Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

L&FP 44a: What is 2 + 2, Mr Smith? (1984 as demonstration of how first duties and first truths are inextricably intertwined)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

1984 is a classic satirical novel on the nature of tyranny in the mass media driven, information age, totalitarian surveillance state. Accordingly, it is vital to appreciate the force of the Winston Smith on the Rack scene — yes, taken from the related movie — where the issue of the self-evident truth 2 + 2 = 4 comes up:

First truths, in short, are inextricably intertwined with first duties, and both are equally self-evident. As one clear manifestation, gross injustice is always rooted in false, unreasonable, unwarranted, dishonest thinking.

In case one is tempted to imagine that this is a dismissible satirical exaggeration, kindly ponder the sickening judicial torture-murder of Czech national hero and martyr, Milada Horakova and others on trumped up treason charges, only two years after 1984 was published:

When traitors are in power, patriots are deemed traitors and are judicially murdered. (See more details at Wikipedia.)

In defence of civilisation, we must never allow clever rhetoric or confused thinking to obfuscate lessons written in blood and tears regarding self-evident first truths and duties of reason, the first steps of honest, sound reason highlighted by Cicero and many others across the ages. Even to object (much less to misguidedly attempt to prove), one is forced to appeal to the legitimate, pervasive, first principle authority of duties

  • to truth,
  • to right reason,
  • to prudence [including, warrant],
  • to sound conscience,
  • to neighbour, so too
  • to fairness and justice, etc.

The attempted denial becomes self-defeatingly absurd and the evasion (often, without realising it) becomes an enabling of injustice.

Those who neglect, ignore, dismiss or despise the hard bought lessons of sound history (paid for in blood and tears), doom themselves to pay the same coin over and over and over again. END

F/N Jun 15, a reminder on the challenge of a slide back into lawless oligarchy, what overtook formerly constitutionally democratic Czeckoslovakia, once the Nazi German State, then Stalin’s Communists took over:

It helps, to also ponder dirty-form, McFaul Colour Revolution, as compared to the SOCOM state subversion model, which I have termed the insurgency escalator:

