Postmodernity: 2+2=5

In times of postmodernity when truth has no absolute value, we realize that those absolute truths are nothing more than simple "social constructions" and that what predominates is the perspective of human beings with respect to knowledge and its different epistemologies.

Precisely for this reason we could reach the point that if a given society represented by a parliament or government could reach such radical instances as that of deciding to impose a dogma such as that of 2+2=5. It is a universal truth that two plus two makes four. Is it really possible that parliament can deny it and by convention we all adopt this lie?

Without a doubt, when human beings impose this kind of dogmas based on irrational feelings on us we are insulting science, if they believe that something as banal as 2+2=5 could never be imposed then we should take a look at the new gender ideology that denies biological science. It is unthinkable, some might think, that it is completely nonsensical that such a thing should happen. An article written by Anthonu Esolen in LifeSiteNews motivates me to answer your title question.

The answer is: yes, a parliament could impose this mathematical error as a new dogma for society, denying any truth, and even torturing, censoring and violating the rights of people who go against this kind of thinking.

Goerge Orwell's famous dystopic work "1984" offers a clear and concise answer about freedom and how common sense could become heresy. In his book Orwell writes about the freedom that:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four. If that is granted, all else follows

In that same chapter seven of the book Orwell makes a reflection on the truth and how one could manipulate people's minds to accept irrationalities as a complete dogma, on page 80 Orwell writes:

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The greatest heresy was common sense. And the most terrible thing was not that they killed you for thinking differently, but that you might be right. Because, after all, how do we do we know that two and two are actually four.

It is evident then that a truth can be taken as dogma if it is infused into people's heads in such a way that they cannot question what is imposed on them as truth. There are many parallels between this novel 1984 and postmodern society. A clear example is the systems of mass espionage through electronic devices as we saw with the Vault7. And although it is not exactly the same in today's society, since there are countries based on representative governments and parliaments full of plurality of opinion, unlike Orwell's totalitarian society with one party.

This may lead anyone to think that we can live in a society similar to the one described in Orwell's book. But is this a symptom to keep you calm? I don't think so, there are even cases in which this is not the case at all, an example being what happened in Spain in 2010. In a written parliamentary response to a question from Congressman Carlos Salvador, of the Unión del Pueblo Navarro, sent by Zapatero's government to

the Congress of Deputies on 13 September 2010, the following was said:

El Gobierno no puede compartir la afirmación de que la interrupción del embarazo sea la eliminación de la vida de un ser humano porque sobre el concepto de ser humano no existe una opinión unánime, una evidencia científica, ya que por vida humana nos referimos a un concepto complejo basado en ideas o creencias filosóficas, morales, sociales, y en definitiva, sometida a opiniones o preferencias personales.

Translation:

The Government cannot share the assertion that the termination of pregnancy is the elimination of the life of a human being because there is no unanimous opinion or scientific evidence on the concept of human being, since for human life we are referring to a complex concept based on philosophical, moral, social and, in short, personal opinions or preferences.

En cuanto al ámbito jurídico, no existe concepto legal de ser humano sino de persona, y ésta se ofrece claramente en el código civil y en la legislación penal, la protección de la que habla su señoría al aludir al homicidio, al asesinato o al maltrato es la de los delitos contra la vida humana independiente o la salud e integridad de las personas. En esto no hay ninguna duda y la protección de la persona está referida a la concepción civil: vida humana independiente a partir de las 24 horas del nacimiento.

Translation:

As regards the legal sphere, there is no legal concept of a human being but of a person, and this is clearly offered in the civil code and in criminal law, the protection which the honourable Member refers to in terms of murder, assassination or ill-treatment is that of crimes against independent human life or the health and integrity of individuals. There is no doubt about this, and the protection of the person refers to civil conception: independent human life from 24 hours after birth.

What you have just read above is something embodied in the Spanish penal code, yes, believe it or not, this is a sample of the levels of relativism that our society can achieve. With this parliamentary response, the socialist government of the time manifested the illogical, unscientific, relative and ideological theses subject to human perspective that underpin the current Abortion Law of 2010. The important thing here is that a government may have been able to deny to a group of "prepared" politicians the scientific evidence that abortion involves the death of a human life, some call it the interruption that is another way of altering reality, but the Spanish government transcended the barriers of earthly wisdom and understands that it is the death of a human being and that it is not. If you have never seen an example of a government seeking to be a god, here it is.

With this alteration it is then understood that abortion does not imply the death of human life, thus adding that human life is a merely human concept, that is to say, it is a social construction and is subject to the interpretations of different people.

And it is precisely in this ill-founded thesis that more than 100,000 unborn children are aborted, causing great problems in the social pyramid of Spain. No doubt that something like this will happen clashes with anyone's conscience and even more with their optimism about democratic societies, so taking up again the parallels with Orwell's argument that differences exist but that the end is the same, to change the system and impose irrationalities on the rational, on the truth. In this way, it becomes clear that voting to elect a government and a legislative branch that guarantees the improvement of the country in the same way that prevents them from abusing power does not seem alien to democracies.

After the Second World War, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed precisely in order to establish democracy on more solid pillars than the mere will of the majority and to prevent it from violating the rights of minorities with impunity. Today, these fundamental rights, proclaimed as something inherent in human nature, are being eroded by a relativism that questions even a pillar of democracy such as respect for human life and, in particular, that of the weakest and most defenseless. That same proclamation of Universal Human Rights is violated every day, and it is living proof that positive law is nothing more than that, laws written on paper that no one follows to the letter.

Unfortunately, this relativism is no longer a tendency of thinking exclusively about a certain sector of politics that we could classify as "left". A few weeks ago we had left parties supporting the enactment of the anti-abortion law in order to legalize abortion, we have also seen how left-wing parties support radical groups that seek to create chaos and disorder. And that they can never be penalized because, according to their relative theory, it is not those who exercise the forces of repression who create violence and harm society, it is all those who seek to maintain the rule of law and the fundamental foundations of society who "oppress" and form part of a "dictator" system.

I cannot imagine then any mathematical formula whose negation could have such terrible results as those of the negation of the scientific truth about the world. If in a democracy it is possible to perpetrate a massacre on the basis of an unscientific lie, there is no scientific truth here that is safe from the dictatorship of the majority.

This should make us think very seriously because we no longer only want to change the laws of society, we want to impose in "pseudo-scientific" terms what is "truth" based on feelings, opinions, and perspectives. As if that weren't enough, we've even seen attempts at censorship and persecuting those who question this kind of irrational thinking, all you have to do is tweet against feminism to see the irrational rain of responses that will come to you in a matter of seconds.

And it is exactly in this way that censorship is imposed so that nobody disagrees with an "official" lie promoted by the state. Two years ago a deputy of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party asked for a school competition to be censored because it affirmed the humanity of human embryos. The deputy pointed out that the mere affirmation of a scientific truth such as this is "immoral", "manipulation" and "indoctrination in beliefs", simply because it defies the official lie with which the PSOE suppressed all legal protection for unborn children.

And it is exactly in this way that leftist governments promote and impose their ideas through radical minority groups such as progressive feminism, which generates chaos and violence but is never censored by the media.

If this is the kind of "democracy" that those who do not believe in the truth and only defend the relativity of thought have in store for us, they will soon impose on us any amount of 2+2 other than 4.

---

_{Posted from my blog with SteemPress : Here}

---