You Can't Kill The Truth

In his work Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle famously expressed, “Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth.” This friendly rebuke of his beloved teacher reveals Aristotle’s supreme commitment to the pursuit of truth over personal relationships. To one of the greatest philosophers, the quest for truth was of the utmost importance. While in philosophy, truth is the ultimate goal, philosophers know that the route to truth is laced with swords of their own demise. Plato summed up this experience: "No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth." In later centuries, the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, summed up truth by indicating, "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” For history's great thinkers and teachers, their discovery and articulation of the truth is a form of sacrifice in which they experience great turmoil in announcing the truth - even to the point of death.

Schopenhauer’s statement encapsulates the Christian ethos. Jesus defined Himself as the truth when He declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) and later told Pontius Pilate, “I have come into the world to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice” (John 18:37). The religious and political authority mocked Christ’s truth and violently opposed it when they crucified Him. Yet, in the end, Jesus’s truth became self-evident as, within a few centuries, Christianity became the predominant religion of the Roman world and Jesus was inevitably embraced as the truth.

With the recent murder of Charlie Kirk, we are witnessing a parallel in which once again truth is ridiculed, violently opposed, and finally accepted as self-evident. This is not to say that everything Charlie Kirk said was true, which is the case with all of us, but his desire to engage in public debate is the hallmark of an ardent truth-seeker. Kirk embodied the American democratic tradition, one based on the premise that the free exchange of ideas is not only the best way to pursue truth and advance the common good, but it’s the original way that flows from the likes of Socrates, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas. This manner of classical debate can be summed up by openly listening to an opposing idea and then articulating your disagreement and counter idea in a civil exchange, often centered on both parties answering the Socratic question, “How did you come to that conclusion?” In an age of digital scrolling where people live in an echo-chamber full of content that affirms their pre-determined worldview, Kirk’s style of listening to the other viewpoint was refreshing. In a time when people hide behind devices to hurl insults in the comments section or use social media to belittle their opponents, Kirk’s manner in which he said, “let’s discuss divisive issues like mature adults using reason and evidence,” was refreshing. Kirk engaged the arena of ideas more courageously, more civilly, and with more faith than just about anyone in the public square today. While his opponents shouted insults or spewed vile sentiments at him, he remained calm and responded with facts or questions back to them. In short, he was civil when others became belligerent. He had the gift of debate. He pressed his opponents to formulate their views more precisely, causing his opponents to either learn or become frustrated. His conservatism was built on well-reasoned logic and was often persuasive to those of a moderate or liberal bent. You might disagree with him, but he would give you a genuine hearing and then respond.

Kirk's hallmark was the open exchange of ideas using the classical forum of debate - I have a microphone, you have a microphone, let’s engage in an intellectual contest of deliberation. This forum exposed young minds to a broader perspective of opinions than what their college professors or social media influencers provided them.

Kirk's use of rationality to seek the truth was firmly fixed on Christ’s method. Jesus is referred to as the “logos” in Greek, which translates into “logic” or “word,” articulating that speaking the Divine truth entails a rational power of order. In ancient Greece and Rome, this dialogue was the means by which ideas were exchanged, and it proved vital in shaping the classical educational structure. Charlie Kirk once said, “When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence.” Kirk knew that discourse diffused radicalism in that it made people think, talk, and see their opponent as a fellow human, not just a meme to poke fun of.

Charlie Kirk was perhaps the closest thing to Socrates in the American public square, for he argued, fairly, relentlessly—until they couldn’t stand it any longer. And like Socrates, they had him killed. At the time of Socrates, Athens was prosperous, enlightened, and educated. Sophisticated people from around the world came here to articulate truth and find wisdom. Athens back then was what the West aspires to be today. However, Athens killed Socrates for uncomfortably pressing society on its assumptions and "corrupting the youth." Socrates' critics saw him as uneducated and “divisive” because he asked probing questions that exposed the pretensions of those who thought they knew. Socrates' opponents found him annoying, frustrating, and ultimately worthy to be murdered. Four hundred years after Socrates, Jesus too offended the assumptions of the corrupt leaders of his day. And true to form, our Lord was killed by the very people that His teaching threatened to expose. It is crucial to realize that Charlie Kirk was a firm believer in Jesus. He expressed that his sole mission was to do God’s will. For Kirk, openly announcing that his political worldview centered around Christ led to an occupational hazard.

Under Catholic philosophy, human society flourishes under structure, justice, natural law, and God's grace as the guiding beacon. Politics, in its essence, is the proper ordering of society to the common good that draws people toward virtue. Rather than a vague concept of the common good, Christianity places this common good toward the highest good - God. At the heart of Charlie's open mic strategy was pointing people to this ultimate good - debating ideas to lead them to truth, in turn, goodness. He spoke with clarity yet civilly with his interlocutors on college campuses. He thanked them for coming, let them say what they had to say, while he disagreed with their ideas and cut-down their ideas, he respected them as a person. He showed us the way to live out St. Augustine’s famous phrase, “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”

Going back to Schopenhauer’s stages of truth, we see that Kirk’s experience mirrors the great thinkers that came before him, for in his exploration of truth, he was ridiculed and experienced violent pushback, ultimately leading to his death. Engaging in dialogue on college campuses is arduous for conservatives, as doing so is going into the proverbial lion’s den. Over the last ten years, civil discourse on college campuses has attracted mobs that violently attempt to shut down debates and lectures, in the most extreme cases, resulting in takeovers of the whole campus. Even the slightest show of political opposition gets met with pushback. Take, for example, the incident at Washington State, where a student was attacked by a professor merely for wearing a pro-Trump hat.

