Tag Archives: Sophistry

Truth and Reality

October 6, 2021Creation, Defending the Faith, DevilsLanguage, Lying, planned parenthood, Political Correctness, SCOTUS, Sophistrytwowingstogod@gmail.com

The devil is a one-trick pony. Everything he does to mankind is simply an echo of his original temptation to Eve, “you shall be like God.” Throughout history he has dragged many souls into hell by coming up with creative ways in which he could coax men into usurping the role of God. I say creative not in the sense that the devil can create anything. He can only twist and distort what God creates by breathing lies into creation. Only God truly creates while the devil fabricates, a fact that I want to spend some time focusing on.

God creates by simply speaking something into being. He creates through His Word (c.f. Col 1:16). Reality came into being not through some evolutionary process, but through God’s “let there be…”. Mind you I am not saying that things don’t come into existence naturally, only that the different kinds of things (what we might call the different natures) and reality as a whole were spoken into being during the first six days of Creation. It should not be a surprise that this foundational truth, the same truth we profess in the Creed that “through Him all things were made” is under attack. And because it ultimately has its cause in the diabolical, it is so subtle that we might not even realize what is going on.

Lies and Reality

Human words are meant to describe reality, even if they inevitably short-change it. The words themselves are said to be true only to the extent that the ideas they convey conform to reality. To say “oranges are orange” conveys the truth about the color of oranges, but it does not fully describe what an orange is. On the other hand, to say that “oranges are blue” is a falsehood because it does not describe the reality that is an orange in any intelligible way.

Now, admittedly the orange example isn’t real (as far as I know). But it is illustrative of a larger, one might say, diabolical problem. There are two possibilities at play here. A person may be ignorant of the color of oranges or he may want oranges to be other than they are. The first man is a fool and the second is a liar. The folly of the fool can be remedied with the truth. The liar is another story.

All lies are attempts to use words to change reality simply by declaring it so. It is a poor man’s “let there be…”. I say poor man, but it is really diabolical having its roots Satan who is the “Father of lies”. He is always trying to upend Creation and make it appear to be something that it is not. It is an attempt to “be like God” and make reality whatever you want it to be. It is, to quote the diabolical Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood vs Casey, the freedom “to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” (Planned Parenthood vs Casey, 1991).

The Father of Lies in Our Times

I said at the open that the devil was always seeking to institutionalize his plan and develops unique strategies for particular ages. He has been particularly successful in our age because we have failed to recognize the mechanism by which he is shaping the spirit of the world. For most of us, Political Correctness is a minor annoyance that we do our best to avoid. But for the devil it is the tool by which he blinds men to reality.

Notice how the term itself, Political Correctness, creates the aura of an alternate reality. It creates a realm where words are correct, but not true. It does this by politicizing, that is, making public, that which is personal and private. It is made political because it must have the “power” to make other people conform to the alternate reality.

There are many other examples, but the renaming of “Mother” to “Birthing Person” comes to mind because it is relatively new. We laugh at the absurdity, but we fail to see the danger because we have grown so accustomed to it. It is simply an attempt, albeit by employing the law of gradualism, to divorce motherhood from femininity and femininity from biological sex. It is a (not-so) subtle attempt to overthrow reality by lying. We intuitively grasp this, but instead of fighting back we laugh at the absurdity. It is no longer funny.

Have you ever won an argument with a liar? Of course not. When someone is lying you do not use arguments to refute them. You simply insist on the truth. Yet many of us repeatedly resort to arguments to counter Political Correctness. They are too adept at changing meanings of words to give any room for logic. Can you deny that a mother is a “birthing person”? Instead we must insist on the truth through precision and clarity. Simply refuse to adopt any of the Politically Correct language. We must have the courage not to play the game and simply tell the truth regardless of the consequences. Words not only convey reality, but they form our ideas about it. Only the truth can set us free to roam throughout reality. If we do not stop the abuse of language that abuses reality, then we risk the eternal abuse of many souls. People end up in hell for bad ideas too, especially because it changes what they become through their actions.

