It's funny. I often refer to Strauss to make the point that "truth" and "community" may be irreconcilable. You can't have a founding without a founding myth, and you can't have a founding myth without fudging the details a little bit. (As it turns out, BUT AKSHUALLY reply guys do not fare well in canonical stories)
The challenge with the clearpill is that (a) some people are persuadable at the margins, and if you don't say anything because other people are not, then you're missing the folks who are; and (b) we care a lot about what other people think (or what we think they think), as per the old line "the job of propaganda is not to tell you what to think, but to tell you what other people think." The regime may be considerably less powerful than the philosopher imagines, if only because there is far more opposition than the philosopher imagines . . . which no one imagines (but perhaps the regime) because everyone has taken the clearpill vow of silence.
One person can make changes, it's jus that those changes are small, incremental and at the margins, which for ambitious and/or impatient people, can feel like a waste of time.
Something, something . . . persecution and the art of writing.
Good essay. Arguing serves at least a couple of purposes, even if nobody changes their mind. First, the "ruling regime" in a democratic society cares a lot about what people think; in many cases they follow rather than lead (legalization of gay marriage was a good example). Loud voices signal to those in power: Here's what you need to do to keep my support.
Second, arguing is a signaling mechanism, like chest-thumping among gorillas. You see this in presidential debates: It's not about saying the right thing, it's about how you say it and the perceived edge it gives you over your opponent. Do you get nervous? Can you respond and adapt? Are you confident? Can you dominate your enemies? Arguing well can serve as proof to others that you possess hard-to-fake qualities that would be useful in other (more serious) contexts.
What most chimed with me on Israel-Hamas since October 7 was the title of a Steve Marriott article title in The Times "You Don't Need to Share Your Views on Gaza".
War is ugly (always has and always will be ugly) but in the age of mass media, for those who don't actually have to fight or suffer - for the media/social media commentariat and for those glued to it on the telly - it has almost become a ghoulish kind of entertainment and an orgy of (presumably cathartic) opinionising.
Opinions of Russia vs Ukraine have changed over the last few months, so obviously people can be persuaded.
Similarly, there is a huge difference of opinion on Israel vs Palestine over generations, so the indoctrination of the young must be working.
Persuasion does work, but maybe it doesn't work at the level of individuals making individual arguments. It's cumulative.
Maybe it isn't worth your effort as an individual. I think most people write about this stuff "to keep themselves sane". They need to express thsemelves. It's nice if that influences people, but its mostly a function of wanting to express ones own sanity.
This is where storytelling and oh-so-subtle satire play their roles. The message is a signal to those who are open and reads like noise to those who aren't. But for the latter, the story stays in their heads and clicks one day as moments in their lives resemble it. We remember and invoke those stories more than any author’s public hot takes.
That said, timing might be everything. I don’t think Luther would’ve hit as hard had he nailed to the church door a long-winded allegory on indulgences and hypocrisy instead of his 95 theses. Perhaps he was clear-pilling himself up until that point. The printing press sure helped.
The best stories win. To be an activist, become a storyteller. But you’d better be a good one to land and a subtle one to keep your head, in every sense.
Realizing that most people are set in their beliefs makes reasoning about political marketing easier. Everyone has already priced in their opponents' points, so even urgent, extreme data struggles to convince.
With positions already set, the media and other entities turn their attention to extracting the most action out of a given degree of discord. Persuasive naming is replaced by agitating naming, which is why the clearpill is an effective option.
I’d challenge that community and truth-seeking are strictly inversely correlated. The truth seekers you mention scattered around Substack are a minority, to be sure, but during the enlightenment appeals to reason strengthened membership, while during the Spanish Inquisition the opposite was true.
Another interesting parameter is how strong the need is for any given person to cling to a community or identity. I’d argue that people are more prone to fringe and extreme communities when they feel lonely, lost, or otherwise inadequate, and the intense feelings of righteousness and belonging helps fill the void. If you’re more balanced and comfortable in your place in the world, you’ll cling less strongly to your community. I’d grant that social media makes people feel less secure, and escalates more things such that they trigger the friend/enemy distinction, though.
Being retired makes me want to look for truth, no matter which tribe. Politics is more fun than philosophy. (While I am in Slovakia, I also now speak Slovak, and we just got a new anti-EU Prime Minister, so I follow local politics too.)
