• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Ray Harris is a frequent contributor to this website. He has written articles on 9/11, boomeritis, the Iraq war and Third Way politics. Since 2007 he took to writing his novels Navaratri, Wild Child and Eden. Harris lives in Ballarat, Victoria, Australia.

The Tower of Babel

Freedom of speech vs the right to lie

Ray Harris

“Come, let us go down and confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech.” Genesis 11: 7

If there is any evidence that the Abrahamic god is a jealous god, it is this passage. Fearful that humanity might build a tower that reaches heaven he sets about ensuring they cannot communicate, making it impossible for them to continue. It is an apt allegory for the brave new world of social media and the internet. The early advocates of the internet promised an era of easy access to the world's knowledge. It was hoped this would unite humanity. Instead it has only amplified disinformation, allowed conspiracy theories to thrive and encouraged political polarisation. Rather than empower the general population, it has instead only empowered idiots, charlatans and propagandists, both state and non-state. Like Yahweh, the aim is to spread confusion and to divide people.

I would like to think that the integral community is well aware of the purpose and history of propaganda; alert to the manipulations of classic rhetoric. Some are; sadly it seems, too many are not.

TRUTH AS A UNIVERSAL VIRTUE

“The way of truth is like a great road. It is not difficult to know it. The evil is only that men will not seek it.” Meng Ke (Mencius)

No one likes to be lied to or cheated. It is a major source of conflict. For this reason every ethical system from east to west, south to north, stresses the importance of uncovering, verifying and telling the truth. It is the foundation of our sense of justice. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. As such the sages of all major civilisations have concerned themselves with the nature of truth and how to distinguish it from what is false. In Western philosophy this process is called epistemology, after the Greek episteme, meaning knowledge. In Indian philosophy it is called pramãna, which translates as proof.

Here I want to remind the reader that the love of wisdom, philia sophia - in Sanskrit, darshana (viewpoint, perspective) - is NOT unique to the West. As I pointed out in my essay 'The West is not Western', there has been a millennia long exchange of ideas between East and West with Indian philosophers, the gymnosophists, travelling to Ancient Greece, and the creation of a Greco-Buddhist state in Bactria. Thus creating a mutual exchange that continued during the Roman era and which was revitalised with the renewal of trade during the era of European colonisation. The German philosopher Schopenhauer declared “the Upanishads the greatest gift of this century and reading them is comforting in my life and will be comforting when I die.” The English poet T.S. Elliot said that “Indian philosophers make most of the great European philosophers look like schoolboys.”

I say this to disabuse people of the notion of Western exceptionalism. There are two great philosophical traditions. The Indian, which expanded to have an enormous impact on Asia in general, especially with the spread of Buddhism to China and Japan. And the Hellenic, which expanded to have an equally significant impact on the Middle East, and lastly, the barbaric West (land of the Germanic tribes that succeeded the Western Roman Empire).

So allow me to make a bold claim. There are actually more differences of opinion within each of these philosophical traditions than there are between them. Each tradition consists of multiple schools of thought representing competing opinions. Each tradition has its materialists, sceptics and metaphysicians; its dualists and non-dualists. Each tradition has arrived at similar positions in relation to a wide range of issues. And this is where I get to the point of my discursion: both traditions developed similar methods for determining what is true. Both developed a rigorous epistemology, both developed a system of logic and rhetoric.

In India it was the Nyaya Darshana that was most concerned with epistemology and logic. Nyaya means rules/method and it was one the six orthodox Vedic Astika, (schools). The foundational text, the Nyaya Sutras, dates to the 2^nd century CE, although the oral tradition dates even further back to passages in the Rig Veda.

Nyaya explores pramana - the means of knowledge, and delineates four types: perception, inference, comparison and testimony from reliable sources. It also identified the causes of errors and developed a system of logic (tarka) to resolve these errors.

“Indian texts identify four requirements for correct perception: Indriyarthasannikarsa (direct experience by one's sensory organ(s) with the object, whatever is being studied), Avyapadesya (non-verbal; correct perception is not through hearsay, according to ancient Indian scholars, where one's sensory organ relies on accepting or rejecting someone else's perception), Avyabhicara (does not wander; correct perception does not change, nor is it the result of deception because one's sensory organ or means of observation is drifting, defective, suspect) and Vyavasayatmaka (definite; correct perception excludes judgments of doubt, either because of one's failure to observe all the details, or because one is mixing inference with observation and observing what one wants to observe, or not observing what one does not want to observe). (1)

Nyaya also discusses the nature of logical fallacies, both formal and informal, some of which are also found in the Greek tradition. The application of logic steered some Nyaya sages towards a materialist atheism and to propose a form of empiricism. Indeed, Indian scholars made important discoveries in the sciences, especially mathematics and astronomy.

