Regarding the Obviously Untrue

 

Lying is something at which politicians have always excelled.  But the falsehoods now generated by the political class of the nation (especially those of the current regime, its lackeys and its facilitators) have a special quality. They're so obviously untrue that it's unclear whether they should be considered lies, properly speaking.

Typically, a lie is intended to deceive.  But when a statement is clearly false, and no thinking person--including the person making the statement--could think otherwise, how could deceit even be expected?

There's something else involved in the making of such statements.  Otherwise they would not be made by any self-respecting individual.

It may be that the person making the obviously untrue statement simply doesn't think; not really.  No thinking person would maintain, for example, that a tornado devastated a town when no such thing took place--there was no tornado, nor did the town exist.  Such a person may be unable to think for one reason or another (insanity, developmental disability, etc.).  Or, such a person, conceivably, may refuse to think.

Alternatively, a person making an obviously untrue statement may make it assuming that those learning of the statement themselves don't think, as they are unable or unwilling to do so.  Thus, no shame or blame would accrue to the claimant.  In that case the obvious untruth may even be believed. 

Possibly, the clearly false claim may be made with no expectation that it will be believed.  As a kind of joke, perhaps. 

Another possibility is that the falsehood in that case would be an article or expression of faith.  In that event it wouldn't be expected that there would be any factual basis for the statement.  Instead, the expectation would be that the claim is completely unfounded.  If one's faith or religion provides that a tornado devastated a town, the absence of any evidence of the tornado or the town isn't a consideration or concern.  The fervent believer would make the untrue claims and repeat them gladly no matter how baseless they are in fact.

I doubt that the obviously untrue claims being made (e.g. those regarding such things as crowd size, assassination of Democrats by Marxists, the need for use of the military in U.S. cities) are intended as jokes, if only because those making them are so evidently devoid of wit.  I'm willing to believe that they've not certifiably insane.  

I don't doubt they feel that those they hope learn of their misstatements are unable or unwilling to think, as their contempt for most of humanity is apparent as is their juvenile cruelty.  But I'm inclined to think that their assertions that what is obviously untrue is true nonetheless are expressions of something similar to religious beliefs which they believe need not have any basis in fact. That's always been a source of comfort to those who find thinking difficult or inconvenient.

What is Truth?

 

This is supposedly the question of the man we call Pontius Pilate:  Quid est Veritas?  According to Francis Bacon "jesting Pilate" asked this question but "did not stay for an answer."  According to the Gospel of John, Pilate was responding to Jesus' claim that he (Jesus) was a witness to the truth.  

If Pilate asked this question, I doubt he was jesting.  I think it's more likely that that he was noting that Jesus was brought before him because there clearly was a disagreement regarding what the truth was, and whether he was witness to it.  Truth is disputed all the time, particularly when it's believed that what is true neither has been nor should be determined through intelligent investigation and inquiry, but is instead revealed or is as claimed by an authority figure.

Those with such a narrow, limited conception of "truth" are inclined to be irrationally sensitive to criticism and can even be enraged if contradicted.  They can't tolerate being challenged or worse yet expected to explain or justify what they believe.  Resentment or outrage is characteristic of the true believer when questioned. The more preposterous the "truth" believed, the greater the resentment and outrage.

As a result, they can react violently to dissent.  Their response is excessive. They're blind to the consequences of their outrage.  In fact, consequences aren't significant according to their peculiar logic.  Those who disagree deserve to suffer because they disagree.

If Pilate asked what it's claimed he asked and did so in the circumstances it's claimed took place, then perhaps the question wasn't a quip or an expression of futile relativism in the face of what is absolutely true.  It may instead have been an acknowledgement of the fact that when there is a dispute judgment is required.  We must ask what is true, and make a determination.

We make no judgment, certainly not an informed or intelligent one, when we fail to ask what is true in attempting to define let alone resolve a dispute.

