Voxa Inferatus - The Musing

If you read the previous post, "Voxa Inferatus - The Question," then this post should vindicate my point. If you have not read the previous post, please read it before pondering this one.

The key in the last post was that your position was based on your initial reaction. If you thought about it, you may have said that neither is true. Then again, you may have said that both are true. Which is it?

The second statement is true. We tend to think of the Roman Empire as the zenith of the Classical era, and not lasting through the middle ages. When Emperor Constantine took control of the Empire, he divided the land into the Western and Eastern Roman Empire in 324 A.D. The Western Roman Empire established the capitol of Rome, but "fell" over the next few hundred years. The Eastern Roman Empire, whose capitol was the city of Constantinople, survived in the Byzantine Roman Empire until the Ottoman Empire besieged and captured the city in 1453 A.D.


The whole point of this post is to ask: who do we listen to and why? Do we listen to the loudest voice, and the one that we make some automatic connection without giving it much thought? Why do we listen to these voices? Do we listen to and emulate Michael Moore or Bill O'reily because we know the names? Is it not better to listen to the voice that reasons as opposed to the star-studded, syndicated, sensational, or "open" minded voices? Most everyone has heard of Bill O'reily, Michael Moore, or Johnny Depp to name a few. Bill O'reily is the only reporter in this list. But these three names have become more recognized because of partisan praise and discontent, rather than the content of their argument. Michael Moore is a film maker. Having seen a few of his films, I can say an adequate film maker at that. But is he an authority because he attacks the current administration? Johnny Depp is an actor. That one should be obvious. Just because he memorizes lines and takes on various identities (quite well, by the way) does not make him a political authority.

In most of the world, we have come upon our opinions based on the positions of parents, celebrities, prominent figures, and sadly, those who are most attractive. But the one voice that has been speaking in silence is that of reason. We may reach different conclusions from the given evidence, but we may persuade more effectively if we have reason behind an argument. Without reason, all truths are equal. If this is true, it must be false. Can we say that it is true that truth does not exist? We cannot. Therefore, we may conclude that one idea may be greater than another. But it is reason, not popular opinion that determines truth. Even though most of us are not scientists, we should, as a race, be in the constant pursuit of truth. Otherwise, life is meaningless, and thus the race is justified in committing mass suicide.

The above paragraph may seem eclectic and irrelevant. But the question remains: who do we listen to and why? And although truth is not relative, should we not decide our opinion for ourselves?