Revelation & Revenge
Rational argumentation vs. divine revelation
At one time during the Trump pre-inauguration rally, Megan Kelly said this interesting line, “We have the right to offend, provoke, to annoy”. This confirms my thesis I’ve been proposing that persecution is a nobel aristocratic virtue not the pathological or narcissistic delusion many positivistic social scientists like to call it. Persecution is noble only if used in moderation. I have to admit that Trump is not the perfect example of using moderation, let's instead focus on a more common example, the persecution complex. Religion is said to carry most of the blame for utilizing the persecution complex. When the crusades are defended by Christians, it’s under the notion that it was used as retaliation from the Islamic persecution against Christains. Retaliation can have no causal beginnings since it can go back indefinitely or loop around and around. The question of persecution is merely a cause-and-effect issue. Who caused it first? After a certain amount of time, a blame must be assigned to someone or somewhere.
If Trump would go on to sign an executive order “ending the weaponization of government against the political adversaries of the previous administration”, what’s the difference between the persecution strategy he is using and the persecution strategy his opponents are using? I suppose that Trump’s strategy would be to go after fanatical individualism (trans rights, minority rights) and radical ideologies (wokism). The left strategy would be to go after historical bias (racism, oppression, patriarchy). Also, where does the right to offend the ordinary citizens the political infighting? Before we begin to answer that question, it’s just as important to know where to begin. It’s tempting to go into politics (especially the popular depiction of politics) and begin to deconstruct it there. This would mean that every insult and every comeback would be valid not on its content (rational argumentation) but on its form and effectiveness. Offensive language illicits a spirited and emotional response from the public to gain support of a policy. This makes it the most efficient way to get order to get approved. This has greater implications on the religious realm because the form becomes the source of meaning when converting perverse violence for divine violence. The source for personal revelation is moderated insults done well. We refer to Plato’s The Meno in which Socrates begins the dialogue by invoking the authority of the Gods to properly define virtue. He says that true virtue comes from recollection. In a similar sense, Christianity will derive truth from divine inspiration. The best persuasive political policy depends on its effectiveness, skill, and strategy to get the message across. It’s not the message itself that get the greatest attention. In order for offensive language to be accepted, and later, accepted by the masses, it must undergo the status of divine revelation. We learn greater truths when we become offended more than any any other means including international relations diplomacy. We can compare Trump’s strategy to Obama’s where Obama focuses on the content - pluralism. The form of his speech gives the audience the sense that he is trying to bring international relations diplomacy and politeness down to the commonwealth (level of socieety). To reject this position is essentially saying “let the best insult win”.
The two existencial threats to revelation
The problem with politics is two-fold: internal and external contradictions. First, it reduces every conflict down into what is persuasive rather than what is convincing. For example, certain leftist policies can be convincing through rational argumentation (following a line of reason, say, for pluralism) while certain right-wing policies might be persuasive (appeal to emotion: populism and patriotism). The second problem is that all politics has a grand totalizing end-goal for any society (i.e. utilitarianism, austerity, efficiency, communism). The first problem turns politics “serious” by making the end-goal the primary mission of any nation. The first problem solves itself by placing reason, particularly rational argumentation, over all ongoing or potential conflict. Everything, including the behavior within a civil society, comes second to the ultimate end-goal. The second problem then separates the end-goal (telos) of that society by abandoning the majority of ordinary people (commonwealth) to have access to divine inspiration. Combining both rational argumentation without a telos replaces personal beliefs of individual people. Religion or tradition can no longer provide the end-goal as when God made covenants with Abraham to have His people prosper. Rational argumentation invalidates beleif because it doesn’t measure up to rational standards. It puts those in charge as the only ones capable of deciphering the end-goal. Leaders are not only considered capable of steering the nation successfully but worthy of it. The first problem resolves itself by placing rational argumentation as the means to an end. The commonwealth, which previously didn’t need to measure their beliefs up to a rational standard, are now having to justify their beliefs by either making them convincing or abandoning them for something else more convincing. Previously, only faith and tradition were needed to discover truth up until the scientific revolution and when positivistic social sciences took over. Arguments are used to breathe life into conflicts unlike a passionate individual who can get too carried away in rage and disqualifies himself for being impulsive or emotional. This doctrine says that conflicts can only make sense through rational argumentation.
The Birth of free will and the simulation of nature
We must begin to test this hypothesis in an environment that can carry out first principles grounded in nature. Unfortunately, this means that we must go to an artificial environment which gives immediate results on conflicts: cosmopolitanism. This means giving into obstacles, almost inviting them into one’s life, can occur safely (although Neitzche would disagree to this simplistic view). While modern cosmopolitan society is furthest away from nature, it does give people greater agency (free will). All the proposed reasons for a liberal democracy (modernism theory, free markets, game theory), which means that in a controled and law-abiding setting, human agency can increase to the level of nature. What a free liberal society can give its people is a safe simulation of nature. This safe simulation happens, confusingly enough, through happenstance. Coincidental verbal arguments occuring in random settings throughout the day serves more to inform human beings of their political position than any ideology. When civilians enter into random verbal arguments with one another, they are offered an immediate exit using rational argumentation. But most do not choose to exist. Instead, they willingly choose the bait and get captured by the bait-and-switch. Within a civil environment in which political violence has been monopolized by the state, the only legitimate form of verbal violence is baited speech. This is because of the “principle of defence,” which says that it’s the defence which has the upperhand, giving the receiver of violence the benefit of the doubt. The aggressor is at a disadvantage because the plaintiff (victim) is the one who’s offered the good graces of the public. As cosmopolitanism constantly breaks down, civil society keeps working as it intends.
Beyond revelation
An insult is a revelation precisely because it teaches (gives the opponent a lesson) forbidden knowledge. This knowledge is derived from contradictions resolving themselves through negative dialectics. There are two contradictions of verbal violence.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Aporia to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.