Daniel Winters

ToK Essay Prompt #5

March 5, 2010

As in the case of all other Areas of Knowledge, literature has a certain

point to it. It is not merely written for fun or money; the countless stories have

specific purposes in instructing, entertaining, or illustrating. Books have had

morals since the point of their existence; people are expected to learn from them.

What must be thought of are the authors, the weavers of the plots and

distributors of the knowledge. Is their cause noble and trustworthy? Do the

problems start with the inherent fictional nature of literature? When written by an

experienced author, literature can portray ideal situations unattainable through

other means and thereby “tells the truth” better than other Arts and Areas of

Knowledge.

This is by no means definitive. Others, especially those to whom the

talent of writing was not gifted to, would strongly disagree. They would say that

numbers and logic ultimately “tell the truth” of absolutely everything in all Areas of

Knowledge. Numbers and logic are quantitative, which gives them results that

are easily interpreted as well as compared to with others’ results. If an

experiment performs in a different way than expected, the variation in predicted

values and observed values is simply recorded. The difference by itself should

be explanatory enough as to why it happened. Logically, even the position and

the amount of the difference play a significant role in “telling the truth.” There are

logical relationships with numbers that explain subsequences in results and other
selections of data. With a competent knowledge of the subject being dealt with

and a thorough analysis and assessment of the data, a conclusion, or “the truth,”

can be found.

People who favor the scientific route are not the only ones who would

disagree. Those of the historical profession would profess that “facts,” or rather

inferences from the past, “tell the truth” of what has happened. Because these

are inferences from the past, or events that have already occurred,

historiographers would argue that their facts are indisputable; they are not

predictive, but based on evidence of actual events, ergo they must tell what

occurred, or “the truth.” The equivalence of truth in a historiographer’s métier is

the past. In actuality, their job is to tell the truth, as it is for scientists. People

from both occupations would argue that there is an exact, direct translation from

“the truth” to their data and inferences, and thereby tell it the most efficiently and

accurately, all because they use present evidence, numerical observations, and

logical relationships.

Although scientists do possess two Ways of Knowing truth, reason and

perception, these are not sufficient in comprehensively portraying it. Science

lacks both emotion and language to emphatically show relationships within the

data they so cherish. Numbers and logic only own a coldness that does not

make the interpretation that is needed for telling the truth. There is not enough

transition or leeway between “facts” and “truth”; the lack of explanation leaves a

lot to be desired. Even though there might be existing trends and patterns within

the data that a scientist gathers, the paucity of language makes it so that there is
no connection with the observations and human comprehension. Without

language and emotion, numbers are superficial and meaningless to those who

view them.

Historiographers like to think that they too have an exact exchange from

their historical evidence to their “facts” or inferences, but this is not the case.

Although history does have the language factor of expressing observations and

conclusions, it still does not deal with emotion, making it an Area of Knowledge

that cannot comprehensively “tell the truth.” History does not have enough of a

human feel to it; while the language gives it a degree of expressiveness and

separates it from being a list of facts, there is an absence of a connection with

the human psyche, that innate being whose raw emotion cannot be described

effectively with words, only feelings. Along with that, the perception of history is

innately flawed, as it is a human endeavor and a selective process. The “facts”

are not completely factual in that there are contributing sections that are left out

and our view of the past is continually changing. It is because of these

imperfections that history does not qualify as the best for “telling the truth.”

One main tenet of literature that it does not share with its counterparts is

its explorative nature. Fictional settings never before achieved in actuality can

become “real” within the book that they appear in. The power of imagination

plays the significant role of challenging borders and shifting paradigms to create

new ways of looking at the world. This idea of new perceptions gives literature a

value of more viewpoints, both real and imagined, so that it is more

comprehensive than the other strictly real Areas of Knowledge.

Although the main aspect of literature is the language, reason is used as a

foundation for many works to make extrapolations and predictions on

occurrences that very rarely occur. Lord of the Flies is a perfect example of this

– the events that take place are based on real psychological evidence, yet the

fictional quality of the book allows it to provide an ideal environment that would

be impossible to monitor. Extrapolations are uniquely explored in literature and

still provide valuable information, due to the baseline of reason and facts upon

which the books are written. Literature can still maintain a reasonable aspect

while incorporating the other three Areas of Knowledge, empowering it as the

best at “telling the truth.”

Literature also has a versatility in language challenged by none. There

are very few numbers involved. Language makes up the core of literature, and

thereby there exists an extremely efficacious pathway between the truth and the

human understanding of it. The language of literature is the absolutely crucial

bridge in helping truth, in the form of reason, become expressed in the most

exhaustive way possible. George Berkeley described language as being the only

bridge between each of our own separate worlds; if we take this to be true, then

literature is the only way to portray our own individual truths to each other.

The final aspect of literature found in scant amounts in other Areas of

Knowledge is emotion. Language in literature has a way of making a connection

between the reader’s experiences and the events that unfurl in the book, thereby

evoking inexplicable emotion. Words can have powerful meanings to people,

whose feelings are inextricably intertwined with the language they must use to

convey them. Truth can be elaborated upon, embellished, and impregnated with

pathos in literature, creating a deeper connection with the reader that cannot be

made in the other Areas of Knowledge. This inclusive quality shared by no other

engenders literature as the best at “telling the truth.”

The other Areas of Knowledge can still express “the truth,” but literature

possesses all the features of complete truth: reason, language, perception, and

emotion. Literature is a completely human product, so links between the truth

and the human comprehension of it are both deeper and fuller. Literature has

unique grasps on knowledge that continue to broaden today. These tenets of

extensive knowledge and connection with the human psyche allow literature to

convey its purpose of truthful promulgation better than all others.