Does a Lie Told Often Enough Ever Become the Truth?
I recently read a quote by Russian Politician Vladmir Lenin - "A lie, told often enough, becomes the truth." I thought it would interesting to debate upon, and thus I compiled my own views on it.
Though not completely, but I disagree with the quote. I read an article that described the difference between Absolute and Relative Truth (absolute--truth.com). According to the article, an Absolute Truth is "an inflexible reality". What we think, perceive and believe might be true for us, but there lies a truth that is actually the ‘truth’. Relativists argue against this philosophy, saying that truth is "relative" and that "it is different for different persons". True, but is it the truth? The contradiction that lies in relativistic philosophy can be explained this way - If nothing can be said as absolute true, then there lies a probability that the statement "Truth is relative" or "It is different for different person" is false. That means these are not completely true, and that there is a possibility that these statements might be false (according to the relativistic view). If that's the case, then there actually lies an absolute truth, and thus whatever happens, it cannot be changed.
A historical evidence for the reason why I disagree with the quote can be found in the Dark Ages. There was a time when no one actually believed that the earth is round, and it was told that the earth is flat. For centuries the belief went on, and those who opposed were curbed and jailed. But empirical evidence (i.e. Absolute Truth) remained that the earth is spherical in shape, and the fact didn't change according to what people believed in.
People still ask that how can one be sure of the "empirical evidence", as it is another work of humans. Here's the argument against this relativistic view: If the relativist says that there is still a chance that the observations are wrong and it is a possibility that the earth is flat, and the humans perceive it as round, then according to the relativistic view there is also a possibility that their own statement is wrong. This makes it a probability that the "earth being flat" is absolutely false, or "earth being spherical" is absolute truth. Thus, relativistic view itself poses the fact that earth is round.
The reason I said that I do not completely disagree with the quote is because we can never prove what exactly is an absolute truth, but we can always contradict relativistic truth. For us, something might be absolute truth, but in actuality, the absolute truth might be something else. Thus, there does exist an absolute truth but we can only make our best estimates to reach there. So, if a false information, thought as absolute truth, is passed over the centuries, then that might become the truth for us. But there might be another absolute truth that cannot be changed according to what we believe in. Consider this: If the sun is everyday shining bright on earth (assuming it as absolute truth), but every single person is blind, or cannot see that light, then the absolute truth for them would be that there exists no light. But in fact, the absolute truth remains that the sun is shining its light on earth.
Thus, a lie told often enough does not 'become' the truth, but it is 'perceived' as the truth. A lie, told however long, can never replace the 'inflexible' absolute truth. All it can do is change how the people see their own observations and thoughts. On the other hand, an absolute truth can never be proved as 'absolute', but can only be guessed as inflexible. Red can be Blue in the absolute truth, but then that 'Blue' is spelled as 'Red' in our medium of communication.
**This article was originally published in The Current Student Newspaper on Dec. 2, 2015