I have long had a fraught relationship with Christianity. Raised as a Roman Catholic in a Massachusetts family with Irish roots I was taught to revere the institution, which I did until I did not. Indeed, throughout much of my life I became a Catholic rebel or eschewer more content with finding fault with the Church than looking for the virtues, which to be honest I have always known were hidden there among the layers of hypocrisy, intolerance, and self-righteousness.

What follows is the kind of Christian story that still appeals to me. It is a kind of David and Goliath tale of an individual standing up to a far superior power. The commanding strength of the Church pitted against a single wily and crafty intellect. To set the stage let us review how Christian supremacy came to reign across Europe and the western world.

Christianity has long played a paramount and highly influential role in the life and history of the European continent since the fall of the Roman Empire. The collapse of Roman rule in the western part of Europe is generally dated to the year 476 CE, the date the Germanic chieftain Odoacer ousted the last Roman emperor who controlled the western part of Europe, Romulus Augustulus. (Of note, the eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire, lasted for another thousand years. The Great Schism of 1054 permanently separated Roman Catholicism in the west from the Orthodox Church in the east.)

The theological underpinnings of Christianity had been codified just prior to the fall of the empire in the form of the teachings of Saint Augustine. These stringent, uncompromising, yet to many revered dictates on topics such as the meaning of original sin, the necessity of salvation, the reach of God’s omnipotence, and the rigorous dedication required for each individual to pursue a spiritual journey set the stage for influencing western European religion and culture for many centuries to come.

With Augustine’s theological structure in place the Roman Catholic Church became one of the only significant institutions remaining from the empire that represented social steadfastness and constancy in western Europe. As the seceding centuries transpired a blend of the growing power of popes, the expansion of monasteries, missionary zeal, conversions to Christianity among royal lines, political marriages, military partnerships, and cultural intermingling led to the establishment of Christian kingdoms and religious unification across much of the continent.

It is difficult to overstate the authoritarian importance of Christianity across western Europe. As the faith became more entrenched across the continent the very identity of Europeans became defined by their adherence to Christian doctrine. Culture, social order, education, the arts, and personal conduct were decreed from the papacy in Rome as the Church replaced the empire in its universality. Indeed, state control in the form of feudal systems collaborated companionably with the Church to sustain and defend Christian orthodoxy.

Over time, however, cracks began to appear in papal control of western Europe. An eventual establishment in and slow rise of nationalism led to challenges of papal sovereignty. This was clearly evident during the Avignon Papacy of the fourteenth century when for seven decades seven consecutive popes left Rome to govern the Church from Avignon, France. Disputes with French royalty and instability among Italian states resulted in Rome being temporally abandoned by the Church creating an impression that popes were not as invincible as previously thought.

Of course, the most significant confrontation to Roman Catholic control of European religious life was the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Northern European religious reformers beginning with Martin Luther and John Calvin and nation state rulers such as King Henry VIII of England among others dared the papal preeminence on matters of theology, liturgy, and jurisdictional reach. By the end of the seventeenth century religious wars, internal corruption, political transformations, and theological disagreements permanently ended the Roman Catholic Church’s hegemony over the religious life of western Europe.

Nevertheless, western Europe remained under the ecclesiastical sway of Christianity, albeit within the two churchly provinces of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. To challenge the core of Christian canon with an alternative doctrinal conception was close to unheard of across the continent. To be sure, spiritual variants existed in medieval Europe although they were always limited in their reach. Folk and pagan traditions, heretical factions, mystical and charismatic visionaries, Jewish and Muslim communities, and general doubters and skeptics were evident, but restrained in their capacity to seriously narrow the scope of Christianity.

Rather, a dogged defiance of Christian creed that could not be easily ignored came from an Enlightenment-era philosopher, in the person of David Hume. Born in Edinburgh in 1711 and raised in the Scottish Lowlands close to the English border Hume became one of the deepest thinkers and greatest intellects of the eighteenth century. When I first began studying western philosophy my initial impression of Hume was that he was a radical empiricist. Nothing I have learned about him since has dissuaded me from that original notion.

David Hume presented a much more extensive body of philosophical thought than merely religious critique. His explorations involving epistemology, skepticism, ethics, and early psychology were sweeping, but it was Hume’s radical empiricism that prompted him to confront the frailties he found apparent in religious thinking—with Christianity, the prominent religion in his culture acutely in his sights.

Hume’s entire philosophical project rested on core assumptions chief among them that human beings are simply too restricted in their ability to perceive anything beyond what sensory experience reveals. A grand metaphysical structure, whether it be divine or solely physical, is an abstraction outside of our capacity to comprehend. All we can know about the world begins with our sensory impressions; those vibrant connections we make with the world external to our minds. These impressions convert to ideas which are the thoughts and conceptions we mentally construct as we reflect on our sensory experiences.

