Hi all,
Although as you have seen this time, this corner has been changing course , adding to its more entries on and issues surrounding my hobbies, I do not want to forget either of the political reflections, either from a critical or trying to explain situations (in so far as I can) I believe they are wrong told by the media (something what this blog has a long tradition.) Now do not get me wrong. It does not mean a return to oligopoly theme "political / legal and media issues." As you could see various latest deliveries pose a corresponding obligation to continue the path set and will remain the standard pattern of the blog. But since this is a personal corner, there is space to record any something that is part of my thinking. Having said that, step by submitting the entry, as usual, the successive complete this.
Without going too (although this is often complicated in this blog XD), I would put up a form of political manipulation, the result of the needs of time and current power, but as old as humanity itself: the projection of messages appearance of truth. Personal interest I have in this mechanism comes from the following: although we all have a general perception about the manipulation that suffer from the political class - all politicians lie - do not think there is a genuine social conscience about how they do it. This makes the general feeling, even crystallized into disenchantment with the political class, rarely have an influence on the meaning of the vote if all politicians lie alike, my vote will go to that I look less bad. Ignoring the objective fact that it is absurd that a company decides to meekly accept as normal the lesser of two evils (denying the possibility of choosing to do things right), the truth is that often recognize the baseness of the political class defend an acronym after so hooliganesca is but the excuse that puts himself before the voters is critical that and can not refute the widespread criticism of them, thus making a negative ( vote for the liar ) in a positive act ( vote at least lie and avoid a greater evil ). As I said, this deception would not be a common phenomenon if the city would stand to think a day at the despicable way in which he handled some and other , be who they are (another curious phenomenon that we have here opportunity to analyze but I leave on the table is the usual tradition of understanding English ideology and in any case always , and I stress the "always and in any event" - such as membership to a -those who are "representing the right choice, compared to some other virtue will never, never contemplated in the collective consciousness that other ideas can be shared with a or even that able to be right).
Quoting Dr. Ian Malcolm, an expert in chaos theory in Jurassic Park, life its way. And just as life does, so does power. In every historical moment, those who have held power have failed to adapt to further holding, and now there is a different time. Power is shifting and permanent at once: it is changing because it changes the way in which it is exercised and is permanent because there is always a power , a breed of leaders who are above the city. Precisely why one can speak of a power cycle : all power, except the original in the beginning of time comes to replace an outdated already (for example, replaced the Roman Empire in the territories conquered during its glory , the old tribal power barbarous, in turn, the regime and the emergence of medieval monarchs replaces the Roman Emperor after his fall, with emphasis on correcting the errors that led to his downfall, but eventually falling too, in old or new bugs). Civic and social revolutions did see the power authority and faith were no longer sufficient control instruments, and now had to reckon with the governed. But, as I said, we are not in a paradise which the cycle of power is out. The revolutionary ideas were effective against the vices of the old regime and later the Industrial Revolution, but again, the power has failed to adapt. - What do we need that the people support us? . Easy, the answer lies in convincing the people that defend their interests and keep in ignorance what really do - would control formula put forward today. The people have the power, yes, and must feel they have it, but if we do not know what we really learn to conform to cast a ballot in a ballot box and with that I have that feeling of control you need. However, while denying them the ability to control and monitor, there is nothing to fear, because at the end of the game, power is still there. The example is similar to the parent who has never gone to school that has the power to punish his son if he does homework, but since he has never known how the mechanics of the school, is tricked by his son constantly, lies with the appearance of truth, which never really require your child to make them, but if you ask if it controls if your child does homework or did not answer yes.
With the above in mind, and noting that in making this statement I have served the foregoing paragraphs, we reach the central question which I will in the following post for this issue: the method. How is the city, that now has to exclude lapotestad to whom you want to believe that the same power looks after their interests and lack of self-interest? . How can conceal the falsity of the acts?. Consider two things:
-Lying is a very simple mechanism to do so. In discussing a separate issue from which we doubt its veracity disrupt the veil that covers the truth is easier than it seems, as it proceeds to the verification of the claim and issued a trial.
"Historically it has been used as a form of Aristotelian logic reasoning, which explained very simply and without going into detail, is to observe the" formal logic ", ie establishing a formal system extracting intuitive knowledge (by implication) of two related claims that always will be, from a logical point of view, some . A clear example is the famous syllogism in which one starts from two premises (major premise and minor premise, but there are those who defend the possibility of three premises, is beside the point) that lead to a third (the conclusion) that will nature necessarily deductive. Probably the secret of his success is that it is a form of deductive reasoning with simple premises is easy for anyone, besides maybe the thinking is more natural (understood as the most basic form of reasoning and not requires special preparation if the premises are simple - insist at this point. The simple learning mechanisms are based on simple syllogisms).
As I said, we find formal logic and certainly natural right, not for nothing is a logical Azona r . However, while the Aristotelian logic, in its further development, was concerned that the basic premises were true to themselves and reach a correct conclusion also materially (aspect to determine even if the premises are true), the formal logic is concerned only certainty as regards the fastening system. If a conclusion can be drawn from two premises, whether or not certain assumptions materially ( really , using colloquial language), the conclusion is true. A graphic example is the following syllogism: "All cats are mortal, Socrates is mortal, therefore Socrates is a cat", according to Aristotelian logic this is a fallacy, and yet, from the scrupulous point of view of logic formal, the conclusion is true. While it is true that in this example, the falsity of the conclusion is obvious, if we introduce more complex assumptions as truth (either because they know and it is difficult to know whether they are or not or simply because believe they are), the deception is much simpler. If you know the nature of the premises but detect the logical union between them, our primary tendency is to believe that the conclusion is true.
This misuses of logic has been used many times to convince truths were not, with great success, I might add. An example, the justification of the superiority of Canon Law in the Middle Ages (or whatever it is, why the Catholic Church rules should be mandatory for everyone, not just as a mere spiritual guidance, but as a rule rigged legal sanction non-compliance): Aristotle was a philosopher of great influence during the early Middle Ages (and later too, but I'm interested in this particular point) and logico-deductive method was considered a way of reasoning correctly. In this historical point, had also addressed in the past the debate on natural law, that is, if there were rules to be learned from observation of nature that would be of an order superior to any other and therefore binding. The outcome of this debate was that yes, there was. So if there is a higher law from nature, how it becomes canon law in the legal system of higher rank? By misuses of formal logic. in a combined and complex So, the Church is the representative of God on Earth, the Natural Law is the upper right, God created nature, therefore, natural law can not be different from the law of God; if God is represented by the Church and he talks through it, God's law is the law of the Church, ergo Natural law is the canon law, and therefore superior.
This simple argument was used for centuries to justify the position of monarchs who were "by the grace of God," the maintenance of dynastic rights within a family, the power earth of the Papal States, and many more, not that hardly anyone dared to question whether that was true or not (and they did they did with the small mouth). Well, that method is that TODAY is still used.
The following post will discuss the application of this method scenarios exemplifying our most current time, discovering some of them (not all, because this is a Herculean task), such as the lies after Government's fiscal reform ZP (to address the issue from a more specific and clear), based on false premises to allow citizens reach erroneous conclusions and not see the reality and original sin of the English right (to address it in a more general, allowing general deployment view in political discourse), universal premise utility used with multiple variable smaller premises and how this argument can support the whole policy of a government.
Regards to all
not forget to visit http://cineybso.com 
0 comments:
Post a Comment