Philosophy for Rebels 24 - The Unheard

There has never been more being said than right now. However, nobody is listening.

We are in competition with each other to be heard, but have no time to listen to one another.

Therefore, we speak more often and with more words, because no one responds. No one responds because they feel the tidal wave of noise from every voice demanding attention.

It is a behavioral trap leading to ever more behaviors that intervene in the very connection we want, all facilitated by algorithms that reward this spiral into the societal orchestra of noise, in which we all become deaf in its wake.

“The greatest barrier to communication is the illusion of it in the mind of the sender.”
― William H. Whyte

Do I exist if there is no one listening?

Philosophy for Rebels 23 - System Failure

Essentially, it would seem that there is no political ideology that is immune to collapse. They all reach the same inevitable end of authoritarian control.

The paths may differ, and some may reach the end quicker than others, but human nature prevails.

All of the guardrails any society or institution has attempted to build against such ends have proven to fail. All governments embark on the journey toward failure at the moment of their inception.

Understand, all the rules we make are to guard against power-seeking humans, and it is power-seeking humans that will disproportionately occupy government. We build fences against the wolves and then invite the wolves inside to watch the fences. How could this not fail?

Philosophy for Rebels 22 - Demonocracy

There is no longer competition over policy; it is competition for the most efficient, effective, and manipulative thought-control operation.

The institutional machine of societal control has grown increasingly powerful due to the vast capabilities of information analysis of the private thoughts of the public exposed through their online interactions through the spy devices known as social media.

Competition for the approval of the masses is now outside the domain of intellectual competence, knowledge, and liberty-preserving policies. The masses are now told what to think by armies of coordinated bots, algorithms, and willing public stooges who play their part for the benefits of aligning with the social manipulation machine.

Everything else is irrelevant. Candidates are selected for optimal public manipulation capability, rather than leadership capability, as they themselves are simply servants of a devious machine intent on compelling minds to obsess over projecting virtue and silencing reason for manufactured fears.

A complete collapse of the institution of reason has been replaced by the abject quest to obtain and retain power. All such intentions are hidden behind moral initiatives to capture and redirect the public’s attention. War, DEI, pandemics, and whatever fears or moral quests for the greater good which can be summoned serve to keep your attention occupied and behavior controlled.

All institutions are now servants of the beast – the machine that exists solely to feed its own insatiable hunger to dominate society and revel in its own decadence.

Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance: Full Passage

The following is Popper’s full passage, which is from a footnote in volume 1 of The Open Society and Its Enemies.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

— In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Karl Popper was a consistent and strong advocate for rational reasoning and debate. We can see him make such pleas for rational discourse within the above passage as well. Nonetheless, this passage has also led to interpretations that advocate for the use of force to suppress or outlaw opposing viewpoints.

The Significance of the Paradox of Tolerance?

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance … We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

— Karl Popper

Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance appears to present a dilemma between the choice of a free society that fosters enlightened debate and an authoritarian society of forced ideology and censorship. Does a free society crumble once any intolerant ideology is introduced?

The paradox is often used to support the view that intolerance is inevitable. In the end, it will all be a contest of ideologies for survival. There is no other choice except to crush competing ideologies. A free society must not allow the freedom to embrace harmful ideologies that threaten the free principles on which the society is built.

A Solution to the “Unsolvable” Paradox

The paradox in Popper’s argument arises primarily as a result of the brevity of the text, which doesn’t precisely define the terms and boundaries of its principles. As a result, this has left open to interpretation, such that it can be proposed to mean essentially the opposite of Popper’s intent.

Popper’s text was only a footnote, but due to its ambiguity, it is frequently used as the primary argument for the censorship of speech, not inline with Popper’s views as expressed in his broader writing. Furthermore, defenders of free speech also have misinterpreted the boundaries of tolerance, allowing for the erosion of their values and beliefs.

The remedy begins with a proper definition of tolerance, which we will state here and fully elaborate on the reasoning in the essay below, for how this invalidates the paradox as well as removes the problematic ambiguity.

Tolerance is the restraint from using force to silence or remove others from society for their philosophy, political alignment, or any other criteria that attempts to represent their culture or their ideas..

The Flaws in Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance

Although Popper’s passage makes a strong appeal to reason, it leaves open the option for an unreasoned response without great clarity into what principles would define the separating line and the rules for when it may be crossed.

