In these discordant times, one can only hope to say something that would offer respite from the daily onslaught of disturbing news that can neither be avoided nor dismissed. I have no such respite to offer here. Instead I can only offer my observation and thoughts regarding such times as these.
The discordant cacophony of angry voices on any given day, on any give subject offers little peace of mind. Stepping back from the daily moment to moment discord only confirms the observation that ardent ideological beliefs have led to the use of vitriol and violence. The old childhood adage, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me," is clearly a fallacy. Vitriol's connection to violence is undeniable.
What we say and what we do are closely linked as demonstrated in the connection between vitriol and violence. The Cambridge Dictionary defines vitriol as violent hate and anger expressed through severe criticism. The use of vitriol is designed to cause fear and pain in the person or persons it is directed towards.
There are plenty of recent events to validate this statement that I need not mentioned their occurrences. People use vitriol for several reasons; as a defense mechanism to vent one's fear and pain, as an appeal to foment anger in order to garner support for a cause that might otherwise be perceived as weak, and as a means to incite others to commit acts of violence.
Vitriol is antithetical to reasoning. When vitriol is injected into a debate, reason is muted and there is no point in continuing said debate. Those who use vitriol largely do so to end a discussion by employing a fallacy I call the argument from belief; as in,"You are not permitted to argue against what I personally believe." This argument is frequently observed by those who currently posit some form of ideological nationalism, be it political or theocratic. Individuals use such a fallacy to victimize victims as the cause of their victimization in the name of belief.
* * *
Perhaps an unintended example of such a fallacy is when Thomas Jefferson penned, "We hold these truths to be self evident..." he couldn't have been thinking about women, much less, the indigenous population and the slaves in this country. He was thinking in terms of the English aristocracy and particularly King George III as being no different than the common white male on the street. If he was thinking about women and slaves at the time, he did nothing to change their social status thereafter. Women were, at best, equal as women. Indigenous people are equal as being indigenous, and slaves are equal as slaves. It was an unspoken belief that felt true and so needed no explanation per se. What can be said about Jefferson's self-evident truths is that they became aspirational, something that most Americans believe to be true, but have little faith in the possibility of their being realized as fact.
Truth is an elusive concept. Truth as a metaphysical term speaks of a complexity that it holds us rather than we hold it. It is an ideal that is beyond our full comprehension.
As such, many have substituted metaphysical truth with the egotistical concept of "my truth." "My truth" is a relative term that reflects one's beliefs, experiences, or opinions, which may differ from the beliefs, and experiences of others as a personal truth. Like the "Argument from Belief" the "Argument from (My) Truth" is a defensive fallacy used against the opposing assertions of others. "My beliefs" and "My Truths" require no basis in fact. They only rely on the certitude of one's opinionated perceptions. Philosophically speaking, truth cannot be expressed with certitude, as truth is intrinsically paradoxical.
* * *
Speaking of the Argument from Belief and the Argument from (My)Truth" is the concept of "an enemy from within"espoused by political leaders as a deliberate attempt to stir the vortex of a paranoid delusion amongst the nation's polarized citizenry. The irony is that those who promulgate such notions are doing so for personal reasons and vindictiveness, thus exposing themselves as also being an enemy within.
Such extreme discord may be best understood as a social psychosis, where a consensus on what is fact becomes untethered from reality by means of disinformation which borders on the delusional. Public paranoia abounds as suppositional conspiracy theories spread at the speed of light through social media.
So much of what we fear is a result of a discordant chaos based on these fallacies. Fallacious thinking lends itself to self-fulfilled prophecies. In a discordant atmosphere, certitude becomes a weapon against healthy skepticism that allows one to think before speaking, that ask questions when confronted with certitude, and encourages reason to guide one's understanding.
* * *
There are no easy ways to get around such discordant times as these. Vitriol threatens violence. It is hard to fathom perceived need for the militarization of the public square and the suppression of the fundamental right to free speech by a government sworn to uphold it. As the use of fear becomes the dominant means of discourse, it will be hard to reestablish civil discourse. Democratic governance requires democratic discourse, where diverse opinions should be shared civilly to obtain reasoned outcomes. Every voice matters; especially, those that demonstrate thought before speaking.
Problem solving at a national level requires thoughtful listening to identify problematic issue properly. While vitriol is always at the ready to shut down constructive communication, the key is to understand the issue at the heart of its use in order to tone it down. Understanding does not mean agreement, but understanding is the first step to reaching agreement. When leaders refuse to listen to one another and resort to threats, the hope for a peaceful resolution vanishes. This is particularly true when leaders foment discord as a means to gain a political advantage. Deliberate polarization along partisan lines disables constructive communication.
Democracy's achilles heel resides in the very need to garner political support; especially, when doing so is done at all costs and by all means. It is a rare trait to find a principled politician who is devoted to speaking civilly and honestly even if doing so might cost an electoral victory. Giving people what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear can result in political suicide and there have been rare individuals who have done it for the sake of our republic and the common good. Unfortunately the political environment we live in today does not offer itself to fostering such rare individuals.
For too long the two major political parties in the U.S. have ignored the hard work of working together to solve the nation's problems. The focus of both parties has been securing enough political power to ensure their version of the good rather than securing the common good. At best, Congress has opted to skirt issues by passing temporary resolutions that kick the can down the road. There is a point when such can-kicking results in facing a dead end where the common good is forgotten and where compromise is perceived as weakness and discord is the order of the day.
In such cases, governments can undergo drastic changes. There comes a point where discord has to be met face on as the primary problem facing the nation. When the military is sent into major cities to quell peaceful protests, the rights of every American citizen is in grave danger. Testing the waters of liberty to see how far authoritarianism is tolerated by the public is destabilizing. Whether tolerated or not, such an adventure could easily lead to violence that will put the republic at risk not only from perceived enemies within but from enemies without.
As Lincoln frequently quoted in his speeches, "A house divided cannot stand." This statement has been repeated throughout our history. How many times must we hear it? How many times must we experience it before we value concord as humanity's highest achievement?
Norm