Comments
Sandy, I know the Wurmbrand story. KFkairosfocus
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus have you heard about "Pitesti Experiment"? There are things worse than death. https://youtu.be/KSLt35E4Qr4Sandy
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
F/N: Just for record, Wiki's summary:
Wartime resistance After the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1939, Horáková became active in the underground resistance movement. Together with her husband, she was arrested and interrogated by the Gestapo in 1940, in her case because of her pre-war political activity. She was sent to the concentration camp at Terezín and then to various prisons in Germany. In the summer of 1944, Horáková appeared before a court in Dresden. Although the prosecution demanded the death penalty, she was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. She was released from detention in Bavaria in April 1945 by advancing United States forces in the closing stages of the Second World War.[9] Political activity Following the liberation of Czechoslovakia in 1945, Horáková returned to Prague and joined the leadership of the re-constituted Czechoslovak National Socialist Party. She became a member of the Provisional National Assembly. In 1946, she won a seat in the elected National Assembly representing the region of ?eské Bud?jovice in southern Bohemia. Her political activities again focused on enhancing the role of women in society and preserving Czechoslovakia's democratic institutions. Shortly after the Communist coup in February 1948, she resigned from the parliament in protest. Unlike many of her political associates, Horáková chose not to leave Czechoslovakia for the West, and continued to be politically active in Prague. On 27 September 1949, she was arrested and accused of being the leader of an alleged plot to overthrow the Communist regime.[3][8] Trial and execution Before facing trial, Horáková and her co-defendants were subjected to intensive interrogation by the StB, the Czechoslovak state security organ, using both physical and psychological torture. She was accused of leading a conspiracy to commit treason and espionage at the behest of the United States, Great Britain, France and Yugoslavia. Evidence of the alleged conspiracy included Horáková's presence at a meeting of political figures from the National Socialist, Social Democrat, and People's parties, in September 1948, held to discuss their response to the new political situation in Czechoslovakia. She was also accused of maintaining contacts with Czechoslovak political figures in exile in the West.[3] The trial of Horáková and twelve of her colleagues began on 31 May 1950. It was intended to be a show trial, like those in the Soviet Great Purges of the 1930s. It was supervised by Soviet advisors and accompanied by a public campaign, organised by the Communist authorities, demanding the death penalty for the accused. The State's prosecutors were led by Dr. Josef Urválek and included Ludmila Brožová-Polednová.[10][11] The trial proceedings were carefully orchestrated with confessions of guilt secured from the accused. A recording of the event, discovered in 2005, revealed Horáková's courageous defence of her political ideals. Invoking the values of Czechoslovakia's democratic presidents, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk and Edvard Beneš, she declared that "no-one in this country should be put to death or be imprisoned for their beliefs."[12] Milada Horáková was sentenced to death on 8 June 1950, along with three co-defendants (Jan Buchal, Old?ich Pecl, and Záviš Kalandra). Many prominent figures in the West, notably scientist Albert Einstein, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and former US First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, petitioned for her life, but the sentences were confirmed. Horáková was hanged in Prague's Pankrác Prison on 27 June 1950 at the age of 48.[3] Her reported last words were (in translation): "I have lost this fight but I leave with honour. I love this country, I love this nation, strive for their wellbeing. I depart without rancour towards you. I wish you, I wish you..."[13] Following the execution, Horáková's body was cremated at Strašnice Crematorium, but her ashes were not returned to her family. Their whereabouts are unknown.[14]
KF PS: We see here above, proof that links are usually skipped, even short vid clips are typically skipped, and more. That should tell us a bit on the dilemmas we face. It takes about a dozen exposures to break through filter psychology in normal cases. I believe cognitive dissonance and linked denial, projection etc are much harder to break through.kairosfocus
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
MNY, no, the key matter is to force by rack, denial of known truth to construct whatever narrative suits the overlords of the Party. In the events in Czechoslovakia two years later, people were unjustly framed, tortured into confessions in a show trial, sentenced and put to death to advance a Communist coup. Dr Milada Horakova, courageously publicly denounced the process during her trial and was hanged by a deliberately dragged out strangulation execution process -- details are sickening -- despite worldwide protest and pleas, including that of Einstein. Her family were never allowed to even receive her ashes. We see here how injustice builds on dishonest reasoning and action, culminating in judicial torture-murder to advance the power agenda of a ruthless Party. Orwell's literary prophecy built on his experiences in Spain and the track records of Hitler and Stalin. KFkairosfocus
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Mahuna, kindly examine the OP. The book, 1984 has in effect a literary prophecy, made 1948. The movie, easier for this generation to deal with comes 1956. The real world, horrific event, is 1950. As in, the judicial torture-murder of Milada Horakova and over a hundred others on faked charges and evidence -- part of the Communist coup in Czechosolvakia. KFkairosfocus
