In one of his fragments, Heraclitus says the sun is the size of a human foot. I understand how he might have thought that 2,500 years ago. With respect to Heraclitus and probably to his contemporaries, I want to acknowledge that the Sun, regardless of its almost million-mile diameter, does seem to be quite small. And in a strange coincidence brought about by time and tide, the Sun also appears to be about the size of the moon, our 2,000 mile-diameter satellite.* Let’s not fault Heraclitus for his misperception. There are probably people alive today who think both of these celestial bodies have identical diameters. Not that such misperceptions have anything to do with our too-frequent utilitarian search for bread, milk, and eggs: If appearances are knowledge enough for matters on the periphery of daily existence, so what? Thus, all of us probably hold similar misconceptions. Truth is that appearances are sufficient for most of us most of the time, so much so that we act on what we perceive to be reality.
In many ways, we find ourselves in the midst of apparent equivalences like the sizes of the Sun and moon. As long as such apparent equivalences do not affect our daily lives, we have no need to pursue their underlying realities. Apparent equivalences, like those of Sun and moon, become the bases for perspectives, and nowadays, for perspectives on moral equivalence as seen by agenda-driven media.
Let’s look at an example from the Washington Post. After U.S. special forces killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the paper ran an obituary entitled “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48,” a title that underwent a change in response to reader outrage. Al-Baghdadi was, after all, responsible personally for rapes and deaths and both indirectly and directly responsible for torture and genocidal massacres, not to mention the displacement of hundreds of thousands who fled from their homelands and the brutality of al-Baghdadi’s savage fighters.
But in an age when appearances are more important than substance, should we not expect such moral equivalences? We do live in an age when many expect trophies just for participating, when some won’t acknowledge differences in skill or intelligence, and when some (or many?) in the media believe that appearance is a reality equivalent to reality? Calling al-Baghdadi an “austere religious scholar” means that the writer or editor saw his “scholarship” as equivalent to or greater than his depravity. And to what end?
The same acceptance of appearance as equivalent to realities has recently surfaced in another media platform, as ABC seems to have buried the story of Jeffrey Epstein because of his associations with those who “appear” as ABC executives think people should appear. Thus, exposing Epstein’s association with American politicians and newsmen and with British royalty would alter the appearances media moguls have become accustomed not only to hold onto, but also to protect.
So, again, let’s not fault Heraclitus, an otherwise bright guy, for believing the Sun was the size of a human foot. And let’s not fault our twenty-first century co-habitants for their ignorance of Sun and moon. In today’s mode of thinking, all that appears equivalent IS equivalent. In fact, let’s just accept that the Sun is equivalent to a human foot. Why does it matter, anyway?
*Because the moon continuously moves farther from Earth (about 3.8 cm/yr, or 1.5 in/yr), this similarity in size will eventually fade—but not in your lifetime.
In many ways, we find ourselves in the midst of apparent equivalences like the sizes of the Sun and moon. As long as such apparent equivalences do not affect our daily lives, we have no need to pursue their underlying realities. Apparent equivalences, like those of Sun and moon, become the bases for perspectives, and nowadays, for perspectives on moral equivalence as seen by agenda-driven media.
Let’s look at an example from the Washington Post. After U.S. special forces killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the paper ran an obituary entitled “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State, dies at 48,” a title that underwent a change in response to reader outrage. Al-Baghdadi was, after all, responsible personally for rapes and deaths and both indirectly and directly responsible for torture and genocidal massacres, not to mention the displacement of hundreds of thousands who fled from their homelands and the brutality of al-Baghdadi’s savage fighters.
But in an age when appearances are more important than substance, should we not expect such moral equivalences? We do live in an age when many expect trophies just for participating, when some won’t acknowledge differences in skill or intelligence, and when some (or many?) in the media believe that appearance is a reality equivalent to reality? Calling al-Baghdadi an “austere religious scholar” means that the writer or editor saw his “scholarship” as equivalent to or greater than his depravity. And to what end?
The same acceptance of appearance as equivalent to realities has recently surfaced in another media platform, as ABC seems to have buried the story of Jeffrey Epstein because of his associations with those who “appear” as ABC executives think people should appear. Thus, exposing Epstein’s association with American politicians and newsmen and with British royalty would alter the appearances media moguls have become accustomed not only to hold onto, but also to protect.
So, again, let’s not fault Heraclitus, an otherwise bright guy, for believing the Sun was the size of a human foot. And let’s not fault our twenty-first century co-habitants for their ignorance of Sun and moon. In today’s mode of thinking, all that appears equivalent IS equivalent. In fact, let’s just accept that the Sun is equivalent to a human foot. Why does it matter, anyway?
*Because the moon continuously moves farther from Earth (about 3.8 cm/yr, or 1.5 in/yr), this similarity in size will eventually fade—but not in your lifetime.
RSS Feed