E229 Tu verdad, mi verdad y LA VERDAD - Español Intermedio

Have you ever had a conversation with someone and it seems that you live in completely different worlds? And I don't mean to have different opinions about the same reality. That's normal, even good. I mean not to be even in accordance with the most basic. In the facts, in what has happened or has not happened in reality. Today we are going to talk about that, about the truth. About your truth, about my truth and about the truth. And about why it is necessary, it is urgent, to recover something very important. A common reality. And I tell you that it is possible that you are not in accordance with some of the things I am going to say. I am going to do it in the most respectful way possible and I ask you that if you also participate in the conversation through the comments, you do it in the same way with me and also with the rest of people. Thank you very much. And before continuing, as always, I remind you that you can read the free transcription of the episode, the translation in English, an exercise of understanding and using the vocabulary flashcards on the website SpanishLemmichCoach.com. To start, I want to tell you something that I recently heard in an interview with the Spanish journalist Peppa Bueno. She said something that made me think a lot and that is why I am doing this episode today. She said, "Before we had a consensus, an agreement on what reality was and there are different ways of intervening to improve it. But if we break the consensus of what reality is, what are we going to talk about?" And she added, "Reality exists and the work of journalists consists of getting closer to that reality with a work protocol and telling it to people. What you think, you leave it behind when you are at work." I thought it was a very powerful reflection on students, because we live in a moment in which many people seem, or we seem, that they have their own or our own version of reality. And of course, when we no longer share a common basis, when each one lives in their bubble, how are we going to understand each other? It is impossible. There is a novel by the British author George Orwell, who you surely know, called 1984, and in it the power to control reality by changing the language. If they can manipulate the language, they can also manipulate the truth. That is why it is so important to defend that common basis, because without it, even the words lose their meaning. And by the way, if you are interested in this issue of the manipulation of reality, I recommend that you listen to the episode 210 of this podcast. And before I continue, I want to clarify the meaning of a word that this journalist mentioned. He said that before we had consensus on reality. Consensus is not that we all think the same, but that we share a sufficient basis of reality, as to be able to talk, cooperate or make decisions together. It is a general agreement on certain facts or fundamental values that allow us to live together. Without consensus, there is no starting point, there is no understanding, and each one ends up trapped in his own bubble of individual certainties and individual truths. To start approaching this topic, we are going to ask ourselves a question. Is there a single truth? Well, look, once I read a phrase from Nietzsche, and sorry if I pronounced it wrong, what does it say? There are no facts, only interpretations. A provocative phrase, right? But be careful, this postmodern vision, which has been very influential in contemporary thinking, can be useful to understand that many times we interpret the world from our own filters, with our own glasses. However, if we take this idea to the extreme, we take the risk of denying any objective truth, and that can be dangerous. Is there a single truth? Then, it may seem like a very philosophical question, and it is, but it is also very practical, because it affects how we talk to other people, how we debate, how we vote, and even how we live with the rest of the people. It is normal to have different opinions. For example, you may think that the best way to fight against climate change is to invest in renewable energies, and another person may think that it is better to invest in nuclear energy. Different opinions, but the same reality. Climate change exists. This is an example of common reality, a shared fact. And from there, each one can propose their solution. There is also a third way. There is enough scientific consensus to say that climate change is real, but it is legitimate to question the exact impact, the future projections, or even if there are lobbies interested in exaggerating or minimizing its effects. All this is debatable, debatable, but only if we start from a common basis, that climate change is a reality backed by scientific facts. But lately we see situations in which we are not even in agreement with the facts. There are people who deny climate change, and I am not talking about critical voices that give greater or less importance to the problem. I am talking about absolute negationists. Despite the scientific evidence, despite the facts, they say it is an invention. And here we are not talking about opinions, we are talking about facts, facts measured by the scientific community, with data. And denying that is like saying that the sun does not exist because it is cloudy today, there are clouds. This is not a problem of disinformation, it is a deeper problem. We no longer share a common reality, and that is quite dangerous. And I am going to give you an example that is more painful, but very clear. In a war, a common reality should be this one. It is not killed by civilians, never. That is a red line that does not cross. And it is part of what we call "humanitarian international right". And this consensus, this agreement is not new. In the western world, especially after the Second World War, international treaties and agreements were established, such as the Geneva Companions of 1949, which made it very clear that protecting the civil population is a moral and legal obligation. Since then, this has been a shared basis, a common reality that we should not lose. A common reality that should not depend on political ideologies or religions. But today we see how some people justify the murder of civilians depending on who does it. And that is to break the consensus on reality. If we justify that they kill children, innocent people, what remains of us? And above all, what does it say about us as a society? And here comes something very interesting. The language not only describes reality, it also builds it. What we say, how we say it, what words we use, creates mental marks. If we call a war a humanitarian intervention, we change the perception. If we say collateral damage instead of civilians murdered, horror is spread. And