Finally, also note when Greek and Indian sages began to formulate epistemology/pramana. It is not a modern innovation. The development of reason predates the Age of Reason. This is important to remember when we come to discuss modernism and postmodernism.

RHETORIC

We can speak of positive rhetoric, the art of constructing a coherent argument, versus negative rhetoric, the art of persuasion and manipulation. The ancients understood both. In Greece Plato expressed his concerns on the use of rhetoric to deceive, whereas Aristotle defended it as a civic art. Similar observations were made in India, which has a rich tradition of grammar and exposition (as some of the 64 arts of Saraswati).

To avoid going into too much detail and complicating things, I'm going to confine my remarks to the Greek explication - with the understanding that it is not exclusive to the Greeks.

Classic rhetoric describes three modes of argument: logos, pathos and ethos. Appeal to evidence and reason, appeal to emotion and appeal to morality. These modes can be found in all attempts to persuade, whether in politics or public/private discourse, and especially in advertising. However, despite the prevalence of ethos and pathos, appeal to emotion and appeal to morality are listed as informal logical fallacies more often used to conceal rather than reveal the truth.

EXCUSES, EXCUSES…

If respect for the truth is universal, so too are the excuses for dishonesty. For as much as the sages have emphasised the need for some form of epistemology, ordinary people find reasons to lie or believe lies. Even though the Abrahamic tradition clearly states that 'thou shalt not bear false witness', theologians have made numerous exceptions. We know it's wrong, yet we all do it to varying degrees. We learn to lie early in life. It comes naturally. We have to learn to tell the truth. Developmentally this is related to Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning. Developmentally immature individuals have no problem with lying.

So why do people lie and cheat? For many reasons. We all do it; so why have you lied? Usually it is for some negative or positive gain - to avoid an unwanted consequence or to receive an advantage. These gains can be emotional or material. To avoid blame or gain praise. To avoid a cost or attain a benefit.

It is the great moral paradox. Societies construct a set of rules and laws governing conduct and yet we constantly resist those rules. The evidence is in the number of people put before the courts for crimes large and small. How many relationships end because of spousal dishonesty? We hope our lies will not be discovered and when they are, we feel shame. Unless of course, we suffer some form of psychopathy.

And yet for all our deceptions and dishonesty, few say they want to live in a society with no laws and no sense of justice. A common complaint about politicians is that they lie to the public. If a politician is caught lying or cheating it can end their career. Except of course, if the lie is popular, if it tells the population what they want to hear. This is the essence of populism: appeal to emotion, appeal to morality, the judicious avoidance of uncomfortable truths.

GEBSER'S MAGICAL, MYTHICAL, RATIONAL AND INTEGRAL THINKING

This is really a reminder of Gebser's important contribution to Integral philosophy. Aware of Piaget's discoveries in child development, Gebser applied the notion of stages to human development in general. It was not a strictly hierarchical system. Magical, mythical and rational thinking can coexist in individuals and within societies. Changes from one mode to another depend on life conditions. Put under stress individuals/societies might favour mythical thinking over rational. This begs the question of the conditions that cause a shift from one mode to another. For the purposes of this article I want to suggest that the definition of truth differs from mode to mode. For someone embedded in mythical thinking, myths reveal greater truths than reason. This helps explain the conflict between religious fundamentalists and science.

NARRATIVE AND IDENTITY

We all create stories about who we are, what we believe and why we believe. We are born into cultural and familial narratives and as we experience life we begin to build a personal narrative. It is well understood in psychology that these subjective narratives can often be inaccurate. Our memories are faulty. We may not remember a family incident the way our siblings do. The same principle applies to cultural memory. Some narratives are partial and some are simply false.

As we build our identity/ego we become attached to our narrative and seek to protect it from challenging truths. Psychotherapy often deals with revealing these protective mechanisms and there is a vast body of literature on the subject. This has led to an acute understanding of the various defence mechanisms, including the various forms of cognitive dissonance where we use false reasoning to defend our narrative and identity. When confronted with narrative busting evidence, we may apply magical or mythical thinking as an escape. Jungian analysis in particular, explored the archetypal structure of consciousness, which could hold either a magical or mythical hold over people.

