Talking of this truth makes me wonder how much of the ‘history’ that we have read is the truth? And that takes me to another question, ‘what is truth’? Hope I am not confusing you, but it is a logical question I’d say.
For what is true to me, is not necessarily true to another. When I sense something, it goes to my brain which attaches meaning to it – and this meaning is not necessarily the same as someone else’s meaning. My meanings are derived from my preconceptions – my worldview. Thus, since everything we perceive is somehow shaded by our worldview, it is rather difficult to pen down truth without having the attached bais – whether the author means to add it, or not.
Thus objectivity fails. It fails me as I write this blog which is history in making. (No no, I am not sounding mighty and high, it truly is history in making – history is written record of human life.)
But the very fact that everything written is subjective means that when we read something we should consider who the author is, the person who wrote it. So when we read history, we should understand that it has been written by the winners and shall sound great and mighty and in favour of the winners.
But well… blogging could change that a bit maybe.. Maybe the history written by the common man is the truth that we want to know more about?