I want to see, in writing, what I think, so these comment notes on substack are good.
One huge assumption implicit in the philosophical search for Truth, is that the Truth is good, or at least it is good to know. If instead I assume that the Truth is not good, which is better, Goodness or Truth? Here I choose goodness, which quickly leads to the reality that goodness is subjective, like claiming an apple is better than an orange. Or vice versa. Depending on the axis metric, juiciness, crispness, ease of eating, color.
Does God exist? What is the meaning of my life? Who should I vote for next election?
We don’t know, and possibly can’t, about God. Yet more who do believe in him have children, so demographic destiny seems likely to increase belief.
My life means my actions and decisions and writings, mostly my choices. Multi-variable.
Clearpill idea that few will change their mind, but many would likely close their minds, suggests I should not be so political, so as to allow those disagree on politics might still read some of my notes.
“…we model people as rational actors…” except you go on to say “we” are not rational, therefore the model isn’t valid, so what this actual then means is you are saying we do not know what we are doing which you go on to rebut from the your first statement which actually means the opposite of what it declared. From this clear-as-mud setup you then make your case for rational action. Especially nice that you evoke clarity as a title.
Now, if you followed what Iʼve said, congratulations on creating meaning where there is none and this is what your article is missing, some good old fashion nothing. With skillful verbal prestidigitation one can pull anything out of the hat. What if each one of us is actually powerful beyond measure or worse, what if that which is beyond language is actually running the show and we ongoingly misidentify the source of our performance and that is why we continue to be ineffective with making a difference with the things most important to us?
So what I'm saying is worse than what you are saying as I’m saying we actually not only do not know who we are but actually can’t know who we are because knowing in the usual sense doesn't include self which is beyond language. At best skillful languaging might have us turn towards “Being” thereby allowing a glimpse and presence of self which once named becomes not it.
Another take could be the clear nothing pill represents the nothing from which everything comes and if that's the case then I agree with you. 😉
It's funny. I often refer to Strauss to make the point that "truth" and "community" may be irreconcilable. You can't have a founding without a founding myth, and you can't have a founding myth without fudging the details a little bit. (As it turns out, BUT AKSHUALLY reply guys do not fare well in canonical stories)
The challenge with the clearpill is that (a) some people are persuadable at the margins, and if you don't say anything because other people are not, then you're missing the folks who are; and (b) we care a lot about what other people think (or what we think they think), as per the old line "the job of propaganda is not to tell you what to think, but to tell you what other people think." The regime may be considerably less powerful than the philosopher imagines, if only because there is far more opposition than the philosopher imagines . . . which no one imagines (but perhaps the regime) because everyone has taken the clearpill vow of silence.
One person can make changes, it's jus that those changes are small, incremental and at the margins, which for ambitious and/or impatient people, can feel like a waste of time.
Something, something . . . persecution and the art of writing.
Good essay. Arguing serves at least a couple of purposes, even if nobody changes their mind. First, the "ruling regime" in a democratic society cares a lot about what people think; in many cases they follow rather than lead (legalization of gay marriage was a good example). Loud voices signal to those in power: Here's what you need to do to keep my support.
Second, arguing is a signaling mechanism, like chest-thumping among gorillas. You see this in presidential debates: It's not about saying the right thing, it's about how you say it and the perceived edge it gives you over your opponent. Do you get nervous? Can you respond and adapt? Are you confident? Can you dominate your enemies? Arguing well can serve as proof to others that you possess hard-to-fake qualities that would be useful in other (more serious) contexts.
What most chimed with me on Israel-Hamas since October 7 was the title of a Steve Marriott article title in The Times "You Don't Need to Share Your Views on Gaza".
War is ugly (always has and always will be ugly) but in the age of mass media, for those who don't actually have to fight or suffer - for the media/social media commentariat and for those glued to it on the telly - it has almost become a ghoulish kind of entertainment and an orgy of (presumably cathartic) opinionising.
Opinions of Russia vs Ukraine have changed over the last few months, so obviously people can be persuaded.
Similarly, there is a huge difference of opinion on Israel vs Palestine over generations, so the indoctrination of the young must be working.