IDEOLOGICAL THINKING

This is an all too common phenomenon. It occurs whenever someone edits the evidence to support a predetermined belief rather than adjusting one's beliefs according to the evidence. An ideology is a narrative that often uses magical or mythical thinking. An ideology can be religious, political or cultural (although cultural ideologies are also political).

Ideological thinking can be particularly deceptive because people who adhere to a particular ideology can be highly intelligent and able to construct elaborate rationalisations for their beliefs. Much of the conflict between political systems is ideological with each faction editing the evidence to support their narrative and negate any contrary narratives.

REASON IS A DISCIPLINE

Reason does not come naturally. It must be learned and practised. Humans are naturally wired to resort to magical and mythical thinking, to construct narratives/identities and to protect those narratives from challenge.

Here I want to return to the early Greek and Hindu philosophers. Many considered philosophy to be a lifelong practice of contemplation and practice that required discipline and constant vigilance/inquiry. They established the first universities in both the east and west. The great university in Nalanda and the schools/libraries of Athens and Alexandria.

WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE?

The question of whether we can know anything to be true is an ancient question. As I said above, both the Indian and Hellenic traditions began to develop a method to determine truth from lies, fact from belief. It is the discipline of epistemology - a major branch of all philosophy. In this tradition the word knowledge has a very precise meaning that is different to how it is often used in common speech. In epistemology knowledge is defined as a justified true belief. In common speech people may say they know this or that, but when subjected to epistemological inquiry, their belief that they know a particular thing turns out to be neither justified nor true. For the truth condition to be met the claimant must provide incontrovertible evidence. For the justified condition to be met the claimant must adhere to the rules of logic, both formal and informal.

There are of course, different schools of epistemology and there is still no consensus. Philosophers, east and west, continue to debate the issue. Yet, despite these differences, every philosopher agrees that certain things are true. Even the most hardened sceptic or relativist who argues we cannot know anything with certainty, will not voluntarily jump off a high building or walk naked in either a hot desert or freezing blizzard. They know full well they risk their lives. Their scepticism is abstract, not practical (a point I will return to later).

MISUNDERSTANDING MODERNISM

There is no doubt that filled with hubris and ignorance, some European Enlightenment writers claimed to have invented reason, or that only they had mastered it. This is hyperbole that eventually dissolved under closer scrutiny. It is no longer believed by serious people, although the idea is perpetuated by those with an ideological or cultural axe to grind. As is now fully acknowledged the European Renaissance and Enlightenment were rediscoveries of both Greek and Indian philosophy (transmitted through the Arab and Byzantine East). The Age of Reason, the modernist revolution, was actually not modern.

Following Gebser we can say that rational thinking arises when specific cultural conditions are met and that these conditions can arise at different locations at different times. These conditions can also just as easily disappear causing a retreat from rational thinking.

These conditions are:

1. The creation of a stable city state.
2. A stratified society with specialist trades. (eg. metallurgy, which gave rise to early developments in chemistry).
3. A sufficient surplus of food and goods to support experimentation and rational inquiry, either practical or abstract.

Whether it is in Asia, America, Africa, Arabia or Europe, wealthy and stable city states were the drivers of innovation, whether in the material sciences or in philosophy. These innovations would then pass from culture to culture leading to a steady accumulation of knowledge. That the Enlightenment and subsequent Industrial and Scientific Revolutions occurred in Europe is due to historical and geographical factors, not any inherent ability. And following this pattern, the discoveries of the Industrial and Scientific Revolution have been passed on to the East and Global South, added to, and passed back (often following trade routes) - creating a cumulative circle of innovation that belongs to everyone.

And what is the essence of this allegedly 'Western' modernist revolution? A substantive challenge to the magical and mythical thinking typical of the earlier feudal and tribal orders. Because that is what really defines modernism, the overthrow of feudalism and tribalism by the modern political systems of liberal democracy and socialism (and variations thereof). Not just in the West, but globally.

MISUNDERSTANDING POSTMODERNISM

I had to take a break before tackling this subject. It's complex. And that's the problem. Because of its complexity - and obscurantism (Foucault once famously criticised Derrida for being too obscure) - postmodernism is too often misunderstood and misrepresented. (2)

For the purpose of this essay I will confine my remarks to the common misconception that post-modernists are moral and epistemological relativists. As Peter Salmon, Derrida's biographer explains:

“Nevertheless, the pair are cast as absolute moral relativists for whom there is no truth whatsoever—a position which not only did they not argue, but were at pains to disavow.” (3)

There are two sources for this distortion. One comes from political conservatives who associate postmodernism with Marxism and have created a caricature to scapegoat. The second comes from some sections of the left who have used postmodernism to rationalise their ideological prejudices. Claiming that truth is relative allows people to revert to mythological and magical thinking.