The Tyranny of Sophistry

July 21, 2021Abortion, Culture, Marxism, ScienceCoronavirus, Covid19, Follow the Science, Mask Mandate, Pro-Choice, Sophistry, Tyrannytwowingstogod@gmail.com

In his book Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power, Thomist philosopher Josef Pieper comments that the battle against sophistry is a perennial problem. Satan’s primordial sophistry escaped the gates of Eden and has plagued mankind ever since. Progress, especially when it is not matched by moral progress, only causes sophistry to grow. Sophistication, Pieper says, usually entails greater degrees of sophistry. What the sophist seeks to do is to shut down all pursuit of the truth by playing with words, usually by inventing catch-phrases that slide off a forked tongue and convey some half-truth that is cleverly dressed up as the whole truth. It is most certainly an abuse of language; for the proper use of language is to convey ideas and tell the truth. But sophistry uses language in order to manipulate people.

The Sophistry of Today

The problem of sophistry in our own age is particularly acute. You might say that we are living under the tyranny of sophistry in which any objection to a sophist shibboleth is met by stupefied hostility. “Pro-choice”: how could you not be in favor of a woman’s right to choose? “Black lives matter”: so, you think Black lives don’t matter? The objection is not with the half-truth, but with the half-falsehood that is dressed up by the slogan. In other words, the objection is with the sophistry that manipulates language to hide what is really going on.

In general, we should all be pro-choice, but in particular it totally depends on what the object of choice is. If you are choosing to kill an innocent baby, then no, in fact we should not “Pro-choice”. Of course, Black lives matter. But what the honest person objects to is dressing up the Marxist aims of the further destruction of Black lives and society as a whole in this truth. It is sophistry plain and simple. And anyone who insists otherwise is a language tyrant.

Following the Science

There is a new slogan that is being peddled by the tyrant—“follow the science”. Science is a great weapon in the hand of the sophisticated tyrant because it can be made to say anything you want it to say. It is presented as somehow being about objective truth gathered by running controlled experiments in an unbiased setting. The method may be reliable, but the scientist himself is a fallen human being. He is prone to biases, lapses in attention, ignorance, faulty design and even outright lying. It does not help that his so-called peers who review his work also suffer from the same inherent problems. It is also not immune to the “Cancel Culture” with many scientists handcuffed by a cultural confirmation bias. All of this leads to what scientist Stuart Ritchie in his book Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth calls a “replication crisis” in modern science. Experiments are run all the time. But the true test is when an experiment is replicated. Almost none of the so-called “science” has been replicated and very often is exposed as flawed when honest scientists attempt to do so. Like Ritchie we should not be anti-science but instead to use it in a manner that discovers the truth without succumbing to the sophist’s tactic of inventing it.

As I said, science is a powerful tool in the arsenal of the sophisticated tyrant because it can be used to say whatever they want it to say. Herein lies the half-falsehood found within “following the science”. Science itself can never lead to certainty. To assert otherwise is to turn science into a religion that must be governed by faith. “Follow the science” is a credal statement.

Why is it that science can never lead to certainty? In short, science, because it deals in material being, always deals with contingencies and therefore only leads to contingent truth. The truth of what is being asserted always depends on certain conditions also being true. The point is that when “Science” is presented as certain, without any discussion upon the conditions in which the thing also depends, it is a manipulation.

Take, for example, the contention that “masks work”. This is most certainly not an absolute. What are the conditions under which they work? To mandate mask wearing without any reference to the conditions under which they work, is not about safety but control. If you want to keep people safe, then you will school them in the art of wearing the mask. If you want to control them then any mask will do. Likewise, the push for vaccination. What are the conditions under which the vaccines “work”? What are the conditions under which they don’t, or might even be harmful? Are we to believe that a vaccine was developed at warp speed that covers every contingency? To say they are “safe and effective” without observing a multitude of contingencies is not science but scientism. To even mention those contingencies is sacrosanct and will likely get you censored.

