I often find myself getting mentally defensive when someone presents certain lines of thinking to me, especially lines of thinking that have to do with politics, explanations for suffering, identity, right vs. wrong, etc. Perhaps it is the person’s visible presumption of my position that rubs me the wrong way. Or perhaps since I am used to being a minority in many different ways I find myself in a state of perpetual resistance. Or maybe simply this tendency is from a desire to always be right and subsequently be the one who sees what others cannot see.

I do know that I don’t want to fit inside the box that people are constructing for me. Because if I do, then directly and indirectly I am hurting myself. If I step in that box, then I begin a gamble on my deepest beliefs – a gamble that has too far-reaching of implications for me. If I step in that box, then I am denouncing someone else – someone else that may represent a core part of me. The plethora of identities that reside in me fight to be represented and defended.

It is from this mindset that I had the following thoughts. I don’t know if this type of mindset would discount the ensuing perspective, but, nevertheless, I think it represents a thought worth some consideration.

Over two months ago, a thought hit me— if we are living in a post-truth generation (basically where one’s experience is reality and people are expected to take one’s experience at face value), wouldn’t we then expect this acceptance of reality from all angles? Fake news, alternative facts and so forth have been able to thrive under this type of phenomena of post-truth acceptance. I mean, based on how one phrases and interprets an occurrence, could those event retellings that we call fake news also be true? What truly is truth? What is reality?

However, the interesting thing is that we (we as in society, or at least in western/American society) want the individuals sharing these types of alternative facts to be held accountable. We seek out someone to denounce it, someone to give us objective norms. Yet, at the same time we turn around and pursue our own personal post-truth acceptance and then pressure others to accept our experiences as truth.

I found this double-standard to be fascinating.

It became apparent to me that there is still a desire within people for an objective right versus wrong; we want there to be an objective truth of what is good and bad. The catch is that this desire arises mainly when it is convenient for us; when the truth is advantageous, that is when we seek its presence and that is when we demand societal obedience to it.

When I shared this train of thought with my friend, she poignantly put it this way: “People still have a longing for truth because we have the law of God written on our hearts. So no matter how far from truth we get and how much our hearts harden to the truth, our consciences somehow still bears witness to the truth.”

I guess the world and the way we live our lives are full of double standards, so perhaps the perspective I have shared is not necessarily a special point. I guess since I have been feeling like the times we live in are times of life or death that I noticed this particular pattern. I guess it is because I have been feeling that I must feel a certain way or see a certain way in order to validate my humanity that I presented these thoughts. Either way, beyond my own uncertainties and anxieties, I believe the desire for truth and for others to know it and be held accountable demonstrate our true nature and identities. Even though we may lie and fool ourselves, the truth cannot be hidden. It must make itself known.