Interpretations of Popper Supporting Suppression of Speech

We find such interpretations prevalent as the following:

Paradox of Tolerance suggests that we should view advocacy of intolerance and persecution as a criminal behavior in and of itself.
…
European countries tend to specifically outlaw marches by neo-Nazis and similar forms of pro-fascist speech, in line with the Paradox of Tolerance.

— Valeria Aurora, Quartz

What defines intolerance, and what defines advocacy? It would seem this is leverage for the suppression of speech and ideas. Whoever holds societal power gets to define what constitutes intolerance. How does this not lead to the suppression of anything that challenges power? Intolerance will be defined as anything that opposes my ideology.

Popper’s passage doesn’t have a strong position to guide us on such limits. “I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies;” From this, it is implied that there are some cases where suppression of speech is warranted.

The Uncertain Conditions That Define Violence

The following portion of the passage seemingly asserts the principal concern is violence, as it ends the phrase with “fists or pistols.” However, the phrasing begins in such a way that it appears to be construed as giving permission for pre-emptive means to stop an ideology by force that might lead to such ends. This passage begins with “for it may easily turn out,” implying a future consequence.

for it may easily turn out … they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols …

This is made more clear by the final phrase, which directly implies the suppression of speech.

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law …

This is eerily close to the current popular narrative that undesirable speech is violence. Popper is justifying the use of force against speech to prevent potential future outcomes. Unfortunately, what might lead to violence can be rationalized to be nearly any viewpoint or rhetoric, thereby giving unlimited permission for the suppression of thought. It is the embrace of safety over liberty at the cost of losing both.

Popper’s Passage Does Not Give Us Clarity

I had previously read a defense of Popper's Paradox, which proposed that Popper’s passage was not clear and has been misinterpreted. It argues that Popper is only referring to acts of physical violence. However, this defense interestingly removed the final portion of Popper’s passage, which seems to clearly make the case for using force against speech. “We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law …”

The weight of Popper’s work generally would not tend to be supportive of the suppression of speech. Nonetheless, Popper’s often-cited passage on its own has left some ambiguity as to any well-defined principle it may have been intended to represent. It suggests escalation to force against those who oppose reason, but that is a path that leads to dangerous outcomes of its own accord. Unfortunately, this is precisely how Popper’s passage is commonly referenced, in support of some form of speech suppression.

The Truth of Popper’s Paradox

The passage does hit the mark with a clear warning that unlimited tolerance will give way to intolerance. If there is a battle for moral principles and one side is willing to relent and the other is defiant, then there is no other possible outcome other than the end of the tolerant ideology.

Popper’s Paradox of Intolerance is playing out now in civilizations across the world. Enlightenment is yielding to force. Rational and reasoned debate are losing by default when the opposition declares debate a tool of manipulation by terrible people. Just as warned from the passage “… begin by denouncing all argument”.

How Tolerance Became a Trojan Horse for Intolerance

The mantra of tolerance and the “live and let live” philosophy has welcomed its own destruction. The intolerant have waged a moral guilt war against the tolerant by accusing them of intolerance. The response has been to welcome more intolerance to prove one’s moral virtue to society. The tolerant have accepted censorship, violence, property destruction, and servitude as acts of kindness to demonstrate their goodwill toward the intolerant.

The tolerant have been conquered, but not in the way that Popper warned, nor in the way that most perceive. The tolerant were totally disarmed prior to their awareness of any arising violence or threats of violence. The intolerant simply redefined the terms, and in doing so gained undefended access to the minds of their opposition. By the time force arrived, the tolerant had already submitted.

Society Was Misled and Looking for the Wrong Warnings

The intolerant culture recruited everyone who wanted to be perceived as "being good." The tolerant opened the gates to their minds and society in order to be seen as morally good. We weren’t prepared for the intolerant to so effectively flip the meaning of everything that holds together a free society. It is precisely why Popper's Paradox is now often used as justification for intolerance. Everyone's perception has been changed and inverted. Society was on watch for violence, threats of violence, and tyrannical ideologies, but the threat came cloaked within the veil of virtue.

Popper’s Prediction, Collapse of the Free Society

So, are we now witnessing the end of tolerant societies? Is this the inevitable result that eventually unfolds once an intolerant ideology enters the contest for ideas and the rights of citizens?

The Free Society Was Left Undefended

If we had instead taken action to stop the encroachment of intolerant ideologies by not tolerating their utterance, as warned in the passage “[should not] suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument …”, would we have avoided this point? Have we already reached the point where the opposing ideologies are using force against the free society? They censor speech, intervene in the employment of those they oppose, and will utilize physical violence for intimidation.

