Orbiting the Truth
Jacques Rancière's gravitational metaphor for our unique and individual relationship with the truth
“Thus, each one of us describes our parabola around the truth. No two orbits are alike...
No one has a relationship to the truth if they are not on their own orbit.” - Jacques Rancière
Of all the metaphors for our relationship with the truth, the one that speaks most powerfully to me is Jacques Rancière image that we each have our own orbit around the truth. The truth exerts a pull upon us akin to gravity, for we cannot escape the consequences of the true state of existence and any attempt to deny this is as hopeless as expecting to avoid falling to the ground simply by wishing it so. Because we are each of us singular in our experience, each of our orbits is unique. The effect of the truth pulls us into moving through the same conceptual space, but our paths necessarily differ. However, Rancière also has a warning: we need not have a relationship with the truth just because of its inexorable pull upon us. If we do not find our own orbit, we erode our claim to understanding the truth.
Rancière was one of several French philosophers who studied under the doomed Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser at École Normale Supérieure in Paris. Althusser also taught Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Pierre Bourdieu - scholarly giants who were to change the shape of philosophy in the twentieth century, although not necessarily for the better. However, these thinkers (like Rancière) were unconvinced by Althusser’s viewpoint. Rancière and fellow alumni of École Normale Supérieure, Alain Badiou, became swept up in the extraordinary events of May 1968 in France, when workers and students united in an extraordinary uprising that indelibly affected both philosophers’ lives and thought.
In the United States, Rancière and Badiou have had little influence. Their historical connection with Marxism, their deeply left-of-centre politics, and their resolute atheism all create enormous barriers to their appeal in a country that despises socialism of all kinds (and Marxism most of all) and distrusts atheism more than any other metaphysical viewpoint. This is unfortunate, since Badiou’s philosophy (ironically) has enormous potential for Christians that may never be explored, and Rancière’s focus on equality - and his venomous critique of the ruling powers - have much to offer libertarians and anyone against the oppressive strictures of an administrative state.
The sheer simplicity of Rancière metaphor for our relationship with the truth (inspired by a forgotten voice from the Enlightenment, Joseph Jacotot) might still transcend his ideological baggage. For those who equate the truth with God, this becomes a powerful image of the inescapable essence of the divine forces binding together existence. Likewise, what Christian does not appreciate that we must have our own relationship with God, that it is not enough to merely parrot another person’s dogma…? The entire purpose of prayer for a Christian (and meditation for a Buddhist) is arguably to ensure our own unique relationship with the truth, with God, with the divine substructure of existence.
Beyond expressing that we have to find our own paths, Rancière’s metaphor cautions us against complacency. If we do not find our own orbit, we will lack an authentic relationship with the truth. To simply follow prior dogma is to be dragged around like the asteroids drawn in the wake of Jupiter’s path around the sun. Trapped within their own thoughtlessness, such people still have an orbital path around the truth but they no longer relate to it. Our capacity to interpret the truths of our own existence become bound to the lazy falsities of doctrines uncritically accepted - a fate unavoidable for anyone who still cleaves to the idea that the legacy media are in the business of uncovering and sharing truthful stories.
The prevailing conception holds that to understand truth means collecting ‘true statements’, to hold onto information like a grasping child hoarding its toys. Yet if we have our own relationship to the unseen centre of gravity, we can make true statements as a consequence of our unique orbit. These statements will concur with others if they are forged from the same premises. Information is merely a distraction, a by-product of our relationship with a truth that always lies beyond experience, exceeding us, mysterious and wonderful. What matters are not the statements we utter, but our deeper appreciation of those inscrutable forces that pull us all inexorably around our own personal orbit of the truth.
Thanks Chris. Ranciere certainly appears to be someone I should get familiar with. ChatGPT3.5 claims that the quote above appears in “The Ignorant Schoolmaster”. I’m in the process of obtaining a copy.
Re: “To simply follow prior dogma is to be dragged around like the asteroids drawn in the wake of Jupiter’s path around the sun. Trapped within their own thoughtlessness, such people still have an orbital path around the truth but they no longer relate to it. Our capacity to interpret the truths of our own existence become bound to the lazy falsities of doctrines uncritically accepted”
It seems to me that here you’re making two distinct points. The first is the fruitlessness of simply following prior dogma, the second is the trap of uncritically accepting false doctrines. I completely agree, but you then link the second point to a claim that the legacy media is not in the business of uncovering and sharing truthful stories. I wonder about this claim. There’s certainly a lot of truth in it, but just what is the ”legacy media”, and how well-equipped are alternatives to being able to uncover and share truthful stories? Does HCR’s 8/8/24 post (heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/august-8-2024) tell a true story?
Re: “The prevailing conception holds that to understand truth means collecting ‘true statements’, to hold onto information like a grasping child hoarding its toys. Yet if we have our own relationship to the unseen centre of gravity, we can make true statements as a consequence of our unique orbit.”
Yes, collecting true statements does not in itself result in corralling truth any more that collection bricks and beams result in a house. But how are true statements a necessary consequence of “our own unique orbit”.
Re: “What matters are not the statements we utter, but our deeper appreciation of those inscrutable forces that pull us all inexorably around our own personal orbit of the truth.”
Nice. As I swing around my orbit the majesty and mystery of it all deepens.
Thanks for this, Chris. Not a fan of BadIOU, but I like this notion of Ranciere's as you present it. Many years ago, in formulating my own poetic style, I came to the conclusion that we each had to seek out what we liked and what we didn't like as readers. From there, one could proceed to rationalisations with the purpose of developing an aesthetic. With an individualised or even idiosyncratic aesthetic in hand, one could then apply those notions to one's own writing, and thereby display a unique style. So being overly appreciative or overly accepting of all styles became a hindrance. My sense was that you had to really feel out what you loved and what you hated and what left you neither one way or another. Obviously, this exercise was an exercise in bias and subjectivity, but for good purpose. And no doubt with time, the passion accompanied with such reactions could diminish.
All this to say that Ranciere's explanation of developing one's own relationship to truth resembles this approach of mine to aesthetics. I therefore gravitate toward it despite loathing the French.