But let's hear from them directly.

“What is called "objectivity," scientific for instance (in which I firmly believe, in a given situation) imposes itself only within a context which is extremely vast, old, firmly established, or rooted in a network of conventions … and yet which still remains a context.” Derrida. (4)

“Science has always been in conflict with narratives. Judged by the yardstick of science, the majority of them prove to be fables. But to the extent that science does not restrict itself to stating useful regularities and seeks truth, it is obliged to legitimate the rules of its own game.” Lyotard. (5)

“In other words, while knowledge is always vulnerable to epistemic distortion by pernicious power relations, Foucault does not think this is what power inherently does to knowledge, and there is no reason to think that the mutual immanence of power-knowledge results in the permanent distortion of knowledge. Indeed, it is entirely possible to establish rigorous epistemic standards within the field of power. In this way, we can see that Foucault's respect for the natural sciences is coherently immanent to his claims about power-knowledge as well as his historical critique of reason.” Leonard D'Cruz (6)

Postmodernism is primarily concerned with hermeneutics - the interpretation of text. To use an analogy: a text, say a book, is both a physical object and a narrative. As a physical object it has been constructed using technical processes: paper making, printing, binding, etc. Each edition is identical, meaning that each reader can read the exact same words in the exact same sequence. If I say that on page so and so of a particular edition there is a certain sequences of words, everyone who has access will be able to confirm that the statement is a justified true belief. However, when it comes to deciding what a given sequence of words means we encounter an enormous variety of subjective interpretations. Postmodernism is concerned with the processes that affect the interpretation of a text. It does not question the objective, material reality of the text.

PRACTICAL VERSUS ABSTRACT REASON

Regardless of what we believe, we all live and breathe in a real world, a world that is the same for everyone. The Eiffel Tower is in Paris for everyone. It is not in Berlin or Moscow for a select few. Travel to Paris, follow the maps and you will encounter the Eiffel Tower exactly where it has always been. Millions of tourists visit Paris every year. Have any said the Eiffel Tower wasn't there (and taken a photo to prove it)? This is as true for an epistemological sceptic as it is for an empiricist, as true for someone suffering psychosis as someone who is enlightened.

For this reason a distinction is made between practical and abstract reason.

The irony is that philosophers who hold quite divergent views on epistemology nonetheless function in the real world. They eat and sleep and move about, have mothers and fathers and one day they will die. And if they travel to Paris, they can confirm that the Eiffel Tower is exactly where it is supposed to be. It reminds me of an obscure joke: the Society of Radical Sceptics attempt to hold an international conference but cannot agree that other sceptics exist or that any potential venue is real.

POST-TRUTH AND POWER

As Foucault said, it is about power. This principle applies equally to those who already have power and want to keep it and those who don't have enough (or little) power and want more. It is especially true for those who hold onto magical or mythological beliefs. How else to explain the challenges to modern science by religious fundamentalists? What better way to avoid evidence that might challenge your beliefs, whether that is psychological (ego) or practical, than to appeal to post-truth relativism and simply assert that your truth is as valid as anyone else's?

Consider the psychology of cults and conspiracy theorists. The cult leader creates a narrative and attempts to shield followers from any contrary narrative. The pattern is all too familiar. All outside authorities are not to be trusted and are part of a conspiracy (satanic or otherwise) to deceive the believers.

The same pattern can be seen in political ideologies across the spectrum. The leaders of the movement use a variety of standard techniques of manipulation to enforce ideological purity/conformity. Heretics are purged and in the most extreme cases, in both religious and political cults, killed, often in cruel ways (burned at the stake or imprisoned and tortured).

Post-truth relativism provides ideological justification for holders of magical and mythical belief systems to reject truth claims by arguing that those who assert the truth claim are doing so simply to hold onto power. One example of this are advocates of traditional medicines who reject modern medicine because it is allegedly the legacy of colonial power structures (or Big Pharma). In such cases you will see modern medicine labelled as 'Western' medicine, despite its universality. This can (and has) led to the rejection of life saving interventions out of mistrust.

I return to Foucault's observation that it is possible to establish rigorous epistemological standards within the field of power.

MISUNDERSTANDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The greatest beneficiaries of this misunderstanding are those who benefit/profit from spreading disinformation and outright lies.

But as originally conceived, freedom of speech was meant to protect open inquiry from censorship and persecution by the authorities, particularly the clerical/state alliance. In the European tradition the trial of Galileo is often cited as an example. But once again, this problem is not confined to the 'West'. The leading Islamic scholar Al-Ghazali (1058-1111) is noted for his critique of Greek epistemology in his book 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers'. Mao's persecution of intellectuals and scientists during the cultural revolution is well understood. In fact he once boasted that he had exceeded the repressions of emperor Qin Shi Huang:

“He buried 460 scholars alive - we have buried 46,000 scholars alive. You [intellectuals] revile us for being Qin Shi Huangs. You are wrong. We have surpassed Qin Shi Huang a hundredfold.” (7)

The purpose of open inquiry has always been to attempt to establish the truth of things. It was never intended as an excuse to conceal the truth.

I can think of no better example of this than the use of freedom of speech by religious conservatives to allow them to lie. This excuse has reached a peak in the USA with Christian Nationalists campaigning to protect their right to condemn and restrict the beliefs of others whilst continuing to perpetuate beliefs that have long been debunked (such as young earth creationism).

Of course the same can be said about the free speech debate in tertiary institutions and the political tactic of deplatforming and cancelling, which is simply a repeat of the political purges of the past.

As I write this, Mark Zuckerberg has announced a relaxing of Meta's community standards in the name of free speech (but really to appease Trump). But this is an illusion. Severe restrictions continue for a number of groups that challenge conservative beliefs around sexuality and decency. Despite being a substantial, long-established and legal social movement, especially in Europe, naturism is heavily censored on Meta due to restrictions on depictions of nudity. No happy snaps from your family visit to one of the many dedicated naturist resorts.

Freedom for my group, but not for yours.

WHO DECIDES?

This is the wrong question. The reason the Ancient Greek and Indian philosophers developed epistemology and logic was to develop an independent method to discern truth. They realised that the decision should not be left up to any individual or group.

I find it odd that the people who raise the issue of who decides ignore the history of the legal system. Recognising that matters of law should not be based on the arbitrary decisions of individuals, usually the feudal lord, a system of jurisprudence was developed. A system which penalises people who give false witness.

A similar process was developed in the academy. Academics went through a rigorous training program to gain the qualification to 'master' or 'profess' a discipline. Academic arguments are presented at formal conferences and in academic journals and exposed to peer review. Propositions are tested and proof is demanded. This process can take years and many propositions fail and are discredited and discarded.

CORRUPTION AND ABUSE OF PROCESS

The process is not perfect. Despite its purported rigour, the judicial system can get it wrong, badly wrong. The same problems occur in the academy. This problem is well understood and attempts are made to address it. Lawyers work with citizen groups to free prisoners wrongly incarcerated. Cases can be appealed. Academics work to improve transparency and accountability, and can face disciplinary action; academic papers have been withdrawn for malpractice.

The sources of corruption are well known and documented.

1. Financial gain.
2. Status gain.
3. Some form of blackmail.
4. Prejudice against a segment of society (race, class, gender, sexual orientation, political or religious belief).
5. Political gain.
6. Ideological gain.

The failure of the truth-seekers to successfully deal with corruption leads to public mistrust. Trust in the medical profession has declined because of the corrupting influence of transnational pharmaceutical corporations who notoriously pour millions into influencing doctors and politicians. There has been scandal after scandal: the machinations of the tobacco giants in suppressing the findings on the health impacts of smoking, the corruption behind the prescription of opioids leading to an epidemic of addiction. Is it any wonder there is mistrust?

So people turn to alternatives. But the problem with this is that the alternatives are also subject to the same processes of corruption. How many alternative practitioners have been caught up in scandals? The alternative medicine industry is massive and it uses the same techniques as the large pharmaceutical industries.

LEGACY VERSUS ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

This issue is worth a special mention given everyone seems to complain about the MSM (mainstream media).

You really have to have been living under a rock if you claim not to know that the legacy media has an editorial bias. From the very beginning of newspapers and political pamphlets, publishers have exhibited political preferences. Some famous mastheads were created specifically as a voice for political parties and movements.

There are also no new controversies in the media. Media moguls have always been a part of the industry. Rupert Murdoch? Try William Randolph Hearst.

