In the
documentary film Grizzly Man, there
are aspects of these two truths that can be investigated. The film is about the
man Timothy Treadwell and his infatuation and obsession with grizzly bears. He
lived among the grizzly bears in Alaska for thirteen summers, meeting his end
at the hands of one in 2003. Treadwell valued the existence of bears as much as
he did any other human. He considered himself a protector of their species and
also somewhat as a friend. Treadwell believed that the bears were misunderstood
and that if he could live as they do he could coexist with them. What is
interesting and brings the concept of truth to the surface is that one of the
park rangers in the film claims that Treadwell was actually a bigger threat to
the bears than anything else. He states that as a result of Treadwell’s
familiarity with the bears they no longer became cautious of humans, this
creating the potential scenarios for poaching or bear on human violence. Here
we can see an example of when individual truth and objective truth collide.
Two
philosophical texts which I believe talk about individual and objective truths
are Descartes’ Second Meditation and
Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”. In the Second
Meditation Descartes confirms that he exists because of the fact that he
can think and contemplate about it. He also states that the only things we can
be sure about are the things that we know. This point of view advocates
individual truth in that only an individual can really determine what is true
in for them. Contrarily, Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” advocates objective
truth. He imagines a cave where human beings are locked away and the only
things that they can see are the shadows on the wall. The shadows are obviously
made from the light that shines into the cave. He says that when the humans see
the shadows and hear the echoes of sound from outside the cave, they mistakenly
believe that the shadows they see are the actual objects. He then releases a
man from the cave and shows that they instinctively go towards the light. In
this allegory, the light is truth (well technically it is the good) and is
always shining into the cave, which represents human ignorance/perception,
regardless of the beliefs of the humans. Plato believes that there is solely the
objective truth, and that humans have different understandings of it.
The difference
in belief between Treadwell and the park ranger show the distinction between
individual and objective truth. Treadwell believed that he was protecting the
bears by doing what he did. That is his personal belief and for him what
he did benefited the bears in some way. The park ranger, however, believes that
Treadwell was ultimately a danger to the bears and also that he crossed a line
that should not have been crossed. I am unsure of Treadwell’s scientific
knowledge of bears, and so I would say that he represents truth in the
individual sense. He was ignorant in his understanding of bears, and that may
be evident in the way that he died. The park ranger is probably more
representative of objective truth in that he probably has some knowledge in the
way bears act. The reverse of this is also possible in that maybe Treadwell
understood bears more than anyone else because he lived with them, and just as
the man who comes from the light is not honored by the cave dwellers,
Treadwell’s observation of bear behavior is not considered much because of the
perceptions we already have.
Interesting thoughts Justin. As for the concept of truth, if you had the absolute answer of what properly captures truth, I have a feeling you'd be awarded a nobel prize. But you do bring up some interesting points. Is truth truly objective? Is science the only producer of truths? Personally I am rather against the rise of scientism that has been on the rise in the past 50 years. Not so much that I distrust what the sciences can explain, but simply due to my personal skepticism (philosophy tends to beat that into your brain). I believe that to experience the "truth", one must unveil something to themselves, there must be a transformation in the way one sees the world. It's sort of like hearing for the first time. If you were to only have the sense of hearing for five minutes in your entire life, I can guarantee that after those five minutes, your perception of the world would have dramatically changed. Tis is the nature of truth. It is a force that begins in the individual, and is shared by the community. Of course the community tends to distort the truth, but that is why we need persons to repair the truths of the world.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Justin. I particularly like the distinction you make between Plato's notion of objective truth and Descartes's belief in individual truth. Grizzly Man is an interesting documentary because it displays both in a manner akin to dramatic irony. If the "objective truth" is that living with the bears is harmful or dangerous, we as the viewers are aware of this. Then, of course, the "individual truth" would be Treadwell's insistence that he was benefiting the bears/it was not dangerous to live with them. The dramatic irony arises from the fact that Treadwell is unaware that his truth is individual; he honestly believes it is an objective truth. I think the distinction gets a little muddy, though, when you consider instances in which every person believes something which perhaps is not scientifically true. This kind of harkens back to Foucault's theory that reality is discursively constructed. It is almost as if, because each person believes it is so, it becomes so, regardless of scientific accuracy.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with much of this post, to say Treadwell is ignorant in his knowledge of bears may be overstepping some. After all, this man lived and interacted with them for as long as we have interacted with many of our friends today. To survive that long, he knew bears well. In that sense i'm not quite sure if the park ranger has objective truth or if him and Treadwell both show individual truths. The park ranger only looks at a very limited scope of Treadwell's work, not all the work he did in raising awareness that probably helped wildlife funds and other beneficial things. He seemed to have a legitimate concern though, so I do not think Treadwell can be hailed as completely right either. So in this sense I agree with the last two sentences of your post the most, that neither side can be judged as objective truth. For Herzog himself has shaped this whole discussion and I doubt very much his absolute objectivity. Perhaps, instead of being Treadwell or the Park Ranger's truth, this is Herzog's truth.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post and agree with your analysis of Plato's truth as an objective one. Timothy Treadwell did die at the hands (paws...?) of bears, so indeed they are dangerous to average humans. they are probably dangerous to ALL humans, regardless of an individual's level of experience. As we know, however, Treadwell dedicated his life to understanding these creatures and the audience can objectively see that he has a level of expertise that goes well-beyond that of any other ordinary human. I would go as far as to argue that he seemed to have a greater understanding of bears than most other animals, as evidenced by his time spent living with them.
ReplyDeleteI therefore have to agree with Matthew's comment about Treadwell's true knowledge of bears. There is footage of his playful life among them that clearly demonstrates his ability to live with the creatures. When he died, many people claimed he should not have been messing with nature, that he got what he had coming, or that they simply weren't surprised about a foolish, delusional man's poetic demise. However, the fact remains that in his death came new life in the form of new environmental activists with a new-found or greater knowledge and understanding of bears.
I see your claim that neither the arguments in support of the 'Grizzly Man' nor those against him can be taken as the objective truth...and pose a counterpoint/further question: is it possible that both the side behind and against him are objectively true, and that the viewer should determine their subjective reality and opinion?
I really have to say that I think Matthew is spot on. The movie is composed of the words and filtered perspective of Herzog, and although it is about Treadwell's truth, and the truth of the park ranger and the general public, it is more than anything else a product of Herzog's unique point of view. This documentary is not focused on the actuality of events or the circumstances of their occurrence, but the spiritual and individual truth the story is able to convey. I think Herzog responds so strongly to Treadwell's story is because it is one that highlights the importance and potential for beauty in the idea of personal truth.
ReplyDelete