In the eye of the storm stands the writer.  Twisting, churning clouds all envelop her in a swarm so dense all perception of reality is lost.  Her eyes attempt to follow the rapid, convoluted wind as it screams at her in frustration. Each direction of the torrent has its own needs that it demands and its own agenda it schemes to be fulfilled.  

This is no ordinary wind but an entanglement of language, and the bellowing voices of the storm are each word shouting for its rightful place in the writer's work.  Anger fights Rage, Azure battles Cobalt, and Passion is at war with Ambition. She is overwhelmed in the sheer magnitude of her own subconscious, for the wind of words stems from within and the torment of ideas is self-inflicted.  The very weight of her own thoughts threatens to snuff out the life spark in her heart, yet it also kindles the flame which fuels her soul. An impending conundrum, a dichotomy, a divergence in the path of life: should the writer create at the cost to her sanity or muffle her art to preserve her life?  To stop the flow of ideas is to ostracize the essence of her being, so she prevails in her pursuit of perfection and disregards the consequence to herself.

She remains standing in the eye of the storm: a median between fiction and reality and a means to the manifestation of a figment in her imagination.  For only the writer can convey their story if it is transferable onto paper and thus into the minds of their readers; or else, her truths are no more real than the wind in her head.  If she can not establish a tangible tether to her reader, there is no value to her words just an empty void. Due to this, the writer’s philosophy is only as valid as the effectiveness with which she conveys it.  

But, what does this mean for the brilliant thinker who may lack the finesse of writing?  Does truth entirely depend on how it is communicated or is there an arbitrary authenticity it holds?  Plato never recorded a single word of his own philosophy, but his genius is seldom disputed. Instead, his student Aristotle is responsible for all documentation of Plato’s teachings and an icon in his own right.  Both are renowned, yet only one wrote their ideas to surpass the test of time. Conversely, many terrible men spewing hatred and violence have been successful due to their skills of oratory. Adolf Hitler was entirely effective and convincing in his portrayal of his ideas, but his ability to manipulate does not deem his message valid. Thus, truth is not relative to the manner with which it is conveyed but its inherent value.

The debate over truth’s relativity has been argued for centuries.  On one hand, idealists would contend that truth is unchanged by bias and free from the fetters of prejudice, a veritable fact with which should serve as the judge, jury, and executioner.  However, others raise the viable question of how truth should be determined if it is, in fact, an absolute ideal which transcends human error. Perhaps the true meaning of truth lies beyond our limited understanding and our application of it is relative to our tendencies, experiences, and history.

For the author, her truth is the inner storm waging a war of words and fighting for manifestation in her writings.  For Plato, his truth depends on the portrayal of his philosophy by his student which suggests room for distortion, yet even a refracted version of his words has come to represent truth for future generations.  For Hitler, his ideology is tainted with extensive bias and hatred which eradicates even a relative representation of truth, causing his message to become obsolete. For us, our perception of truth relies on our personal values but its nature requires a separation from bias and dedication to authenticity.