The original philosophical enterprise, as it is outlined in Plato’s philosophy, and as such has been handed down in the tradition, seeks to distinguish between reality and appearance. S. Morris Engel puts it this way
“….the leading and dominant idea round which all philosophy turns is this insight regarding the existence of two worlds – the world of Reality and the world of Appearance, the world as it is in itself and the world as it appears to us.”
The philosophical path leads from opinion, which has as its object, shadows and images, through belief, to knowledge, which deals with the intelligible realm of forms. In the simile of the cave, Plato paints a picture of prisoners chained in a cave, who can see only the images and shadows of objects, and the ascent into the light of the sun where true reality is known. Seen in this way, philosophy is fundamentally concerned with truth as distinguished from illusion. Indeed, according to Plato, the true philosophers are “Those who love to see the truth.” It is this love of truth that leads the philosopher to seek knowledge rather than be satisfied with opinion or belief, through the process of dialectic which is “…the procedure which proceeds by the destruction of assumptions to the very first principle so as to give itself a firm base.”
In the original philosophical enterprise, this process of acquiring truth, of gaining knowledge of reality, is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, and involves the acquiring of virtue, that is, self-control, courage, justice, and wisdom. These virtues are intimately tied up with the pursuit of truth and knowledge of reality. Without them, the philosopher will make no progress along the path towards knowledge of reality.
This process of acquiring knowledge or reality is therefore accomplished through education which is the turning of the mind “…away from the world of change until its eye can bear to look straight at reality, and the brightest of all realities which is what we call the good.”
Education begins from an early age and involves a censorship on the type of stories with which children are presented, so that the “…first stories they hear shall aim at encouraging the highest excellence of character.”5 Censorship aims at carefully controlling the type of information presented, with a view to controlling the type of information presented, with a view to nurturing the right beliefs, particularly about good and evil. Education culminates in dialectic, which makes it possible to ascend to first principles, and eventually to the idea of the Good.
Philosophy was concerned therefore with truth, with formulating true knowledge of reality from the information that is presented to us. What does this concern with true reality translate to in contemporary terms? That is, to what does the contemporary interpretation of the on-going philosophical quest lead? What do the Platonic concerns translate to, and what does the concern for truth mean in contemporary society? For philosophy can be seen essentially, from this point of view, as the search for truth about reality.
What do we mean when we speak about reality? Perhaps the most appropriate way of looking at the question is in terms of an information model. Information is presented to an observer, and this information is processed and organized, hypotheses and theories are formulated about the nature of the information. It may be about physical objects, social or psychological realities.
S.I. Hayakawa speaks about two realities – verbal reality and extensional reality. In “Language in Action,” Hayakawa states,
“It is through reports, then, and through reports of reports, that we receive most knowledge about government, about what is happening in Korea, about what picture is showing at the downtown theatre – in fact, about anything that we do not know through direct experience.”
Hayakawa distinguishes between a verbal world, which is knowledge obtained about the world through words, and an extensional world, which is knowledge acquired through direct experience.
Contemporary society is termed an information society, because of the so-called information revolution, the immense increase in the ability to gather information and the technological means to process this information. As such, what Hayakawa would call the verbal world has increased tremendously as compared with the extensional world. Our world is thus very different (in terms of the information we receive) than ancient Greek society. Marshall McLuhan examined the difference in the conception of our own reality, with respect to the media through which we receive information. The tremendous increase in information alone, however, is sufficient to ensure that the way we deal with reality is different. In our contemporary society, verbal and visual reports are very much utilized than direct experience in providing us with information about reality. To a great extent, we may say, information is reality.
If information is so important is contemporary society, then the means by which information is disseminated is also important. The mass media fills the role of disseminating much of the information in society. It is through the media therefore, that our conception of reality is shaped to a great extent. Our reality is constructed in terms of “a global village” rather than in terms of the narrow domain of extensional information that must have been so significant in shaping reality in the ancient Greek city-states. Social events are measured against the background of global events; hence, they acquire meaningfulness from the perspective of this larger domain. McLuhan’s ideas about the “global village” are very relevant here. Our view of reality is shaped not merely by our experiential field but more so by our “verbal’ field. With the arrival of satellite television, an intricate system of inter-connected flow of information has been made possible. The debate over the consequences of this information is disseminated becomes a crucial factor in determining the nature of that information and the intended or unintended effects of that information.