By rejecting metaphysics as a credible invention due to the lack of a direct tangible sensorial connection between humans and any alleged existential actuality, Hume concedes that we humans can never know the true nature of ultimate reality. Because of our epistemological limitations, which are confined to our senses, we cannot prove the existence of any transcendental realms or realities. This would include the existence of God, which most Christians of the eighteenth century (and indeed today) still view as a transcendent being. If God cannot be proven to exist, then by extension all the works and effects believers claim are the result of God’s actions are also called into question.

At the time of Hume Newtonian science was in full development. What science was exposing was that the universe had order—from the movement of heavenly bodies to the flow of blood within our own bodies. Surely, many contended, a grand design was evident in the makings of the universe, which deists and theists claimed was the handiwork of God. However, Hume was having none of it. How do we know God designed the universe? And if God did design the universe why did he design one with so many faults in it?

Hume intentionally engaged with conventional Christian thought assailing key tenets by consistently basing his commentary on his premise of the prominence of sensory experience. Take the causality of the universe, a fundamental discourse in the eighteenth century that goes as far back as the pre-Socratic philosopher Parmenides. Most agreed that whatever exists must have a cause for its existence. Afterall, nothing can come from nothing. Furthermore, no cause can manifest perfection unless the cause itself is perfect. God, an immaterial, intelligent, and perfect being must be the preeminent cause of the universe.

Not necessarily so said Hume. To begin with the typical claim of cause and effect in general is faulty. Because we observe repeated sequences does not establish causation. These common and everyday repetitions we notice in our lives only highlight typical courses of action, not causal relationships. Could we therefore not also be incorrect about claiming God as the cause of the universe? What sensory experience can we attribute to God creating the universe? Such a declaration exceeds human awareness.

Hume’s skepticism extends to religious conceptions of souls, miracles, and the idea of future states of being in heaven and hell. Humans are driven by emotions and passions and not by reason according to Hume. We want to share as social creatures in the glorification of common convictions, moral judgments, and belief in God. Custom and habit motivate our behavior. Our ideas about religion are based more on feelings, imaginations, and what we think works best. Abstract reasoning and identifying divine purpose are not our strong suits. Religion will not solve the ultimate mysteries of existence, but it feels good for many to enlist in spiritual community and to practice traditional rituals. David Hume is content to leave religion to that.

Hume is not an atheist in the way we typically think of a non-believer. To me this is revealed in his approach to the age old problem of evil in religion. Most atheists I hear say that because evil clearly exists in the world, then that is proof God does not exist. Hume’s method of relying on sensory experience can no more disprove God than to prove God’s existence. So, he states the obvious. God may or may not exist. We can never know for sure. But what is evident is that pretenses to God’s infinite goodness are suspect in a world where evil abounds. Hume calls into question what kind of God is it that permits evil? And on that point Hume is not alone.

We also do not find Hume rejecting morality. Rather he devises a secular set of ethics that rests on human nature and conduct which promotes happiness and reduces suffering. Religion is not required to live a life of integrity and goodness. I think Hume would have agreed with the future Abraham Lincoln who said, “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion.”

It is difficult with a twenty-first century perspective to fully appreciate how socially and politically thorny it was for David Hume to confront the established Christian thinking of eighteenth century Britain. He showed awareness of knowing he needed to temper the presentation of his convictions when for example he expounded his critique cloaked in the guise of a fictional character’s dialogue. He was known also to conduct self-censorship. What is unmistakable is that he exposed himself to a hefty dose of inconvenience and distress.

Hume had very much wanted to be appointed to ethics and philosophy teaching positions at both the University of Edinburgh and Glasgow University. However, religious authorities consistently discouraged such appointments due to their claims of Hume’s heresy and atheism. The Catholic Church’s Index Librorum Prohibitorum or List of Prohibited Books included all of Hume’s books in 1761. Although never completely followed through, The Church of Scotland also began an action to try Hume for infidelity.

His personal life fared no better than his professional one. Throughout his life his critics referred to him as The Great Infidel and as an atheist. He was shunned by many of the professional class, although not by all intellectuals. In short, he existed as a controversial figure for presenting alternative views to the ideological norm. The time in which Hume lived is now referred to as The Enlightenment, but plainly that did not mean the period was fully illuminated.

As David Hume faced death during the summer of 1776 there was a public captivation across Britain with whether or not The Great Infidel would renounce his irreverent skepticism. Another great Scottish Enlightenment philosopher and friend of Hume’s, Adam Smith described Hume’s final days as buoyant and calm with no reservations of his beliefs evident. Another philosopher friend, the pious James Boswell, was beside Hume’s deathbed and gave his friend an opportunity to experience a last-minute conversion. But it was not to be. David Hume died as he had lived—content with his philosophical skepticism and steadfast in his convictions.

An important life task we continually find ourselves facing is to instill change in how others think, feel, and act. Even though attending to our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors is a full time endeavor we are nevertheless motivated to express ourselves toward others with the goal of affecting them in some way. We are compelled to leave our mark. Our egos need a sustenance that is only satisfied by community interplay, whether of one or of many. And from this contact we want to influence.

