I had the central idea for this article and wrote the core of it some years ago and have been developing the idea ever since. I find the idea useful when reading or listening to someone I disagree with, essentially it uses the physical moon as an analogy for the ‘Truth’ and how different viewpoints while not necessarily changing my own position on an issue can provide a richer understanding of it. All this may sound a bit meta-physical but my recent sojourn into academia has highlighted the variety of viewpoints on any subject. Furthermore, this semester I am taking a module on Contemporary Security Studies, this is due to the limits of choice, my others are all firmly based in Military History. However in Contemporary Security Studies, ‘Truth’ is a even more ephemeral subject than in post-modernist history. Take for example, Terrorism versus Freedom-fighters, Weapons of Mass Destruction versus legitimate defences, one can see how the same issue can have different ‘truths’ for different people. After some initial subject reading, this article is essentially written as a rant and to formalise my own thoughts in preparation for the up coming academic year.

Post-modernism teaches that all view are equally valid and there is no absolute ‘Truth’. This view however places the historian on shifting sands and, to mix metaphors, leaves students rudderless in a sea of conflicting arguments. Trying to deal with all these conflicting versions of history has reinforced my concept. I believe the concept could have a wider application than just history, however rather than propound a new credo for mankind, I will limit my thoughts to the study of history and why differing views are important, even if they do not actually convince you to change your mind on a subject. Consider this analogy.

Suppose you go out and look at the full moon. What do you see? Basically a whitish-yellow disc with some bland features. Now go and look at the moon at half or three-quarter phase. You cannot see all of the moon, you know that, but the parts you can see have greater detail, contrast and beauty its also obvious that it is a three dimensional globe and not a simple flat disc. Why?

At full moon the light is striking the moon from the same direction that you are looking from, essentially the moon is illuminated from your own prospective. At half or three-quarter phase the moon is being illuminated from literally a different viewpoint.

The ‘Truth’ is like the moon. While another point of view may not show the whole of the truth from your prospective, it can and does reveal greater detail and beauty about the part of the truth it does show. I am not suggesting you should accept wholeheartedly another’s prospective and change you own view. In fact moving would just produce the same bland whitish-yellow disc, admittedly with different features. No, I suggest you use the illumination from different viewpoints to enhance your understanding of your own vision of the truth.

When approaching any subject a person, historian or otherwise, will naturally takes an initial position, before hopefully, then reviews the arguments. As the initial position is essentially randomly chosen, it will almost inevitably change as one investigates the subject further. If you find that your position changes due to the various arguments that is fine, however do not reject those views which you disagree with as valueless. Even once your own views have matured, a different prospective, even one you profoundly disagree with, can by its very contrast, cast interesting shadows on your understanding and show details, which no amount of study from your own position would reveal.

I had an experience of this while watching Simon Schama’s History of Britain series. He is an emanate historian, but I do not agree with his meta-narrative, of the path of the progression/development of society through time, his views on 18^th century Britain compared to the emerging United States of America I find particularly bizarre. However, his views on events did make me look at my opinions and see more detail in ‘facts’ I already ‘knew’ which enriched my understanding of the events he was describing. It was Schama’s illumination from his different prospectives, that enhanced my understanding without necessarily having to agree with him. It was while trying to describe to some friends, exactly why I continued to watch a man I disagreed with, that the moon analogy came to mind.

In the post modernist world we live in today, with its tension between a multi-culturalism; where all view points are equally valid and a fundamentalism; where no other view point is valid, the concept that, somebody else’s opinion can be wrong but it can still have value for me, is important. It is important academically, as it allows my arguments to be based on sounder knowledge and understanding. It is important in life in general, as hearing the ‘truth’ from another perspective can enrich my viewpoint by showing all those interesting nuances, that listening only to those I agree with will never reveal. I hope this concept enables me a better historian than I would otherwise be.