Persuasion does work, but maybe it doesn't work at the level of individuals making individual arguments. It's cumulative.
Maybe it isn't worth your effort as an individual. I think most people write about this stuff "to keep themselves sane". They need to express thsemelves. It's nice if that influences people, but its mostly a function of wanting to express ones own sanity.
This is where storytelling and oh-so-subtle satire play their roles. The message is a signal to those who are open and reads like noise to those who aren't. But for the latter, the story stays in their heads and clicks one day as moments in their lives resemble it. We remember and invoke those stories more than any author’s public hot takes.
That said, timing might be everything. I don’t think Luther would’ve hit as hard had he nailed to the church door a long-winded allegory on indulgences and hypocrisy instead of his 95 theses. Perhaps he was clear-pilling himself up until that point. The printing press sure helped.
The best stories win. To be an activist, become a storyteller. But you’d better be a good one to land and a subtle one to keep your head, in every sense.
Realizing that most people are set in their beliefs makes reasoning about political marketing easier. Everyone has already priced in their opponents' points, so even urgent, extreme data struggles to convince.
With positions already set, the media and other entities turn their attention to extracting the most action out of a given degree of discord. Persuasive naming is replaced by agitating naming, which is why the clearpill is an effective option.
I wrote an article explaining the mechanism of label sabotage and how it obfuscates the underlying ideas here: https://peterthedesigner.substack.com/p/hash-function-saboteurs-visualizing
I’d challenge that community and truth-seeking are strictly inversely correlated. The truth seekers you mention scattered around Substack are a minority, to be sure, but during the enlightenment appeals to reason strengthened membership, while during the Spanish Inquisition the opposite was true.
Another interesting parameter is how strong the need is for any given person to cling to a community or identity. I’d argue that people are more prone to fringe and extreme communities when they feel lonely, lost, or otherwise inadequate, and the intense feelings of righteousness and belonging helps fill the void. If you’re more balanced and comfortable in your place in the world, you’ll cling less strongly to your community. I’d grant that social media makes people feel less secure, and escalates more things such that they trigger the friend/enemy distinction, though.
Nice article!
*bows with hand on chest*
Being retired makes me want to look for truth, no matter which tribe. Politics is more fun than philosophy. (While I am in Slovakia, I also now speak Slovak, and we just got a new anti-EU Prime Minister, so I follow local politics too.)
I want to see, in writing, what I think, so these comment notes on substack are good.
One huge assumption implicit in the philosophical search for Truth, is that the Truth is good, or at least it is good to know. If instead I assume that the Truth is not good, which is better, Goodness or Truth? Here I choose goodness, which quickly leads to the reality that goodness is subjective, like claiming an apple is better than an orange. Or vice versa. Depending on the axis metric, juiciness, crispness, ease of eating, color.
Does God exist? What is the meaning of my life? Who should I vote for next election?
We don’t know, and possibly can’t, about God. Yet more who do believe in him have children, so demographic destiny seems likely to increase belief.
My life means my actions and decisions and writings, mostly my choices. Multi-variable.
Clearpill idea that few will change their mind, but many would likely close their minds, suggests I should not be so political, so as to allow those disagree on politics might still read some of my notes.
“…we model people as rational actors…” except you go on to say “we” are not rational, therefore the model isn’t valid, so what this actual then means is you are saying we do not know what we are doing which you go on to rebut from the your first statement which actually means the opposite of what it declared. From this clear-as-mud setup you then make your case for rational action. Especially nice that you evoke clarity as a title.
Now, if you followed what Iʼve said, congratulations on creating meaning where there is none and this is what your article is missing, some good old fashion nothing. With skillful verbal prestidigitation one can pull anything out of the hat. What if each one of us is actually powerful beyond measure or worse, what if that which is beyond language is actually running the show and we ongoingly misidentify the source of our performance and that is why we continue to be ineffective with making a difference with the things most important to us?
So what I'm saying is worse than what you are saying as I’m saying we actually not only do not know who we are but actually can’t know who we are because knowing in the usual sense doesn't include self which is beyond language. At best skillful languaging might have us turn towards “Being” thereby allowing a glimpse and presence of self which once named becomes not it.
Another take could be the clear nothing pill represents the nothing from which everything comes and if that's the case then I agree with you. 😉