The Nature of the Paradox

Would it not then be justified, from Popper’s argument, to forcefully restrict the spread of such ideologies that threaten free societies? However, wouldn’t that also imply the death of a free society as well? If the tolerant become the intolerant to stop the intolerant, then the free society is still lost.

Abstract concepts like intolerance tend to morph into whatever is needed to justify the defense of held power. Therefore, the target of grievance generally adapts such that there is always an enemy, even if the enemy becomes one’s own tribe. This is the downfall of a tolerant society that attempts to eradicate enemies of tolerance by force. Pandora’s Box opens, and what follows is bedlam as reason is abandoned for the more expedient and intoxicating use of force.

It seems as if this is a no-win situation. Either no forceful resistance is applied, and the intolerant culture dominates, or force is applied, and we still risk losing the free society by our own hands.

Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance is a pertinent warning for the fragile and treacherous balance that a society attempts to navigate in order to preserve the values of a free society, but it does not offer a solution that preserves those values.

Defense Requires a Proper Definition of Tolerance

The difficult conundrum posed by Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance rests heavily on precisely how we define or interpret the terms tolerance and intolerance. The way out of what seems to be nearly an insolvable problem is to look more closely at how we define the problem.

What is intolerance? It should be obvious that we should not attempt to operate from the definitions that would be dictated to us by intolerant ideologies. It is certainly in their interest to hijack such terminology and leverage it to manipulate the cultural debate, and it is precisely what has been done.

When challenged on tolerance, we are held at fault if we are simply not aligned with our ideological intolerant opposition. Not only should we not criticize their values or beliefs, but we are also expected to actively support, promote, validate, and sympathize with their worldview while silencing our own in order to be “tolerant”.

Defining Tolerance

That is not tolerance. It is surrender. Tolerance was never meant to be the submission of your own beliefs. It isn’t the gleeful rejoicing and support of every aspect of those around you. It is not a virtue-signaling celebration of everything that you are opposed to, so that you are not criticized. It is merely the refrain from using force to silence others and remove them from society.

Tolerance does not require you to be nice. It does not require you to be silent. It does not require you to stop being an advocate for your own values and beliefs. Tolerance is not agreement. It is literally disagreement that is allowed to stand as long as force is not used against you.

Defining Intolerance

Likewise, intolerance is not saying harsh things, it is preventing people from saying harsh things. Censorship is intolerance. It is the tolerant who are censored.

If we properly define tolerance as the restraint from using force to silence or remove others from society for their philosophy, political alignment, or any other criteria that attempts to represent their culture or their ideas, then the paradox is invalidated.

The Error of Tolerant Submission

Tolerance was never meant to imply submission. Remaining silent to be tolerant is not being tolerant; that is being defeated.

A tolerant society is one in which everyone is equally uncomfortable with opposing ideas and beliefs, but none is willing to use force against the other. Contrary to common thought, tolerance is not defined by kindness, but rather by the willingness to refrain from aggression when others are not kind.

Tolerance does not mean you are required to join their tribe. Submission to the ideas of others is not tolerance; rather, it is the act of being conquered and enslaved to others’ thoughts.

Defend Your Values or Lose Them

When intolerant ideologies surface and challenge the order of free societies, vocally countering their rhetoric with utmost veracity, defiantly advocating for one’s own values and ideas, and protecting the culture of reason are still within the bounds of tolerance. The tools to defend free society are available without compromising principle, so long as we don’t relinquish them in a shortsighted attempt to please the masses for some false praise of being tolerant.

Speech Remains the Most Powerful Tool to Change Minds

Only speech has such power as to change minds that seem fixed in their perspective. Those who do not speak to each other grow further apart. Forceful isolation only increases animosity between groups and perpetuates lack of mutual understanding.

Speech that advocates and defends your values does not need to be shouted in anger. You must not remain silent, but you must also be understood.

Daryl Davis Demonstrates the Power of Speech to Disarm the Intolerant

Daryl Davis has mastered the ability to understand and be understood across ideological divides by communicating in such a way that bridges a divide. This has led to over 200 individuals renouncing their intolerant ideology, some of whom were leaders within such movements. Daryl has shown what can be accomplished when you are willing to listen to others pain, misconceptions and falsehoods without offense.

When Davis speaks of friendship and love as quoted in the image above, this is not a surrender of his beliefs to an ideological opposition or delivered from a point of weakness, as he is not relenting in what he believes. Instead, he is speaking in a manner that others are willing to listen. They are willing to listen because he is willing to listen. This kind of communication can only exist by building from common ground.

