Appearances are not deceptive

N. Lygeros

Translated from the Greek by Athena Kehagias




"We believe that we are endlessly following the flow of nature, while we do nothing more, than just standing by and studying the forms through which we admire it."
Ludwig Wittgenstein

We have the tendency to think that appearances are deceiving. As if it's provided that, society is real and genuine. Often, science itself is not, but a local durable deception. Furthermore, we are forgetting that, all is interpreted by our own brain, which actually constitutes the most crucial element of the transmission of any information to knowledge. We live in a society where the concealment, the disguise, the deception,the pretense and the lies are so common, that it doesn't even make sense to identify them. And it's for this very reason, that ipso facto we assume that the truth is so rare.
Slowly the virtual reality, consumes sections of reality, and it makes us wonder whether reality is not, but merely an illusion, as the obvious is so subversive within the factual. As we don't all have access to the transformation, we are trying through the disguise to present ourselves. The problem is, if we actually do it for others, or if our aim is to ultimately convince ourself. Through moralization, we learn how the sexes, especially females, are affected by the appearance.
In other words, the display constitutes a form of evidence. I'm not trying to convince, i am simply indicating, in order to avoid to be subjected to the problem of interpretation. Consequently, it is easier to be a liar rather than to be real. Indeed, the truth in this world, has a tendency to be isomorphic with the absurd. Because if all social factors seek to achieve a balance through mutually accepted delusions, the one that promotes the truth is presented as irrational.
It would be rather simplistic to assume that this mental scheme explains the condemnation of Socrates, but it is certainly one of the elements of the explanation. On the other hand, this approach offers other possibilities to interpret the works of Albert Camus. The awareness of the absurd is a means to human liberation according to Camus. Is this liberation concerning stricly the social context and not necessarily the metaphysical also?
Isn't whoever is portrayed as factual condemned by the establishment? Doesn't he constitute a human exemption of social emulation? Why Достоевский had to go through so much suffering in order to touch the humanism of humanity? Because appearances are deceptive? No! Simply, society doesn't want appearances, but only factualities. What's phenomenal frightens it, because it has the ability to alter reality dramatically and sometimes permanently .
What's phenomenal is real, it just doesn't belong to the social reality. Their structure is the truth, because they can't forget humanity. They seem absurd only in the vision of the observer who is nothing but a fake disguise of society that hasn't the potential to surpass itself through the metamorphosis.







free counters


Opus