Every now and then one of those ubiquitous slogan wielding images that populate facebook pages everywhere turn up a gem that cannot be resisted. Just such a gem caught my eye the other day and now I just have to comment on it.
Marcus Aurelius was a Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD and has also been distinguished as one of the most important Stoic philosophers. It is he that is credited with the caption used in this image from The Idealist on Facebook. But it’s not just the saying that captured my imagination- it’s the very clever use of the image involved as well. Together they epitomize all that is clever and good about a slogan- punchy, humorous and quickly grasped. It exemplifies the cliche: “a picture is worth a thousand words”. What staggers me somewhat is that Aurelius seems to have captured the spirit of our age, no mean feat when considering his antiquity. But of course, what goes around, comes around.
Humanity has not changed significantly in two millennia, despite the dramatic change in accessories. But this really does characterize in a nutshell, just exactly the chief dilemma of our time, the emasculation of truth. Everything is reduced to "opinion" and when that happens, truth is devalued and lumped in with half-truths and convincing fallacies, and straight out lies dressed in exotic clothes. The term Post-modernism characterizes the spirit of our times. This generation is impressed by this sort of pop-culture, instantly gratifying philosophy as opposed to the serious discipline of extended focus and concentrated effort in layered thinking.
But I love this admittedly clever drawing and its application for the reason that it gives me the perfect opportunity to critique the laziness of today thinkers. Or rather the rash haste to accept a soundbite on face value without even raising an eyebrow. To quote a popular American President who sadly met an early demise- J. F. Kennedy
So what’s wrong with it?
Good old Marcus has made an absolute, unequivocal statement. Not once but twice, (given that the translation is accurate) he uses the word “everything” ditto.. There is not much that can be an exception to that is there? So everything is an opinion is it? Is that a fact? But therefore what he says can’t be a fact can it? If all is opinion, then that must include Marcus’s own statement mustn’t it? If we subject his saying to his own rule- (that everything is opinion and not fact) then his own saying defeats itself. His own saying (as defined by his own saying)- isn’t a fact. So who then is interested in opinions not based on facts? This is after all, merely his perspective, and not the truth- he has laid a trap for all truth, and has fallen neatly into his own net, hoist by his own petard.
The reality is that if true knowledge was impossible, which is what his saying concludes, we wouldn't even be capable of knowing what an opinion was! We all know what an opinion is, compared to true knowledge or factuality, truth- but we only know these from comparison. If we were incapable of truth, then neither would we know what "opinion" would be. As C.S. Lewis has said with regard to the moral law, (another absolute), a man can only call a line crooked, when he has some idea of a straight line. Well, the same holds for opinion, we can only call something an opinion, (like the crooked line) when we know what truth is, (the straight line), and if everything was literally opinion, as Aurelius opines, then we could not distinguish an opinion from truth. We could not know any truth.
While the clever use of the illusory planks gives cogent expression to the idea that given even apparently accurate facts, people will still come up with two different perspectives, none of which relate to the reality. This fits perfectly with Marcus Aurelius’s axiom. But it is quite plainly wrong. The two cartoon characters have different views, not because the truth cannot be known, or expressed, but because they are both bearing witness to an impossibility, a logical contradiction. The truth only bears witness to reality, not to logical contradictions which is exactly what the boards illustrate and represent. But not only the impossible planks, the impossible saying of Aurelius is the issue. The problem then is not with the nature of truth at all, nor so much as its accessibility to human endeavour. Neither is there any fundamental shortfall in the limitations of language in which to express it. The essential problem is with the mind that has twisted the truth to make it ambiguous or unreal and therefore agreement remains elusive. The problem lies with the mind which has accepted things as true, without the discomfort of effortful thinking. The mind that, at its deepest level, has an axe to grind with truth, especially the sort of truth that will involve getting out of our comfort zone. The problem then is not epistemological, it is a moral question. Or rather it is the morality we bring to our epistemology.
