Lesser of the two evils?

Crazy as it might sound, I actually had a conversation with myself today. Touchè if you think I have gone beyond return to sanity. Glad to report that it isn't half as bad as it might sound however, I must add that even under the best circumstances I would also think twice before I lend an ear to a self-talker.
The conversation went something like this: 'does truth come through change or is truth brought on by change?' A very philisophical question for a coo-coo 'self-talker', don't you think? You might carry on reading because the answers that I came up with might just impress my fierces critics...

I initially thought through this question like the time-old chicken and egg puzzle. Which of the two was actually first? But this led me down an unfamiliar path, and who am I anyway trying to come up with an answer that even the scientists struggle with?
In the case of this philisophical question though, I must say, finding answers are much easier.

To test the theory of either of the two approaches (truth vs change / change vs truth), let us look at what history tells us on the subject.


Behan McCullagh in his book 'The truth of history' touches on an idea he calls 'Methodological Individualism' which is defined as: 'a social change is brought about by a change in individual behaviour'. Should this then be tested and found to be true, it must be important that individuals work on changing their own behaviour first before we are allowed to give advice or call the government to acountability. This leaves us with yet another new challenge. I find it difficult to reconcile with the idea of Methodological Individualism. It suggests that we cannot expect change in society unless we change our individual behaviour. However, it rings true though, but even the best efforts of the individual in changing their own behaviour couldn't convince a criminal for instance, to change.

On the subject of truth, Amalendu Misra notes in 'Identity and religion': "It was her conviction that truth is many-sided and of infinite variety. How can any man presume to say that he only has grasped the entire truth, he may say he saw a particular face of truth..."



In my view: what is change and what is truth then? Change is the action that follows a certain decision and/or promise. Truth is the most honest way in applying the action.

Change can then considered to come before truth, still we need the truth within a situation before we can start applying the change. Looking at it that way: both change and truth is important, and no matter in what position it holds its own candle, the importance is that we do truthfully make change.
We as citizens of a democratic society have the right to both truth and change. We are entitled to truth before, during and after change and entitled to change during and after truth.

Which then, after debate, is the lesser of two evils? A lack of change or a lack of truth? Both are evils that need to be erradicated from our society. The sooner we tackle it the better.