Are there responsibilities to be associated with the practice of persuasion, of which we should be aware? Yes, there are. They exist on two sequential levels. Foundationally we need to ask, are the grounds for attempting to persuade another justified ethically? Secondly, is the question of efficacy as in exercising best practice when endeavoring to persuade another. In this piece I would like to explore the concept of persuasion by trying to examine these ideas to see what emerges as a constructive impression. 

Persuasion as a practice is rooted in ethics. One can be a skilled influencer and adept at getting others to adopt their perspective, but if the cornerstone of the exhortation rests on deception, manipulation, and a lack of responsibility, then persuasion is perverted and corrupted. Conversely, if convictions are expressed within a principled context of virtue and decency with an eye toward improving the lives of others, then the persuasive effort is warranted. Persuasion is more than a skill. It is either a respectable exercise to add value or a tainted technique that rewards depravity.

Although I am examining persuasion as comprising two domains, ethics and efficacy, ethical underpinning and proficiency need not to be seen as separate matters. For example, we know that without building trust the intended persuader will not be effective. So how to build trust? By demonstrating fairness, honesty, and trustworthiness, which are ethical instances. A fundamental element of persuasion, establishing trust, is therefore both ethical and tactical.

Another example involves the persuader respecting the independence and freedom of the listener. Talking down to and forcibly coercing others to bend to one’s will is an egregious form of persuasion. It may accomplish inflating the ego of the persuader, but it does so at the cost of belittling other people and losing their respect. An alternative approach that utilizes the free agency of the listener will gain their respect and make them more amenable to processing and possibly accepting your position. Again, ethics and efficacy meld.

An elementary component of persuasion is to see the endeavor as an attempt to benefit both parties, the persuader and the recipient. Through initiation of openness, transparency, and making forthright what the intentions of the persuader are, the recipient can exercise their powers of reflection and reason to either make a change or adhere to an opinion. A perversion of persuasion is to have the exchange out of balance. When only one side of the equation receives value, then the interaction has devolved into manipulation and exploitation. Persuasion is best when it is a collaboration.

There are many reasons to employ persuasion. Team motivation, conflict resolution, product marketing, growing relationships, decision making, trust building, communication enhancement, and career growth are among the most common. The throughline is to encourage change — and hopefully change for the better.

Scholars who have studied persuasion come from multiple disciplines, specifically communications, social psychology, marketing, and leadership. As is the case with scholars they examine a topic like persuasion by identifying the constituent parts of the method and from those devise theories, models, and principles which when understood can better prepare one for involvement in the practice with a greater likelihood of success. It is useful to learn what conclusions they have formulated.

Persuasion is necessarily practiced as a dualistic dynamic. There is a party delivering a message and another one receiving the message. The quality and conditions of the interchange matter in determining if persuasion is reached or not by one party to the other. As with any interplay there will or will not be a fit in that a persuasive goal has been achieved, partly attained, or not fulfilled at all.

Let us look first at the party attempting to persuade. To increase chances of success the source of the messaging must be viewed as appealing as in being credible and trustworthy. Expertise does still matter, so projecting knowledge and competence is crucial. Context is also notable. If the interchange is occurring within a hierarchical order such as on the job the power dynamic is qualitatively different than if the exchange was occurring among peers. As the external power of the persuader increases so too do the chances of manipulation or coercion, whereas establishing a connection in which each party feels they are on a similar level has a greater likelihood of fruition.

Audience characteristics play a key role in the ability of the persuader to succeed no matter how good they are. It is critical to read the audience. Are they motivated to change, concede a previously held view, and comply with a new understanding? If audience motivation to change is low one of two things may occur. Either they will accept a temporary shift in their thinking in hopes something will be gained, or they will reject the message entirely. Conversely, if the audience is eager for a fresh perspective with a high prospect for reward, they are more likely to discern the logic of the message and adopt it.

Robert Cialdini of Arizona State University, a recognized expert in the field of influence, promotes tactics to make for a more persuasive fit between persuader and audience. (Above comments regarding expertise and persuader/audience parity are from him). The way the persuader hones and presents the message can make a difference. Soft skills directed to the audience like showing warmth and respect while downplaying power differences make persuasion more likely. Giving the audience permission to voluntarily accept opinion changes rather than demanding them is influential as is ethically expressing information as somehow exclusive or privileged just for them.

This brief examination of persuasion cannot be complete without mentioning its role in politics. Political discourse has always been heated, but never more so than in our always-on 24/7 modern-media saturated world. The messaging from all angles can be viewed as forms of attempted persuasion. Positions are staked, rationales are given, and arguments are made all in earnest attempts to convince an audience, which it is hoped, will lead to a building of support and diminishment of an opposition’s status.

However, as we have seen, persuasion without validation is hollow. When attempts at persuasion devolve into attacks the result most often is a fortification of opinions from those whose beliefs are meant to be changed. Rhetorical combat may clarify one’s standpoints and solidify their prestige within one’s tribe, but it rarely persuades. To be significantly influential one is required to demonstrate caring, support, and common ground with the other side. Without a significant degree of validation for one’s political opponents, attempts at persuasion are an exercise in futility.

