Accepting Monsters

I wrote the following paper in an attempt to see the other side of the debate. The emails shown in the entry below concerns this assignment: to make an argument for truth, make an argument for the almost-truth, then after having covered both sides of the debate, make an argument for the arrived upon conclusion. The paper listed below, titled "Accepting Monsters," is my idea of the other side of the debate, the almost-truth. I don't agree with it. I feel I could argue against each point. But it is the other side. In order to better understand my point of view on truth, I jumped into the contrary mindset. It felt ugly. But all the same, here it is below. To see the other side of this debate, the argument for truth, go to my entry titled "Defeat Monsters." All in all, I'm proud of my conclusions and feel more secure in my own understanding of truth. I have to admit that my work arguing for almost-truth isn't my best. The paper feels unorganized to me. But my paper for the truth feels much more substantial to me. If the debate of truth and almost-truth intrigues you, I suggest you read The Deadliest Monster by J.F. Baldwin. And if you get into the intrigue of monsters, I suggest you read The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Stevenson and Frankenstein by Shelley. Great books.

Accepting Monsters

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley tells the horrific tale of a scientist who raises a hodge-podge, lifeless body to life. This life is forced, by the rigid, unloving race of human kind, into becoming a monster. This life began in beauty. This life began in innocence. But this life was no match for the wearying rages of humanity. An environment of isolation, loneliness and disdain creates a murderous beast. In an attempt to earn back his creator’s love, the monster appeals to Frankenstein saying, “Oh, Frankenstein, be not equitable to every other, and trample on me alone […] Everywhere I see bliss, from which I alone am irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend. Make me happy, and I shall again be virtuous […] If the multitude of mankind knew of my existence, they would do as you do, and arm themselves for my destruction. Shall I not then hate them who abhor me? I will keep no terms with my enemies. I am miserable, and they shall share in my wretchedness” (98 Shelley). The poor beast had a pure heart driven to cruelty since cruelty was all he was even shown. His environment provided for a monstrous lifestyle. He had no opportunity to become anything less than a monster. This misunderstood creature embodies a reality that the majority of human kind takes for granted. The monster of Frankenstein mirrors the monster of almost truth. The almost truth is shunned for its inability to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But this poor beast is a misunderstood creation of necessity. When the almost truth is turned away and repudiated, it can lead to a slew of grievous happenings. If our world was more receptive of monsters, what might that look like? The almost truth is a necessity of existence, as shown by examples of personal experience, media, and culture.

Before being able to see the almost truth monster at work, the foundation of understanding almost truth must be established. Understanding the almost truth begins with comprehending the three terms: worldview, discernment and convenience. Everyone, whether or not they know, like or understand it, responds and behaves in accordance to a personal worldview. The author, J. F. Baldwin clarifies:

Your worldview is your framework for understanding existence—the way you look at the world […] Your worldview is like an invisible pair of eyeglasses—glasses you put on to help you see reality clearly. If you choose the right pair of glasses, you can see everything vividly and can behave in sync with the real world […] But if you choose the wrong pair of glasses, you may be in a worse plight than the blind man—thinking you see things clearly when in reality your vision is severely distorted. (29)

If the “framework for understanding existence” does not make room for almost truths, then large portions of one’s worldview glasses will be clouded. This world is filled with almost truths; and if they are left alone and are turned away, the world will appear severely distorted. With a clouded worldview, the ramifications of what almost truth has to offer will be unclear. This notion reveals a greatly under-appreciated concept. The difference between the almost truth and outright lies is vital to the issue. Renowned orator, Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said that, “Discernment is not telling the difference between right and wrong; rather it is telling the difference between right and almost right” (Grant). Discernment values almost truth, because it has a closer link with reality than that which is falsehood. The truth works like the body of a human; the almost truth acts as the appendages of that human. “Right” and “almost right” relate strongly with one another; so if you completely cut off one from the other, it would be as if you were cutting the arm off a man. Accepting the almost truth is a headway for the truth. As a result, almost truths are then found acceptable and often incontestable. Fortunately, a false reality created by almost truth is often easier to face and therefore found desirable. It can be comforting or enjoyable to live at hands of this monster. This perception, when acted upon, becomes an issue of convenience. Author of Do You Think I’m Beautiful?, Angela Thomas writes, “I have concocted a few lies to make life hurt less and then forced myself to live them” (6). If Angela Thomas had recognized those lies as almost truths, then perhaps she could have become more comfortable living out a less truthful, less painful existence. If she were capable of accepting a supposed monster, the beauty of living out almost truth would be ever apparent. Through a better understanding of worldview, discernment and convenience, the almost truth monster is pinned down. Now through examples of personal experience, media, and cultural conducts, the monster of almost truth can be found worthy, beneficial and acceptable.

First, the example of personal experiences shows how almost truth actually enables people simply to make it through a day. Many people face problems and realities too grand, too intense, too much for a single person to swallow. These people often enact the power of almost truth in order to make it through life. Imagine a cancer patient, given slim to nil odds, who gets through the day telling oneself that despite the odds the can and will be all right. Many people call it denial; but case after case shows that a cancer patient using this almost truth has a higher chance at defeating the cancer. If a Frankenstein-type person came into the picture denying the almost truth monsters, the results would be detrimentally discouraging for the cancer patient. In this case, confronting a painful truth leads to no good and therefore makes the truth irrelevant. But if the meek and mild monster of almost truth is given the chance, it will lead an eventual path to the truth.

