One might wonder what the truth was for Alexander the great when he set out to conquer the world For Socrates when he allowed himself to be taken For Galileo when he faced persecution at the hands of the Church For the Allied Forces during World War 2 For the Nazis at Nuremberg and for the terrorists who flew their planes into the twin towers If there existed no variation in the meaning and perception of truth, the world today would have been a different place-maybe for the better.
The idea of truth therefore remains a moot point, for socialists and monarchs for lord and serf and for warrior and philosopher. The pragmatic would dismiss any poetic values attached to or stemming from the idea of truth; they would kill in an instant the spirit of freedom that truth may reverberate and would push away hope with the mere utterance of their dismal but intelligent sounding ideas. Alas, the supercilious don't pause to read the emotions attached to what may be described as truth or the struggle for it.
Such a definition of truth seems to have been advanced by Michel Foucault in his essay2, where he most aptly describes a recipe that may be used to concoct truth; a connection is exposed here between truth and power deeming truth to be an earthly entity with nothing more than a dramatized and accepted creation.