Gellius & Cicero: Truth's long, arduous path
XV & XVI: You are being lied to - truth is a slow process.
Backgrounds: Aulus Gellius (c.125 - 180AD) was a Roman author & grammarian. He is famous for his book “Attic Nights.”
Cicero (106-43 BC) was a Roman lawyer, orator, statesman, and author, among many other things. He was famous for his incredible rhetorical skills & for writing “Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium” (a set of moral letters to his friend, Lucilius).
“Veritas filia temporis” — Aulus Gellius: “Truth is the daughter of time.”
“Dubitando ad veritatem pervenimus” — Cicero: “By doubting, we arrive at the truth.”
Gellius’ quotation suggests that truth unfolds over time. It is not always immediate nor accessible; instead it is long and difficult to find and dissect. He implies that if truth is long, and not immediate, then its opposite, lies, must be quick, compelling, and accessible. Truth is often slow and resisted unlike lies.
You might ask, “does this idea reflect on advertisement, political decisions, propaganda?” Gellius’ quotation could be applied to these facets of society. It might imply that the most accessible, instantly compelling things in life are not the truth, for the truth would take time for you to understand and realize.
This realisation from Gellius’ quotation reveals to the reader that their life is highly manipulated by those who want to control them, those who utter instant revelations.
On the other hand, Cicero’s quotation describes academic skepticism—that we must question everything to understand anything. This notion reflects much of Socrates’ thinking, which has been distilled into the so-called “Socratic Method.” This method of teaching suggests that students learn best when they question everything to search for true understanding.
Cicero indicates that doubt is not destructive, as stated by many leaders of countries, but instead generative; it is by questioning, doubting, prodding that we can find answers to problems & progress on the path of truth.
Before we continue with Cicero’s thoughts, we have arrived at an intersection between the two authors! Let us apply both of their ideas to a scenario. It is reasonable to assume that Cicero, and perhaps Gellius, might be criticizing leaders and politicians. If politicians, leaders, or any individual who may not tell the truth, create quick, convincing non-truths, but also state that doubt is destructive, it is clear that the only way to realize the lies and discover the truth is by doubting. It could be the very difference between succumbing to the propaganda of a person or nation and realizing independent thought, finding a method to uncover the malicious intent of a political congregation.
Now, back to Cicero. He suggests that certainty may blind us; true knowledge comes with humility and the active stepping out of one’s perspective or challenging a new one. In the modern age, such advice could be highly useful; healthy skepticism of everything you see and hear, especially the internet and social media, may lead to a more truth-filled, productive society.
Both quotations address the truth by describing it or the path to it. They reject the idea that truth is instantly accessed; it takes time which may come in the form of questioning. Patience and discipline are key qualities for anyone who wishes to attain the truth; it is for this reason that Gellius implies that falsehoods are easy, instant, and accessible—they can be imbibed by the majority of people, those without discipline. The two authors also come to the conclusion that truth is not a fixed “object” that one can find, but rather something that requires an active method (time and doubt) to discover. Finally, the quotations share a sense of humility, a part of the slow search for truth. The notion of time teaches humanity by letting things unfold; doubt teaches by coercing a person to question what they think they know.
Now, you might ask, what is different between the two? I decided to try a new style to answer this question—I won’t write a usual analytical paragraph. Instead take a look at the chart below of the ideas of either author:
Great analytical piece.