Cognitive dissonance, or modern progressive thought.

I must be upfront with you. I'm going to make assumptions from time to time, and use these assumptions to support an argument. I'd appreciate if the reader focused on the arguments and not the assumptions when reading this blog.

So with that out of the way, my first grandiose assumption is this. That the present time (being the year 2016) reflects an era increasingly defined by the views of a secularized society. As a result of this secularization, the notion of objective truth (as it relates to the concept of knowledge, philosophy, and religion) has become an antiquated perspective. By and large, people exhibit a tolerance for differing opinions which can often be summarized as "what's true for you isn't necessarily true for me."

In light of this above assumption, I therefore found myself incredibly bemused as I read the comments on Paul Krugman's blog, The Conscience of a Liberal. Now you might ask what someone like myself is doing in the middle of such a place. To which my answer is simply that I wanted to see what people I tend to disagree with were saying after the recent US presidential election.

The comment that stood out to me was from a "DSolomon" that seemed very concerned that the newly elected Trump administration had once again ushered in a period where objective truth was irrelevant when it came to politics, and where few voices of reason remained on the ideological landscape.

My ensuing thought upon reading this comment was rather blunt; since when did we as a society give a damn about objective truth? I can't speak for all of DSolomon's views, but if this commentator mirrors the broadly held views of society, then they're on rather shaky ground. Namely, that if one believes that objective truth is meaningless when it comes to epistemology, it would be deeply inconsistent to believe that objective truth is somehow applicable when it comes to politics. The ideology is opposed to the practice.

Furthermore, the notion of objective truth in public discourse is naturally predicated on the idea that truth is something that can be discovered in our existence. But if no one can agree as to how we're supposed to know that something is true, how can we be expected to recognize truth when it's in front of us, or make decisions based on discerning truth from untruth. It's like trying to launch a rocket without understanding the physics behind it.

So where does that leave us? I believe there are two choices.

The first (and preferred) option is to re-embrace the pursuit of truth in the realm of philosophy. Once we regard truth as something that can be attained in the more foundational aspects of knowledge, we can begin to resolve practical matters through a similar lens.

In contrast, if we fail to resolve the tough questions of life with the basic tools of reason, evidence, and empiricism, our society will treat the exercise of these methods in all subjects as a pointless futility. Our subsequent frustrations at others for failing to be objective will echo a yearn for a system that we do not actually believe exists.

To close, I urge the reader to examine themselves. If you find yourself pained by the "failure" of your compatriots to evaluate the so called facts with pure objectivity, a dispassionate evaluation of your own worldview may be necessary before hurling the first stone.

A vent.

I've spent enough time living in my head and engaging in the occasional flippant discourse to decide that I should start airing my dirty intellectual laundry.

It is therefore with somewhat auspicious timing that my need to begin polluting the already crowded waves of public opinion has arrived. Namely, that the cracks of the progressive-liberal hegemony in politics are beginning to show across western democracies.

If you want to put me in a box, said box will identify to inhabiting the centre-right of the political spectrum. However, more significantly, I despise intellectual discontinuity, a lack of self-awareness when it comes to opinions, and post-modernism (as it relates to epistemology) above all else. My attempts at composing original thoughts will largely reflect these premises.