To be persuasive, whether in politics, leadership, within a career, or among friends we hold close is not easy. To be persuasive necessitates being knowledgeable, well intentioned, skillful in communications, and above all kind. It requires stepping out of the rigid confines of one’s ego to try to make the world a better place for everyone, not only for oneself. This may be the most challenging feature of persuasion — being virtuous more than just being right.

In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity. — attributed to St. Augustine

There are times in modern history when the Hegelian dialectic forms the basis for social and political change. The thesis represents the status quo; the antithesis introduces deviation; and the synthesis emerges as the new normal — at least for a time.

One such metamorphosis occurred during the initial rise of industry from 1760 until 1840 with another iteration evident from 1870 until 1914. Broadly speaking the Industrial Revolution marked a formidable displacement away from reliance on hand craftmanship to machine manufacturing as the primary means of production. Mechanical power was harnessed to vastly expand product output and in the process the world was transformed.

The Industrial Revolution did not spontaneously combust. It became conceivable because a philosophical foundation was set to make it possible. A school of thought developed characterized by reason, empiricism, pragmatism, and a systemization of knowledge gain. In the west, social confinement finally began to shift away from the combined dominance of Church teachings and monarchial/aristocratic decrees as the sole roots of incontrovertible truths and guidance for all humankind.

The period known as The Enlightenment began in the mid-seventeenth century with Descartes and Newton and lasted until the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. The rational and scientific upheaval of this age of reason made possible the Industrial Revolution. Of significance was the synthesis of the many cultural, political, economic, and technical outgrowths spawned by development of industry.

We not only live at present with the technological and economic features of industrial capitalism, but also with its principal social and political theory known as classical liberalism. From the churn of new philosophical and scientific thought emerged a transfigured social order. A novel conception of what it meant to be human surfaced emphasizing the worth of the individual person. A looming fatigue and disdain for playing the role of chattel manifested. The human condition had had enough of subjugation and exploitation.

Classical liberalism began with a revisitation and reformulation of the concepts of the state of nature and natural law. Though interpretive consensus was lacking there nevertheless existed a prevalent and rising belief in an a priori substructure to the human condition. One that stated inconclusively that we are all born with common qualities, most importantly with universal rights. If there is a clear-cut and explicit focal point to the birth of classical liberalism it is with this crystallization of human rights.

In our hearts we never strayed from Aristotle’s claim that to be fully human means to flourish. Philosophy of the seventeenth century sparked a renewed reverence for what it meant to thrive, to try finally to live a life of wonderment, prosperity, and joy. However, recognition of our sacred solitariness alone was not enough to sustain it. We shared the world with others. We all had the right to flourish. We all wanted the same thing and therein lies the challenge of the collective for the individual.

Classical liberalism was a social contract. A systemized way of honoring individualism within the context of society. John Locke contributed much to articulating how this social contract was to be perfected. Locke perceived the budding natural law ethic of individual rights as consistent with his view of the human as free and equal in the state of nature. And revolutionary for his time, Locke saw the rights of the individual as superseding the authority of monarchs.

The macro movement of limiting the power of monarchs inspired Locke and led to his social contract theory, which became an elegant construction, the influence of which lives on to this day. A key hallmark of the social contract prescribed that government, a concept that Locke admits did not come from natural law, but which was a necessary creation of humans nevertheless, should be constituted and exercised by the governed, by the people. Its key purpose was to achieve social harmony by ensuring all could prosper.

To execute the social contract Locke composed a political theory that centered on four central functional elements for government to follow:

• Individual Rights to protect the freedoms of each person
• A Rule of Law that is applied to all equally
• Limited Government to safeguard against tyranny
• Economic Freedom as the means of achieving abundance

The job of bringing the classical liberal social contract to fruition fell to the early post-church and post-monarch nation states during the eighteenth century, primarily Britain, France, and the young United States. Despite their respective fits and starts and idiosyncrasies what eventually materialized were the liberal democracies, a movement that in time became globally pervasive due to its civilized capacity to merge individual rights with shared decision making. Consensus grew that liberal democracy best secured and expressed the values of classical liberalism.

Adherence to classical liberalism exerted within the context of representative democracy constitutes a humane and effective means of ensuring opportunities for flourishing of all people within a given society. One is hard put to see a system that is better. All other methods of command and control demonstrate an imbalanced concentration of power of one sort or another. Over-convergence of power, whether it be in the form of government, religion, corporations, monarchies, oligarchies, aristocracies, or media, eventually leads to hierarchy, domination, oppression, and a diminishment of individual rights and checks on power.

Retaining classical liberalism is not easy to do, despite its popular appeal. There are muscular forces in most societies which feel constrained and checked by broad and equal disbursement of rights. Classical liberalism promotes sharing of power and wealth among a citizenry. Those with a tendency toward hoarding power and wealth do not want to contend with these fundamental and vexing aspects of liberalism. Rather, they pine for a more traditional and antiquated arrangement in which some people, as in their kind of people, are better than others and more deserving of power and wealth.