The High and Mighty and Moralism

 

We live, if we continue living, in a time when all those we encounter in politics, in the arts, in the media (including social media) are arrogant, excessively and vigorously proud of themselves, and relentlessly self-important. Those we must listen to, if we choose to listen, or see if we choose to see, or whose words we read if we wish to read, are spectacularly full of themselves.  I say "if" in the hope that we may ignore these creatures if we try very hard to do so, with some success.

Regrettably the high and mighty who torment us generally lack any knowledge or wit or intelligence which would justify their vast self-regard, nor do they think any justification is needed for it. It's even more regrettable, though, that such remarkable and even delusional belief in their own significance is combined with a tendency to moralize.

With respect to politicians and their minions, their corruption and cupidity is such that it's absurd for them to make any moral judgments or claims.  But given the extent of their self-love it may be inevitable that they do just that.  Still, their moralizing is insufferable.

Generally, they moralize in an effort to retain their place and position and to facilitate their quest for infinite money.  They also do so to render those they rule over docile and willing to accept their exploitation.

The high and mighty in the media and the arts, on the other hand, seem to moralize primarily to instruct those of us they think are unelightened but nonetheless able to be educated, or if unable or unwilling to be educated may be compelled to be enlightened.  

As I've remarked before regarding what I've called the "Missionary Media" its moralizing often takes the form of insertions into narratives of plot and expositive devices.   These devices exemplify relationships and characters which are contrary to traditional norms but are considered by the inserters to be appropriate and even desirable.

Unfortunately, this kind of moralizing has in many cases taken place by in effect rewriting existing works to suit the purposes of the enlightened.  New characters may be introduced; known characters may be strangely changed. Some part of an existing portion of a story may be altered ; some events may be added.  In this fashion claims are made contrary to the various "isms" the enlightened maintain plague humanity and they are displayed to be condemned, all for the good of the unenlighted.

This procedure is often clumsy and heavy-handed, and can anger those who are fans of the original works despite their flaws, which too often are the result of the fact that they were made in the past by people insufficiently enlightened and ignorant.  Moralizing by refurbishing past works is annoying and condescending.

Media and art have always been used as propaganda, but moralizing is especially disturbing and offensive when it involves the deliberate alteration of beloved stories, or of history, or by defying common sense and through contrivance which lacks all credibility.  The movie Conclave, which I've seen, and the book on which it's based, which I haven't read, are examples of moralizing which fails and is unsatisfactory because the narrative and plot devices employed to make the desired moral points lack credibility.

The film was interesting and well made but ended with election to the papacy of an unknown man suddenly made Cardinal just before the death of the pontiff to be replaced, who it is discovered has both male and female sexual organs.  That discovery was made after his election, and is known only to a few.  As far as I can see, the election of this unknown takes place only because he makes what is in the movie an unremarkable and rather trite speech about the horrors of war and conflict (he was archbishop of Kabul--I don't know whether such a diocese actually exists). He had the opportunity, apparently, to have surgery to become entirely male (biologically) but decided not to go under the knife. 

I don't know if more of the Cardinals become aware of this, but he duly becomes Pope and all is well.  Which just goes to show that it doesn't matter what sexual organs one has ...etc. 

Thus the moral point is made, but through a rather bewildering and incredible plot twist.  I have no real problem with this point, but think that the election of an unknown person to the papacy in such circumstances just wouldn't occur, no matter what sexual organs he/she/they had. Moralizing by use of an absurd contrivance has no effect. It just seems silly. Indeed, I think it insults the intelligence of the viewers

The moralists in this case tried much too hard.

Quo Vadimus?

To a certain extent, where we as a nation are going can be determined by the goals of our putative leaders.

Watching accounts of the Mideast trip was like watching a child accompanied by a host of attendants on his first trip to Disney World.  Exclamations of wonder at the (opulent) sights and expectation of gifts from those displaying them to his admiring eyes.  The expectation was satisfied.

