Can we handle the truth?

Can we handle the truth? This is the question I come away with after this week’s readings. All of the scholars touched on how rhetoric is used in the process of knowing and what it means to be certain of that knowledge. In “On Viewing Rhetoric As Epistemic,” Scott presents the following idea: “If some men can possess truth, and others understand truth, then what need the former do but present truth to the latter” (10)?

The “truth” that Scott is describing is that of knowledge that is fixed and does not change. It is this truth (often with a capital T) that philosophers like Plato believed could be found through the soul. But Scott does not readily agree with that notion. He claims that “man who desires certainty understands that he cannot be certain” (14). With a lack of certainty, man is free to discover what is true for himself and be persuaded by others to accept other truths. Rhetoric leads to knowing and then acting on that knowledge. Scott summarizes truth in this way:

“Man must consider truth not as something fixed and final but as something to be created moment by moment in the circumstances in which he finds himself and with which he must cope” (17). In this sense, knowing becomes a process that we must work out. We must strive to figure out the truth within ourselves and with those around us.

In figuring out truth, Brummett tells us “we must participate in making reality” (28). The striving is rhetoric, and we must do our part to make meaning (31). Rhetoric is “a channel for truth,” and we use language to make use of this channel (37). So, handling the truth, or what we think of as truth is an active process. The rhetor is then responsible for leaving the audience with a choice to accept that truth. And as Cherwitz and Hikins put forth, we all have different perspectives to add to the mix of discovering truth. They note the following:

“Recall that the perspectivist posits a world of relationships, wherein every entity, conscious or inanimate, stands in relationship to one another” (263). A different perspective does not necessarily mean contradictory ideas. This idea may not be completely satisfying, but it does offer insight into how the discovery of truth can be approached. Our truth comes from the relationships we form with other people and things. So, is that it?    

In the last article, Brummett states “that objects come into existence for humans through the same rhetorical process by which they are known” (428). The consensus theory suggests that people are persuaded by more than just objects. We differ in opinion about values and ideas (429). Because of this, Brummett suggests that we must be humble and responsible for the truth we aim to find. We rely on the rhetorical process to work out what is true or what could be true. So again, I ask the question: Can we handle the truth?

In this clip from A Few Good Men (starting about 1:40), Col. Jessup (Nicholson) famously declares to Lt. Kaffee (Cruise): “You can’t handle the truth!” Col. Jessup passionately declares that men like Kaffee do not know what it is like to fight for freedom and save lives. According to Jessup, Kaffee cannot deal with the reality of making tough decisions (such as the decision of ordering a code red on Santiago). Jessup talks about his responsibility to give orders that are meant to “save lives.” These two men have different perspectives, and thus see the situation in a different light. Kaffee sees it as a breach of marine code and Jessup sees it as doing his duty to provide freedom. Either way, the rhetorical implications suggest that people seek truth based off of their experiences and relationships to others. We weigh our options and allow ourselves to be persuaded by what is said or done around us. We must learn how to handle the truth (or what we think of as truth), and that is why we need rhetoric.