Within the same thread of personal experiences, consider a person who is battling phobias of all shapes and sizes. For every fear out there, there is a falsehood, a truth and therefore an almost truth. Each battle necessitates certain almost truths in order to face down an average day. Someone facing gerascophobia (the fear of growing old) has to engage the almost truth daily. The falsehood for someone suffering a fear of growing old is that there is something terribly wrong, frightening and evasive about growing old. The truth is that growing old is natural and, in many ways, beautiful. Since the truth is not immediately an obtainable option for the person with gerascophobia, the almost truth is the only viable combatant—growing old is not a big deal. However, growing old means huge changes; it means drastic transformations; it is a big deal. If a Frankenstein-type person were to walk up to one with gerascophobia and refute the humble, well-mannered monster of almost truth, one with said phobia would become incapable of making strides toward the real truth and would be forced into a life of continued fear. The same can be said of almost any phobia. The almost truth, in the case of most personal experiences, is therefore the headway for truth and is necessary for countless people.

Last in the theme of personal experiences shows a clear picture of how the almost truth is capable of operating. The last example of personal experiences confronts the notion of alcoholism and specifically how it is dealt with under the guidance of an organization called Alcoholics Anonymous or A. A. This organization leads people who abuse alcohol through a twelve-step program, after which these sufferers of alcohol stasis should be able to face down their demons and defeat the vice of alcoholism. Yet just as Rome wasn’t built in a day, the alcoholic didn’t put an end to abuse in a day. One of the many notions that A. A. is known for says to take things one day at a time. This idea, upon a closer inspection, proves to be an excellent and simplistic almost truth that is invaluable to many. The reality is that when someone addicted to alcohol goes on an attack against the disease, they are headed in for a long-term battle. The end to alcohol abuse is not found upon sunrise the next day or the day after that. The end to the problem with alcohol abuse may not even be a definable occurrence. Victory has nothing to do with the day to day, yet that happens to be the only way to win the battle against alcohol. Based on an almost truth, alcoholics can crush this debilitating sickness. Yet without this almost truth, the scope of real victory may seem completely out of reach. Throughout the lives of countless individuals, the almost truth monster plays a crucial role.

Second, just as the mild monster of almost truth comes to life in the form of personal experiences, the monster of almost truth can also be found in the workings of American media. A brief look into what constitutes media would present the multiple expressions of propaganda—which manifests itself throughout industries of style, music, politics, sports, news, etc. Each arena is selling something. Often the ideas that the public sees, likes and buys from media identify some sort of almost truth. To help illustrate that point we can zero in on American media and specifically Hollywood. Hollywood has created some pretty strong ideas of what perfection ought to look like. Each idea could easily be called an almost truth. Some of those ideas are tagged with rather negative presuppositions. However many of those almost truths are quite necessary and lead to certain realities possibly unobtainable otherwise. F. Scott Fitzgerald clarifies through what is known as the ultimate Hollywood novel, The Last Tycoon:

I accepted Hollywood with the resignation of a ghost assigned to a haunted house. I knew what you were supposed to think about it but I was obstinately unhorrified. This is easy to say, but harder to make people understand. [Some] who pretended an indifference to Hollywood or its products, really hated it. Hated it way down deep as a threat to their existence. […] You can take Hollywood for granted […] or you can dismiss it with the contempt we reserve for what we don’t understand. It can be understood too, but only dimly and in flashes. (3,4)

Perhaps many people distance themselves from Hollywood simply because they have chosen to refute the gentle almost truth monster. The truth is that the image of perfection created by Hollywood is rather impractical. Perfection in Hollywood is comprised of beauty, riches, love and therefore happiness. But beauty in Hollywood is not always clear, riches can come and go, and love fades like a withering flower. So is happiness even possible? Despite the ephemeral appearance of Hollywood’s idea of perfection, the continuance of these almost truths are important. First, everyday the monster of almost truth in Hollywood has driven people away from seeking out a life that is not their own. Successful careers in Hollywood require and demand a great deal of talent, looks, personality and more. The strict criteria of Hollywood has turned away many, allowing each of those people to seek out a lifestyle better suited to their capabilities, needs and realities. The almost truth that you have to completely fulfill the demands of Hollywood in order to find success and happiness has either driven people to turn away from an unnecessary life path or driven them to work harder to earn their way to the top. Second, on the other side of the Hollywood ideal, we can find another victory in the name of accepting the almost truth monster. Hollywood depicts glimpses of reality the way we long it to be, and therefore gives headway for a greater truth. This greater truth speaks unto how things could be. It foretells the possibility of what happiness can look like. This notion may come across as idealism and utopianism, but rather it is simply the beautiful picture of hope. This is the story of Hollywood. The story of hope is the great enterprise of Hollywood. Without the almost truths of Hollywood, this notion of hope would be but a glimmer in the eyes of countless people. But the profound monster of almost truth has assembled a wonderful adventure within the worlds of film, fashion, fame and fantasy. As shown through the example of media, the almost truth is a beneficial necessity of life.

