My students are deeply interested in figuring out what they know, what they believe, what is their "truths". They want to know what is true and not true. I think a deep conversation about truth, whose truth, is there "A" truth, many truths, untruths, is important and works with high school students.
I like Barbara's question. I think it it part of a question about the nature of values which is key to the act of critiquing. What are values? how do we form them?
"Everything is relative" and yet, I seem to remember Mortimer Adler presenting something like Ten Philosophical Truths. I wish I could remember what those were! What I remember is that he said that no matter your background, these ten things can be held as true.
Yes, I think using the word truth in a classroom is okay to use as long as truth is understood to be subjective for different people. Avoiding the word does the opposite of allowing for understanding, and the students will continue to use the word outside of class, believing anything that is true is absolute, perspectiveless and real. Using truth, defined as a belief someone holds and a perspective from which they view the world, which is not the same for all people, is essential because it is a word used often in society.
I agree that using the word "truth" is problematic because "truth" can be subjective. I think that "truth" is often used interchangeably with fact, when in reality they are two different things.
I agree that the word "truth" is in itself subjective in its connotation. Perhaps a better word might be "factual", or "fact based". Since literacy any kinds depends on analysis and interpretation, the truth might be misleading and implying bias.
I do not think it's necessarily dangerous to use the word truth, as long as the idea of 'relative truth' is understood by the class. Whose truth is this? Or for who is this not true? For example, in the context of the DeSoto painting the teacher can get across the idea that this painting does not represent the encounter accurately or factually, but that for the Spanish, this has become the true and lasting account of DeSoto's "discovery" of the Mississippi
I don't think there is anything wrong with using the word truth, as long as everyone within the discussion is aware of, and understands that truth is always relative. My truth may not be someone else's truth, or one's perception of what historical truth might differ greatly from another's perception, and I think that is the key aspect to understanding and discussing, when using the word truth in various contexts.
No, I don't think we should use this term as an absolute when discussing media representations because they are someone's(photographer, ad agency, director, producer, author, etc.) version of the "truth". Once we view an image and superimpose our own biases, perceptions and experiences, we create yet another version of this "truth". There are as many versions of the story that an image, film, article tells as there are eyes and minds that create and consume it...I think. :-)
I think about this in the context of working with my 2nd/3rd graders. Even with young students (or maybe especially with young students), we talk about identity and story, and with that everyone has their own truth which is valid. The value of talking about "truths" comes in the dialogue that happens in the class as they see that they may have a different truth from others, but that their truth is valuable and real.
Is truth always relative? Aren't there moral truths that transcend subjective truths? Was the Holocaust a good or bad thing depending upon ones "perspective"? I want kits to struggle with issues o moral relativity through discussing and struggling with "truth".
The concept of alleviating truth is a purely "postmodernistic" idea. There is no absolute truth, so we can not engage a "truth." I don't think that that discrediting or "not using the word truth" is the answer, because the statement was somebody"s truth. It belonged to them, they owned it, it made their story, and they felt it important to tell someone else at the time. Whether or not i is still true or true to us, is up for the student to decide, and it is my job to give them the tools to engage and deconstruct the information, and then create their own truth. When I teach culture,history etc.. I tend to view it and model it through the context of story, we all have a story and we are telling it, TODAY whether it is in a book, on a blog, or via text message. It is our truth up to this point, it can be altered, revisited and changed, but we have the power to create it, and engage other's truths. We are part of each other's story.
I think that using the truth means that you have heavily supported facts behind what you are talking about or displaying. Also that you are not stating that your own personal opinion or the opinion of an another is the truth. I believe that if you have that great amount of support behind you then it is fine to use the word "truth".
Truth - The quality of state of being true. True - In accordance with fact or reality. Yes, I think we need to use the word truth. It implies investigation and conviction of thoughts. A statement asserted as being the truth implies that the speaker has brought to the table a collection of thoughts based on their experience and research. The job of the teacher is to teach children to question those "truths." Did in fact the writer/speaker have all of the information needed to present their truth? If not, why? If yes, what support is there to support it? The democracy of a democratic culture encourages that we constantly challenge truth.
