Metaphors and "truth"

“Here our theory differs radically from standard theories of meaning. The standard theories assume that it is possible to give an account of truth in itself, free of human understanding, and that the theory of meaning will be based on such a theory of truth. We see no possibility for any such program to work and think that the only answer is to base both the theory of meaning and the theory of truth on a theory of understanding” (Lakoff and Johnson, 184).

And just when I thought Zen had completely cracked my head open, Metaphors gives me part three. I always get so apprehensive when the notion of truth comes into play in the conversation, the way I did last semester after spending time in History of Rhetoric and Composition talking about Plato/Aristotle/all of the others who spent time musing and thinking they could can wrap truth into a neat little bundle. The idea of capital T “Truth” isn’t possible for me; there are too many different notions of “good” relative to all individuals, as well as different perceptions of what we would consider “evil” (hello “killing puppies” situation). So, I agree with Lakoff and Johnson – that truth is based on understanding, and that every person’s understanding is anywhere from slightly to incredibly different (even within certain circles who follow the same thing, like religious groups or school departments) than everyone else’s. Truth is relative, based on understanding – okay, I think I’ve got that..?

I googled “true” just out of curiosity to see what different definitions I might get for it. The first one that came up was “in accordance with fact or reality.” Another, “being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false.” Another, “not false; based on facts and not imagined or invented.” Fact, reality, imagined, or invented. If we were to take these definitions at their word, does that mean fact and reality are also relative to each individual (I’m leaving science out of this equation)? But then that makes perfect sense – it’s something I’ve recognized for a while. It’s why creationists and evolutionists will never agree, and why some religions will never settle on who gets to say they know the way to god with a capital “D.” (Funny, the emphasis we place on capitalization.) You can’t place fact on emotions, and yet the phrase “true love” is such a common one. 

Does that mean then that we can’t use the word “truth” in the way we think we can? It’s a construction, one that we have our own constructions of based on our own lives. Does that mean it’s easier to look at it as a theory then, as Lakoff and Johnson suggest it is? I agree with the book’s suggestion I quoted above, but I’ve never thought about truth as a theory. And I’m still not sure how to do that. 

I wonder who first attached meaning to that word – origins are such a funny thing.