It is for good reason that people hate philosophers and lawyers. Truth is not what it always seems, is an elusive concept and truth is not the goal when battling the propagandist.
Is it so complicated though? Either Trudeau said it or not. Therefore, your meme is either true or not based on that objective fact.
You seem to create unnecessary tension between reality and what we know about it, between objective and subjective. The reality is objective. That concept is not Enlightenment's creation. But objective does not mean raw data without interpretation or something like that. Thus it can't be dissolved by postmodern subjectivity which just feeds on that impoverished stripped-down version of what objective means. We are capable to grasp reality and express it in words to certain extent, probably not fully but we can always strive to be more precise. The form of dog is not blurred because different people have different images of dog. Image is not a form. Dog is a dog even if different people think about different things when they hear the word.
The Left creates their false narratives by simply cherry-picking or ignoring certain facts or parts of reality. When we know more facts in that area, like who is responsible for majority of crimes, truer narrative emerges by itself. There are no facts on one side and their interpretation on the other, mutually independent and human mind playing active role, like in the wave-particle case (which might be incorrect explanation of subatomic events anyway). The mind is passive, it receives truth and if there are different interpretations it's because some piece of data is missing or ignored or not true, due to false assumption or some other error. That's why I don't have problem with objective. The reality is what is in God's mind, the objective narrative so to speak and we should submit to it. We should know there is one even if do not know it yet, don't understand it yet or never will.
You sound here a bit like if the ends justify the means. Lying gives advantage to them, to the evil, but for us, Christians it is forbidden advantage.
I am an amateur so perhaps I am misreading you or have incorrect ideas.
It is actually more complex than that. Once you dig into the literature, this idea of “truth” that we have pursued, really since the scholastics, but up through the enlightenment and science, is really the wrong question. Objectivity is impossible. You are never just a passive receptor, but are always involved in the shaping of reality. This does not mean there is no reality or that it can’t be known. It also does not mean that we must all now pursue our own inner truth (you can’t know yourself fully either). The better moral path is to try to live into the metaphysical archetypes that really do exist. The problem is that pursuing the truth is hard. We always only have it in part, and the truth isn’t always what it might seem to be. It isn’t merely utilitarian either. Even science is selective in things it pursues and thus gives a false sense of truth because of its powerful utility. These questions are troubling and can ruin you, but if you are willing to push through to the other side, what emerges is far more deep and powerful in my mind.
Another challenging and thought provoking piece, brother. Awesome. In my own home I’ve seen the word truth and truther thrown around in such a way that makes me question such “truth.”
Also, when contemplating my own life along side Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes the idea of a metaphysical archetype for truth vs facts and figures starts to take shape.
I agree that we must take the post-modern approach to propaganda and appreciate your insight that the framing of facts themselves renders objectivity pretty much moot. I saw the same quagmire when debating facts in regards to Covid. Those in support of lockdowns and all the mainstream declarations had missing or wrong data, but their minds were made up regardless of the facts I presented (that ultimately became verified by reality). We can't win on facts because their programming is too strong. Instead, we can win on framing. One of the aspects of propaganda that I believe Theodore Dalrymple once said was that propaganda is used widely even in total states because it reminds the population of the sheer power and coordination of the system. These states will spend great sums to "convince" captive audiences who literally do not have another party to vote for. However, the money spent is itself a tool to intimidate the audience beyond whatever message is there. It is telling citizens: "Look at what we can do. We have such sums that these signs and propaganda tools are but a drop in the bucket. We have total power." We obviously cannot saturate to that degree, but I believe the consistent remarks or assured tone we take can help inform others that there are alternative truths. We can also win on the personalized propaganda in the form of personal anecdotes. I have been able to convince many people to avoid the "boosters" out of horror stories I have known from people close to me. They didn't care about the percentages of side effects or who said what. These friends or associates cared that the daughter of my friend didn't have a menstrual cycle for six months after her booster shot. That personal message made the difference in breaking the sheer weight of the conditioning.
Its hard. People have psyoped by reason and science into believing that truth is a lot easier to discern than it really is. Most don't realize the degree to which their thoughts are not their own and have been constructed for them.