The concept of "truth" is not consonant with the assumption of a socially constructed universe, the basis for all critique of human products, including media.
We do not attempt to get at the "truth" about the Iraq War when we teach the media literacy kit on the Middle East, for instance. We get at the reality that this war, and the investments behind it, are different for different parties. We can specifically critique the war, for instance, from moral frameworks, from political frameworks (including a pro-global capitalist context, an anti-global corporate capitalist context) but even for any of these frameworks there are multiple critiques that could add up to people identifying with a critique still having different attitudes about this war.
My views of this war are influenced by having been raised in a lower middle class Jewish family including an immigrant father and both parents quite critical of capitalism. I am now equally influenced by American buddhism, psycholanalysis, and marxism, all of which I accept only provisionally. These frameworks influence what might be seen as "truth" but they point to different "truths"
What is "truth"?. As a former student of Print Journalism, we were always told to always direct our articles to a specific audience and to be truthful and ethical in what we report. Truth meant checking the facts and rechecking the facts until we were comfortable that we were reporting an accurate truth. Ethical meant writing without bias and without bias/prejudice.
However, truth is relative. This is seen in AP news releases, cable news, print news, etc. My trust in these news agents have faltered over the years.
News is now presented from a VERY biased point of view.
in response to Chris' question, I think that all truths are relative, and there are no moral truths that transcend all cultures, beliefs, religions, etc. In response to the Holocaust reference, there are people who do or did not think that it was morally wrong. These people are/were probably in a significant minority, but they still exist, and therefore what the majority considers to be an absolute truth is not, because there are those who do not consider it to be such.
If truth is perceived as the validity of one's own experience, certainly that experience extends to individual perception of media representations. Yes, truth should be used in talking about media representations because it allows access for the subject to engage the conversation. The principal questions, it seems, is the one of objectivity vs. subjectivity. I don't see that the two can be separated but must be understood as one's own and bound by that limitation.
22 comments:
What are you talking about?
My students are deeply interested in figuring out what they know, what they believe, what is their "truths". They want to know what is true and not true. I think a deep conversation about truth, whose truth, is there "A" truth, many truths, untruths, is important and works with high school students.
Barbara, why not let them use the word truth?
I like Barbara's question. I think it it part of a question about the nature of values which is key to the act of critiquing. What are values? how do we form them?
"Everything is relative" and yet, I seem to remember Mortimer Adler presenting something like Ten Philosophical Truths. I wish I could remember what those were! What I remember is that he said that no matter your background, these ten things can be held as true.
Yes, I think using the word truth in a classroom is okay to use as long as truth is understood to be subjective for different people. Avoiding the word does the opposite of allowing for understanding, and the students will continue to use the word outside of class, believing anything that is true is absolute, perspectiveless and real. Using truth, defined as a belief someone holds and a perspective from which they view the world, which is not the same for all people, is essential because it is a word used often in society.
I agree that using the word "truth" is problematic because "truth" can be subjective. I think that "truth" is often used interchangeably with fact, when in reality they are two different things.
I agree that the word "truth" is in itself subjective in its connotation. Perhaps a better word might be "factual", or "fact based". Since literacy any kinds depends on analysis and interpretation, the truth might be misleading and implying bias.
I do not think it's necessarily dangerous to use the word truth, as long as the idea of 'relative truth' is understood by the class.
Whose truth is this? Or for who is this not true?
For example, in the context of the DeSoto painting the teacher can get across the idea that this painting does not represent the encounter accurately or factually, but that for the Spanish, this has become the true and lasting account of DeSoto's "discovery" of the Mississippi
I don't think there is anything wrong with using the word truth, as long as everyone within the discussion is aware of, and understands that truth is always relative. My truth may not be someone else's truth, or one's perception of what historical truth might differ greatly from another's perception, and I think that is the key aspect to understanding and discussing, when using the word truth in various contexts.
No, I don't think we should use this term as an absolute when discussing media representations because they are someone's(photographer, ad agency, director, producer, author, etc.) version of the "truth". Once we view an image and superimpose our own biases, perceptions and experiences, we create yet another version of this "truth". There are as many versions of the story that an image, film, article tells as there are eyes and minds that create and consume it...I think. :-)
How do we help young students understand that "truth" is relative? At what point do we help students break down the idea?