Third, as with the examples of personal experiences and media, the almost truth proves a vital part of humanity throughout the thread of cultures. Cultures display unique varieties on how human kind partakes in this little thing called life. Each and every culture lives out a very different set of standards and ethics based on a system of beliefs. Oftentimes these differences between cultures are seen as barriers. However, the differences of how we each deal with reality are most likely our strongest ties together. You see, daily each person in this world is living out an almost truth that applies directly to a personal worldview and cultural identity. Now the almost truths may vary throughout the many cultures of the world, but the enactment of almost truth is the same worldwide. To explain this notion, we can pick out several points of interest that will highlight the issues at hand. One example of a cultural issue that points out the power of the almost truth monster is the very basic concept, which bounces around high schools everywhere in America: You must complete your education in order to be successful. In reality, your academic career is not necessarily required for success. Many great entrepreneurs have never attended college, and some did not even complete high school. The almost truth about education has driven many students to seek out a higher education in order to become better in their career-fields. Although the almost truth pushes people to do something that could be seen as unnecessary, it also causes people to work harder and more effectively. A high school and college education offers a number of advantages in the workplace and gives an opportunity for growth and development. If this mild monster were altogether rejected, a great amount of the populace would not be in the places or be the people that they are today. Although you can find success without college, the monster driving home this almost truth has made way for great things. Another cultural almost truth monster that has brought about good things is found in the idea of personal space. In America, personal space is a key element of societal existence. In many other countries, the term personal space is unheard of. Some countries outside of America understand the idea but in alternative ways. For example, when you greet someone, you kiss the new or old acquaintance on the cheeks. It is an expression of compassion. It is a custom the people. In America, a handshake will suffice or even the occasional friendly nod will do. Although the two greetings differ greatly, they both hold the capacity to express the same things. They could both express the extremes of genuine affection or polite disassociation. Both can be patterns of conformity or patterns of respectful courtesy. If the two divergent forms of salutation are capable of communicating the same basic issues, then why do we purposefully and intently teach our children, our future generations to take on these customs. In America, why do we push the idea of personal space upon our children? Is it because America is impersonal and uncompassionate? Not necessarily. Communicating the need for personal space to our young is a way of implementing patterns of behavior that will benefit them in their future workplaces and endeavors. And in Peru, communicating the idea of personal space or possibly the lack there of will also implement a pattern of behavior that will lend for success. Personal space is a good example of a partial truth that is beneficial and in many ways necessary for cultural acceptance. The many cultural almost truths are vital for society. If we deny these endearing little monsters of our cultural heritage, then in turn we deny an element of truth wrapped in the “almost.”

As exemplified by the almost truths found in personal experiences, media and culture, the little monsters of almost truth are deserving of acceptance. They are often necessary and beneficial. Sir Walter Raleigh’s wonderfully passionate poem “The Lie” explains:

Go, soul, the body’s guest,

Upon a thankless errand;

Fear not to touch the best;

The truth shall be thy warrant.

Go, since I needs must die,

And give the world the lie.

The truth is that lies and harmless balderdash are often what our world requires. To stray from the outright harm that the truth is capable of, we must go out into our worlds and do nothing less than offer up our best lies. Anything less would be detrimental. We must avoid a Frankenstein mentality. How will you handle monsters? Will you disown them for their inability to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Or will you be able to take them on for what they are rather than what they are not? Can you accept monsters?

Selected Bibliography

Baldwin, J. F. The Deadliest Monster: An Introduction to Worldviews. New Braunfels: Fishermen, 1998.

Bragg, Sarah. Body. Beauty. Boys. Birmingham: New Hope, 2006.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Last Tycoon. London: Bantam, 1976.

Grant, George. “Flash Gordon Worldview.” Humanities. Franklin Classical School. 29 Nov. 2004.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Barnes & Noble, 2003.

Thomas, Angela. Do You Think I’m Beautiful? Nashville: Nelson, 2003.

A Valued Conversation.

I was looking back through some old work to see if I could incorporate anything from past assignments for one of my current classes. I came across an e-mail conversation I had with my honors teacher. The topic concerns relativism vs absolutism. I value this conversation not just for the praise my teacher offers (encouragment is important to him, even when occansionally it might be "forced"). The main reason I value this conversation is because I felt like I made a difference. Maybe it's not immediate change, I'm glad it's not immediate (no revolutions here, just reformations-- thank you very much). And most importantly, I stood up for my beliefs without harming my relationships with my teacher and the class. I stood up for my beliefs to the best of my meager abilities. I stood up for my beliefs and may have planted some seeds. It was interesting, as was the class. Below, I've changed the names (although it was totally unnecessary to do so) and my e-mails are in red while my teacher's are in blue. So here it is:


Jane (my project parnter) told me she sent you her exploratory essay...I just wanted to see if you had any advice for me as I get farther into the first draft. It's going to be harder for me to take this paper seriously because I don't really believe in it; but I guess creating a viable argument for something that I could easily argue against is part of rhetoric. Thanks for any help you may have to offer!!
Kala

I didn’t make time to look at it. I was actually waiting for revised drafts so that I could see what you were considering a more-or-less finished product. But it surprises me that you don’t see some value in what you are arguing. It seems to me you’ve had that experience this semester. I suspect prior to all of the discussion of absolutism and relativism, you would have—if simply given a definition—considered yourself only an absolutist. I may be wrong, but I got the sense that you would have recoiled from the idea of relativism at all. And yet, within a framework of absolutism, perhaps absolutism slightly redefined for yourself, you have come to see that you have bits of both. Weren’t you operating from an understanding that has grown and gained dimension, that has become more complete and more rich? Isn’t it possible that this understanding will grow still further, that your partial understanding now—which guides your life—will be transformed again and again? Isn’t this part of your argument, that partial truths don’t have to be monsters, that they can be foundations we consider positive, and they too are imperfect, that they too grow and change?
Joe

Thank you! I loved your words in the email you sent me. It all sounds beautiful! But...
In response: Yes, I do now have a more whole understanding of what it is that I actually believe; but I feel I am just as repulsed by and clear-minded about relativism as before. I still believe in antithesis and always will; but I also believe in balance and always have. I think the biggest change in my views is more on the side of understanding where they come from and how they ought to be presented--presented not with pragmatism or pacifism, rather with a hearty helping of reality (or as much of reality as I can get my hands on). I see value in my argument, but only as the means to further understanding the other side of the debate. If I can convincingly argue for something in which I do not believe, I think I will have a better handle on this thing called truth. I was initially wondering (perhaps worrying) that at some point of convincing, I'd start convincing myself. But the further I get into the research, the more I feel that my beliefs are in the right. You are likely to be right in saying that I would have previously considered myself an absolutist, yet only one in theory. Now I can only consider myself a truth-searcher, a truth-fighter, and--until someone convinces me otherwise-- a truth-obtainer. I agree that my understanding of things will forever be transforming; yet I doubt (I resist saying "I know" for the sake of being "open") that it will ever depart from my current foundation of beliefs. And in the end, for this presentation I will be arguing that almost truths don't have to be monsters. Yet I feel that almost truths are monsters, and just because they are accepted does not make them okay. In fact, if our world was in a position capable of facing truth and recognizing all monsters; well it just might be a good thing. Sure almost truths can be beneficial, but imagine if we had no need of them at all...that's what I wish we could all aspire toward. I do not believe it too idealistic a dream. Perhaps it is. But that just makes it all the more worth fighting for.
Thank you again for that email! I truly appreciate that you care and that you understand this is the stuff that matters most.
Kala