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
WJM
Here’s the problem: all of that is a perspective derived from ontological commitments. In my experience, these ontological presuppositions are so deep they are rarely, if ever, recognized as such, much less examined critically.
Absolutely not. The existence of an objective truth, such as justice, depends on (not “derives from”) ontological REALITIES as they exist, not on our ontological COMMITMENTS to those realities.StephenB
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
Again, KF fails to accept the logic of subjectivity. So really what this comes down to, is that the logic of things being forced and fact is accepted, while the logic of choice and subjective opinion is rejected. The 1984 example just wrongly presents a matter of fact, of how many fingers are held up, as it being a matter of chosen opinion. It is just a category error. KF abuses this example to throw out subjectivity entirely, just because someone wrongly usese the logic of subjectivity, in what is an objective matter of fact. It is bleedingly obvious that logic in general must be accepted, both logic of subjectivity and objectivity, each in their own right. Someone innocently getting their sums wrong, is now accused of being immoral. Although supposedly there can be no innocense in getting a sum wrong, according to KF's conceptual scheme. All who reject subjectivity are obviously enemies of the inherently subjective spirit. That goes for the atheists, materialists, just as well as the intelligent design theorists who reject it. They are enemies of the ordinary human spirit, as well as enemies of God the holy spirit. It is a total outrage, totally unacceptable.mohammadnursyamsu
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Oh, so we were NEVER talking about any specific case in the real world. We were ALWAYS talking about some insane logic in a MOVIE?!!! I ain't seen the movie and don't plan to. That isn't "Self-Evident". I had to TELL you. So I'm not seeing any GENERAL application of logic here. If you want a LONG discussion of insane logic in the real world, read Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago." All 3 volumes. Millions of REAL people died because they failed to understand and ACCEPT Bolshevik "truth". And then of course a few decades later Mao killed a couple million MORE people for failing to accept what MAO said about "Truth". Again, there ain't any generally applicable Idea here. There's just puppies and babies and really terrible individuals who do naughty things to other people. I'm hoping to stick with the Puppies and Babies crowd.mahuna
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
WJM, I have given a literary prophecy and a real world case two years later, there is nothing more to debate, it is clear that injustice pivots on untruth setting up breach of duty and breach of duty leading to ruthless force to terrorise and induce compliance with corrupt power; as a matter of fact predicted by a man with far deeper experience than you or I have. The first duties all stand together with the first truths. KFkairosfocus
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Polistra, yes, the point is once authority of duty to truth is trashed, then the ever changing rules of imposed narratives have free play backed by the rack. Injustice pivots on discarding truth. KFkairosfocus
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Yes, that is possible. But it would be a sterile meaningless world of automatons.
:) Yep. In which trolls don't exist.Sandy
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
Is it possible that God could have created a world where an injustice could not occur?
Yes, that is possible. But it would be a sterile meaningless world of automatons. Immediately the troll wants to dominate with nonsense and as usual the troll is then rewarded and fed so that more nonsense can be used for a further feeding.jerry
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
KF @11, I'll just go on under the assumption that, conditionally, with rights to object, you agree somewhat with my attempt to correctly characterize your position/argument. Here's the problem: all of that is a perspective derived from ontological commitments. In my experience, these ontological presuppositions are so deep they are rarely, if ever, recognized as such, much less examined critically. I'm not saying or arguing that it's not the correct or best available ontology, so I'm BEGGING you to understand you don't have to make that same "comparable worldviews" argument for the hundredth time. I'm not arguing here that other worldviews "do not fail" under incoherence, self-defeating assertions or perspective, etc. I'M NOT MAKING THAT ARGUMENT!!! My only point here is that the idea that justice is an actual thing, existentially speaking, depends on ontology. Let me explain by asking the following question: But before I do, again, I'm not arguing here that the following is the actual world we live in, or is the world that God created (whatever that ultimately means.) Also, I understand your objections to such a world for various reasons, including the meaningful capacity of free will to choose right or wrong. I understand those arguments. They are good arguments. I'm just proposing a pure thought experiment with the following questions: Is it possible that God could have created a world where an injustice could not occur? If so, would the concept of "justice" have any significant or existential value in such a world?William J Murray
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
You're missing Orwell's point. True vs false was NOT the point. Constant random change was the point. O'Brien kept switching things around and punishing at random until Winston's brain lost its ability to function. At that point Winston was an empty vessel, a wire leading to a controllable motor. O'Brien connected the Party to the wire. This is how all psychopaths work. Demand obedience, change the rules, demand obedience, change again, over and over with no pattern, so the victim loses all of his own mental RHYTHMS AND PATTERNS. He becomes a remote-control robot without its own CPU.polistra
