A sense of measure is a virtue, but can truth accommodate this sense of measure? With Jesus, if the truth is often uncomfortable, it is precisely because it goes beyond measure.
“How unfortunate for you, Pharisees, because you pay tithe on all the plants of the garden, like mint and rue and you miss the judgment and the love of God”( Lk 11:42 ). By the standards of contemporary sensitivity, Jesus is inaudible. He goes beyond measure. As they say today: “It’s overkill.” But in terms of the criteria currently in force among Catholics too. We could criticize Jesus for making comments that are not “sufficiently adjusted”. In other words, our society, that is to say also ourselves, criticizes him for saying angry things. Of not being measured enough. This is also what led him to the cross: his words ended up being judged intolerable in the literal sense of the term. And yet…
However, reasoning is reasoning, and talking about measured reasoning does not make much sense: measurement refers to a quantitative aspect, not a qualitative one. Applied to reasoning, measurement is nonsense and the mask of self-censorship. Nonsense because what is true is true – a qualitative issue – and not 50% or 80% true: in this case, we are in the domain of probability calculation, not in reasoning which has truth as its object.
The meaning of measurement: a prudential criterion, not truth
When we reason, we must weigh and weigh the words we use to express our thoughts, be coherent, stick to reality, and constantly seek the truth. But we are not trying to develop “measured” reasoning. At most, we can seek to have a “measured” discourse whose objective is not to tell the truth but to be accepted by people professing opinions and defending varied interests. But it is no longer a reasoning which seeks to understand reality. In this case, we are simply trying to create a consensus, to reach an agreement.
Seeking what is true is an absolute duty, seeking to be “measured” is a relative duty.
It is an approach that can be legitimate depending on the circumstances if at least the consensus or agreement is around a truth and not an injustice. Seeking what is true is an absolute duty, seeking to be “measured” is a relative duty. Not exceeding the limit is possibly a mark of good education but it is not a criterion of truth. If the truth is often uncomfortable, it is precisely because it goes beyond measure… that is to say ours. By definition, truth is not subjective. Contrary to our opinions.
The truth sets us free because it is subversive
What is true is true, even if it is not consensual. Moreover, if the truth can set us free, it is because it is subversive and goes beyond the limits of what we are prepared to tolerate because it shatters our conventions. Trying wherever possible to express things in a “measured” way is laudable. And all the more so since the more subversive what one has to say is in substance, the more one must be irreproachable in form. As far as possible, otherwise, we fall into lies.
If we make measured discourse an absolute duty then we are promoting consensus within a social group, a community, or a corporation to the detriment of a truth deemed secondary or even subversive. It’s preferring to be wrong with Sartre than right with Aron. It is preferring injustice to disorder. It is preferable to condemn Socrates, Jesus, Joan of Arc, or Captain Dreyfus in the name of a consensus.
The truth or the denial
We cannot both call a spade a spade and do so in a measured manner because, ultimately, we only have the choice between recognizing the truth to live by it or refusing it and living in denial. “For the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the point of dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; she judges the feelings and thoughts of the heart. No creature is hidden from him, but everything is bare and open to the eyes of him to whom we must give account” ( Heb 4:12-13 ). Jesus exceeds the measure. And U.S?
