Homo Homini Lupus Est

 

It's interesting how appropriate Latin phrases can be.  They're succinct, and sharp.  In this case, the phrase that's the title to this post may be translated as:  "Man is a wolf to his fellow man."  It's appropriate as a description of what takes place whenever one of us has an advantage over others and seeks to exploit it, but is particularly descriptive of the current state of our Glorious Union.

Today is the Fabulous Fourth and consistent with the wish of their master his thralls in Congress have managed to adopt an enormous tax-and-spend bill bearing the silly name he wished it to bear.  As may be expected, it lavishly benefits the haves at the expense of the have-nots, and reflects the curious belief so dear to the wealthy and their minions that the nation is infested with malingerers taking advantage of social services.  It's a conceit which may serve to assuage any concern with the less fortunate a wolf may have.

The bill appropriates millions to the development of a sculpture garden to be filled with sculptures of great Americans, no doubt to be carefully selected.  It seems Disney will be our guide when it comes to expressions of patriotism.  Extravagance is characteristic of oligarchs and has been typical of very wealthy Americans, as was evident during the Gilded Age.  The New Gilded Age has begun, clearly, and it seems the gap between rich and poor now is even greater than it was in the time of the Robber Barons.

Perhaps "Alligator Alcatraz" is the best example of the lengths to which we'll go in our capacity as wolves to our fellow men.  Requiring immigrants to comply with the law is one thing on which all may agree, but the means used to accomplish this may be reasonable.  But it's not allowed to be, wolves being wolves.  

Evidence that those we're in such a frenzy to deport have engaged in criminal conduct is sadly lacking, but the urge to treat them as criminals is apparently overwhelming.  To do so in such a showy, gloating fashion is particularly unworthy.

But there's no such thing as a worthy wolf.

The Subordinate Court

Once judicial giants roamed our Great Republic.  John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand (such a fine name for a judge) and Benjamin Cardozo, to name a few.

No more, alas.  Now, their unworthy successors, especially those sitting or perhaps I should say reclining on what's still called the Supreme Court, creep abjectly among us, meek minions of the plutocrats and their chosen agent.

Their opinions reflect their submission.  When they can without appearing entirely foolish they avoid deciding the important issues which come before them addressing the powers of the presidency, taking refuge in hypertechnicalities.  In that fashion they assure that excesses are unchecked as matters proceed through the lower courts.

God knows how they'll decide when they cannot avoid making a decision.  It seems some of them, at least, believe God will guide them when that time comes.  The majority have been exuberant advocates of the demands of the religious when interpreting Constitutional rights, finding even that group prayer on the 50 yard line of the football field of a public school is private prayer.

Sanctimony characterizes certain of the Justices as well as their decisions.  One sees it in their disdain for the ethical restraints which apply to other judges. One sees it as well in their acceptance of and advocacy for the peculiar repression of sex that is used to disguise the equally peculiar fascination with it in our society.  First Amendment rights thus are disregarded in order to protect the young from exposure to the naughty conduct their parents delight in but don't want them to see.

But it's money, of course, that's paramount in the Court as it is in all our institutions. So we have one Justice, at least, complaining that he's not being paid enough for the 9 months a year he must work, and more than one of them mooching off the wealthy who seek to influence them and are the primary beneficiaries of most of their decisions.

Lifetime appointments are supposed to render the judiciary independent.  But appointments now are entirely political.  Competence is no more a concern for judges than it is for cabinet members.  Lifetime appointments of dwarves instead of giants is no benefit to the nation.

Will We Become Dumber As AI Becomes Smarter?

 

The answer to the question posed in the title to this post may already be clear.  If being gullible, incoherent, irrational, shallow, emotive, narrow-minded, bigoted and ignorant is characteristic of low intelligence, we've been growing dumber for years, even during the infancy of AI.  But we will grow less and less able or willing to think because AI will make thinking less and less attractive or necessary.

It seems clear that AI serves as a substitute for thinking already in our schools, even in institutions of so called "higher learning."  Recourse is had to it for the purpose of writing essays or reports and answering questions posed. Presumably, teachers will learn to recognize work performed by AI; or at least works written by AI.  I assume the research required for students to complete their assignments is already being done by it. Why read anything beyond the summaries of novels and historical events provided by Wikipedia?

I think it's inevitable that, because of the availabilty of AI, we will stop learning as that term is currently defined.  There's no need to learn or remember facts or dates or events which may be determined quickly by access to a computer. Nor is there any need to interpret or analyze events or facts.  AI can do that for us as well. 

If we lack the need to think, we won't think.  If we don't think, we won't question nor will we criticize.  This seems to me to be what's most to be feared from our continuing reliance on AI.  That, and the fact that our growing tendency to cease thinking will surely result in our unquestioning acceptance of what AI does.

An episode of John Oliver's The Late Show addressing "AI slop" provided several examples of fabricated events and "news stories" which, through use of AI, gave the impression that actual information was being communicated.  In the examples given, the misinformation provided touted achievements of the current regime and right-wing fantasies which haven't taken place.  Nonetheless, comments made by those viewing the fabrications established they believed them to be true.  Fabrication, even extreme fabrication, being characteristic of the current regime in any case, I suppose this is in a way unsurprising.

Of course, AI may be used to provide, convincingly,  left-wing fabrications as well.

It would take an effort to determine whether such fabrications are true or not.  But more and more we seem uninterested in making such an effort.  That would require that we question appearances...in other words, that we think.

Gradually, or perhaps not so gradually, through our use of and reliance on AI we may forget how to do so.

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.