Science can say whatever I want it to say simply by playing with those contingencies. I simply design my experiment so that it leads to a positive result. Then I get peers to agree with the way it was run—never mind that these peers also have a vested interest in toeing the party line. If it leads to a negative result anyway, I simply put it in the file cabinet. Whenever you hear some scientific “fact” presented in some absolute manner, always seek the contingencies. Who or what does this apply to? When doesn’t it apply? When someone tells you that it applies across the board, they are presenting something that has some degree of uncertainty as certain. We may be willing to accept that degree of uncertainty and treat the proposition as true, but it is not anti-science to demand further uncertainty be removed. But either way, certainty will never be achieved.

In classical Greece, the sophists threatened to take over society until the likes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle stepped in. They were unafraid to call sophistry what it was. But that was not enough for them. They also rescued the victims of sophistry by teaching them how to reason. Perhaps in our own sophisticated age, we could do the same.

Memic Sophistry

February 1, 2017Abortion, Catholic Social Teaching, Church and StateMemes, Sophistry, Straw Mantwowingstogod@gmail.com

A picture, the saying goes, is worth a thousand words. Now, whether those discounted thousand words are worth anything or not is a different question. The irony is not lost that the most literate society in the history of the world has become an image culture. Rather than long, well thought out arguments, we argue via the Meme; a medium whose sole criteria is not truth, but cleverness.

But it is not just cleverness that makes them so popular but their convenience. With artistic flair, they can “yada, yada, yada” the important details away. With only 1000 words to spare, most of the energy must be devoted to toppling the Straw Men they have constructed. Straw men may easily fall, but they have an uncanny ability to destroy any healthy debate.

Take a recent example posted to The People for Bernie Sanders Facebook page. It has two panels, one with a child in the womb with the caption “Every Life is Precious” and the second has the washed up body of an immigrant child featuring the caption “Not my problem.” The statement is obvious: Pro-life people only care about life in the womb. Life outside the womb, not so much.

Of course this is a common accusation leveled at Pro-lifers. But truth be told, no actual Pro-Lifer actually thinks this way. Step one, complete, Straw Man constructed.

They also fall victim to the hidden logic of their Meme. They are essentially saying that Pro-lifers are really pro-life if and only if they care equally for those outside the womb as they do inside. It doesn’t take a professional logician to realize that this goes both ways. In other words, why do The People for Bernie Sanders and their ilk assume that this logic does not apply to themselves? They have compartmentalized the two issues and then attempt to call the Pro-lifers out on (allegedly) doing the same. Either they should be separate issues or not. But if you choose to separate them then you can’t call someone out for doing the same.

As I mentioned this is a variation on a common accusation—Pro-lifers cannot speak out against abortion unless they are willing to take care of the babies once they are born. Straw Men are notoriously limp and can’t really hold newborns. This argument ignores the actual work that does go on to help single moms, adoption and adoption services, etc. by many Pro-lifers. But, and this is important, even if they aren’t willing to lift a finger to help, this doesn’t justify the act of abortion. Abortion is wrong because it takes an innocent person’s life, not because somebody wanted the child. No sane person would say to a single Mom who is struggling to make ends meet with two kids and can’t find any help that she should kill one of those kids. Yet, that is what Bernie Sanders and his friends are saying.

This is what I like to call the either/or fallacy. It is assumed that just because you work hard to stop one injustice that you don’t care about other injustices going on. What if both abortion and the death of child immigrants are great tragedies? What if both represent a failure of the human family to protect their most vulnerable members? What if a person is moved to action by the plight of one suffering group more than another? Is this a denial of the misery of the second group or is it an admission that I am not superman and can’t help everyone? There may be more emphasis by Pro-lifers on abortion because you must first help your own before helping others. Our obligations to our fellow American citizens are much clearer than our obligations to citizens of other nations–not because they are worth any less but because we can only help so many people. Charity begins at home. What would you think of a man who ignored his family and only helped other people’s families?