Today we see such a regressive social and political movement in the form of illiberalism. This emerging ideology directly challenges classical liberalism. The traditional but menacing leadership practices associated with autocracy, dictatorship, all-powerful monarchs, and a privileged well-heeled class are always at hand. There is a rich history reaching back millennia of groups and individuals who believe in their hearts and minds that an entitlement class is necessary to ensure that a society or national state retains its cultural conventions and to prevent social descent into chaos and debauchery. They alone possess the means and abilities to best steer the populace.

The latest iteration of this authoritarian heritage is illiberalism. This perspective views classical liberalism as anathema to their mission. Illiberalism prides itself on advancing national sovereignty and what is known as national essentialism, an interpretation of a historic national core comprised of a founding people with valued originalist traditions and practices in need of preservation. It promotes a political culture that rejects change and attempts at progress in favor of customary rituals.

To further the illiberalism project, adherents renounce individual freedoms among those not included among the chosen people. Multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, and extensions of rights to minorities are shunned, if not forcibly curtailed. Limited government is also abandoned as power is concentrated into an all-powerful executive. To accomplish executive consolidation parliamentary and judicial systems are diminished and enfeebled.

Economically, illiberal supporters do not trust free trade and tend to be highly protectionist despite the many examples of economic decline wrought by protectionism such as high consumer prices, trade wars, inefficiency, supply chain disruptions, and reduced market access. Indeed, illiberalism is ambivalent about free enterprise in general. Its controlling nature can lead to cronyism and state intervention into economic decision making, not unlike communist practices.

Not surprisingly, illiberalism lacks enthusiasm for foreign policy that engages too much with the world and instead favors isolationism. Multilateral treaties and multinational institutions are seen as inconsistent with sovereignty and so are spurned. In the case of the United States, which has played a unipolar role internationally since the end of the Cold War, continued influencing of advancing democratic principles globally is also in conflict with illiberal thought. The conviction remains that a nation state can and should conduct its own affairs in its own interests with as little contact with others, as necessary.

Illiberal political parties are proliferating around the world. Their presence is now found in Hungary, Poland, Türkiye, Brazil, El Salvador, Venezuela, India, Philippines, Russia, Israel, Tunisia, and Egypt — and now here in the United States. The Republican Party has abandoned conservatism for illiberalism, and we have a president, who along with the majorities in Congress, practice it.

The Hegelian Dialectic acknowledges that social change happens. Political inertia is not to be expected. However, it is the quality of the antithesis and the resulting synthesis that most matters. The great challenge for our time in America and around the world is to see if the ideals of classical liberalism, which remain a revolutionary enhancement in governance, can survive and thrive in the face of a world disrupted by contemporary technologies and a globalized economy. Illiberalism represents a regression to times and methods ill-suited to address modern problems and opportunities. Rather, illiberalism is based on fear and insecurity and deserves to be soundly repudiated.

We are a little more than a month into the Trump sequel. So how is it going? Cringeworthy, huh? If you think this performance is good, then you might really delight in seeing functional systems and institutions destroyed. This rampage is not reform. It is demolition. It is safe to say that this is the worst launch of a presidential administration ever.

Let’s look at some highlights. There are the inferior cabinet picks, where expertise is shunned in favor of partisan bootlicking. There is the white supremacist nationalist Defense secretary with demonstrated ethical lapses. We have a conspiracy-addled anti-vaxer leading HHS. The nation now has an authoritarian-loving flatterer as Director of National Intelligence. And then there is the paranoid revenge-fueled FBI Director who also feeds off conspiracies and is ready to suppress free speech. What a rouge’s gallery!

In another despicable display by our leader is the latest embrace of Putin and its accompanying distancing of democracy as is evident in his throwing Ukraine under the bus. So the only way the US is now ready to aid an invaded democracy is if they agree to hand over 50% of their most valued minerals and agree to having their invader keep a third of their country? And listen to Vance in Munich giving his Yale-educated polished justification to why the post-war international order that has sustained democracies for eighty years is no longer worth keeping. What a slap in the face of the Greatest Generation!

And what to make of the shenanigans of our unelected co-president Elon Musk? Is this what Republicans want, a South African oligarch making decisions about what US governmental programs stay or go and what benefits his businesses? And as a tax payer and Social Security recipient, I know I’m not alone in being incensed that Musk has given access to a bunch of his twenty-something employees to handle the records of US citizens.

I see three levels of support for Trump, firstly the hardliner MAGA cultists, secondly the lifelong Republicans who have convinced themselves that Trump is better than the satanic Democrats, and thirdly those who were angry that grocery prices were too high in the aftermath of the pandemic. It is this third group that make up the president’s softer support. And they will be the first to bail on him if inflation does not come down.

This third group is starting to waver. Consumer sentiment is increasingly pessimistic and Wall Street is beginning to show some reservations. Trump and Vance themselves are now distancing themselves from talk of lower consumer prices. Meanwhile, Trump’s approval ratings are dropping.

Should we be surprised? No! This is what the USA voted for. There will be pain to feel in this country and it is hard to not shout, “So, what did you expect when you voted for this guy America?!”