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
I read a WHOLE lotta History and political theory...
:) A clown, two clowns,...Sandy
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
WJM, justice is due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. We here learn a lot on what it is from examples of what it is not. Which is a key part of the OP. I add, for cause I am a strong believer in real life cases as basis for drawing insights. 1984 was the literary prophecy, based on Stalin and Hitler. Only two years later, we saw the awful reality on the ground. From this, we learn much on how injustice frustrates justice thus the requisites of justice, and honest thinking is central, just as the first duties identify. KF PS: The Horakova case pivots on creation of a false narrative of treason, with false evidence and torture to elicit confessions of guilt in show trials. Full-on Stalinism.kairosfocus
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Let's see if we can get a clarifying general example related to KF's example. A prosecutor, judge and the police conspire to fabricate evidence, accuse and convict an innocent man (well, innocent wrt to the crime he is accused) of murder, and the man is executed as a result. I think everyone would agree that this was "unjust." I mean, how could anyone say it was anything other than "unjust?" To make KF's argument for him, proper justice could only be served if everyone told the truth as they saw and experienced it. KF would argue (I think) that this makes it obvious that truth is a necessary ingredient for even an attempt at delivering justice, even though it might ultimately fail in doing so. Also, that this reveals a duty to truth in the pursuit of avoiding injustices such as this - the authorities being the judge and/or jury; the consequence (in this case) acquittal, a finding of not guilty, or death for the accused. In court, you swear to the authority to tell the truth under penalty of perjury. There are clear consequences for not doing your duty. Nobody can deny that what is being pursued in this arrangement is justice for the accused. Even if "justice" is a complicated (I'll not use "vague" here) concept, and we can't say whether the death penalty represents "plumb line," objective justice for the act, we can at least be confident the consequence for a finding of guilt or innocence is at least directionally intended towards justice and away from injustice. Also, that by observing the duty to tell the truth, we have "done our best," so to speak, to arrive at an outcome that is more likely towards what is just than not. KF, would you agree that this is a good representation of your argument/position?William J Murray
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
So, "justice" is at least a big part of the subject of this thread. Let's get to it, then! What is "justice?" One definition: "just behavior or treatment." Okay, what is "just"? One definition: "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." But, aren't "morally right" and "just" conceptually synonymous? Let's try "fair": "just or appropriate in the circumstances." Oh, for Pete's sake! Nothing quite like using the same words to describe each other! This is an entirely circular set of definitions that apparently only refer to each other. Can anyone provide a definition of "justice" that doesn't circle back on itself? Who decide what is fair? Who decides what is "just?" Who decides what is "morally right?" It appears that without the premised ontology of an existing, objective, universal "plumb line" of justice/morality/fairness, the concept of "justice" is subjective and, because of that, a rhetorical device that depends on an unexamined agreement that such a "thing" actually exists. Anyone want to try to actually identify what it is we're talking about when we talk about "justice?" Can it be defined in a way that doesn't circle back on itself? Or, do we agree that absent a universal, objective "plumb line," the concept of "justice" is just subjective rhetoric?William J Murray
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
WJM, this thread is not a debate about human nature, that is in fact a readily observed phenomenon in our going concern world. The matter on the table, I repeat, is the issue focussed by the rack scene, the link between first facts and first duties, surely injustice can readily bee seen as violation of duty. The real world case makes that shockingly plain, probably on orders from Stalin. I have already gavelled such a discussion for this thread; the blood and tears on the table speak for themselves. If you want to take it over to the previous ones, that is another matter, but it will not change the result. Our nature is to be responsibly, rationally free, conscience guided and morally governed, with moral first duties as self evident truths fully as certain and relevant as SETs of say elementary Arithmetic, with the mutual entanglement of the two brought out by the exposed structure of gross injustice, it is built on dishonest thinking, speaking, deciding and acting. Martyrs' blood is here on the table, respect it. KF PS: Justice has long since been drawn out in brief, the civil peace of justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. We here see gross injustice violating all three, ending in judicial torture-murder.kairosfocus
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
KF said:
WJM, kindly read the story of the concocted state coup attempt used to murder patriots after a show trial.
I read it. But, your point about the subject of the thread is taken; I'll move on to the subject of justice.William J Murray
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