I think this is why this is usually more a liberal tendency than a conservative one. The liberal tends to think that big government can help everyone. But even our huge government is limited in the amount of help it can offer overseas. Sometimes there are battles that are worth fighting, but they may not be our particular fights. While we should do all that we can to help immigrants, there is nothing wrong with it taking a back seat to some issues here at home. The common good of the homeland takes precedence.

It is a gigantic leap from panel 1 to panel 2 in the Meme. In fact it may be an uncrossable chasm. The truth that abortion is wrong has nothing to do with immigration. It is a red herring that attempts to undermine the credibility of those with whom they disagree. It may be clever, but it bears no relation to an actual argument.

Just because you can draw does not absolve you from doing some actual thinking through of what you draw. The truth is more subtle than the artist is willing to admit or sort through. An analogy will help. I know of no one who does not have a lock on the door of their house to keep themselves and family safe. No one I know has an open door policy where a doorbell unlocks the door automatically. We all have an obligation to vet each person that comes into our homes. In other words, we have a policy in which we discriminate who should enter and who should not. Dad may not let any teenage girl visit his son Elroy until he vets them, but this does not make him sexist. Elroy may protest, but until he convinces his dad that this is not the most prudent way to handle the situation, his protests will look more like hissy fits especially if he accuses him of misogyny.

The government too has an obligation to vet who visits the country. An open door policy is not possible. Prudence dictates how this would best be accomplished. It may be that an entire class of people is turned away until a proper vetting process is put in place. Perhaps this is not the most prudent measure, but the debate should center on that and not calling people Islamaphobes.

Memes and their twin sisters, the protest sign, have become the new Sophistry because of this glossing over of significant facts. The bad elements of Islam are a threat. Islam itself is extremely divided and it is very hard to separate the threats from the non-threats. It is reasonable then to make sure you are able to do so. Any alternative to the recent Executive Order has to deal with these facts. One could decide to be like Elroy’s dad and keep all the Muslims from troubled regions out. That may not be the most prudent measure, but even if someone chooses this approach that does not make them Islamaphobes.

The problem is not the memes per se, but the fact that we now have adopted memic thinking patterns. I will admit to being one of those annoying people who actually asks someone to explain their meme to me. Usually I find that the person posting is either non-responsive or can’t really explain them because the ever-present intellectual gap.

To all but the oblivious, it is obvious that we are more divided as a country than ever. There are many reasons why this is the case, but in truth they all boil down to one thing—we have lost the ability to sustain an argument.

One who is familiar with the details of our founding cannot help but be struck by the peacefulness with which George Washington and then his successor John Adams took power. This is not because all the Founding Fathers were on the same page, but because they were men who could sustain an argument without resorting to violence. This fostering of arguments in many ways in written into the relatively short Constitution. In this way they were much like the Medieval philosophers like St Thomas who saw the great practical value in intellectual argument.

A good debater is one who can repeat back to the person their argument and understands it. Many of St. Thomas’ contemporaries were struck by the profundity of the Objections to the questions in the Summa. He was able to succinctly and often more convincingly put forth his opponents’ arguments than they could themselves. The point is that a good debater can find the specific place in their opponents’ argument where they went off the rails and put them back on track. We call this “common ground” but it is really common sense—if you want to argue with someone, you must start at the place where you agree. When debate occurs through memes like The People for Bernie Sanders’ post that obviously does not happen. If we have any hope to survive as a country this part of the American heritage must be restored. There are only two ways to win men over to your side, by appeals to reason through argument or by force. I am afraid that only one of those paths is open to us right now.

St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us!

Two Wings to God

"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth"Pope St. John Paul II