A: “Bad enough that we have a Russian guy with no compunction sending an army into Ukraine, but what seems almost as bad is that there are people in his country who believe that Ukraine is a Nazi country. I guess misinformation is the key to controlling a people. The actual Nazis had a pretty good propaganda machine, but it probably paled in comparison to the robust propaganda run by Pravda during the Iron Curtain years and by Russia’s twenty-first century state press.”
B: “Well, aren’t we all subject to misinformation? Aren’t we all subject to propaganda? Just think of advertising campaigns. Don’t they mislead when they suggest happiness lies in the next purchase? Just think of political campaigns. And today, unlike those days before and after World War II, we get inundated by so much information that no one can keep up with what is true or false.”
A: “Not anymore. The United States just appointed a woman to head the Misinformation Corps. Tsarina. Female Caesar. I don’t know whether or not her agency will wear uniforms or whether or not they carry guns. In fact, I don’t know what the agency will do. I do know that the Czar, the head of the agency pushed misinformation. That’s demonstrable by her public statements—and by her self-uploaded social media singing performance. She clearly has a political agenda. She clearly isn’t an impartial intellect.”
B: “Yeah. I heard. I saw her video. Scary, really. When I think of truth and ‘information,’ I think of peer-reviewed scientific studies, experiments that demonstrated valid or null hypotheses, and I think of constant questioning that demands refinement and specificity. I think of objectivity. But I guess that’s all out the window since the widespread use of Windows made everyone a journalist. To that proliferation of conjectures and falsehoods we can add podcasts and YouTube videos, posts in social media, and spam in the inboxes of email and texts.”
A: “So, we seem to be in agreement that this misinformation agency isn’t going to be a good thing.”
B: “But it is typical of an administration that leans to the Left, toward socialism and fascism. Remember that the Nazis were a ‘national socialist workers’ party.’ Their chief propagandist was Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s ‘Plenipotentiary for Total War.’ So, here’s my concern—and probably the concern of many Americans: What if this woman decides to declare religious organizations, philosophy departments at universities, and conservative speakers and writers as ‘enemies of The Truth’? What happens next? What if this woman declares that Lesotho is about to attack America? What if she deceives as the Russian media deceive? Does she use the power of the federal police forces and the military to influence public opinion, maybe even to imprison Americans or confiscate their stuff? I think of the power Hitler gave to Goebbels who used it to shut parochial schools after the Pope wrote an encyclical against religious censorship by the Nazi regime. He used that power to persecute all who spoke against the Nazi regime.”
A: “But how does anyone communicate with those who favor a Misinformation Czar/Tsarina because they see opposition speech as a threat? How does one convince those who favor such an agency that they are citizens going down a path that leads to a loss of freedom not just for their current political opponents, but ultimately for them when another group rises to power? They don’t seem to realize that once a government agency is established, it runs in perpetuity, meaning that any change in administration could bring about a Czar who shuts down any free speech?”
B: “Look, we just came through a period of ‘quashing’ by social media that somehow sees logic in shutting off conservative Americans while allowing groups like the Taliban freedom of speech. If it does not occur to those in control that controls are always arbitrary, then you will never convince people who favor censorship. Most people would rather not hear what they do not want to hear.”
A: “You’re right. Controls on humans are invariably arbitrary. We can’t even agree that a control like the Ten Commandments leads to infallibility. Take killing, for example. It seems to be ‘wrong’ and proscribed, but at the same time seems to be justified in self defense, criminal punishment, and war. And we have degrees of killing from manslaughter to first degree murder. Degrees of violation abound. Nobody seems to mind an office worker taking a paperclip. There’s a sliding scale of sin, isn’t there? So, there’s also a sliding scale of control which can be applied as the controllers see fit: A Misinformation Czar/Tsarina of any 'gender' today might find herself, himself, themself, noself, humanself, pronounless-personself censored by the next Czar/Tsarina of Misinformation. Think of that famous meeting between Christ and Pontius Pilate in which Pilate asks, ‘Quid est veritas?’ (‘Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια,’ ‘What is truth?’).”
B: “I guess we’re about to find out what truth is? Maybe ‘truthful’ people will get a ‘truth tattoo’ or some kind of official document to carry.”
A: “How deeply do you think this Czar will penetrate society? Will the kid who says, ‘The dog ate my homework’ be forever branded as a Misinformationist? What about the person who says, ‘Oh! My phone battery is dying’? What if the Misinformation Czar/Tsarina is acataleptic?”
B: “Ah cat a …”
A: “Sorry, I don’t know whether the adjective is a word. Acatalepsy or ἀκαταληψία is a philosophical term that means ‘inability to comprehend.’ What if the Czar/Tsarina is a Pyrrhonist who believes that knowledge cannot be anything other than verisimilitude? We do live in an age that is particularly susceptible to appearance over substance. First impressions, you know. I wonder whether or not she has read Sextus Empiricus' work Against the Logicians. That's the one in which Empiricus writes, 'Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is trustworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.'* I'm going to answer myself by saying that she probably hasn't read that work."
B: “I wonder how learned the new tsarina is. Certainly, she doesn’t inspire confidence by her past actions and her adherence to the Russian Collusion and Hunter Biden laptop stories. But then, what do I know? ‘What is,’ if I may quote Pilate, ‘the Truth?’ And who, I might ask, is this woman to be its arbiter?”