Truth is such a sonorous word. It resounds with a command and a power reserved for only supreme ideas, the beliefs which are immutable and not to be doubted. We are raised in a world governed by indisputable premises such as traditional ideas of what is right and wrong. Who are we to question the values and edicts laid down by our elders, time-honored institutions, and conventions as old as civilization?

Truth carries the weight of the sacred. It provides certainty, a bedrock of assuredness, a shelter from the storm of chaos and entropy buffeting our lives. All ambiguity, indecision, and insecurity can be soothed by pinning one’s life to that which is undeniably real, Truth.

Human endeavors are based on a foundation of what we believe to be true. Whether it is the legal system, organized religion, the art guild, or any of the other grand institutional structures of custom that coordinate and guide society. The throughline is that all such human entities are operated upon principles widely accepted to be true. Indeed, expressing and acting on statements of truth is the core essence of human motivation.

Despite the zeal associated with living by what is truth, skepticism nevertheless sneaks in and brings forth hesitancy. Is there really a truth from on high or is truth nothing more than a ploy to direct one’s thoughts and behaviors? In short, it is worth pondering whether there really is a Truth with a capital “T” or should truth be relegated to a collection of common mortal concepts, including value, justification, belief, inquiry, etc.?

There are two schools of thought pertaining to the veracity of truth. (For the sake of consistency, I will now refrain from spelling truth with a capital “T”. Note, no value judgment is to be inferred by this decision.) On the one hand is the belief truth is intrinsic — unshakably steadfast and independent from outside perceptions. On the other hand is the view truth is instrumental — a malleable concept that has at most practical utility for achieving certain ends.

Intrinsic truth is woven into the fabric of the universe. Truth in this context is an expression of the essence of existence. It is divine in its radiance. It is reliably resolute. Instrumental truth is patently human. Handled like a tool, truth is wielded in service to a mission of achieving usefulness, practicality, and attainment of a desired goal. If truth is not advantageous, then it loses significance.

Examples may help to clarify the distinction between these two renditions.

Intrinsic truth, which philosophers would place as a subset of Realism, is first and foremost mind-independent. Truths in the real world are valid whether there is a thinker or perceiver or not. For example, science is replete with laws and facts describing the world and universe as it is naturally or inherently. Newton’s First Law of Motion declares that an object at rest stays at rest while an object in motion remains in motion unless impacted by an outside force. Further, water boils at 100º centigrade and freezes at 0° centigrade. These events are everywhere considered true whether or not there is an observer to see these actions.

Beyond science there are agreed upon moral truths such as not killing a defenseless person, not enslaving another, and that honesty is better than lying or deception. Indeed, our entire legal system is premised on a belief that justice and fairness is a fundamental truth applicable in all cultures and transcending all time.

An instrumental or pragmatist position of truth discounts or flatly rejects an emphasis on linking truth to metaphysical reality. The value of truth is in its expediency and the benefit it provides to people. Returning to Newtonian science, truth is determined by how scientific laws and facts can be used to foretell future materialist conduct. This predictive capability leads to innovations and novel implementations. Because scientific laws assist people in solving problems, then they are true. Truth does not derive from a manifestation of the universe.

Occasionally intrinsic and instrumental appeals for truth commingle in a sense. To illustrate, let’s take religious belief. Many people of a religious persuasion may fully accept that God is the source of all truth. If God wants something, then it must be indubitably true. However, it is possible there could be church members who embrace religious truths simply because doing so results in more purposeful and satisfying lives regardless of any divine origins or attachments.

Given the duality of truth telling, if you will, what then it the version of truth that is the most authentic? Is truth a fundamental aspect of reality or is truth more of a serviceable construct for people to utilize as they see fit?

I take an all-of-the-above position on truth. Yes, I accept the Platonic notion of a primary and primitive essence to nature in which universal truths are to be found. And I acknowledge that truth is not always as absolutist as commonly proclaimed, but rather is adaptable and compliant as human needs arise.

Philosophers refer to a Platonic conception of the universe. This invention is rooted in the claim Plato made which is that reality consists of two domains, one a fixed and pure realm of perfect forms, the other a fluid and imperfect, but sensible and tangible physical world, influenced by, but not directly mirrored by the purity and perfection of the realm of forms. Plato went further to describe the cosmos as possessing an active soul, the purpose of which is to continually model the ideal when bringing order to earthly reality as we know it.

Admittedly, to accept Plato’s vision is to buy into a reality that is determined and transcendental. Religion would call it divine or heavenly. Within this specter lies what is at heart. It is the core of all substance and experience. It is here that intrinsic truth lies. And I agree it is real. To be clear, I am far from being sufficiently aware or at all mystical to characterize in detail a complete construct of the realm of pure forms. That said, I am comfortable in believing that a monistic and aboriginal oversoul is at play in manifesting reality.

The early Greek Stoics spoke of a generative spirit, a sacred principle that governs the universe. This energy puts order to the cosmos, nature, and indeed reality itself. It is in this Stoic term logos that I look for intrinsic truth.

