Nancy (name withheld upon request)
Candidate #: 000861-025
Prescribed Title:
10. “Context is all” (Margaret Atwood). Does this mean that there is no such thing as truth?
Prior to examining “context,” the definition of “truth” should be established.
Philosophers have devised and divided theories as to “what makes a statement true?” into three
groups: the Pragmatic, the Coherence and the Correspondence Theories of Truth. These
theories illustrate that true statements have to be practical and useful from experience, consistent
and cohering with other concepts, or corresponding with objective facts, respectively (Woolman).
Any sane person understands to a certain degree what a “true statement” or “truth” is. Every
child has been reprimanded for telling a “lie,” and was then taught to speak the “truth.” “The
truth,” as children learned, can be defined as, “what happened” or “what’s factual” – the
Pragmatic theory based on experience. They also learn that one lie cannot be told without other
“truths” being lies as well – the Coherence theory. Later in life, people understand “truth” as
“beliefs holding true in objective reality” – the Correspondence theory (Woolman). As seen in
everyday life, “truth” itself is often ambiguous, nebulous and extremely difficult to define.
Likewise, each person would most likely define “truth” differently given different situations.
Now a definition for “context” needs to be set. Other words for “context” would be
“situation,” “perspective” and “circumstance.” In different areas of knowledge, like science,
mathematics or history, different methodologies are employed. Each different “context” would
include a variety of influences or situational variables, such as methodology and culture, and play
a large role in determining the final “result” of the situation. This “final result” could possibly be
the truth. But, if there were different contexts, the truths of each situation would not necessarily
lead to the same truth.
Under the aegis of context there are subdivisions that are built upon axioms, others built
on matters of personal interpretation. Axioms create a framework where everything within the
frame is true; while personal judgment creates a specific path whereby everything that doesn’t
adhere is considered false – for example, different beliefs. Common laws, also axioms, lack
personal influence or judgment. These axioms are true everywhere and are certain. For example,
the simple mathematical calculation of 1  2  3 holds true despite religion, culture and science.
This is an objective truth that employs the context of numbers and axioms. “1” and “2” must be
1 of 6
Nancy (name withheld upon request)
Candidate #: 000861-025
placed into the context of numbers to mean anything beyond symbols. Once the context is
established, truth(s) can be determined.
Margaret Atwood’s ambiguous statement could be interpreted as a direct statement about
“truth;” however, the nature of this relationship isn’t specific. Those three simple words could be
interpreted as “Regardless of the context, there will never be an ever-lasting truth” or “A given
context influences how people interpret the minimal possibility of a single and objective real
‘truth’ that is certain, no matter the circumstance.” The former understanding would be a
subjective approach to the statement; the latter would cast a more objective light on the
statement.
Recently in Saudi Arabia, a victim of rape was sentenced to 90 lashes because she was
meeting her former boyfriend in private when attackers raped her. In Saudi Arabia, her actions
were considered “sinful” because they violated the Wahhabist interpretation of Islamic law. The
subjectivist might argue that, though the situation seems unbelievable to a Westerner’s point of
view, it makes sense for Muslims (Saudi: Why We Punished Rape Victim). To them, it is truth
based in the Koran. The difference in morality is based on differing personal beliefs. Religious
people often accept revealed truth – truth handed down by a deity – from authority figures. To
believers, their god(s) exist and are as true to them as the non-existence of god to a non-believer.
Based on the three theories of truth, the situation holds true for both sides. For believers, faith
gives them meaning in life and is pragmatic, coheres with what is said in religious texts, and
defines an objective reality. Likewise, for the non-believer, experience may show there is no such
supreme being guiding and watching over him; his belief coheres with otherwise sacrilegious
ideas; and to him, objective reality void of gods exists. Contradictory ideas both seem to be true
given the different contexts.
For believers who consider revealed truth as axioms, their authorities are logically
infallible. Other than an authority figure saying that revealed truth is the “truth,” there is no
independent reasoning or evidence to support the allegedly true statement. This is an issue of
knowledge vital to people’s faith and beliefs. When a concept is claimed by an authority as “true”,
and accepted as such without questioning the authority, then an objective truth would be missing.
This means that neither belief is entirely false, nor is authority entirely legitimate. In the Theaetetus,
Socrates acknowledges that people may be right, but maintains that true beliefs must be justified
2 of 6
Nancy (name withheld upon request)
Candidate #: 000861-025
rationally before they constitute knowledge (Plato). However, using revealed truth from an
authority must be questionable given different contexts.