This is also precisely what Karl Popper identified as potentially one of the best methods to fight intolerance: the approach of building from a common ground.

Culture Is the Instrumental Defense of Liberty

What Popper got right were the pleas for reason and rational debate. What is importantly missing, and critical to the formula, is culture. If the reasonable individuals simply wait for an intolerant ideology to arise to prominence, and then attempt to debate, they have already lost in a sense. The culture of free minds that are willing to engage in dialog in order to resolve differences and agree upon the best course for society must be preserved through continuous advocacy and teaching of such principles.

The Powerful Will Attempt to Define the Terms, We Must Protect Their Definition

We must also recognize how power will bend perception to its advantage. Those who hold power will always declare they are the tolerant, and opposition to power are the intolerant. Those who hold power will also define the terms of what they consider "reasonable" debate or tolerance. Therefore, we must precisely define the boundaries and not leave them to amorphous abstract interpretation.

Reasoned Debate Is the Solution to Intolerant Conflict

It is important to analyze beyond status and labels and simply observe who are willing to engage in reasoned debate. Those who use force to silence are therefore the intolerant, regardless of their claims. This gives us clarity, and the only way to maintain that clarity is to not become the intolerant by utilizing force against your opposition’s speech.

The Culture of Free Societies Must Be Maintained in the Absence of Threat

The weakness of free societies is that the longer they are free, the less able the people are to defend the ideas of freedom and liberty. Unfortunately, it is taken for granted that the free society is perpetual, as future generations have forgotten how they got there. As such knowledge fades, the risk of conquest by the intolerant rises. Once the intolerant hold the power of force, through both culture and the state, reclaiming the once-free society will likely only occur through much suffering.

Updates:

• October 14, 2025: minor restructuring.

• September 14, 2025: minor updates for clarity.

• October 8, 2024: added section “Do Not Underestimate the Power of Speech”, updated images.

• August 29, 2024: expanded section “The Truth of Popper’s Paradox”

• August 13, 2024: minor updates for clarity.

• August 2, 2024: minor updates for clarity.

Philosophy for Rebels 20 - Wisdom

Wisdom paradoxically is often derived from knowing our limitations versus the confidence in what we know.

We accumulate knowledge linearly throughout our lifetime, but our awareness of things we do not understand grows exponentially.

We are humbled by the gap between what little we know and the vastness of all knowledge we can not.

The experience of life inevitably leads us to observe the dichotomy between what is known and what is not. The journey to become more knowledgeable often leads to the frustration that more is always out of reach.

The more we know, the more we recognize the great expanse of what is yet to be known, until it becomes apparent the impossibility of ever knowing anything to the final satisfaction of being complete.

As the gap between what we know and the infinite possibilities of what we don’t grows, so does our humility about our existence. It is this humility that allows us to properly reflect on what we think we know and question if we truly know anything at all.

Philosophy for Rebels 19 - Reflection

Without wisdom, intelligence is a tool without a master.

Wisdom is mastered by reflecting on the past.

Intelligence is our capability or potential for understanding, reasoning, and perceiving the construction and mechanisms of our world. However, intelligence alone does not provide us with the “right” answers to all the things we wish to know. It only gives us possible answers for the outcomes we desire.

This powerful tool, when wielded, can create or destroy, depending on our chosen targets. To determine its proper purpose, we need insights that only emerge from the collective experiences of those who came before us. Intelligence is the potential, wisdom the direction.

Philosophy for Rebels 18 - Ideology

Ideologies do not end simply because they are wrong.

They end when the suffering has burned to ash the last remnants of hope.

Ideologies are not analytical theories that will simply be discarded when it is demonstrated they result in destructive outcomes. Adherents to ideologies seek something beyond an outcome. It is a force that binds together a collective group of people with a common purpose or meaning for their existence.

The desire for connection and belonging is a very powerful motivator of our behaviors and we will often choose to align with that over everything else. The struggles from damaging ideologies become fights for the righteous when an ideology is within its death throes.

Do not be so quick to assume victory over intolerant ideologies when the pain first becomes apparent. That is only a prelude to the pain that will be required to endure before the daylight appears once again.

Note: Philosophy for Rebels is the new name for the former Lens of Reason series. Thank you!

Lens of Reason 17 - Technology

We continue along thinking that technological progress is the true value of our civilization.

We have left behind all things with meaning and replaced them with shiny objects.