Since we cannot canvas every single human being alive and who has ever lived about their inner experience as a human being, the only rational way to go forward in making statements about "human nature" is to find statements that would apply to all individual, sentient beings (assuming we agree that everyone defined as a human would, at the minimum, necessarily have those qualities.) I've listed a few of those before, but the point is that we can can find necessarily true statements that follow from that premised condition or state, "individual sentient being." The question is, are Cicero's statements about "human nature" necessarily true given the premise of an individual, sentient being? Do they necessarily apply to all possible individual, sentient beings? One of Cicero's claims is that humans are "naturally social." This is a commonly accepted maxim. But, does it apply to all humans, much less all possible sentient beings? What does "social" mean in this context? Does it mean that sentient beings are "naturally social" beyond what is existentially unavoidable? There are individuals that deliberately seek to completely isolate themselves from all social contact. Is Cicero making an appeal to common human behavior and proclivities here, or is he actually making a statement that includes the full, broad range of all possible sentient beings, and thus, all human beings, known and unknown to Cicero? BTW, the more I read about and from Cicero, it becomes obvious that his entire philosophy was derived from a pre-existing set of ontological premises, including a specific kind of God, humans being "divinely favored" by God, and an embedded concept of moral duty. I have yet to see where Cicero really examined the concept of duty; so far, it appears "duties" are just an a priori assumption related to a pre-existing ontology and philosophical perspective.William J Murray
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT
WJM, kindly read the story of the concocted state coup attempt used to murder patriots after a show trial. Further to all this, the attempt to subject switch is duly noted and gavelled. No, the issue is not who or what is a human, that is a matter of a going concern world, we live in a world of neighbours of like nature, whether this fits your preferred worldview or not. The issue, demonstrated through the rack, is, that first self-evident truths of fact and of duty are inseparable. We have here prophetic satire on the point . . . 1948 seemed to be a year of prophecies . . . that came to life in the form of judicial torture-murder just two years later. That is sound, not to be set aside at whim on your selectively hyperskeptical say-so; on pain of the curse of repeating horrific chapters of history. KF PS: Even in this latest dismissive objection you cannot but appeal to the legitimate authority of first duties of reason. That inescapability remains, a signature of first, pervasive principles in action. The things we must take as first givens to then proceed to reason soundly and honestly.kairosfocus
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
Lots of cool and interesting things to discuss here. First, KF said:
In defence of civilisation, we must never allow clever rhetoric or confused thinking to obfuscate lessons written in blood and tears ...
The other side of this coin is that it can also be a problem if we let bloody or extreme events lead us into irrational thinking out of the urge to prevent such events in the future. This is really why extreme, emotionally charged events and examples should be avoided when making a logical case about something. If one must refer to an extreme, emotionally charged event to make their case, I have found it to be usually because they do not have a sound logical case to begin with. Cicero's and other arguments about "first duties, justice, warrant, etc." are all, from my perspective, just a bunch of assertions about the "nature" of humans, that may or may not represent common perspectives and psychologies across the world. It is all certainly rooted in and derived from fundamental, unexamined ontological assumptions. But, more than that, the language and points are extremely vague and ill-defined. Honestly, I find it so vague and full of unexamined assumptions that it reads more like rhetoric than an a actual sound, deeply examined rational argument. I'm going to make a list of things found here and in other statements about Ciceronian first duties and KF's related points that require deeper thought and examination. 1. duty - we've covered that exhaustively, no need to rehash it here. 2. true belief 3. knowledge 4. warrant 5. justice 6. truth 7. "plumb lines" 8. "self-evident" - again, exhaustively examined, no reason to rehash here 9. human nature 10. natural law 11. "the good" I'm going to begin with "human nature" because I think that, by addressing this commodity that is central to all the other points, we can best understand the paucity, the unexamined vagueness of the other parts of the arguments by Cicero, KF, et al. First, of course, is what are we calling "a human?" I assume we're talking about all those that meet the biological, physical requirements, or members of what is referred to as the human race on Earth. If that is our criteria, from what does one make a claim about "the nature of all humans?" There are only two sources of information for Cicero; himself, of which he has direct experiential knowledge of "his nature" from the inside; and his observation of those humans he came into contact with. This begs the question, how many different kinds of humans did Cicero come into contact with? How well did he get to know them? How deeply did he question them about their internal experience? For example, did Cicero know any sociopaths? Were all the people around him like-minded, raised in the same culture, share the same basic ontology? That raises the question about how well-qualified anyone is to make any statement about "human nature." One of the biggest difficulties is that our inner nature, our own subconscious and our own psychology affects (perhaps even determines) how we interpret the behavior of others. We might interview them, but the problem with that is: can we trust them to tell us the truth about their inner experience, what it is like for them to be a human being? Human behavior appears to run across an enormous spectrum; if one is going to talk about "human nature," does that phrase not require that the entire spectrum be taken into account when making a statement about human nature? Furthermore, what does it mean to say that some humans are "faulty" in some way, such as a sociopath or a psychopath? The idea of a "faulty human" depends on an ontological premise that identifies what a "properly functioning" human is in the first place. If we're going to define humans biologically, sociopaths and psychopaths are human beings, and the way they behave must be included as part of the full scope of human nature. It is thus an aspect of the full range of human nature to lack empathy and conscience; to murder, cheat, steal and lie, as it is to have empathy and conscience and avoid murder, cheating and stealing, and to tell the truth. Any statement about "human nature" must include all human behaviors and regard them equally. A true statement about human nature would apply to both Mother Teresa and Hitler, Gandhi and Dahmer, just to represent the extremes, but would even that represent all humans? Probably not. So, IMO, if one is going to try and make a statement about "human nature," the safest bet is to make a statement that would apply to all possible sentient beings, human or not. It's the only way to ensure that a statement of "human nature" encompasses all possible humans, known or unknown in our personal, limited knowledge. More to come. Exciting and interesting!!!William J Murray
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
Mahuna, pardon but || + || --> |||| is self evident, but truth independent of party agenda was anathema, so Winston Smith, already laid out on the rack, was subjected to its power, in order to enslave him to absurdity. Self-evident does not mean obvious to one and all, nor does it mean that one does not have to build up the education, habits of honest, inquiring mind, clarity of vision and of insight to see it. The lurking, subtler self-evidence is duty to honesty and to that freedom and independence of thought we call right reason. Gross injustice is always built up from dishonest thinking and it always enslaves to absurdity. The yet subtler self-evident point is, the vital importance of sound memory, which in the face of a horror of totalitarianism, may have to stand against seemingly authoritative record. Winston Smith worked for the ministry of truth, to edit and lie with seemingly authoritative record. Unfortunately, the satire then became horrific facts of judicial torture-murder just two years after George Orwell wrote. We have lessons written in blood and tears here, we must not forget or allow deceptive distortion. KFkairosfocus
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT
OK, I'm still not seeing ANY "self-evident" truth here. I'm also not seeing the value of declaring and enforcing some set of statements as "self-evident truth". Even Arithmetic isn't "self-evident" to grammar school kids. Or even adults who have never learned Arithmetic. I read somewhere, many decades ago now, about an African tribe who mathematics was based on counting parts of the human body (e.g., fingers, toes, elbows, knees, the head? ,,,) and so there were EXACTLY 23 named numbers with NO logical relation between "10" and "12", etc. If you needed to count a herd of sheep, the number after 12 was (and undoubtedly still is) "many". And the number after many was "many many". There simply IS no number larger than "many many". So both what we call "20" and what we call "1 billion" are "many many". This works just fine for sheep herders who have never traveled more than 50 miles (many many) from where they were born. I read a WHOLE lotta History and political theory, and in most cases where some guy's new "truth" (e.g., Socialism) is trying to establish it's place in the world, the New Truthers have to wind up building an army, knocking over the existing government, and killing everybody who doesn't accept the new "Chief Honcho What's in Charge". In the history of the world there is only 1 country that converted to Christianity without producing a SINGLE martyr (a person killed by the locals for espousing the new "heresy"). And the reason this was possible in Ireland was because the Irish Shamanists weren't EVER going to kill a man (or woman) for what they believed about God. That is, the EXISTENCE of God was considered "self-evident", but the PROPERTIES of the thing called God were open to conjecture. God Himself (Herself?) didn't care. For people more close minded than Shamanists, murdering a heretic was natural and "self-evident". Amongst one or the other of the Black tribes in the south of Africa, there is the FACT that the desert can only supply a limited amount of food. And so there is a strict rule (custom) about children that goes "1 walks and 1 is carried". In practice, "walk" here means "walk by yourself for 10 miles without assistance". The unstated piece of the "self-evident fact" is that any THIRD baby DIES. Ya wanna name ANY Western society where this is "self-evidently true"? The closest I've heard of is in traditional Chinese society where a wife MUST produce a MALE child before she can stop strangling her FEMALE babies. It is of course Self-Evident that female babies grow into female adults who themselves naturally become mothers. I think the Eskimos recognized this same Self-Evident Truth before Europeans showed up and explained how to GROW food instead of hunting it. Then Truth changed.mahuna
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT
L&FP 44a: What is 2 + 2, Mr Smith? (1984 as demonstration of how first duties and first truths are inextricably intertwined)kairosfocus
June 13, 2021
June
06
Jun
13
13
2021
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6

Leave a Reply