Thursday, 23 July 2009

Perversion as Truth

An idea occasionally encountered is that sickness, evil or perversion is truth, and while one meets this thought not so nakedly so often, inferentially it abounds far more than one might imagine. Leo Strauss, principal ideologue to the American neo-conservatives for example wrote: "Because mankind is intrinsically evil, he must be governed." So evil is truth, intrinsic truth. Sickness is truth, perversion is truth, goodness illusory, and so for instance child abuse is an expression of this truth, more true, because aligned with inner reality, than acts of apparent goodness which are in discord with this philosophical reality of perversion.

Is it possible to logically criticise this position? Is it merely a subjective affair to consider extermination camps, child abuse, torture and so on, wrong? As is any idea, this truthlessness of being is an intellectual proposition, a language construct, and so as such can this construct be intellectually disproven- as one might hope- or even - as its proponents might hope - upheld as a meaningful proposition of language, a logically consistent entity?

If true that perversion is truth, then the idea is itself an emanation of this perversion, and being perverse is therefore not true. And so instantly, its logicality, its 'truth' can be dispensed with. Nothing within such a mental framework or landscape of universal perversity could be said to be true, since everything would be by definition perverse.

The very notion of perversion being 'true' is linguistically, and tautologically so, perverse, nonsensical. The idea of the language term "perversion" necessitates the idea of healthiness, truth, to which this perversion is contrary. It cannot exist autonomously without this standard to offset itself. It exists in relation to truth, which it is in defiance of, in perverse relation to.
This proposition all amounts to attempting to say that falseness is truth, which is self-evident linguistic nonsense where words are asserted to mean the opposite of themselves - i.e. false = true . . .  but anyway to look, more or less again, at the 'logic':

If falseness is truth then there is no truth since anything that could be said would have to be false, and being false could not be true.

And so the notion of falseness being truth cannot be formulated in the first place since within the framework of the idea of falseness being truth nothing true can be said, and so the entire logic is forced to dissolve before it logically begins. A closed loop of meaninglessness disappears into nothingness.

Meaningless notions don't possess reality, are not animated by truth, life. They are false, their existence illusory. These attempts to justify evil as truth are simply nonsensical, truthless: intellectually impermissible violations of the truth tool of language.

Evil, when it attempts to be a philosophy of truth, a coherent intellectual concept, is shown to simply be incoherent babble, and all it really is, this notion of the absolute truth of perversion, is a symptom of and temptation into the domain of evil, itself intellectually insane.

No comments: