Is arrogance really that arrogant?

So, one thing we are rather reluctant to do in this day and age is to make a claim of truth.  In an era of diversity and "tolerance" to claim a single thing to be true is seen as being borderline barbaric.  The word we often use to paint such truth claims is an interesting one: arrogance.  I find this interesting for a couple of reasons.  The first is that it holds a certain philosophical view of truth as something which is essentially inknowable.  Second, writing off a truth claim because it is arrogant is in and of itself a truth claim that is arrogant.

Now, as to the first reason, a claim to truth is not arrogant simply because it is a claim to truth.  A claim to truth is made arrogant in one of two ways.  If the truth claim is purely subjective, as when a person declares a given pizza topping to be unequivocally superior to all others, than it might be declared arrogant.  However, this is a case not of a truth claim but of a personal preference, and down that rabbit hole lies nothing but a semantic argument.

The second way in which a truth claim could be called arrogant is if it is not true.  Here I am working from the philosphical stance of critical realism.  There is nothing arrogant about a claim which is true.  The truth of the claim remains true regardless of whether it is popular, whether it is divisive, whether it is elitest, and indeed whether it is even known. Truth is truth and even if it is a truth that is not able to be articulated that does nothing to prevent that truth from being true.

So, for instance, it is arrogant to claim that I am the best running back in the history of football, unless I am Priest Holmes.  My Chiefs bias aside, the point remains.  Yet we readily will dismiss truth claims if they run counter to certain cultural values.  The Islamic claim that there is no god but Allah, for instance is arrogant if and only if the truth of that claim were to be untrue.  Yet, without making a decision about whether or not this claim is true, our pluralistic cultural mandate would ask us to dimiss this truth claim as arrogant, not because it is an inaccurate reflection of reality, but because it violates the ethos we abide in.

When we dismiss a truth claim on the grounds that it is arrogant rather than because it is untrue we do a number of things socially.  First,there seems to be a tendancy to not only dismiss the belief, but also the believers as people who are backwards or even morally questionable.  Secondly, we do very little to encourage dialogue.  Dismissing a truth claim as arrogant doesn't evaluate the validity of the claim itself.  We don't give people the ability to explain their beliefs, and we don't listen to them or defend our own.

This is where we get to address the idea that dismissing a truth claim as arrogant is itself arrogant.  Take the claim of Christ that no one comes to the father but through him.  Many are quick to dismiss this claim on the grounds that if it were true, there are billions that are doomed.  We assume its not true on those grounds, without taking the time to investigate the claim itself.  We impose our standards and assumptions on the claim, essentially doing exactly what we are accusing the people who are willing to make a truth claim of doing.

Moreover, we maintain a stance of unfalsifiability.  We aren't open to looking into our own thoughts to see if we may need to adjust our own beliefs to better match reality.  We maintain this stance that our beliefs, particularly when they align with the current paradigms are above question, and that any who disagree are arrogant for that act.  This is real arrogance, to accuse others of being arrogant rather than being willing to open ourselves up to evaluate the validity of our own beliefs.

So, which is truly arrogant?  To espouse a truth claim even if it might offend people, or to dismiss a truth claim because it offends us?  To be open to discussion and hold a stance open to falsification, or to dismiss beliefs without evaluation or discussion?

Saturday Morning Grows Up

From them I learned nobility,
and the value of sacrifice.
Contrasted against villainy,
the easy pleasures of vice.

I saw the importance of character
etched before my eyes.
As there were those whose images
were used for deception and lies.

In time my friends were removed
from my television screen,
and it seemed those replayed tapes
were the only place they'd be seen.

Twas then I did discover
the tales continued still,
written across the comics page
and drawn with artists skill

Here the mythos deepened,
the stories were more sage.
Befitting one whose interests
had grown with his age.

Change was their core,
a utility for play.
So too has their story morphed,
though it's never gone away.

And now their creators
grew up as did I.
So today they tell new stories,
on untold strings they pry.

Why is the villain bad?
What makes the hero good?
Will their struggles ever end?
What would happen if they could?

Their tales are no quite varied
Across many stages are they known,
from Hollywood's silver screens
to the playrooms of most homes.

Yet I still enjoy their lessons.
Of this there may be no doubt.
That my spark is oft rekindled
to hear "Autobots, Transform and roll out!"