I have truly enjoyed our emails throughout the semester, and I am already missing these exchanges in advance for next semester. You are an incredibly thoughtful student, and you make it easy to enjoy teaching. Thanks for all the gifts you’ve given to the class and to me.
Joe

Hope has two beautiful daughters.
Their names are anger and courage;
anger at the way things are,
and courage to see that they
do not remain that way.
~ St. Augustine of Hippo

Faith, belief, meaning, experience, knowledge; these five terms have everything to do with each other. In the same rights, they are also completely distinctive. I must begin with the concept of truth. My experience, my faith, my knowledge, my identity (I use these words selectively) form the belief that there exists a truth which surpasses all we claim to know, to mean, to experience, to believe, and to have faith in. With that context in mind, I can now establish the distinctions and relationships of each word and others as well.
Faith is the active participation of belief in hopes. Hope is believing in unseen things. Both hope and faith necessitate believing. Belief is the application of internal and external action in favor of hopes. Meaning is the perspectives of understanding-- true meaning is different; it is the actuality of definitions and connections as they apply to reality. Experiences are the encounters with reality that differ from person to person and can be translated differently, but are related as they are all connected to reality. Knowledge is the accumulation and containment of accepted facts. Along those lines, another important word to recognize is wisdom. Wisdom enacts knowledge with the power of discernment. "Discernment is not the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong, rather it is telling the difference between right and almost right," according to G.K. Chesterton. Each word interludes to a new, equally important word. Each word gives rise to a different, hard-to-describe feeling. Each word is a piece of a bigger, deeper picture--a picture that we can only touch upon, a picture that we often only catch in glimpses at a time. But most of all, each word envelopes the idea of a very balanced yet very antithetical world.
Faith, belief, meaning, experience, knowledge--each term is a bondservant to one very important, very understated word, truth. I know that the rendering of this word verifies that I have but one devotion; but it is important to note that this one devotion is the precursor to a thousand deeper thoughts, ideas, adventures, realizations and worlds! What good are faith, belief and hope without the beauty and goodness of truth? What good are experience, meaning and knowledge without the power and wisdom of discernment? “Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful” (Johnson 129). You could have all the knowledge in all the world in your possession; yet without the ability to know fully what truth is, you really have nothing. Now you are probably saying, “That’s ridiculous, who can fully know what is truth?!” I agree with you there; no one can ever know the truth in full. We are not capable of any sort of all-knowing, omniscient powers (well at least not those of us who have yet to fall into a vat of toxic waste, or make contact with a radioactive meteor, or reign down from the planet Krypton). Although truth will never be subdued on every level, the battle to ascertain truth can offer a glimpse into something great, into something deep, into something. A great deal of insight may be derived from a Bible chapter that focuses on love as it corresponds directly to truth:
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we will see face to face. Now I know in part; then I will know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. (1 Cor. 13.11-13)
Another issue you may be pondering comes down to the notion of “why is it all or nothing; can’t faith, belief, hope, experience, meaning and knowledge have some pretty great outcomes without the ‘almighty truth’ coming into the picture?” To that I must reply with the phrase sure; but; so. Sure, faith, belief and hope can drive people to some amazing things; but faith, belief and hope in anything usually orders some sort of action; so faith in truth brings out good, belief in lies brings out bad and hope in almost truth brings out almost good--no matter how it may struggle, almost good can never be good. What’s wrong with “almost”? The problem is that being “almost” about anything will forever tare you away from being “whole” about anything. It is one thing to acknowledge the inability to fully partake in truth; it is quite another to feel appeased with the inability to fully partake in truth. One gives way to progress; the other to digress. One gives way to substance; the other to inanity. One gives way to a thousand of those paths less traveled by; the other to a path met with a thousand barriers. The truth is a powerful thing which, in the end, will out itself. Truth will either enter in gracefully or hit you in the face like a ton of bricks. It will either be the peaceful resolution to a passionate search or the abrupt collision with an unrealized world.
Faith, belief, meaning, experience and knowledge will all make you speak; but truth, truth makes you right. While the five terms directly above and together are the onset for argumentation and rhetoric, truth is the onset for beauty and goodness. “If our world was capable of facing truth […] well it might just be a good thing. Sure almost truths can be pleasant, but imagine if we had no need of them at all […] That’s what I wish we could all aspire toward. I do not believe it too idealistic a dream. Perhaps it is. But that just makes it all the more worth fighting for.”

