On Relativism: 3- Doublethink

“My son, the Giant who had one head was stronger than the Giant who had two. When you grow up there will come to you other magicians who will say, ‘Γνωθε δεαυτον. Examine your soul, wretched kid. Cultivate a sense of the differentiations possible in a single psychology. Have nineteen religions suitable to different moods.’ My son, these will be wicked magicians; they will want to turn you into a two-headed Giant.” The Magician in "The Disadvantage of Having Two Heads" – G. K. Chesterton

Doublethink was introduced in George Orwell's political novel "1984", it is defined as the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs.

This form of doublethink was a very conscious act, it was used by common people & ruling party members alike, & its mechanism was driven by fear more than anything else. It was a means of survival in a totalitarian world, but also a means of maintaining that totalitarian world.

When I consider what it is that I am having trouble accepting in our ambiguous modern mentality, I find it is something remarkably like 1984's doublethink, except that maybe it was driven by different reasons.
Let me explain...

Those who strongly believe in something fight for it, that is essentially true.
And the result of which was fanatics of all sorts filling the world with wars.

What people began to suggest after ages of difference (& because of ages of difference) is that since apparently nothing seems Real to everyone, then maybe everyone's beliefs are Illusions.
So no reason to fight about it, really. It might all turn out to be wrong!
Notice that this isn't saying it is wrong, but that it may be, & this is suggested as a reason to not get too excited about it!

As a proposed solution to religious strife, that is very much like castration as a proposed solution to adultery!
To stop crimes of passion, let's kill passion!
To avoid burning others or getting burned, let's stop making fire!
The result has to be a long and terrible winter.
So people died out inside, at least towards what they believed.

Naturally, this was welcome by Atheists (especially agnostic atheists), but there were also many Theists who wanted to embrace the all-accepting nature of that pseudo-solution to religious strife, and they did.
This resulted in a generation of religious people that advocated belief in a "private" religion.
Obviously, once a religion becomes private you have no reason to publicly profess it, let alone enforce it.

But not only that, once a religion becomes private, it no longer really is a religion at all. For a religion is a belief regarding the universe, it is about the universe, not only about a person. This was elaborated on in the latest entry in this series.

But this "private" religion of a "private" universe -as far as I understand- is backed up & promoted for by Buddhism. Which was getting fashionable at the time when this relativism began to be popular.
In any case many thinkers had no real problem accepting it. It was even considered in style! It became the new "modern thinking".

But I'd like to draw your attention now to the fact that this thinking is actually doublethinking.

To believe in an admitted illusion is doublethink.

To believe in a System of Belief & yet not care if it is false is not Believing at all, it is doublethink.

To believe in a Universal Philosophy & yet believe it to be Non-Universal is doublethink.

Just like doublethink of "1984", our doublethink is done for purely practical purposes, namely neutralizing fanaticism-caused violence.

Also just like doublethink of "1984" had a special sort of language (Newspeak) invented to facilitate its manipulation of reality, our doublethink has its special sort of language as well; as C. S. Lewis put it in the first of the Screwtape Letters as the speech of a wizened old demon to a young unexperienced one:

"Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" of "false", but as "academic" or "practical", "outworn" or "contemporary", "conventional" or "ruthless". Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about."

And just like doublethink of "1984", our doublethink was made possible by promoting that Reality (with a capital R) is either non-existent or unimportant.

Or in a more subtle way, by suggesting that Reality is whatever you make it to be, reducing it to your reality. A practical reality!

And right here, Truth becomes excess baggage.

& I think we need Truth... don't we?