Technological progress has allowed vast optimizations of efficiency for all things that our society produces. However, at great scale and efficiency, meaning is often lost in all the things that we create.

Long since gone are the architectures that seemed to capture the essence of life and reflect the beauty of our existence. Once, every facet of our creation was the direct manifestation of someone’s long contemplation. It permeated that work and could be seen in its structure.

Society is now far more machine and algorithm than the spirit of humanity. AI, social media and automation are transforming the human experience. All optimizing for what is now the most important attribute, attention, rather than genuine connection. Everything read, spoken, and seen is for one purpose, to incentivize you to gaze, buy and consume rather than reflect, create and connect.

Philosophy for Rebels 16 - The Paradox of Certainty

Certainty is only an illusion without uncertainty.

Significant uncertainty must precede certainty; else, what could we be certain about?

If certainty is never challenged, then it remains merely an assumption with no foundation.

The dichotomy between certainty and uncertainty is seemingly paradoxical. Opposites in meaning, but unable to have meaning without the other.

Absolute certainty leads us to have such confidence as to never question the basis for our perspective. Therefore, it is an idea cemented in a moment of time that cannot grow. However, we would never know if there are valid challenges to that idea if we never consider them.

Certainty requires constant uncertainty to challenge its validity. Otherwise, certainty is nothing more than an illusion of confidence, as we have convinced ourselves of assumptions.

Mind Prison is an oasis for human thought, attempting to survive amidst the dead internet. I typically spend hours to days on articles, including creating the illustrations for each. I hope if you find them valuable and you still appreciate the creations from human beings, you will consider subscribing. Thank you!

Subscribe now

Lens of Reason 15 - Philosophy

Philosophy is not something you read to become wiser.

It is something you do by which you become humbled beneath your ignorance.

The great words of wisdom that we often reflect upon from famous authors and philosophers are simply the final result of a process. An experience of life captured into words, but it is the experience itself that was the meaningful event.

There is a great divide between knowing and understanding. We can read and know something, but few can understand without experiencing it. When we experience something profound it is due to reflecting on how little we understood before.

Lens of Reason 14 - Dystopia

We are living in a manufactured dystopia from which we then ask the dystopian dealers to save us.

Society seems to be in a spiral trap in which the problems it suffers are created by the institutions that were put into place to protect society from such very problems.

At each step, the problems worsen and at each step, society reaches out to those who created the problems to save it.

Nobody is coming to save you. They only come to own you.

Lens of Reason 13 - Censorship

The tool of desperation from an indefensible position.

Censorship is the shield used to hide the deceptions against those who would probe into the dark forbidden secrets of power. It only creates the illusion of social order, as this shield is made of glass and all can see it represents only the weakness and corruption that supports their claimed positions.

Inevitably, as this plague of control grows, it damages everything including the power wielders themselves. Collapse of order will come in due time as this is never sustainable due to the self-inflicted damage.

Lens of Reason 12 - Questions

Questions are the engines of thought, the keys to doors locked and the light to find doors unknown.

Questions are the most instrumental tool in focusing the power of our minds. Questions often spawn more questions in a chain of never-ending intrigue. When we let this process play out with some persistence, inevitably we will encounter questions of concepts we never considered existing.

Questions are the keys to solving puzzles. When we can not ask the questions, the doors remain locked hiding further secrets we would never contemplate to ask.

The less we ask, the less we know.

Please help Mind Prison grow by sharing.

Refer a friend

Lens of Reason 11 - Boredom

Boredom is the prelude to profound discoveries.

It is the healthy state of mind which precedes moments of deeper introspection of the world.

Some will seek to cure you of your boredom, but they will take from you much more.

Boredom is a state of mind that is always described as an undesirable condition. A place that nobody wants to be. Apparently, it is such a miserable condition we devote our lives to avoiding it and there is no shortage of others who wish to cure you of your boredom with all the mechanisms of wonder the world has to offer.

What if we have all been misled? Instead, periods of boredom are significantly beneficial. A state of boredom is like a small reset for the mind. A moment that offers the opportunity to break old patterns and find something new. Unfortunately, most attempt to escape this condition before the magic happens. The mind begins to reorient itself and explore. Persist through this period and you often will find new insights or interests on the other side.

Being interrupted from your boredom may be the detrimental action we should all attempt to avoid.

Please help Mind Prison grow by sharing.

Refer a friend

Lens of Reason 10 - Failure

My failures continue to ravage and fracture all that I am while leaving me more humble and wiser in their wake.

I wish there were another path, but this is the only path.