Works Cited
Johnson, Samuel. The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia. London: Penguin, 1989.
The NIV Study Bible. Kenneth Barker, gen. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Defeat Monsters

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Stevenson’s well-known horror story, identifies a monster that is actually lurking in the streets of the real world. In Stevenson’s tale, a well-mannered scientist named Dr. Jekyll turns himself into a monster at the swig of a potion. Once he becomes the monster, he is unaware of the monster he becomes. The monster, Mr. Hyde, is a heartless fiend carrying “an imprint of deformity and decay;” yet Jekyll does not initially recognize that his own alternate being is in fact a despicable monster (Stevenson 71). Dr. Jekyll, when looking upon his mirrored reflection as Mr. Hyde, discovers something intriguing about the monster. He explains, “When I looked upon that ugly idol in the glass [the mirror], I was conscious of no repugnance, rather a leap of welcome. This, too, was myself. It seemed natural and human” (71). Jekyll’s monster gives a face to the monster of almost truth. The difference between an apparent truth and an apparent falsehood is often unmistakable. However, the difference between the truth and the almost truth can be a fearsome trial marked with confusion and peril. Façades of promises and justifications, often tagged by good intentions, allow monsters to appear right and even beautiful. When Dr. Jekyll gives way to the repulsive Mr. Hyde, he makes way for destruction. In the end, the monster of almost truth overpowers Dr. Jekyll. A suicide/murder is Jekyll’s response. Yet the monster lives on, outside the pages of a book, vexing its victims throughout time. The perils of living according to the almost truth monster are evidenced by monsters of personal experience, media and history.

Before being able to see the almost truth monster at work, the foundation of understanding almost truth must be established. Understanding the almost truth begins with comprehending three terms: worldview, discernment and convenience. Everyone, whether or not they know, like or understand it, responds and behaves in accordance to a personal worldview. The author, J. F. Baldwin clarifies:
Your worldview is your framework for understanding existence—the way you look at the world […] Your worldview is like an invisible pair of eyeglasses—glasses you put on to help you see reality clearly. If you choose the right pair of glasses, you can see everything vividly and can behave in sync with the real world […] But if you choose the wrong pair of glasses, you may be in a worse plight than the blind man—thinking you see things clearly when in reality your vision is severely distorted. (29)
If the “framework for understanding existence” is off balance, the ramifications of what the truth has to offer will be unclear. This notion reveals great danger. The difference between the truth and the almost truth can be deadly. The vice of almost truth is even more harmful than flat-out lies. Renowned orator, Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said that, “Discernment is not a matter of simply telling the difference between right and wrong; rather, it is telling the difference between right and almost right” (Grant). Without identifying the monster, the almost truth becomes truly menacing. It’s found acceptable and then even indisputable.

Unfortunately, a false reality created by almost truth is often easier to face and therefore found desirable. It can be comforting or enjoyable to live at hands of this monster. This perception, when acted upon, becomes an issue of convenience, despite the great inconvenience that is likely to follow. Author of Do You Think I’m Beautiful?, Angela Thomas writes, “I have concocted a few lies to make life hurt less and then forced myself to live them” (6). Through a better understanding of worldview, discernment and convenience, the almost truth monster is pinned down. Now, it can be reckoned with on a physical level. Although the monster exists in all arenas of life, focusing on examples of personal experience, media and history offer a great deal of help; for these three examples demonstrate peril on three levels: an intimate level, an external level and a timeless level.

First, the example of personal experiences identifies one of the many masks worn by the almost truth monster. The following paragraphs introduce the almost truth monster through the two perspectives of Maria Altamirano and Kala Ellis. Maria begins:
I was seven years old; I loved ballet. The twirls that made the tutu spin were my favorite. It would only be six months until I was politely told my body type wasn’t right and I had to leave. It was a nice way of saying I was too fat. I was seven years old and too fat. The web of almost truths began. Ever since I was little, I’ve always been underweight, not on purpose but just because I was active and had a fast metabolism. Most people would say I was blessed; I always thought I was cursed.
When you’re abnormally thin, everyone notices when you gain a pound or two, and then all of a sudden its, “Maria, you’ve gained so much weight. You need to eat less junk food.” Or when you loose a few pounds. It’s a never-ending cycle of trying to maneuver my body into society’s airbrushed image of a woman. I have news for you though; I won’t fit.
I let the years go by, not really worrying about my weight. Then I got into the vicious world of modeling. And all of a sudden those words came up again: too fat. And new words too: curvy, plus size, voluptuous. Being a size five, I was considered a plus size. And again with politeness, I was told, “Maria, you won’t be successful if you don’t loose some weight.” Me? The same girl who was called up to the nurse’s office and given crackers because they thought I never ate. From then on, I vowed that I was going to exercise and watch what I ate. Soon, pounds started falling away, revealing my bony frame. When I stood, my ribs stuck out, my hip bones, my collarbone. My cheekbones became more noticeable. I liked all the attention I was getting for my newly refined look. I liked how I now wore a size three. But, what I didn’t like was how I was always sick, first with pneumonia, then Valley Fever and about every form of the flu imaginable. And the pounds kept coming off. My 5’9” frame was now down to a disgusting 110 pounds. I had only lost a total of nine pounds. But that’s what made the difference.
Now I had been getting more jobs. Photographers were complimenting me on how my body looked from every angle, how I didn’t have a “fat side,” they called it. I was relieved. All my snacks in between meals really did matter. But the only problem was, I was missing out on the truth. A lot of good came out of dieting, but I was following this idea that success means “skinny.” There was tons of dangerous ideas that I was just dancing around as I played with the almost truth. Other people facing these same sort of issues get into trouble with anorexia and bulimia. I didn’t let my monster get me though. That is what matters most.
Regardless of the almost truths that were embedded into Maria’s everyday life, success does not require “skinny.” This almost truth has destroyed the lives of many because they became entangled in the lies. If the almost truth is not unmasked, it can be deadly.