There is a difficulty involved when blanket, universal absolutes are pronounced, based on the authority of one’s own thinking. When such blanket statements are made, they are made from the perspective of a finite being who has assumed an omniscient perspective. He or she is playing God. It is usurping the position of God himself.
The following poster suffers from a similar malady. Does Andre Gide speak the truth? Or should we doubt him?
Humanity has not changed significantly in two millennia, despite the dramatic change in accessories. But this really does characterize in a nutshell, just exactly the chief dilemma of our time, the emasculation of truth. Everything is reduced to "opinion" and when that happens, truth is devalued and lumped in with half-truths and convincing fallacies, and straight out lies dressed in exotic clothes. The term Post-modernism characterizes the spirit of our times. This generation is impressed by this sort of pop-culture, instantly gratifying philosophy as opposed to the serious discipline of extended focus and concentrated effort in layered thinking.
But I love this admittedly clever drawing and its application for the reason that it gives me the perfect opportunity to critique the laziness of today thinkers. Or rather the rash haste to accept a soundbite on face value without even raising an eyebrow. To quote a popular American President who sadly met an early demise- J. F. Kennedy
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie- deliberate, contrived and dishonest- but the myth- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinions without the discomfort of thought”
Good old Marcus has made an absolute, unequivocal statement. Not once but twice, (given that the translation is accurate) he uses the word “everything” ditto.. There is not much that can be an exception to that is there? So everything is an opinion is it? Is that a fact? But therefore what he says can’t be a fact can it? If all is opinion, then that must include Marcus’s own statement mustn’t it? If we subject his saying to his own rule- (that everything is opinion and not fact) then his own saying defeats itself. His own saying (as defined by his own saying)- isn’t a fact. So who then is interested in opinions not based on facts? This is after all, merely his perspective, and not the truth- he has laid a trap for all truth, and has fallen neatly into his own net, hoist by his own petard.
The reality is that if true knowledge was impossible, which is what his saying concludes, we wouldn't even be capable of knowing what an opinion was! We all know what an opinion is, compared to true knowledge or factuality, truth- but we only know these from comparison. If we were incapable of truth, then neither would we know what "opinion" would be. As C.S. Lewis has said with regard to the moral law, (another absolute), a man can only call a line crooked, when he has some idea of a straight line. Well, the same holds for opinion, we can only call something an opinion, (like the crooked line) when we know what truth is, (the straight line), and if everything was literally opinion, as Aurelius opines, then we could not distinguish an opinion from truth. We could not know any truth.
While the clever use of the illusory planks gives cogent expression to the idea that given even apparently accurate facts, people will still come up with two different perspectives, none of which relate to the reality. This fits perfectly with Marcus Aurelius’s axiom. But it is quite plainly wrong. The two cartoon characters have different views, not because the truth cannot be known, or expressed, but because they are both bearing witness to an impossibility, a logical contradiction. The truth only bears witness to reality, not to logical contradictions which is exactly what the boards illustrate and represent. But not only the impossible planks, the impossible saying of Aurelius is the issue. The problem then is not with the nature of truth at all, nor so much as its accessibility to human endeavour. Neither is there any fundamental shortfall in the limitations of language in which to express it. The essential problem is with the mind that has twisted the truth to make it ambiguous or unreal and therefore agreement remains elusive. The problem lies with the mind which has accepted things as true, without the discomfort of effortful thinking. The mind that, at its deepest level, has an axe to grind with truth, especially the sort of truth that will involve getting out of our comfort zone. The problem then is not epistemological, it is a moral question. Or rather it is the morality we bring to our epistemology.
There is a difficulty involved when blanket, universal absolutes are pronounced, based on the authority of one’s own thinking. When such blanket statements are made, they are made from the perspective of a finite being who has assumed an omniscient perspective. He or she is playing God. It is usurping the position of God himself.
Jesus said “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye”.
The following poster suffers from a similar malady. Does Andre Gide speak the truth? Or should we doubt him?