Each day brings something unexpected.  We're fated to live in interesting times.  A person who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution says he doesn't know if he must uphold it.   The Director of Homeland Security doesn't know what habeas corpus means; indeed, she thinks it means something quite different--deportation without due process.

Such an absurdity would be amusing in other circumstances, but in these circumstances can only be indicative of a stunning level of ignorance.  The carefully planned humiliation of a head of state by the increasingly haggard-looking head of our own through use of contrived props does nothing more than induce distrust of us, already at a high level given the contempt being shown for former friends and allies. Who will be willing to accept an invitation to the White House, knowing that they may be ambushed as part of a self-serving stunt?

The nation's air traffic control system is failing.  It has been all but admitted that the tariffs being imposed will cost Americans and American businesses as businesses are being told to eat the resulting costs, reducing their profits rather than increasing prices. The efforts being made to return our economy to what it was 70 years ago continue.  Threats and litigation aimed at chilling First Amendment rights across the board proliferate. The Secretary of Defense has commenced holding monthly Christian prayer services at the Pentagon--what better place is there for those calling themselves Christian to pray?

Sometimes I wonder if this cavalcade of grotesqueries is brought not according to a plan but due to a tendency to react on mere whimsy, without thought but in eager pursuit of vaguely defined goals disregarding all consequences. That would explain the errors made in culling agencies of staff and cutting benefits, and the ad hoc grants of exceptions to tariffs and economic policies. Those in thrall to those setting the goals vie with each other in pursuit of them, seeking the favor of their master. Who is best at chest- pounding displays and sychophancy? The fact that most of those appointed to positions of power in the regime are unqualified may also explain errors made in implementing draconian measures.

But it seems that the ends in view are fairly clear.  The ultimate goal seems to be to benefit the very wealthy at the expense of others, and that has been at least one of the goals of our government for many years.  Now, though, the benefit sought isn't merely monetary.  The desires of the very wealthy for a docile, largely ignorant, unambitious, predictable, easily-led populace are to be satisfied as well.

Regarding "Practical Atheism"

 

The new Pontifex Maximus mentioned something called "practical atheism" in the first homily he delivered in that capacity.  Practical atheism is usually defined as an acceptance of God's existence but disregard of it in daily life.

Leo XIV, however, perhaps unsurprisingly, put a peculiarly Christian spin on the concept.  According to the pontiff a practical atheist believes Jesus to be a charismatic leader or superman, not God.

I don't think that makes much sense.  A theist need not be a Christian for one thing, and so need not even believe Jesus existed.  The pontiff displays the haughty exclusivity of Christianity, i.e. the belief that there is no other God but Christ or rather the triune deity of Nicean orthodoxy.  That makes anyone who isn't Christian an atheist.

Also, a practical atheist as usually defined need not substitute technology or science or pleasure or anything else for God in daily life as it seems Leo thinks must be the case.  In fact, a highly moral life is the goal of adherents of ancient pagan philosophy in the West and others in the East such as Buddhists and Taoists. 

Simply put, belief in the personal God of Christianity, Judaism or Islam isn't a necessary condition of a virtuous life.  So, what are called "Judeo-Christian values" for example, while they may be characteristic of Judaism and Christianity, aren't exclusive to them.  They arose in other philosophical traditions and some were even borrowed from them.

The Pope is an Augustinian, and Augustine the Bishop of Hippo was adamant that those who weren't Christian weren't entitled to salvation even though they couldn't know of Jesus, having lived and died before he appeared on Earth.  So, for example, Plato, Aristotle and others who extolled virtue centuries before the birth of Jesus is said to have taken place are condemned in the harsh judgment of the man to whom we owe the harsh concept of Original Sin.

So, the new Pope may be said to be a follower of the man for whom his order is named based on this homily. But his apparent devotion to social justice and relief of the poor may serve to make him an admirable pontiff nonetheless.