During a period of intense competition in New York in the 1890's, Hearst and his rival, Joseph Pulitzer, resorted to sensationalism to win readers. In the US this tactic became known as yellow journalism, in Britain it is called gutter or tabloid journalism.

“Journalism historian Frank Luther Mott used five characteristics to identify yellow journalism:
1. Scare headlines in huge print, often sensationalizing minor news.
2. Lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings.
3. Use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts.
4. Emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with superficial articles and comics.
5. Dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.” (8)

In a curious twist to this story, Pulitzer would go on to reject sensationalism, found a school of journalism and establish a prestigious prize for excellence in journalism. During the 20th century attempts were made to establish a journalist's code of conduct similar to other professions.

And just as there has been mass circulation journalism there has also been the alternative press, perhaps more niche with a smaller circulation, but still able to publish. At least in liberal democracies. Authoritarian societies typically restrict alternative voices.

But here's the thing. The alternative press is subject to the same forces of corruption as the mainstream media. Being alternative doesn't mean being trustworthy. A number of scandals have exposed the dark side of the alternative media. Alex Jones of Infowars was successfully sued for defamation over the false allegations he made about the Sandy Hook school shooting. It was revealed that Jones made most of his money selling questionable health supplements advertised on his podcast. And in September 2024, several right-wing commentators, including Dave Rubin of the Rubin report, were implicated in a Russian misinformation campaign. This is not confined to the conservative media, left-wing outlets have also been implicated.

If both the legacy and alternative media are subject to the same process of corruption then could the preference for alternative media simply be a case of confirmation bias, of seeking the media bubble that supports your ideological bias?

PROPAGANDA

Propaganda is also as old as human communication. The ancient Greeks had a good deal to say about it. Plato famously condemned the Sophists for resorting to rhetorical trickery to persuade a gullible public. Today the word sophistry is used to describe 'a clever, but false argument'. Without digressing into unnecessary detail, correlates to this debate can also be found in Indian philosophy.

Here I want to return to my discussion of rhetoric above, especially the distinction between positive and negative rhetoric. When using evidence based reason (logos) to persuade people doesn't work, especially when the audience can't follow the argument or is insufficiently educated on the facts, the persuader will often resort to appeals to pathos and ethos. An example of this is the appeal to patriotism during periods of conflict. This can be justified if it is agreed that the result benefits the population.

Unfortunately these techniques are too often used in the negative sense: to create fear, to demonise the other, to hide the truth and the real motives of those in power. Propaganda becomes a tool to deceive and to spread confusion. And whilst it has always been with us, the techniques have grown in sophistication. Modern propagandists are acutely aware of the affective and cognitive weaknesses of humans and they exploit every single one with sociopathic glee. There is no single puppet master, there are many; some working together, some in opposition: religions (who have a long history of propaganda), states, political movements, commercial and special interests (charities especially use appeal to emotion). These techniques are not a secret. Volumes have been written outlining them in detail. The technique of NeuroLinguistic Programming goes into considerable detail regarding the many subliminal techniques that can be used, including autonomic suggestion.

If you are not aware of these techniques you have simply not been paying attention.

The other illusion is to believe that only your ideological opponents use these techniques. The left accuses the right and the right accuses the left. Russian and Chinese propagandists accuse the West of using propaganda and vice versa. The truth is that everyone uses it. No side is innocent. Remember, the aim is to confuse and they are doing a good job of it.

Which brings us back to the Ancient Greek and Indian philosophers and to the discipline of epistemology. We've known all along how to distinguish fact from fiction. It's not an inherent skill. It is a rigorous discipline. Every truth claim must be justified and verified. Nothing should be believed because we want it to be true.

We all have a choice. To aid clarity and understanding or to contribute to the babble.

NOTES

1. "Nyaya", Wikipedia

2. Peter Salmon, "How Derrida and Foucault became the most misunderstood philosophers of our time", www.prospectmagazine.co.uk, January 21, 2021.

3. Leonard D'Cruz, "Foucault's naturalism: The importance of scientific epistemology for the genealogical method", journals.sagepub.com, March 16, 2024.

4. Jacques Derrida / Quotes, www.goodreads.com

5. "The Postmodern Condition Quotes", www.goodreads.com

6. Leonard D'Cruz, "Foucault's naturalism: The importance of scientific epistemology for the genealogical method", journals.sagepub.com, March 16, 2024.

7. Carrie Gracie, "Qin Shi Huang: The ruthless emperor who burned books", www.bbc.com, 15 October 2012.

8. "Yellow Journalism", Wikipedia