I think about this in the context of working with my 2nd/3rd graders. Even with young students (or maybe especially with young students), we talk about identity and story, and with that everyone has their own truth which is valid. The value of talking about "truths" comes in the dialogue that happens in the class as they see that they may have a different truth from others, but that their truth is valuable and real.
Is truth always relative? Aren't there moral truths that transcend subjective truths? Was the Holocaust a good or bad thing depending upon ones "perspective"? I want kits to struggle with issues o moral relativity through discussing and struggling with "truth".
The concept of alleviating truth is a purely "postmodernistic" idea. There is no absolute truth, so we can not engage a "truth." I don't think that that discrediting or "not using the word truth" is the answer, because the statement was somebody"s truth. It belonged to them, they owned it, it made their story, and they felt it important to tell someone else at the time. Whether or not i is still true or true to us, is up for the student to decide, and it is my job to give them the tools to engage and deconstruct the information, and then create their own truth. When I teach culture,history etc.. I tend to view it and model it through the context of story, we all have a story and we are telling it, TODAY whether it is in a book, on a blog, or via text message. It is our truth up to this point, it can be altered, revisited and changed, but we have the power to create it, and engage other's truths. We are part of each other's story.
I think that using the truth means that you have heavily supported facts behind what you are talking about or displaying. Also that you are not stating that your own personal opinion or the opinion of an another is the truth. I believe that if you have that great amount of support behind you then it is fine to use the word "truth".
Truth - The quality of state of being true. True - In accordance with fact or reality. Yes, I think we need to use the word truth. It implies investigation and conviction of thoughts. A statement asserted as being the truth implies that the speaker has brought to the table a collection of thoughts based on their experience and research. The job of the teacher is to teach children to question those "truths." Did in fact the writer/speaker have all of the information needed to present their truth? If not, why? If yes, what support is there to support it? The democracy of a democratic culture encourages that we constantly challenge truth.
The concept of "truth" is not consonant with the assumption of a socially constructed universe, the basis for all critique of human products, including media.
We do not attempt to get at the "truth" about the Iraq War when we teach the media literacy kit on the Middle East, for instance. We get at the reality that this war, and the investments behind it, are different for different parties. We can specifically critique the war, for instance, from moral frameworks, from political frameworks (including a pro-global capitalist context, an anti-global corporate capitalist context) but even for any of these frameworks there are multiple critiques that could add up to people identifying with a critique still having different attitudes about this war.
My views of this war are influenced by having been raised in a lower middle class Jewish family including an immigrant father and both parents quite critical of capitalism. I am now equally influenced by American buddhism, psycholanalysis, and marxism, all of which I accept only provisionally. These frameworks influence what might be seen as "truth" but they point to different "truths"
What is "truth"?. As a former student of Print Journalism, we were always told to always direct our articles to a specific audience and to be truthful and ethical in what we report. Truth meant checking the facts and rechecking the facts until we were comfortable that we were reporting an accurate truth. Ethical meant writing without bias and without bias/prejudice.
However, truth is relative. This is seen in AP news releases, cable news, print news, etc. My trust in these news agents have faltered over the years.
News is now presented from a VERY biased point of view.
in response to Chris' question, I think that all truths are relative, and there are no moral truths that transcend all cultures, beliefs, religions, etc. In response to the Holocaust reference, there are people who do or did not think that it was morally wrong. These people are/were probably in a significant minority, but they still exist, and therefore what the majority considers to be an absolute truth is not, because there are those who do not consider it to be such.
If truth is perceived as the validity of one's own experience, certainly that experience extends to individual perception of media representations. Yes, truth should be used in talking about media representations because it allows access for the subject to engage the conversation. The principal questions, it seems, is the one of objectivity vs. subjectivity. I don't see that the two can be separated but must be understood as one's own and bound by that limitation.
it depends on the context in which we use the word truth. the truth is dependent on what an individual so we can't just never use it.
This is great info to know.
Post a Comment