is a sign of good health. I observed not long ago that these "universal truths" have been validated by specialized authorities, in precise domains, by certain people (often white North-Western men), somewhere, who would have done experiments that I am unaware of with means that escape us. I should be able, in a completely serene manner, to doubt this information. And if it is so obvious, no one should worry about a possible "sacrilege," like the provocation of the child who tests the world to understand. Much less should they feel attacked by my childlike "why." Given its solidity, this truth **should be able to be verified in diverse ways**. Even if for me it is no more than a hypothesis at present, I would be perfectly capable of believing in the experience of another.
I dare to say, then, that in cases where I have not verified a piece of knowledge, I **believe** that the information is true, and this is not serious, because I can trust in the experience of another if it seems coherent to me. But let's be clear, at best, I **believe** that I know.
We are aware that we cannot verify all the experiences carried out by humanity throughout its history. But the fundamental problem of this **belief in knowledge** is its lack of humility and its label of "universal truth." These universal truths create **morality**, a knowledge validated by North-Western universities that build **a** "well-thinking" humanity, a single "well-thinking" humanity, civilized and ordered according to what we are supposed to consider **normal**. It therefore describes a huge institution that, through academics, academies, and the rest of the official bodies, has become the supreme judge of all knowledge, of all forms of knowledge transmission, and which, with the idealization of theory, hinders all practical experimentation that is not authorized or framed. A moral training in which the **"well-thinking" humanity** makes its thoughts, its convictions, and its reasonings known to convince others of their validity and obtain their agreement. We become bearers of truths and knowledge is imagined outside the body. That of minorities is therefore ridiculed and awaits validation by competent bodies to be considered "true."
The gesture of knowledge that inhabits the body becomes pretentious and represents an act of resistance. We always suffer the same gesture, an act of settlers where "an enlightened humanity had to go to meet a humanity that had remained in savage darkness, to radiate it with its lights. [...] justified by the postulate that there is only one way to be here on Earth."
One could say, then—and even be wrong in saying it—that knowledge derives from lived experience. Although it is variable and limited, it is still relevant to the subject who discovers the evidence of that truth; a truth that is not objective or fixed, but subjective and in motion, permeable to exchanges with other evidences, non-identitarian dialogues that open up the field of possibilities.
"If we believe in the solid point of view of social constructionism, there is no reason to be intimidated by the descriptions that scientists make of their activity and their achievements; they and their sponsors have an interest in deceiving us. [...] Social constructionists explain that official ideologies about objectivity and scientific method are a very bad guide for understanding how scientific knowledge is actually manufactured." "Socio-constructivism argues that the individual constructs their knowledge through experimentation and discovery. However, this approach places a greater emphasis on the importance of the social and cultural environment in learning. While the construction of knowledge is personal, it is carried out, however, within a social framework. In fact, the individual is not alone, they are surrounded by other people who have an impact on them and on their development. For Doise and Mugny, knowledge is precisely the result of a confrontation of points of view."
Not to forget: **Awe and curiosity sensitize our reading grids and adapt the world to our creative needs, thus sharpening our senses to hear increasingly subtle details.**
10. Truth as Aletheia.