The second testimonial comes from Kala Ellis:
The room was dark, touched with the softest yellow glow coming from the street light outside my bedroom window. The room was quiet, interrupted only with the sound of steady breathing coming from my little sister, sleeping in the crib beside my bed. Mr. Hyde was ready, so I gave way to the monster inside me. I grabbed the sharpest thing near me, revealed the skin above my chest, turned the object on its side, then hazed the already raw skin. The burn I felt was deep yet emotionless. Angry, selfish and lost, I waited for someone to find me. I was waiting there at the end of my rope. I knew the difference between right and wrong. I could see that distinction more clearly than that of the sun and moon. But that did not stop me. I loathed myself so greatly that I had to prove it by ripping into my skin. I was a cutter. Now, that word sounds strange and oddly funny. Cutter. Safety pins, pocketknives and scissors stayed close to me at all times. No one knew. I could put on a smile and no one really knew the truth. I am now distanced from that place of self-induced bondage. I come from that experience convinced of a new reality. When I set a knife hard against my skin, I was not driven by lies, but by almost truths. I told myself a little mutilation would make my emotions disappear; it did, temporarily. I told myself that the scars I carved did not really exist; for once I was around other people, those etchings were no where to be seen. I told myself that my secret markings were not really hurting anyone; and I was almost right. Those almost truths got me a long way from my convictions. In fact, even while under the so-called trance of almost truths, I was progressively helping others out of this same form of blindness. I ignored the truth. I ignored the fact that “hidden” does not mean “absent.” I ignored the fact that unknown hurt was certain. I continue to daily deal with the struggles of my monster’s whispering almost truths; but now, I recognize those almost truths as lies. While walking through the throws of my almost truth, I wrote a poem titled “Reality.” The poem is perhaps one of the most sincere glimpses into this piece of my past:
Those dark, precious, deep-set tears
Fall from dark, lost, painful fears.
This vision held close to heart
Burns as poison from the Dart.
Scream of some lost truth in time,
Soft tale cry a dream, sublime.
Reality is clearer, now. Reality is closer, now.
Now past much of the pain, fear and sadness of her almost truths, Kala is vast steps closer to living according to the truth.

Maria and Kala were confined by the almost truth and freed by the actual truth. But what were the two reaching for? What mask worn by the almost truth monster had the two fooled? Why was Maria longing to conform her body? What was Kala so far away from that she found relief in spilling blood? They were searching for their idea of perfection. They desired to be perfection according to their terms, according to their limited eyes, according to the almost truth.
Second, just as the monster of almost truth lurks around on a personal level, almost truth has a strong hand in the media, a larger, more external level. Understanding the objectives and origins of the media will help uncover another sheathing of almost truth. Media functions, a great deal, through propaganda. Every piece of propaganda attempts to sell something. The most obvious example is the thousands of advertisements streaming through the Internet, the television, the radio, the periodicals, etc. But beyond advertisements, media uses propaganda in politics, news, industries of style, music, sports, entertainment and more. The media is selling brands, styles, agendas, body types, and most of all, ideas. It can be seen as the defining factor for what people, specifically in western culture, consider acceptable and unacceptable. America, as opposed to the majority of other cultures, greatly relies on the media to define what is normal and abnormal.
A very American idea of media can be found throughout the worlds of film, fashion, fame and fantasy. Andy Warhol, the well-known modern artist, creates many works depicting the opinion that “America was ruled by fame” (Hohenadel 167). Yet where does media come from? Who defines the ideas that media sells? The origin of media is hard to grasp. It is difficult to really pin down the balance between how much of the media consists of consumer demands and how much consists of viable options available for demand. How much has been forced upon us verses how much have we put upon ourselves? This notion may seem altogether unclear; so we must zero-in on a specific notion of the media summed up in the phrase Hollywood Ideal. F. Scott Fitzgerald clarifies through what is known as the ultimate Hollywood novel, The Last Tycoon:
I accepted Hollywood with the resignation of a ghost assigned to a haunted house. I knew what you were supposed to think about it but I was obstinately unhorrified. This is easy to say, but harder to make people understand. [Some] who pretended an indifference to Hollywood or its products, really hated it. Hated it way down deep as a threat to their existence. […] You can take Hollywood for granted […] or you can dismiss it with the contempt we reserve for what we don’t understand. It can be understood too, but only dimly and in flashes. (3,4)
People are fascinated by Hollywood because it portrays a vision of perfection, false perfection, but greatly longed after none-the-less. The consumer demand exalts the Hollywood Ideal and at the same time despises it. Beauty, riches, love; and therefore happiness. Isn’t that the overall message of Hollywood? And what’s wrong with beauty, riches, love and happiness? Nothing! The error comes down to how we define beauty, riches, love and happiness, how we define perfection. Beauty in Hollywood relates with how talented the plastic surgeons are. Riches are normally portrayed by how big the houses are. Love hangs in the balance of how good the divorce settlements are. And therefore happiness relies on how strong the material assets are. Yes, there is more to Hollywood than the come and go satisfactions of materialism; but how much more? When happiness has such a strong tie to all that is ephemeral, how much can anything of substance stand out? Author Sarah Bragg equates the Hollywood Ideal with Barbie:
I think that what I loved most about playing with Barbie dolls was that I could assign to them the identities of someone else by calling them the names of different celebrities. My dolls had the most amazing imaginary lives. It’s interesting that as I think back to my Barbie days, I don’t recall her ever going on a diet or worrying about her self-image. Why do you suppose that was? Why did Barbie never diet? Why did it never occur to me that she might need to diet? It must have been because she was perfect and had a perfect life. She got everything she wanted—boyfriends, jobs, and clothes that fit perfectly. Years later, Mattel created the heftier Rosie O’Donnell doll to be Barbie’s friend. But I didn’t want that doll. I wanted the “normal-sized” Barbie. I wanted my perfect Barbie. I liked her skinny. Why did I think that way? Because in my mind, I, too, wanted to be perfect like Barbie. […] She was my standard. (17)
The dolls that Bragg named after celebrities had the “most amazing imaginary lives;” yet when that life is the reality for some celebrity, how much of that life still consists of the imaginary?
No matter how many reality TV shows are produced by the minute, no matter how deep the Insider or the Inquirer go, no matter how lavishly beautiful or despicable Hollywood stars appear, the world of media will forever struggle to explore, define or stand up for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. All the celebrities out there have real lives, some of which are plastered across television screens while others are, more or less, unpronounced. When does the publicized life of a celebrity depict reality? Can the known life of a celebrity depict actual truth? Is it only when they are shown being escorted to a police car or can it also be when they are in full red-carpet-regalia? Stars, from past to present, are often understood as American royalty. The image of a Hollywood star pictures either an ideal character or an utter failure, with little variance. Usually, compromising issues and pictures and rumors concerning celebrities are desperately covered up. Yet more often than not, that information is, eventually or immediately, flaunted. Any publicity is good publicity! Any publicity is good publicity. Any publicity is good publicity? The reality is that much of America feeds off of the images created in Hollywood, whether or not they depict reality. Can publicity be good for anyone, audience especially? The results of media can come in forms as acceptable as your stereotypical, media-obsessed teenager or as tragic as the person facing down body dysmorphic disorder, one who is uncontrollably overwhelmed with appearances, because of an idealized image fashioned in Hollywood. Whether or not the intrigue of the Hollywood Ideal sets in with extreme circumstances, the almost truth deemed acceptable is still a lie and receives a level of power over its followers. This arena is where the almost truth monster makes an attack. If people refuse to recognize the possibility of almost truth, then the monster has won. The idea of worldview and discernment must come to the forefront. The wonderfully perceptive, Robert Traina states:
Unwilled observation is soon satiated and goes to sleep. Willed observation, vision with executive force behind it, is full of discernment and is continually making discoveries which keep the mind alert and interested. Get a will behind the eye and the eye becomes a searchlight, the familiar is made to disclose undreamed treasure. (Grant 140)
If America closes an eye to the reality of life, then what treasures will be passed by? This inkling does not beg the use of skepticism or idealism. Life is not Desperate Housewives, a recent popular dramatic/comedic program focusing on idiosyncratic women, as much as it is Full House, a past popular dramatic/comedic program depicting a happy-go-lucky family. Reality is not likely to be found in either utter failure or complete victory. Rather reality is more likely to be realized in all that is ideal and all that is deficit. The Hollywood Ideal often offers glimpses into the two worlds of ideal verses burdensome, yet rarely the whole truth. This concept explains the love/hate relationship with Hollywood. This theory explains the drive to be “perfect” like Barbie and the grief when Barbie becomes implausible. This thought explains how beauty, riches, love and happiness can be entirely fleeting and still highly desired. This notion explains how America can run media and media can run America. America can see pieces of reality in the exterior face of Hollywood, and the consumer yells out for “more!” Yet media rarely runs deep in truth or reality or substance, and therefore fails the consumer, time after time. With discernment, the almost truth monster can be unmasked and “undreamed treasures” that surpass the evanescent appeals, contracted by the majority of Hollywood, can be revealed.

