What has been believed true would remain in society whereas it would disappear from the line of being true once the idea is defeated by another. As far as it can demonstrate its rightfulness to others, it would remain as true. There are times in which what has been believed is reversed by another such as heliocentrism. Objects in the world are constantly subject to the risk of its survival. One may come up with the better idea against the conventional one which is in practice, once one’s new idea is spread among the community, it is subject to the competition of ideas. In which, the winning maintains the true than the older one. It is repetition of this cycle in which the older may come up to the society again by the next generation, but would be effective until when it becomes defeated by another by which it may not appear again as true in the world. This potential reappearance of concepts is believed to be applied frequently to humanities when a certain set of conditions comes up to the world which the ancient ideas could be believed to work with the mixture of the present conditions, and to be less applied to natural sciences as the new discovery would prevail against the consistency of the previous truth in that domain. A set of conditions could be technological aspect that new technology enables people to implement what could not have been in the real world or it could be correction of the definition of a concept whose elements were, precisely saying, not totally the same as used before. This correction is close to, or I would say that it is, the correctability(1). By these processes, human beings continue to revalue the concepts which survive through different ages.

In relation to truth, this writing would like to look at the ability to think. It is recognised that “Since Plato, and probably since Socrates, thinking was understood as the inner dialogue in which one speaks with himself (eme emautō, to recall the idiom current in Plato’s dialogues)”(2). The ability to think is thought that “It has, after all, been that ability to think which, when translated to physical terms, has enabled us to transcend our physical limitations and which has seemed to set us above our fellow creatures in achievement”(3).

The true requires thinking as “Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation, thinks for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think”(4). Thinking maintains “active state” in the inner and “Its outward inactivity is clearly separated from the passivity, the complete stillness, in which truth is finally revealed to man”(5). Truth has resilience and becomes robust through the thinking in oneself and society.

The true arguments would be likely to prevail. Even if they are not recognised by some people, they are foundations of further development unless those ideas are defeated by others. The right argument would overcome others even if others many times try to be against it(6). That is why discussion among citizens can enhance the outcome. Discussion can convince people before it is implemented and it can inform citizens of its policy beforehand. It can avoid somewhat the probability of social unrest, even if not completely. Democratic discourse can vitalise the society as a whole if the discourse works. Even after the generation changes, that can help the community not lose their vitality.

If a specific person plays the really large role, it is more likely to face trouble in the period of succession(7). Incorporating the democratic process of deliberation is one way to share the knowledge among the people. Discussion makes the community solid, that can be a factor which can connect people and even if they disagree in certain topics, in other topics they may have somewhat of agreement in opinions. In a situation that they are completely different opinions, as far as their fundamental values such as their benefits are shared it works. Discussion is a way to get a community deeper into thoughts, and it is not limited to the time in which it occurred. It has extensive character of making a habit for people to search more think more for a topic they will encounter next time. Even if not strongly rooted as a habit for people, slightly the experience affects people and have community more intelligent. That can let one know what didn’t come up with one’s mind. Democracy is inefficient and it takes time to come to consensus, however it also has the benefit of trying to create the culture by which one gets accustomed to thinking. This voluntary process of thinking in oneself is a fundamental condition in democratic politics. The culture creates the ecosystem in which people of the next generation can get the advantage of it. Since persons are mortal, the advancement of their ecosystem is the one that give benefits to the next generations.

The problem at around the beginning of 21st century lies in the persons’ tendency to take less time in thinking, and takes the form of language as what it means. To the argument of saying that it is not what he meant, one would show the evidence of the sentence that the person has written before. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean what one takes literally, the intended meaning often differs from what that literally means.

One can show himself to another as a different way from what one thinks in his mind. As persons are able not to explicitly show what they truly had thought at the time of publicly disclosing, the emphasis on what’s not visible matters. This could be applied to the cases that the person in power of a country call for the public for their support in a way that is more likely to convince the public although they may not truly believe in what they say. The public requires the judgement by themselves on what politicians say towards them. It is also a matter of what one says is related to one’s position in society. If a politician needs to get support from the public to win next election, the mindset of hoping to get more votes incentivise their speech more or less towards their purpose. Also, people in a public gathering would behave in a different way from the ordinary self. They do not behave as they are with their friends in a place where they need to socialise with others they meet for the first time. In case of socialising, people are to show their good aspects of themselves in many cases to the ones they talk with. It is not only those obvious examples, but applies to those who appear on TV shows, their way of talking has a sort of similar ways that makes their speech easier to be communicated to their audience.

(1) Correctability is explained in the book titled Philosophy of Correctability by Hiroki Azuma. As of 1 October 2023, available in Japanese as follows: 東, 浩紀., 2023. 訂正可能性の哲学. 東京: ゲンロン.

(2) Arendt, H., 2018. The Human Condition. Second Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 291.

(3) Penrose, R., 2016. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 3.

(4) Mill, J. S., 2006. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. London: Penguin. p. 41.

(5) Arendt, H., 2018. The Human Condition. Second Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 291.

(6) Mill, J. S., 2006. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. London: Penguin. p. 26.

(7) Buterin, V., 2022. DAOs are not corporations: where decentralization in autonomous organizations matters. [Online] Available at: https://vitalik.ca/general/2022/09/20/daos.html [Accessed 5 November 2022].