Dear Editor,
The problem is truth never existed nor did it have any value for all of human history. What people believed was determined by the powerful, who conditioned the majority to believe what they perceived to be in their interest.
A prime example of this is that organised religion believed that the world was flat, and anyone who spoke the truth was consigned to rack or other exquisite tortures.
The predicament that societies find themselves contending with is that limitations have been placed on the extent and degree coercion can be applied to citizens, and there is no going back to Absolutism since it precipitates intense social conflict, a state incompatible with weapons of mass destruction.
The alternative is rationality, the accurate description of social problems, which is the necessary prerequisite to their solution. And the only means of creating a bare majority of rational individuals in any society is by telling the truth, but this enterprise is in conflict with the irrationality produced down the long corridors of human history.
The conflict on which the survival of the species depends is between the rational and irrational, between facts that can withstand the acid test and wholly irrational beliefs to which human beings were conditioned over the centuries, many of these considered sacred.
The threat of global warming exemplifies this conflict between the rational and irrational. For decades scientists have been warning of the danger inherent in the burning of fossil fuels, but action to overcome this threat depends on the policies framed by politicians driven by political expediency and the need to win elections.
The problem is chronic in democracies, the root cause being the fact that limitations have been placed on the application of coersion without creating an alternative means of motivating the attitudes and patterns of behaviour required for societal order in a world where weapons of mass destruction are proliferating.
The most incontrovertible evidence that the struggle is between the forces of irrationality and those of rationality is the fact that these problems are chronic. For example, if billions are spent each year on interdiction of prohibited substances, and drugs are still available, the rational thing to do would be to change the policy until a way is found to resolve this problem, not persist with an approach that is obviously not working.
The same paradigm applies to the revitalisation of the economy, the reform of the education product, to every single problem we face; yet we continue to apply prescriptions which do not work, which cannot work, but rather make the problems and their impact more and more destructive. If this does not prove that we are irrational, nothing can.
William Edwin Virtue
voiceofpeace26@gmail.com
Truth, a now necessary historical anathema
-->
The problem is truth never existed nor did it have any value for all of human history. What people believed was determined by the powerful, who conditioned the majority to believe what they perceived to be in their interest.
A prime example of this is that organised religion believed that the world was flat, and anyone who spoke the truth was consigned to rack or other exquisite tortures.
The predicament that societies find themselves contending with is that limitations have been placed on the extent and degree coercion can be applied to citizens, and there is no going back to Absolutism since it precipitates intense social conflict, a state incompatible with weapons of mass destruction.
The alternative is rationality, the accurate description of social problems, which is the necessary prerequisite to their solution. And the only means of creating a bare majority of rational individuals in any society is by telling the truth, but this enterprise is in conflict with the irrationality produced down the long corridors of human history.
The conflict on which the survival of the species depends is between the rational and irrational, between facts that can withstand the acid test and wholly irrational beliefs to which human beings were conditioned over the centuries, many of these considered sacred.
The threat of global warming exemplifies this conflict between the rational and irrational. For decades scientists have been warning of the danger inherent in the burning of fossil fuels, but action to overcome this threat depends on the policies framed by politicians driven by political expediency and the need to win elections.
The problem is chronic in democracies, the root cause being the fact that limitations have been placed on the application of coersion without creating an alternative means of motivating the attitudes and patterns of behaviour required for societal order in a world where weapons of mass destruction are proliferating.
The most incontrovertible evidence that the struggle is between the forces of irrationality and those of rationality is the fact that these problems are chronic. For example, if billions are spent each year on interdiction of prohibited substances, and drugs are still available, the rational thing to do would be to change the policy until a way is found to resolve this problem, not persist with an approach that is obviously not working.
The same paradigm applies to the revitalisation of the economy, the reform of the education product, to every single problem we face; yet we continue to apply prescriptions which do not work, which cannot work, but rather make the problems and their impact more and more destructive. If this does not prove that we are irrational, nothing can.
William Edwin Virtue
voiceofpeace26@gmail.com
Truth, a now necessary historical anathema
-->