Third, in line with the manifestations of almost truth on a personal and external level, the monster shows up in a rather eternal form. Throughout history the almost truth has played a huge rule. The almost truth surfaces throughout the story of humanity. Many historical issues of wars, ideologies, cultures, policies, social statuses and identities have lived out the almost truth and accepted monsters. The huge stage of history exhibits the almost truth through a diversity of topics, as through the agendas of dictators and the assumptions of economic conditions. Time presents almost truth in some rather variant formats, in contrast to the other points presented thus far. Through the specifics in both arenas of personal experience and media, the differences between each almost truth, from extreme to commonplace, often display only slight variances in subject matter. However, when opening up to the entire spectrum of time, the variances between the dramatic and extreme to the mediocre and accepted seem to leap onto entirely divergent topics. The leap is important to the idea of almost truth; for it shows its capability to excel in a multiplicity of venues and distinguishes the notion that, no matter the façade, the almost truth is the same monster. With that being said, we make the jump from historical and political monsters to historical and cultural monsters. We bound from issues of fascism and autocracy to issues of poverty and charity.

First in the stage of time, three monsters that lived out almost truths were Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. Although these three figures each brought about death and destruction in extensive, diverse forms, each person embodied the same monster. They were living out the almost truth as if it were absolute. Now one might think, “how is the massacre of countless souls any form of almost truth? Is this madness not undeniably corruption and vice and lies?” There seems to be nothing “almost” about it. However, the atrocities conducted by these monsters would not have reached the worldwide scale of war that they had if not found desirable and acceptable by so many. People were buying into the ideas sold by Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. Yet what could they possibly be buying into? Murder does not exactly have any attractive qualities on wholesale. However, what if the term perfection comes back into play. Perfection is not wrong; by its very nature, it cannot be wrong. It is perfect. Yet once again, perfection presented with faulty parameters spurns on terrible outcomes. Those monsters in history used that almost truth of false perfection to sell racism, humanism and utopianism (Grant Killer Angel 4). Many people bought those ideas, philosophies and lies for the hefty price of countless lives. Hitler clarifies all too well in his book “My Struggle,” Mein Kampf:
There are some truths which are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen or at least not recognized by ordinary people. They sometimes pass by such truisms as though blind and are astonished when someone suddenly discovers what everyone really ought to know […] Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principle’s of Nature’s rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth. (Beatty 302)
Hitler gives himself away as one who found the almost truth indisputable. He saw the requirement for devastation as a necessary reality. For these monsters in history, fascist dictatorship looked like truth. In The Doctrine of Fascism, Mussolini argues:
Like every sound political conception, Fascism is both practice and thought; action in which a doctrine is immanent, and a doctrine which, arising out of a given system of historical forces, remains embedded in them and works there from within. Hence it has a form correlative to the contingencies of place and time, but it has also a content of thought which raises it to a formula of truth in the higher level of the history of thought. (309)

The acceptance of almost truth as truth is detrimental. Deeming an almost truth acceptable is the precursor to enacting faith in almost truth. And real faith in anything is the precursor to action. If one places faith in truth, good is likely to result. If one places faith in almost truth, harm is likely to result. Stalin led his troops under the slogan, “There will be no pity. They have sown the wind and now are harvesting the whirlwind” (Harris). The Soviets were devoted to an almost truth and therefore acted out as they saw fit, as Stalin saw fit. Stalin was acting out on faith in a falsehood. These events enforced by monsters engage the almost truth on destructive levels. Yet the almost truth does not have to present itself in such dramatic ways.

