As the modern philosopher Kristhoffer argues, truth and politics are on opposite ends of the spectrum. It's a variant of his argument that "individualism" and "conformism" are on a tether, with a tug in one direction pulling equally and immediately away from the other. The majority of people in society choose conformity and its untruths because the very act of banding together in a social collective makes conformity a more convenient, accessible option. To construct a society of individuals who engage one another based on informed choice, functionality and level of objectivity requires a much more deliberate and disciplined point of view. Studious not in dry, dislocated academic terms though, but in terms of building practical and intellectual wealth, rather than social wealth, which is simply lubrication.
Most people are turned off by the vocation of a lifelong pursuit of building intellect, though the preconception that one will alway be doing painful, arduous and disagreeable work is simply not true. Habits are only those things in the beginning stages; once the habit forms those subjective responses are minimized or even shed, which is quicker than one thinks. Point is, whether individualism versus conformism is on the table, or truth versus politics, becoming more objective-based allows people to function more stably and interdependently with others because they have more tools of understanding others' point of view, plus, they have more tools of communication to bridge gaps. Ascribing to a more individually truth-based orientation rather than a conforming political-based orientation thus can facilitate social relations, contrary to the popular thought that says thinking divides people and creates no-win, endless, and purely theoretical debates with no practical, real-world value. This is one of the most asinine arguments humans have made, in my opinion.
There's a lot of grey area between conformist and intellect, and it's a preconception that one has to be one or the other. Not true. One can decide to be more individual, truth- based through dedicating themselves toward more domestic intellectual practices. They will surely not be as intellectually adept as a true intellect, but they'll develop better, stronger, clearer tools along the way. Society wouldn't believe that everyone lifting weights in the gym is striving to be a professional bodybuilder, right? Then why do they think everyone everyone who wants to improve the clarity of their mind wants to be a high-level intellect whom they (mis)think will be socially unproductive? If one chooses higher- level intellectual path, that's even more in their favor, but the caustic assumption that any flavor of intellectual development is impractical gives society an allergy to the very part of us that makes us sentient beings.
The effect of this allergy is building stock in politics and conformity. Sure, it feels good and almost everyone around you thinks similarly, however the moral and intellectual compass becomes determined by a nebulous and fickle group mentality whom you don't live with or share fears or dreams with, nor does it have any singular accountability. This last characteristic is especially important because without a singular nucleus of accountability, or a place where one can isolate exactly where their thoughts and behaviors derived, they don't have a way of truly integrating their own thoughts into themselves. Their self becomes nebulous and reactionary, rather than proactive and produced by the sweat of their own will. It's easy to criticize politics, but not so easy to argue why, without an intellectual basis. That alone should be society's incentive for improving their intellectual capabilities, rather than simply developing the rhetoric, financial usury, and sexual and non-sexual power paradigms that politics relies on to keep the leash on its participants nice and tight.
Orwell's insight in this matter says, "to be politically happy these days you need to have no more memory than an animal." (p. 496) He mentions multiple flip-flops of public opinion regarding social matters. Part of this accountability lies within the propaganda machines, ascribing their exploitative "version" of the truth, for money and power's sake. The other part of the accountability lies in the public's lap, because they believe these mutually exclusive statements. This is one of the key tools the IngSoc party utilizes in Orwell's novel 1984, where history is changed to serve the party's wants, even if a conflicting statement was made just as vehemently the day prior. Thus, political happiness is, and always will be, at war with individual truth and the uncomfortable glimpse at reality it requires and produces. But then again, you can't change your own reality and become a master of it without looking at it. As of yet, humanity is not willing to pay that price on a large scale, so we continue rewarding social and political charlatans.
Click the RSS FEED button below to receive notification of new Orwell 365 posts.