One aspect of growing up in the digital age that I find eluding is the way our society handles being bombarded with contractions on a daily basis. We tend to think that as technology matures, we mature with it. Ceaselessly floating through life while gaining knowledge and insight into the universe. Until ultimately artificially intelligent robots join forces or a superior alien race visits Earth and proceeds to melt our meat-matter with their minds. And although humans in the bottom quartile of the intelligence scale today would be considered well functioning just 80 or 90 years ago (thanks Google!), we have before us an ulterior problem of informational overload that still sways us from authenticity.
As Socrates demonstrated in the Euthypro dilemma, most ethical contradictions are inalienable; they remain inherent byproducts of a diverse civilization. I in no way will pretend to have any solutions for these types of predicaments (as most of them have no correct answers). Instead I prefer to vent on the media fueled dilemmas. Where do these contradictions originate? Is a media driven society beneficial? How do we harvest open communication without encouraging the promotion of bullshit? Today’s media tends to fight content with content. Those “in the know” watch twenty-four hour news coverage, read internet articles explaining multiple viewpoints, and then spread the content socially to all who like them enough to be “friends”- thus generating more news (about the same story). Because those who turn off media coverage tend to tune out promotionally, their voice gets lost in a wave of content and questions like, “Are these conversations even beneficial?” take a pass to the more direct, “Is the answer x or y?”
With this blog I hope to be a voice of deconstruction. Because while everyone will have different opinions concerning the “issues,” reusing someone else’s ideal as a voice for one’s own (on a macro scale) can only build up straw people disguised as factuality saviors.
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”