*Translated by R. G. Bury, p. 179.
B: “Well, aren’t we all subject to misinformation? Aren’t we all subject to propaganda? Just think of advertising campaigns. Don’t they mislead when they suggest happiness lies in the next purchase? Just think of political campaigns. And today, unlike those days before and after World War II, we get inundated by so much information that no one can keep up with what is true or false.”
A: “Not anymore. The United States just appointed a woman to head the Misinformation Corps. Tsarina. Female Caesar. I don’t know whether or not her agency will wear uniforms or whether or not they carry guns. In fact, I don’t know what the agency will do. I do know that the Czar, the head of the agency pushed misinformation. That’s demonstrable by her public statements—and by her self-uploaded social media singing performance. She clearly has a political agenda. She clearly isn’t an impartial intellect.”
B: “Yeah. I heard. I saw her video. Scary, really. When I think of truth and ‘information,’ I think of peer-reviewed scientific studies, experiments that demonstrated valid or null hypotheses, and I think of constant questioning that demands refinement and specificity. I think of objectivity. But I guess that’s all out the window since the widespread use of Windows made everyone a journalist. To that proliferation of conjectures and falsehoods we can add podcasts and YouTube videos, posts in social media, and spam in the inboxes of email and texts.”
A: “So, we seem to be in agreement that this misinformation agency isn’t going to be a good thing.”
B: “But it is typical of an administration that leans to the Left, toward socialism and fascism. Remember that the Nazis were a ‘national socialist workers’ party.’ Their chief propagandist was Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s ‘Plenipotentiary for Total War.’ So, here’s my concern—and probably the concern of many Americans: What if this woman decides to declare religious organizations, philosophy departments at universities, and conservative speakers and writers as ‘enemies of The Truth’? What happens next? What if this woman declares that Lesotho is about to attack America? What if she deceives as the Russian media deceive? Does she use the power of the federal police forces and the military to influence public opinion, maybe even to imprison Americans or confiscate their stuff? I think of the power Hitler gave to Goebbels who used it to shut parochial schools after the Pope wrote an encyclical against religious censorship by the Nazi regime. He used that power to persecute all who spoke against the Nazi regime.”
A: “But how does anyone communicate with those who favor a Misinformation Czar/Tsarina because they see opposition speech as a threat? How does one convince those who favor such an agency that they are citizens going down a path that leads to a loss of freedom not just for their current political opponents, but ultimately for them when another group rises to power? They don’t seem to realize that once a government agency is established, it runs in perpetuity, meaning that any change in administration could bring about a Czar who shuts down any free speech?”
B: “Look, we just came through a period of ‘quashing’ by social media that somehow sees logic in shutting off conservative Americans while allowing groups like the Taliban freedom of speech. If it does not occur to those in control that controls are always arbitrary, then you will never convince people who favor censorship. Most people would rather not hear what they do not want to hear.”
A: “You’re right. Controls on humans are invariably arbitrary. We can’t even agree that a control like the Ten Commandments leads to infallibility. Take killing, for example. It seems to be ‘wrong’ and proscribed, but at the same time seems to be justified in self defense, criminal punishment, and war. And we have degrees of killing from manslaughter to first degree murder. Degrees of violation abound. Nobody seems to mind an office worker taking a paperclip. There’s a sliding scale of sin, isn’t there? So, there’s also a sliding scale of control which can be applied as the controllers see fit: A Misinformation Czar/Tsarina of any 'gender' today might find herself, himself, themself, noself, humanself, pronounless-personself censored by the next Czar/Tsarina of Misinformation. Think of that famous meeting between Christ and Pontius Pilate in which Pilate asks, ‘Quid est veritas?’ (‘Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια,’ ‘What is truth?’).”
B: “I guess we’re about to find out what truth is? Maybe ‘truthful’ people will get a ‘truth tattoo’ or some kind of official document to carry.”
A: “How deeply do you think this Czar will penetrate society? Will the kid who says, ‘The dog ate my homework’ be forever branded as a Misinformationist? What about the person who says, ‘Oh! My phone battery is dying’? What if the Misinformation Czar/Tsarina is acataleptic?”
B: “Ah cat a …”
A: “Sorry, I don’t know whether the adjective is a word. Acatalepsy or ἀκαταληψία is a philosophical term that means ‘inability to comprehend.’ What if the Czar/Tsarina is a Pyrrhonist who believes that knowledge cannot be anything other than verisimilitude? We do live in an age that is particularly susceptible to appearance over substance. First impressions, you know. I wonder whether or not she has read Sextus Empiricus' work Against the Logicians. That's the one in which Empiricus writes, 'Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is trustworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.'* I'm going to answer myself by saying that she probably hasn't read that work."
B: “I wonder how learned the new tsarina is. Certainly, she doesn’t inspire confidence by her past actions and her adherence to the Russian Collusion and Hunter Biden laptop stories. But then, what do I know? ‘What is,’ if I may quote Pilate, ‘the Truth?’ And who, I might ask, is this woman to be its arbiter?”
*Translated by R. G. Bury, p. 179.
RSS Feed