The information age, the sophisticated and powerful telecommunications technology, the one-way flow of information, are all responsible for the substantially novel way in which our reality is shaped. Schiller has said that the American imperial structure depends on “…a marriage of economics and electronics which substitutes in part, thought not entirely, for the earlier ‘blood and iron” foundations of more primitive conquerors.”
Our reality, that is, how we view the world, is shaped by powerful and omnipresent media, fed by telecommunication technology. When events occur, therefore, we view these events in the light of whatever information we have received about these events. We make judgments on the basis of this information. The science of information manipulation, semantic juggling, has become crucial to World Empire. The importance of the media in this process cannot be overstated. The media, indeed, are the means of transmitting information on a daily basis, the means of creating our reality.
Conventional wisdom about the media is quite widespread. There is a common perception that the purpose of the media is to inform and entertain, and is quite objective in its function. The free press is considered essential to democracy, for if democracy is government by the people, then decisions made must be informed decisions, and the media play the role of providing objective, impartial information about events, etc. The intention, therefore, of information is simply to inform, or so it is claimed.
Our analysis of language and communication in the previous chapter discloses that the purpose of any communication can be traced to a pure purpose, an objective which is not the sub-objective of any other.
The matter is not as simple as conventional wisdom would have it. Schiller and others, for example, have associated the media with the propagation of the American empire, and empire not primarily based on “blood and iron” but on “economics and electronics.” We have to investigate the motives that lie behind the “transmission of information,” and it will be quite naïve to think that the only motive is simply “to inform.” “To inform” is not a pure motive. As Hayakawa says, “How then can we ever give an impartial report? The answer is, of course, that we cannot attain complete impartiality while we use the language of everyday life,” and furthermore, “…. Even if explicit judgments are kept out of one’s writing, implied judgments will get in.”
Rather than merely informing and entertaining, the media appear to be concerned primarily with justifying and legitimizing beliefs, attitudes and actions. Information, therefore, must be seen within this context. The juxtapositioning of facts, the timing of news releases, slanting of reports, the use of particular “loaded” words and phrases – all these play a part in the process of justification and legitimization. It should be remembered, however, that the effectiveness of the media depends largely on how credible it is perceived to be. The acquiring of credibility is therefore a pre-requisite to media effectiveness. Credibility is achieved through a process of gradualism, of moderateness, of finesse; the intention of the information must be carefully disguised. Truth and good intentions must therefore be mixed with falsehood and deceit. The greater effectiveness of the American media over the Russian media, for example, is precisely because of its greater finesse, its lack of extremism. It is this mixture of truth and falsehood that is in fact, ironically, so effective. To be effective, therefore, the media has to go through that process of establishing credibility and must continue with a certain amount of credibility.
The idea of “freedom of the press” is a particular effective tool for propagating believes and values. Schiller again says,
“Freedom of speech, however, interpreted to signify the unrestrained opportunity for the dissemination of messages by the American mass media in the world arena, has developed in the years since Truman spoke as an equally significant support in the American imperial arch.”
And furthermore,
“…the championing of freedom of communication (or speech) most often had as an indirect benefit, the global extension of American commerce and its value system.”
The tremendous imbalance of information flow between the western world and the Third World means that ‘freedom of the press” is merely a means of justifying the spread of particular beliefs and values.
With the development of telecommunications technology, and the popularization of democratic ideals, direct communication with the masses was seen as an important aspect of foreign policy. As the committee on Foreign Affairs Report No. 2 on “winning the Cold War the U.S. Ideological Offensive” states:
“… the recent increase in influence of the masses of people over governments, together with greater awareness on the part of leaders of the aspiration of people, brought about by the concurrent revolutions of the 20th century, has created a new dimension for foreign policy operation. Certain foreign policy objectives can be pursued by dealing directly with the people of foreign countries, rather than with their governments. Through the use of modern instruments and techniques of communications, it is possible today to reach large or influential segments of national populations – to inform them to influence their attitudes, and at times perhaps to motivate them to a particular course of action. These groups in turn are capable of exerting noticeable, even decisive pressures on their government.”
The events occurring throughout the world today demonstrate the success of this course of action, and the immense part that the media and telecommunications in general, plays in shaping contemporary history. In the report of the Intra-Governmental Committee on International Telecommunications 1966, it is stated “…telecommunications has progressed from being an essential support to our international activities, to being also an instrument of foreign policy.”
These reports from the 1960’s were presented at a time when telecommunication technology was still in a relatively undeveloped stage; advances in technology have made the role of telecommunications even more significant, as Schiller says, “telecommunications are today the most dynamic forces affecting not only the ideological but the material bases of society.”
The philosophy of Darryl Naranjit 