Second in the stage of time, the assumptions of poverty and status expose several almost truths. The almost truth presented throughout time can manifest itself in such simple ways as the timeless separation of rich verses poor. From the Middle Ages to current day, the distinctions between the rich and the poor are synonymous with various assumptions. These assumptions often envelop both truths and almost truths. The responses to these assumptions manifest in both good and bad ways. Specifically, the uses of charity encompass both good and bad consequences. The good of charity is a beautiful truth; yet, can the term charity be established with faulty parameters? Can it be established as yet another almost truth? Charity is a precious piece of existence, but it can be abused. Mother Goose’s poem “Humpty-Dumpty” alludes to the issue as it was presented many years ago:
Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall;
Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall;
All the kings horses and all the kings men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again. (Grant Bringing in the Sheaves 38)
The poem can be understood on a perhaps surprising level: A man, fragile on many accounts, sat in the balance of life. That man fell from grace, from stasis, from wealth, from it all. Everyone rushed to help. But they could not restore the man.

Sometimes when charity is abused, a cure for poverty becomes perverted or, in the least, postponed. Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “To dole out relief is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit” (38). This problem does not lead to the conclusion that charity is wrong; nor should it follow that all charity is good. The government does have role to play; but acts of generosity are important throughout communities and societies. Discernment is the key to discovering the almost truth and the tool for establishing the truth. Whether the issue is as extreme as the massacre compelled by monsters or as ongoing as the difference between the haves’ and the have-nots,’ the almost truth deserves attention. All of these issues, which can appear grand and sometimes untouchable or so close to home that they can hardly be grasped, entail the use of discernment in order to approach the truth.

In conclusion, throughout the spheres of history, media and personal experience, almost truths are monstrous lies, whether seen as extreme or as mediocre. Dr. Jekyll was forced to commit suicide in order to destroy his monster. Hitler killed himself as well. In the personal example from Kala Ellis, suicide was occasionally considered as a tentative possibility; however she recognized the almost truth and killed her monster in its tracks. To face the truth, we must ask questions. Rudyard Kipling, the brilliant and prolific author, explains:
I have six faithful serving men
Who taught me all I know.
Their names are what and where and when
And how and why and who. (Grant Bringing in the Sheaves 140)
What lies are you telling yourself? Can you tell what they look like or have they already hidden beneath layers of justifications? What is your worldview? Maybe the lies in your life will not result in suicide; maybe they will not bring about death and destruction; maybe no one will ever know they exist. Is that okay with you? Will you allow little monsters to follow you to the grave? Edmund Burke once said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” (64). Do something. Look past the face value of all you see and make sure you know the truth. Whether you begin to see lies in your own life or in the world around you, take a stand. Speak out for the truth when no one else can or will.

Defeat monsters.

Works Cited
Baldwin, J. F. The Deadliest Monster: An Introduction to Worldviews. New Braunfels: Fishermen, 1998.
Bragg, Sarah. Body. Beauty. Boys. Birmingham: New Hope, 2006.
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Last Tycoon. London: Bantam, 1976.
Grant, Dr. George. Bringing in the Sheaves. Atlanta: American Vision, 1985.
Grant, George. “A New Despotism.” Humanities. Franklin Classical School. 24 Feb. 2005.
Grant, George. “Flash Gordon Worldview.” Humanities. Franklin Classical School. 29 Nov. 2004.
Grant, George. Killer Angel. Franklin: Ars Vitae, 1995. Beatty, John L. and Oliver A. Johnson. Ed. Heritage of Western Civilization. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1982.
Harris, Bruce. “Heroes and Killers.” MoreorLess: Heroes and Killers of the 20th Century. September 2006. 15 October 2006. .
Hohenadel, Kristen. “Lovers and Killers,” Vogue. October 2006.
Thomas, Angela. Do You Think I’m Beautiful? Nashville: Nelson, 2003.
Stevenson, Robert Louis. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekkyl and Mr. Hyde. NY: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2003.







Selected Bibliography
Baldwin, J. F. The Deadliest Monster: An Introduction to Worldviews. New Braunfels: Fishermen, 1998.
Boa, Kenneth. Augustine to Freud. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2004.
Boom, Corrie Ten with John, Elizabeth Sherrill. The Hiding Place. NY: Bantam, 1971.
Bragg, Sarah. Body. Beauty. Boys. Birmingham: New Hope, 2006.
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Last Tycoon. London: Bantam, 1976.
Grant, Dr. George. Bringing in the Sheaves. Atlanta: American Vision, 1985.
Grant, George. “A New Despotism.” Humanities. Franklin Classical School. 24 Feb. 2005.
Grant, George. “Flash Gordon Worldview.” Humanities. Franklin Classical School. 29 Nov. 2004.
Grant, George. Killer Angel. Franklin: Ars Vitae, 1995. Beatty, John L. and Oliver A. Johnson. Ed. Heritage of Western Civilization. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1982.
Harris, Bruce. “Heroes and Killers.” MoreorLess: Heroes and Killers of the 20th Century. September 2006. 15 October 2006. .
Hohenadel, Kristen. “Lovers and Killers,” Vogue. October 2006.
Johnson, Samuel. The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia. London: Penguin Classics, 1985.
Thomas, Angela. Do You Think I’m Beautiful? Nashville: Nelson, 2003.
Stevenson, Robert Louis. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. NY: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2003.