Professor José María Desantes said that the essential constituent of the informative message is the truth. When the truth is missing, the word is stripped of its reference to reality. This appeal to the consistency of the word appears in colloquial language when, upon hearing a piece of news that seems somewhat surprising to us, we immediately turn to our interlocutor asking him “is it true?”, “really?” This spontaneous movement for the truth of what we hear or read says a lot about what we expect from informative messages: we expect them to communicate the truth to us. Precisely, what sociologists call social capital – as an essential element of coexistence – requires trust, whose essential components are: telling the truth, keeping promises and being supportive. Without truth, without reference to reality, what remains are hurtful darts, insulting words, defamatory statements, false judgments and deterioration of the social fabric.
A sustainable society, in addition to taking care of its green areas, reducing annoying noises, protecting the integrity and life of its citizens, also requires fostering a climate of trust and harmony among its members to build projects for common improvement. If this is not the case, and no one trusts anyone else, a corrosive culture of suspicion is established, fueled by false information and empty opinions, denigrating the good reputation of people. This culture of suspicion exists, but the natural human tendency to live in truth leads us to try to raise our sights so as not to become accustomed to the weeds of lies and falsehoods. Seeking the truth, telling the truth is no small thing. That was the great work that Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Václav Havel carried out in their day: the truth brought down the Iron Curtain.
There may be a disdain for the truth in the public space that leads to fostering an attitude of disbelief or indifference to what some of the mass media show us (a “whatever”). However, this attitude of indifference or disbelief in the face of public news does not erase the desire for truth in the average citizen. They experience it at home when one of their loved ones has failed to trust or to be truthful in their word: “Why didn’t you tell me?”, “Why did you lie to me?” Something breaks inside us. But it is also true that, precisely in this area of interpersonal, domestic and friendly relationships, we seek refuge from unjust accusations.
These are the paths along which truth travels in its double face of objectivity and sincerity. Objectivity focuses on the facts, they are the bricks that Sherlock Holmes referred to, with which walls are built. Facts are measured and observed from the outside: I have these academic degrees, we have sold so many units of cars in the month. Sincerity, on the other hand, has another dynamic; it is the manifestation of the inner world in which the issuer affirms that his word corresponds to what he really feels, believes or thinks. Thus, when Juliet tells Romeo that she loves him, he trusts the beloved’s statement. He trusts what she says; there is no ultrasound of the beloved’s heart to corroborate her statement. We simply trust. Objectivity is lacking when facts are falsified. Sincerity is destroyed by hypocrisy. At the base of both virtues is truth, hence, one can even be sincerely mistaken, as when Romeo says that the first time he saw Juliet was on a certain date and, later, it is pointed out to him that the date was another.
The truth, despite the various ways of denying or weakening it such as relativism, agnosticism, pragmatism, historicism and other isms, remains standing. The truth makes us free and constitutes one of the most valuable assets of the soul’s heritage.