The objectivist, one the other hand, might say that although a context might not be able
to determine the ultimate “truth,” different contexts could possibly lead to different “truths” and
show how difficult it would be for a single “truth” to hold true across all borders. Revealed
truths rarely cohere or correspond to scientific truths. Also, scientific truths themselves often
change based on different circumstances. Scientists once accepted Kekulé’s hydrocarbon
benzene’s (C6H6) structure. However, further research revealed faults that prompted the
discovery of a more reliable structure (Woolman). This shows how objectivists who follow
scientific truths might also generate fallacies.
On the other hand, art commonly believed to be subjective can also be interpreted along
side science. Both areas of knowledge deal with organizing reality – science with the natural
world and arts with communication and personal experiences. Science involves sense perception
and conveying facts to others via scientific methods with the assistance of ways of knowing like
memory, logic and experience. Likewise, arts also are communicated to others and involve ways
of knowing such as intuition, practice and introspection. These personal ways of knowing are as
true to people as are impersonal propositional ways of knowing. The similarity between objective
and subjective truth diminishes given context. The objectivist might then say, “I’ll follow the
truth under its given context” – similar to the subjectivist’s view; both interpretations lead to the
same realization that context determines “truth.”
Take language for example, each word has a multitude of definitions, and each different
definition is employed in dissimilar contexts – no single definition is “perfect” because that word
can be used in a variety of ways. These words display an array of implications when used in
different fields of knowledge, such as the word “differentiation.” In English, “differentiation” is
the separation of similar ideas (such as love and infatuation), while in Biology, “differentiation” is
the acquisition of different physical and biological characteristics. Furthermore, in Mathematics
“differentiation” is the process of obtaining the derivative of mathematical functions.
Unsurprisingly, “differentiation” is only one of legions of words that have discrete definitions
when used in separate fields of knowledge – in other words, in different contexts. As seen, the
3 of 6
Nancy (name withheld upon request)
Candidate #: 000861-025
use of a word in unlike contexts determines its definition. Thus, context is more important than
the word’s “true definition,” if there is such thing.
The interplay of “context” and “truth” is also evident in literature. Each work of
literature can be interpreted differently by different critics. One critic interprets Shylock in
William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice as a villain, while another considers Shylock the
tragic hero of the play. The dissimilar interpretations of Shylock’s fate could possibly be due to
the critics’ differing backgrounds and cultures, which play large roles in perception. That, in turn,
affects and colors “truth”. Culture, race, religion, nationality, educational backgrounds and moral
beliefs are all factors that alter perception and further support the idea that there is no such thing
as a single “truth” (Gadamer).
A real world example shows conflicting versions of “truth” in different cultures: Laura
Bohannon’s tale of Shakespeare in the Bush, in which she attempted to tell members of the Tiv
African tribe the story of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Bohannon initially believed Shakespeare would
be interpreted similarly in any culture. She was shocked when the Tiv interpreted seven key parts
of the story drastically differently from interpretations prevalent in modern Western culture.
These different interpretations of Hamlet ranged from the ideas of ghosts to marriage to madness
to death to poison, and subsequently showed that different cultures construe ideas in terms of
their cultural values.
The way of knowing of practice, through cultural differences, can also alter the “truth” in
given contexts. One practice that has its own “truths” and methods is sailing. Sailors can
navigate swiftly in open waters and distinguish among weather signs that non-sailors ignore.
However, not all sailors use the same tools and methods. The sailors’ culture in turn affects the
“truth” of methods they use. The Trukese in the South Pacific sail hundreds of miles in open
water without navigational instruments. All they use are the stars, waves and weather to navigate
their ships, which is very different from how modern Western sailors would sail open waters
(Feldman). This different form of “knowing” that the Trukese people use shows how dissimilar
cultural contexts and practices give rise to different forms of methods, thus knowledge they
consider “true.”
“Context” is often considered “methodology,” while “truth” and “methodology” often
coincide (Gadamer). “Truth” is always influenced by external forms. Without a context, a
4 of 6
Nancy (name withheld upon request)
Candidate #: 000861-025
statement, symbol or belief is meaningless. The different ways of knowing can determine truth to
be an un-seeable concept that is solely context. Context is, in fact, as Atwood said, all.
Word Count: 1591
5 of 6
Nancy (name withheld upon request)
Candidate #: 000861-025
Works Cited
Bohannon, Laura. 1971. Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology, James P. Spradley
and David W. McCurdy, editors. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
Feldman, Robert S. 2005. Understanding Psychology. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc.
Gadamer, H-G. 1975. Truth and Method. New York, New York: Seabury Press.
Plato. "Theaetetus." The Internet Classics Archive. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. 28 Dec. 2007
<http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/theatu.html>.
"Saudi: Why We Punished Rape Victim." CNN 20 Nov. 2007. 28 Dec. 2007
<http://www.cnn.com>.
Woolman, Michael. 2000. Ways of Knowing – An Introduction to Theory of Knowledge. Victoria,
Australia: IBID Press.
6 of 6