IB Diploma Programme TOK

Context is all (Margaret Atwood). Does this mean that there is no such thing as truth?
TOK Essay

Context and truth have always walked hand in hand, because truth to most of us would mean the absolute knowledge of some fact or event that has or is still happening, and that fact or event has to be surrounded by some sort of context, or in other words a series of facts and situations in which it is happening/has happened. But if context is everything that surrounds the event we are trying to find the truth about, doesn't it then also define the event itself to a rather large degree if not completely, because the event itself will happen out of a reaction to it's situation, therefore happening out of a necessity for it or as a consequence of a previous event, the latter of which would be considered part of the context of the event in question. Truth in itself is hard to define, because it is a type of knowledge that is so specific and important to us that even if one knows the truth about one event or thing, it is practically impossible for us to convey this in a completely unbiased way even if there is a want to do so. That is simply because truth is so specific and our way of communication leaves so much room for different interpretation. Other people will take in the information from you in a way that is most understandable and acceptable to them with the minimal alterations, yet one single alteration already causes this information to deviate from the original information that you have received. A personal experience, for example, was seeing two cars crash into each other at an intersection at high speeds. I remember the crash itself very clearly, but I cannot remember the colour of the traffic light the moment before it, even though I recall faintly looking at it then, completely by chance. It was strange because as hard as I tried, all I could not remember anything except the moment of collision and the immediate events afterwards. Even with witnessing an event, our minds are known to change certain details if they are too stressful for us and we are not able to perceive all things that have happened at that very moment. We subconsciously select what seems to be key to the event at hand and divert our attention to that. In other words, when witnessing a violent car crash, you are probably not going to notice where the cars started breaking because the crash itself will attract all your attention. So even if we bear witness to the event, if it's too shocking our minds the event will either be altered by our minds when it is stored as a memory or pushed into our subconscious, and we will be unable to voluntarily recall those details, therefore deviating from the truth yet again. These details, however, are exactly what we understand context to be. In the example of the car crash, it was then the police investigation's purpose to find the truth of what happened in order for that car crash to occur. It would be considered truth, or rather fact to say the two cars collided at that intersection. But to find the truth of why they collided, this relies a great deal on context. It was in that exact situation that the two cars collided with such force. At that exact time and place, with those exact states of mind in which the two drivers were that caused them to drive at those specific speeds. To find out some of the context afterwards would be impossible for us, but it was those facts or that situation that defined the exact result, which was the car crash as it was. Truth may be the fact that the car crash happened, but this fact was defined by context, which also defined the social significance, meaning and emotional connotation of the fact. For example, because it seemed unintentional from either driver's side to crash into each other, people would first want to know who in fact was at fault here and therefore, from a legal perspective, caused the crash to occur. One of the drivers was fairly seriously injured in the crash, so that added more emotional factors to the situation, on top of the ones surrounding the fact that the crash happened. All these things define what we will perceive as truth about what actually happened. Defining what truth actually is would be just as difficult as defining what knowledge is, as truth is a type of knowledge. How can we actually know something as absolutely and irrevocably valid, correct or in other words, true? Knowing that a certain knowledge you have is absolutely correct ie. you did not take it as true in blind faith from someone else is something that cannot be proven to others, therefore no one can really say has it ever even happened or not, because believing that would be taking that knowledge in blind faith from someone or something else, which is the crucial obstacle in the discussion of knowledge. Furthermore, because what we put under the term truth is so dependant on context, it automatically eliminates the possibility of something that is absolutely true. Time itself in

connection with what might be considered a constant chain reaction between different, living and non-living parts of the world ensures that even in the exact same situation as previously, but at a different time, the same event will be much more likely not to occur than otherwise. Hence, the exact same context can never be recreated or repeated and so the truth itself will only hold true for that particular case from which it was drawn. Regarding truth in society, the limitations are significantly lowered. When we tell another person about a certain thing, we are free to change the context with which we portray the thing in any way and extent, although usually we try to limit the change so the story still seems believable rather than a blatant lie or even absurd. It is how a conflict over a certain thing develops, when the context is distorted by interpretation and deliberate or accidental misinformation. Mostly out of a desire to benefit themselves or distance themselves from the cause of the conflict people will slightly alter the context to make themselves appear more innocent or good in the eyes of society. But this altered portrayal of the original context could also be considered truth in the sense that one of these portrayals will finally be accepted as the most probable and further action will be based upon that rather than the actual, original context because, isn't the entire purpose of seeking the truth to define ground from which to act in the future? Whether or not truth exists depends on what we think of as truth. It can be said with confidence that truth is defined by its context but if context defines it, it could also be taken to the next step and say there is no truth, only context. Or it could be said truth is the sum of all the different kinds of context surrounding the event which it is based upon, but in any case it would be illogical to state that there is something that is absolutely true if we do not even know what truth exactly is. In the end what we can really say that what actually matters in the end is the context which is perceived and acted upon, not the actual context or truth.