|
18-Jan-2008 08:40:27
Posted By Emanuel L. L.
|
|
The question of truth is notoriously difficult, especially in a philosophical sense. Just ask three philosophers what they think "truth" is, and you'll see that they'll never agree. But that isn't really the real problem. The real problem is the mass cofusion orchestrated by no one else, but "us". We are responsible for the worst kind of confusion, the kind of confusion that mixes up fact and fiction. This kind of confusion is the worst because there is no way of sorting out whats fact and fiction. The only thing we can do is demand the truth. Yet, I think our demands for truth are a little to late. We're going to need to do more than demand it, we have to go out and get it for ourselves. In recent days, if you've been keeping up with the whole presidential candidates debates, speeches, etc.. you would have soon started to notice that everyone is saying absolutely nothing important (except maybe for Ron Paul who is constantly ridiculed for saying somthing important). It's the same thing over and over, decade after decade. It seems that the campaigns really aren't about substantive differences that should direct the decision of voters, rather it's more about the gossip that happens behind the scences. The whole """ "a supporter" of "blank" said "blank blank", the "candidate" denies having anything to do with it" """-- is what people seem to really care about. Should we have a debate about gossip? If you've ever been in any church where all the little old ladies sit on the last row and just comment on everything-- from "did you see what she was wearing" to "I can't believe that Pastor "?" has the nerve to say that"-- you would know that having any kind of discussion about what really was said, to what really was meant by what was said, or even getting to the bottom of who said what, is just impossible. Now what's the difference between these little old ladies' gossip and the media's coverage of these candidates? Not very much. One of the reasons I think that Obama is getting so much attention is because he seems to want to transcend the whole gossip debate. He seems to be saying "hey, you know what, we have problems, and the way things are going is not going to help fix these problems. What we need is some real change." That's pretty appealing to young voters, who (1) think they know everything, and (2) think that somehow a young and inexperienced (or should I say uncorrupted?) senator really can deliver change (what ever that means). Nonethless, the question is-- Is this guy for real? Is Obama really serious, or is he just saying this stuff to get elected, kind of like Mit Romney? Assuming that he will win the presidency, are young voters, who are probably thinking a lot more radically then Obama, going to be satisfied with his presidency? The only answer we can give is, I have no clue. What I do know is this: (1) if either Giuliani, Clinton, or McCain get elected, then there must be some conspiracy in the background, (2) if Obama or Ron Paul get elected, lets pray no one does anything to them (you get my drift). |