Every failure is a lesson learned in life. You are humbled as you realize there is more to learn than you originally conceived and your progress is not as advanced as you had originally believed.

The knowledge gained makes you wiser about your limits as well as what is now required to move past them. There is no other path to great wisdom except through many failures as what we gain is often the kind of knowledge not found in books or writing, but can only be experienced.

The person who makes it to the top, battle-worn through inevitably conquered failures, is standing on a defensible foundation. However, the person who finds themselves on top due to circumstance will not be able to sustain it.

Please help Mind Prison grow by sharing.

Refer a friend

Lens of Reason 9 - Tyranny

Paradox of Tyranny

How to build a tyrant.
1) Take any normal person who desires to make the world a better place

2) Give them the power to do so

How easily we end up in an authoritarian world is a concept not apparent to most individuals. It is one of the most important principles to understand yet is rarely discussed despite it underlying not only why we fall, but how we eagerly do so.

I’m sure most of us have heard people around us state such ideas as “If I were in charge …” or “The world would be better if only …” etc. For most people, there is no distinction between “being good” and “being good by force”. They will readily cross that line as they perceive “the conversion” of anyone to their view of good as simply a moral accomplishment that ordains themselves as the rightful moralistic leader for they have “saved” someone in doing so.

Many people dream of how they would make the world a better place. Hope they never get the power to do so, as most have no understanding that their better world is our enslavement.

Please help Mind Prison grow by sharing.

Refer a friend

Lens of Reason 8 - Trust

The reason for our current state of the world arises from the continued trust of those who have been 100% wrong on everything.

They were wrong today,
they were wrong yesterday,
they were wrong last week,
they were wrong every day
and every week for many years.

Yet tomorrow, you will believe what they say.

Society constantly gives credence to its circle of experts that sit on the thrones of media giving out their guidance.

Seemingly, nobody seems to often care about the constant stream of failed analysis, incorrect advice and even intentional derailment of rational reasoning.

Does the implied status of their significance override our own ability to reason about what they say? Or is it a matter of society simply being too busy within the scope of their own lives to pause and consider the implications of the information they digest?

We just take it all in because there is no time to think. Therefore, it has not come to our awareness that the trusted experts should not be trusted at all as we have never taken a moment to question what they say and what they know.

Lens of Reason 7 - Inequality

The paradox of inequality provides for two perspectives

Elation or Inspiration

As we struggle, that which is just beyond our grasp is the inspiration to reach further. When we accomplish, we experience the elation of what we have overcome while also becoming the inspiration for the next to follow.

The real dystopia is being exactly equal. Void of significance while drowning in uniform despair.

Inequality of the type where we don’t have the same acquired capabilities and accomplishments may seem to be undesirable for a brief contemplation. However, absolute equality is not necessarily the ideal condition of society that many perceive it to be. Counterintuitively, it very well may be a dystopian existence.

With no difference in accomplishment or capability, there is nothing to marvel at in stupendous wonder. Admiration and inspiration provide immense positive value and experience in one’s life. Being awestruck requires witnessing something significantly better than yourself while reflecting on the significance as measured by your understanding of the challenges overcome to get there.

What is important for meaning, is believing becoming more than you are today is possible and that what you have become can be an inspiration for others. In this respect, it is the potential for change and what we have changed within ourselves or others that we find of value that gives us purpose.

Lens of Reason 6 - Illusions

Questions without answers are often the foundation for the destruction of illusions.

Deceptions exist only in the absence of being challenged. Authority built on unjust foundations fears questions. Every possible means will be utilized in order to conceal information from those that seek it. To keep the deception going, it becomes paramount to control the narrative of critique.

Therefore, the critique itself will be condemned as no answers can be provided to quell the questions that attempt to probe behind the curtains of illusions.

The only proper response in the absence of answers is more questions until the curtains are shredded and fall to the ground.

Lens of Reason 5 - Wisdom

We think of ourselves as wise in the present, but we are all tomorrow’s fools.

No matter which point we select from history, at that moment the world was “modern” and “sophisticated”. The fallacies of the past were self-evident and the wisdom of the present seemed unsurmountable.

However, simply roll forward in time and much of the past wisdom becomes the new fallacies of a more modern time. Nonetheless, in the present, the past precedents always seem to fade away as we still cling to the notion of some sense of modern infallibility. We learned all those lessons and we now exist in our brilliance.

Yet, tomorrow, once again we will find the pattern repeats. Most will forget it repeats, but it will do so again and again until the end of time.