As much as many of us would like to reserve truth for intrinsic purposes only, we must appreciate truth is often used as a cudgel for reaching an objective. When someone speaks of the need to adhere to the truth it is reasonable for any critical thinker to question the aims of any issuer of truth’s fidelity. For the word truth can be bantered about casually, if not carelessly.

Truth, as it turns out, lies singularly in the eyes of the beholder. This use of instrumentalism is nowhere more evident than in the practice of politics. This brings me to the comedian Stephen Colbert who in 2005 coined the term “truthiness”, a clever parody of instrumental truth. Colbert recognized and mocked a disingenuous tendency practiced by politicians, political parties, and their supporters. There is a predilection to disconnect truth from evidence, facts, logic, and instead align truth with emotions, gut feelings, and idiosyncratic notions. Truth becomes what feels good, not what can be rationally confirmed. Truth becomes what one wishes truth to be, not what can be factually demonstrated.

Here in America we see truthiness on full display with the rise of right-wing populism. Donald Trump has built a brand and a rise to power by being fast and loose with the veritable truth. I for one never know when to believe him, so it is sensible to just not take him for his word at all. And I am not alone. At least half of this country knows he is a liar, but he gets elected president, twice.

This brings us to a serious fault with instrumental truth. If a society cannot agree on what is real and true, then we are a house divided indeed. The rise of misinformation, disinformation, psychological manipulation, gaslighting, fear mongering, and all the rest fractures institutions, social trust, and civility. America is deep into this dark place right now.

American Pragmatism was a philosophical movement that began in the 1870s with the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce and it continued to be intellectually influential with thinkers and writers such as William James and John Dewey well into the twentieth century until the 1940s. A hallmark of the pragmatism movement journey was in placing credence into human practicality as the grounds for meaning and truth. Philosophy among the pragmatists held value in how well it solved day to day problems encountered by ordinary people. The Platonic ideal was rejected because it was seen as too abstract and removed from commonplace life. Pragmatism underscored the utility of thought through empiricism and experience. It greatly influenced American institutions in law, education, political theory, religion, and social progress.

The pragmatist movement judged truth by how well it solved problems over time. Claims of what is true were subjected to stringent inquiry and testing to determine how well their usefulness held up long term. Examples of this include William James’s “cash value” idea, which promoted labeling a concept true if it helps to bring success. When using a map for instance one would want to know if the map shows an accurate way to a desired destination. If it does, then the information on the map is true.

John Dewey introduced the theory of “warranted assertibility”. A scientific hypothesis could be considered true if the hypothesis withstood continual experimentation and inquiry and was always shown to deliver necessary and predictable results. C.S. Peirce also emphasized rigorous analysis of truth claims and was satisfied that assertions were true if a collective consensus emerged.

The level of instrumentalism essentially applied to truth by American Pragmatism is in the American blood, so to speak. Since intrinsic truth is not empirically verifiable, even for the faithful, then a collective harmony is desired for a society to best function. We are stuck with an instrumental view of the truth whether we like it or not.

Like many things in life, truth is a paradox. It is both rock solid, but also pliable. It can point us to the marrow of existence, but also to which product we should reserve consumer loyalty to. We can try clinging to truth for stability, but find the support has too much play in it. This I know, when anyone tells me something is true I will retain a healthy dose of skepticism. Although truth is a subjective interpretation, if we can largely agree on what is true we can work and live together. If not, then we are at odds.

Most of us grew up and were educated in a world in which classical physics ruled as the basis for understanding reality. Of course this does not mean we all took high school physics class, but the scientific cornerstone for how we think of reality has been established in traditional classical physics.

Sure, we knew quantum mechanics was a thing out there among the brainiac set, but it was too esoteric for us normal everyday people to seriously consider. After all, quantum mechanics has a well deserved reputation for being hard to understand. It is beyond rocket science. It is really far out there.

Newtonian classical physics on the other hand was relatively accessible. Attainable that is to the extent that any disciplined science like physics is approachable to average folks. Classical physics has had a way of seeping from the halls of academia to the general population in that it has formed our conventionally accepted mindset respecting the nature of reality.

And what is this outlook? It can best be described by what western philosophy calls realism. In short, realism is the view that substance or material and the things made of materials belong distinctly to a world and universe external from ourselves. Objectivity is the guiding principle. Reality is objective. It is detached from our subjective perspectives. We are merely observers to a reality that was here before we were born and will be here after we die. Or so we are led to believe.

Underpinning this objective and mind-independent notion of reality is a belief in immutable laws of nature as posited by Isaac Newton and his followers. Indeed, this is science at work. We are unquestioningly convinced by the scientific elite that a deterministic set of motions and rules sprang forth from the Big Bang which has continued to shape the universe ever since. And then to be told by them that something is a law, as in Newton’s laws of motion, says in a stern voice, “This is how IT IS, period!”

When a cause and effect interplay occurs predictably resulting in a well defined materialist or energetic action, such as a drought lowering the water level of a pond, we see it as evidence of reality demonstrating what it does naturally. To us it is common sense. However, strongly implied in this observation is that reality has a fixed and steady quality to it. Change, when it happens, is just part of the interaction of basic elements, but underneath it all exists a permanent and enduring lay of the land.