For about ten years, college campuses have devolved into sensitivity camps that rigidly control language that might "trigger" students' jumbled-up emotions. The Atlantic article, "Coddling of the American Mind," sums up this bizarre phenomenon at universities that ends up ruining education and mental health. In this intellectual trash bin, the phrase "I think" is swiftly replaced with "I feel," thus eliminating reason in place of one's raw emotions. So, it is no wonder the college campus has become a danger zone for logical debate. But, what about the culture at large?

As we contemplate Schopenhauer’s assessment of truth, we come to the pressing question - why is truth so violently opposed? If most people are arduously searching for the truth, we would think a truth claim would be impartially examined when it is proposed. St. Thomas Aquinas wisely points out that there is an internal struggle going on between the subjective and the objective question of truth. He showed that there are two opposing questions presented to a truth-seeker:  What do I want to be true, and what is true? What I want to be true is a much different question than what is true for the former is fixed on the whims of the subject, while the latter is positioned outside the person and independent of one’s wanting. A problem surfaces because once a person finds the objective truth, they’ll need to discard their subjective craving of what should be true. In short, when what is true meets what you want to be true, you are called to rid yourself of what you want to be true and conform your life to the newly discovered truth. Therefore, “your truth” goes down in flames when “the truth” surfaces. Needless to say, people do not like this transition from “my truth” to” the truth” as it exposes their desire to be like god - design truth to your liking. In psychology, this disdain for “my truth” meeting “the truth” is showcased in cognitive dissonance theory. Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort people experience when their beliefs, values, or attitudes conflict when information is presented to them that doesn't conform to their pre-determined view. Cognitive dissonance demonstrates that when “your truth” doesn’t mesh with “the truth,” the person will experience psychological distress. Not wanting to go through this mental strain, the person will want to push back mightily on new information that runs counter to their truth. 

Cognitive dissonance also explains the disturbing trend in which speech is equated to violence. The enemies of truth won't come out and say it directly, but their response alludes to it. MSNBC commentator Matthew Dowd was quick to point out that Charlie's “awful words” and “divisive” speech is what led to his assassination. Dowd and Ilhan Omar's reaction to Kirk's death leads to the obvious connection - “he had it coming.” Here, speech (whether uncomfortable or not) justifiably leads to violence. The legislative think-tank ALEC wrote, "When we begin to equate words with violence, it becomes far too easy to justify violence as a reaction."

The violent endpoint of speech surfaces when disordered emotions run amok. If someone isn’t fixed on virtue, when cognitive dissonance emerges, it can devolve into a hyper extreme of emotions - including envy and anger. Under the powerful spell of emotions, one will fall into the fatal belief that if you can’t take down the counter message, you must take down the messenger. Under this delusion, if you don’t have the intellectual or mental rigor to combat compelling ideas, then to defeat the counter idea, the person articulating it must be eliminated. Here, you mock the person, censor him, and if that doesn't work, kill him. Sadly, this reality is becoming more visible. A disturbing survey reveals that 34 percent of college students feel that it is sometimes permissible to respond to campus speech with violence. As Bishop Barron sums up, "If argument is pointless, bombs and bullets become inevitable. . . when will is emphasized at the expense of reason, dialogue tends to devolve into oppression and violence, one will simply asserting itself against another."

The enemies of truth believe that killing is the supreme move of censorship; shutting down the idea in one swoop. However, by killing the person and not the idea, you actually enhance the growth of that idea. Here is where we come to Schopenhauer’s final stage of truth - it becomes self-evident. Schopenhauer reasoned that if powerful people want to kill the messenger of a well-reasoned message, then we can presume that message is aligned with truth. The fact that the opponents of the message have to kill the messenger is proof that the messenger’s idea is packed full of the truth. Desperately aware of not being able to defeat the idea in the marketplace of reason, the emotionally-laced response is that the only way they can win is by killing the person. This was the case with Socrates, Jesus, and Charlie Kirk. Interestingly, by reverting to the death of the messenger, the opponents admit they couldn't defeat their message, thus communicating that the message is unbeatable. In short, you can’t silence an idea by ending a life. You only prove its force. Because the opponents are so infused with rage, they don’t see that their envy towards the person actually reveals the self-evident nature of what is true.

The tactic of killing the truth by killing people ends up backfiring on the opponents of truth. The Church father Tertullian said so much when he declared, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” Tertullian realized that the more the Roman authorities killed Christians, the more people flocked to Christianity. The actions of killing Christians proved to the world that if this teaching is worth dying for, it must be true. In our own time, this testament rings true. Christians in Nigeria are being massacred by Islamist militant groups at an alarming rate. Yet, Christianity continues to grow in Nigeria and throughout Africa. The general populace in Africa sees that if people are being killed for the mere crime of being Christian, then there is something profoundly true in this religion. 

The armies of a martyr are usually more vast than when the martyr lived. Charlie Kirk will garner more followers after his death than when he lived, for his disciples will do what Socrates' disciples did - pick up the mantle of robust civil discourse in the face of opposition and run with it. This is what Christ’s disciples did, and the church grew immensely with each martyrdom. Since the devil is ensconced in a fury for blood, he never learns that killing a leader ends up making that leader's teaching more powerful. Ironically, the devil thinks blood wins for him, but the end story is that we are saved by His blood, which in turn, makes our blood grow for the cause of Christ. 
 

St. Padre Pio famously said, “After my death, I will do more. My real mission will begin after my death.” True to this statement, Charlie’s message will grow more post-death than when he lived. All the great thinkers of this world lived for something greater than themselves. Knowing Socrates' fate, Aristotle wrote, "The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think." Those martyrs of truth believe that the growth of the truth is more important than their life while the enemies of truth believe truth can die with the person. Yet, the truth is more powerful than a bullet. Ideas live on even when a person dies. The question is, are you willing to die for the truth?