Is it so complicated though? Either Trudeau said it or not. Therefore, your meme is either true or not based on that objective fact.
You seem to create unnecessary tension between reality and what we know about it, between objective and subjective. The reality is objective. That concept is not Enlightenment's creation. But objective does not mean raw data without interpretation or something like that. Thus it can't be dissolved by postmodern subjectivity which just feeds on that impoverished stripped-down version of what objective means. We are capable to grasp reality and express it in words to certain extent, probably not fully but we can always strive to be more precise. The form of dog is not blurred because different people have different images of dog. Image is not a form. Dog is a dog even if different people think about different things when they hear the word.
The Left creates their false narratives by simply cherry-picking or ignoring certain facts or parts of reality. When we know more facts in that area, like who is responsible for majority of crimes, truer narrative emerges by itself. There are no facts on one side and their interpretation on the other, mutually independent and human mind playing active role, like in the wave-particle case (which might be incorrect explanation of subatomic events anyway). The mind is passive, it receives truth and if there are different interpretations it's because some piece of data is missing or ignored or not true, due to false assumption or some other error. That's why I don't have problem with objective. The reality is what is in God's mind, the objective narrative so to speak and we should submit to it. We should know there is one even if do not know it yet, don't understand it yet or never will.
You sound here a bit like if the ends justify the means. Lying gives advantage to them, to the evil, but for us, Christians it is forbidden advantage.
I am an amateur so perhaps I am misreading you or have incorrect ideas.
It is actually more complex than that. Once you dig into the literature, this idea of “truth” that we have pursued, really since the scholastics, but up through the enlightenment and science, is really the wrong question. Objectivity is impossible. You are never just a passive receptor, but are always involved in the shaping of reality. This does not mean there is no reality or that it can’t be known. It also does not mean that we must all now pursue our own inner truth (you can’t know yourself fully either). The better moral path is to try to live into the metaphysical archetypes that really do exist. The problem is that pursuing the truth is hard. We always only have it in part, and the truth isn’t always what it might seem to be. It isn’t merely utilitarian either. Even science is selective in things it pursues and thus gives a false sense of truth because of its powerful utility. These questions are troubling and can ruin you, but if you are willing to push through to the other side, what emerges is far more deep and powerful in my mind.
Another challenging and thought provoking piece, brother. Awesome. In my own home I’ve seen the word truth and truther thrown around in such a way that makes me question such “truth.”
Also, when contemplating my own life along side Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes the idea of a metaphysical archetype for truth vs facts and figures starts to take shape.
It real does. And you usually can’t put into words what it is that you have grasped.
I agree that we must take the post-modern approach to propaganda and appreciate your insight that the framing of facts themselves renders objectivity pretty much moot. I saw the same quagmire when debating facts in regards to Covid. Those in support of lockdowns and all the mainstream declarations had missing or wrong data, but their minds were made up regardless of the facts I presented (that ultimately became verified by reality). We can't win on facts because their programming is too strong. Instead, we can win on framing. One of the aspects of propaganda that I believe Theodore Dalrymple once said was that propaganda is used widely even in total states because it reminds the population of the sheer power and coordination of the system. These states will spend great sums to "convince" captive audiences who literally do not have another party to vote for. However, the money spent is itself a tool to intimidate the audience beyond whatever message is there. It is telling citizens: "Look at what we can do. We have such sums that these signs and propaganda tools are but a drop in the bucket. We have total power." We obviously cannot saturate to that degree, but I believe the consistent remarks or assured tone we take can help inform others that there are alternative truths. We can also win on the personalized propaganda in the form of personal anecdotes. I have been able to convince many people to avoid the "boosters" out of horror stories I have known from people close to me. They didn't care about the percentages of side effects or who said what. These friends or associates cared that the daughter of my friend didn't have a menstrual cycle for six months after her booster shot. That personal message made the difference in breaking the sheer weight of the conditioning.
Its hard. People have psyoped by reason and science into believing that truth is a lot easier to discern than it really is. Most don't realize the degree to which their thoughts are not their own and have been constructed for them.