Quantum mechanics is now trickling into the common way of thinking about what is real, albeit slowly, after one hundred years of its being on the scene. The influence of quantum mechanics is becoming profound, especially regarding the way it calls into question the permanence of realism. Quantum mechanics introduces uncertainty where before there was consistency and reliability. We have come to learn that reality is probabilistic rather than assured. The universe may be unfolding as it should, but it is doing so in way that is not so easily discerned.

Indeed, it is in the area of quantum measurement where we run into ambiguity. In quantum mechanics there is a principle known as superposition, which states that the subatomic wave-particle (the basic quantum entity) abides in many different states concurrently until a measurement is attempted. Upon calculation, one of the multifarious conditions of the wave-particle is recorded. Had time or space or the means of measuring been different, then another computation could have been yielded.

In short, there is no single and invariable assessment that can be made about a wave-particle. The measurement could have been any one of many possibilities.

Superposition therefore suggests that the very practice of measuring reality at the quantum level actually creates the reality seen by the observer. Measurement no longer computes a primeval or pre-existing state of affairs. Instead measurement reveals one out of many possible views of reality. Materials it seems do not have well defined and fixed traits. Rather reality requires that an observer be present to register that reality exists, or at least one perspective of reality.

Quantum mechanics raises the possibility that how we have thought about reality may be defective. Philosophical realism has not yet reconciled itself with the superposition principle of quantum mechanics. It is hard to see how these two schools of thought will ever harmonize. What we thought was a clockwork universe governed by physical laws is now called into question.

The implications of randomness and uncertainty being fundamental aspects of reality are far-reaching. What else does this call into question? Is Truth now also erratic? Are values fickle and unstable? Will anything last in perpetuity any longer? When the very essence of reality is called into question, then so also is the world we thought we knew.

In an act of fear, malice, and desperation and with a desire to anesthetize themselves against a changing world Americans chose Donald Trump as the 47th president. Our nation’s march toward normalization of zealotry, bigotry, vileness, and deceit is now more entrenched. We are no longer Reagan’s “Shining City on a Hill”. We traded that imagery for one that is now no more than a blemish on a pillaged landscape.

Elections are usually about forging a more hopeful future. We are accustomed to expect optimism and promise following a national plebiscite. However, in the electoral debacle which just occurred it is challenging to see from where the benefits may arise. A view of the horizon now does not reveal encouragement and confidence about social enhancements to come, but rather base level confrontations, hate, anger, and retributions designed to concentrate power among an insular privileged class.

As the refashioned Republican Party has clearly taught us the rules of the game have now changed. By electing a criminal, serial liar, rapist, fraudster, and insurrectionist we essentially have given ourselves permission to believe these faults are really not so bad. Indeed, if that is what it takes to return America to a land where white, heterosexual, Christian, corporate, patriarchy is in charge, then so be it. This appears to be the consensus. Good luck America with that one! Trump is merely the means to a fanciful and illusory end of “greatness” as the nation will soon come to realize.

The opposition to this now dominant MAGA mindset will have to become more creative. The strategies, tactics, and coalitions opposing leaders will need to employ must adjust to the unethical approaches the Trump acolytes effectively exploit for their self-righteous gains. A transformed center-left/center-right partnership that imagines practical and potent counterpoints and recognizes opportunities to effectively confront the MAGA nonsense will need to emerge.

Above all, the resistance to Trump must be rooted in the principles of equality and freedom set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Trumpism has already begun to erode both of these tenets and reestablishing and reinvigorating them must be a priority of any moral and virtuous dissent. In addition, defiance against Trump and his followers must be muscular when Constitutional protections are threatened.

Also of note, exit polls show that many Trump voters held their noses as they voted for him. Reuters and CNN exit polling both had the disapproval of Trump by his own voters at 53%. Presumably they were either lifelong Republicans who just couldn’t make themselves join other Republican defectors to vote for a Democrat or they were trying to make an economic statement, due to inflation. These may be among the first to bail on Trump once they see his expected abuses of power. It is sad that they did not step up for the health of their country when they had the chance on November 5.

Speaking of inflation, Biden received the blame of course for higher consumer prices since 2021 because they occurred on his watch. This overly simplistic view did not take into account how the Covid pandemic with its supply chain disruptions, surge in demand for consumer goods, labor shortages, the Feds expansionary monetary policy, and disruptions in energy and commodity markets were instead the prime culprits. Now we have Trump promising to introduce a slew of new tariffs which are anticipated to drive up the costs of imported goods. Stay tuned.

Time will tell, but chances are quite good that the election of an illiberal and corrupt leader empowered recently by the Supreme Court and by the American electorate will prove to be disastrous for the nation in multiple ways. Perhaps I will be proven wrong. We shall see. In the meantime, let’s treat each other as good neighbors and join in protecting the defenseless and the powerless against those who would bully their way to dominance during these unprincipled times.

At present it looks as if we are in for a tough few years. If so, we asked for it and we deserve it. Just don’t blame me, I proudly voted for Kamala!