that is how little by little, manipulating the language, the common reality is destroyed. Another recent example, the murder of Charlie Kirk. There were people who celebrated the murder of this political activist only because he defended ideas with which they were not in agreement. And they said things like, well, he also defended the use of weapons, so he deserves it. And no, he does not deserve it. No one deserves to be murdered for their ideas. It was not a common reality, there was no consensus already consolidated that we do not want people to die for their ideas. That should also be part of our common reality, a shared value. No one deserves to be murdered for their ideas. There are no buts, it should be a common reality regardless of your political ideology. And now I ask you another question, student, do you think there are universal values? Are there principles that are repeated in all cultures of the world and that could help us to rebuild a common reality? We cannot say that all cultures are the same or that they share exactly the same values. But some principles seem to appear once and again in different parts of the world and throughout history. For example, not lying, not discriminating, not killing, respecting the lives of others. Of course, we can discuss if all values are really universal. Some cultures prioritize the group on the individual, while others do the opposite. But even with these differences, there is a shared nucleotide that appears once and again in the great philosophical texts. In the religions and in the modern constitutions. And that nucleotide, although not perfect, can be our compass. These values are the basis of many legal systems of human rights and democratic societies. They are not just personal opinions, they are sometimes implicit agreements that allow us to live together. And that is why it is so dangerous when we start to relativize everything. When we say "well, it depends", no, it does not always depend. There are things that are good and things that are bad. And there is a phrase that I like a lot that says "you have a truth, I have a truth". But there is something that is the truth, although none of the two know it completely. That phrase also reminds me that we have to be humble, that we are not always right. But also that not everything is subjective, that the truth exists, even if it is difficult to see. Let's look for solutions. How to recover common reality? Is it possible? Well, at an individual level we can try some things, don't you think? Listen with honesty, for example, not just wait for the other to answer what I think, but to really understand why that person who perhaps thinks something opposite to what I think has that idea. Look for reliable sources, also avoid misinformation. To have a minimum, shared ethics, for example, not insult, not justify violence, not dehumanize the other, even if he thinks the opposite of us. And one more, avoid having a dogmatic political vision. Sometimes we support a president or president and we become almost fans. We accept anything they do or say without questioning it. But it is very important to be critical with our rulers, even if we give them our vote in the past. And that critical spirit is also part of a healthy society and shared reality. And also to strengthen our critical thought, it is useful to know some common flaws, that is, errors in reasoning that seem valid, but they are not. Here I give you three very frequent ones. The first one is to attack the person instead of their ideas. For example, saying "You can't trust her because she is a climatic activist". Or "The opinion of that man about an economic policy is not valid because she is a millionaire". In polarized debates, many times the argument is ignored simply attacking the identity of the person who defends it. The second type, false cause. Thinking that because one thing happens after the other, the first is cause. For example, since this party has ruled, the crime has increased. Without taking into account many other social or economic factors that can influence. And third, false dichotomy. Present only two extreme options as if there were no alternatives. For example, if you do not support this law, then you are against human rights. This fallacy is very common in polarized political debates where it is forced to choose between extremes. And knowing these fallacies helps us to identify bad arguments, both in others and in ourselves. And so we think better and we dialogue better. Thinking critically, student, is like cleaning dirty glasses. If we don't do it, everything we see is distorted. It doesn't matter if you look at the sky or a flower, if the glass is stained, you will see bad. And the same thing happens with information, ideas or speeches. If we don't check our filters, we will not see the reality, but a dirty and comfortable version. And before closing, there is something that we cannot ignore. The role of artificial intelligence in all this. In the truth. The IA is advancing at an incredible speed. And we no longer only talk about bubbles or the so-called fake news. Now there are also images and hyper-realistic videos generated by artificial intelligence that are almost impossible to distinguish from the real ones. And the most worrying thing is that many people swallow them. What does that mean? To swallow something is an informal expression that means creating something without questioning it, accepting information as a certain without analyzing it. And this has very serious consequences. If it was already difficult to have a common reality, now it is much more. Because when you cannot trust what you see or hear, everything becomes relative. And if everything is relative, everything is worth it. And when everything is worth it, we stop having a base to speak, to live, and to build a society with certain shared values. That is why, more than ever, we need critical thinking, we need media education, and we need a lot of intellectual honesty. Student, we live difficult times, but not everything is lost. We can still do something, listen, question, speak from respect, and not let the truth become an opinion game. Only then can we reconstruct that broken bridge, or rather, averaged, between realities. And what do you think? Do you think we are losing the ability to speak from a common base? Have you ever talked to someone and it seems that you live in different realities? I invite you to leave a comment with your opinion, as well as practice your Spanish written and you can do it on the platform where you listen to this podcast or on social networks. And of course, if you liked the episode, I encourage you to subscribe, to value it with stars, or to recommend it to other Spanish students. That helps me a lot to continue creating more episodes. A big hug.