Paradox Corona
Content
“When the intensity of emotional conviction subsides, a man who is in the habit of reasoning will search for logical grounds in favor of the belief which he finds in himself.” ~ Bertrand Russell
A SOUND REASONING is not exclusive to the logicians, logicians, philosophers, or scientists. Everyone can be rational because it is inherent, as human being, to seek seek the the truth based on reason and common sense. One does need a degree in PhD to be rational, but an attitude with decency, nobility, and humility to seek the truth that illuminates the condition of humanity and the highest good of the society. Every day, we are barraged by fallacious arguments from newspaper to television, from social media to a daily conversation. In social network, network , for instance, we are quick qu ick to react to any „popular issue,‟ as if our mind is programmed to respond and virally spread any “hot topic” without rationalizing whether the given data possesses an epistemic value or denuded with meaning and substance. What is a fallacy and how does it affect our logical reasoning amidst the insalubrious prêt-à-porter information being guzzled on us by social media, mass media, media , and mass culture? THE CORONA FALLACY (Definition and Etymology)
Fallacy, from Latin “fallacia” literally means “de ceit,” is an error of reasoning or inference, either deceptive or contradictory in context and substance. There are various kinds of fallacies that can be found in any argument, written or verbal. The most recent one is derived from Chief Justice Renato Corona‟s testimony Corona‟s testimony before the impeachment trial court on May 22, 2012 before the Philippines Senate. His testimonial discourse, with all due respect to the Chief Justice, is laden with fallacious inferences and suppositions in an attempt to deviate the allegation against him on undeclared assets and hi dden dollar accounts. By definition, The Corona Paradox (The Corona Fallacy), as coined by this writer, is a complex fallacy that circumnavigates on circuitous irrelevant issues, culminating in a new supposition that leads to selfcontradiction (ad absurdum) and implausibility (ad ridiculum ) of the proposed argument. It is a digression from the main thesis, which begets more fallacies in the process of reasoning, t hus subverting the veracity of the argument with absurd and contradictory inferences and conclusions. This kind of fallacy is common among politicians and government officials who officials who are caught in the quagmire of corruption, sex scandals, lies, and deceits. Instead of giving a straightforward answer to the allegation against them, they engage in a litany of denial by redirecting the issue either toward their self-serving self-serving repertoire of achievements or to th eir political opponents as an orchestrated “black propaganda” or “smear campaign” against them. Example Don José: Captain Pedro, why don‟t you yo u expose your unexplained wealth and dollar accounts to the townsfolk of our barrio? Captain Pedro: That‟s a blatant lie, Don José! I‟m an honest man, I have done many good things to things to the barrio, and the whole townsfolk can attest to that. Besides, you are up for revenge against me when I
favored to divide your 99-hectare rice farm to the farmers. I earned my family‟s wealth through hard work, my wife‟s inheritance, and from my mother (tears begin to well up from Captain Pedro‟s eyes). However, to satisfy your idiotic curiosity, I‟ll sign a waiver for the investigation of my dollar accounts, but I‟ll only release it only t o the barrio if you also sign yours so that the townsfolk will also know of your hidden dollar accounts. Now, the Captain of this barrio wishes to be excused from any of your nonsense scrutiny. Explanation
In this argument, Captain Pedro committed fallacies after fallacies in an attempt to deviate the accusation against him on his unexplained wealth and dollar accounts. The first fallacy is Argumentum ad Verecundiam (argument from modesty, or out of “authority”) when Don Pedro bellied his opponents invoking his “authority” as captain of t he barrio against his accuser(s) or “my words against theirs.” The second fallacy is Argumentum ad Populum (popular opinion or belief of the people) when Captain Pedro appealed to the kind indulgence of the townsfolk who could attest to his achievements, and as an honest captain of the barrio. The third fallacy is Argumentum ad Hominem when Captain Pedro attacked Don José‟s character as “vindictive” because he divided the latter‟s rice farm to the farmers. The fourth fallacy is Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity) when Captain Pedro cried after mentioning his mother, seeking sympathy not only from Don José but also to the townsfolk of the barrio. The fifth fallacy is “The Red Herring” (leading to a completely different argument) when Captain Pedro came up with a new supposition to cover up the allegation against h im by proposing to sign waiver for the investigation of his dollar accounts on condition that Don José should also sign a waiver to expose his own dollar accounts. The sixth fallacy is the Tu Quoque (“they are doing it, so I‟m doing it too”) when Captain Pedro implied that Don José should call it quits (psychological blackmail by self-absolution) because h e had also a hidden dollar accounts (psychological blackmail by implication). In this manner, Captain P edro indirectly admitted the accusation against him (a contradiction to his claim that the allegation against him was a blatant lie and that he was an “honest man”) with the intention to implicate Don José of his own wrongdoings (transference of guilt). Consequently, Captain Pedro was shackled by his own self-contradiction and the absurdity of the condition of his argument. THE BIRTH AND HISTORY OF 'THE CORONA PARADOX'
On May 22, 2012, millions of Filipinos watched the televised testimony of the chief justice of the Philippine Supreme Court, Renato C. Corona, before the Senate impeachment court due to an allegedly undeclared assets and dollar bank account deposits on his SALN or Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.
Worse yet, the improbability (ad ridiculum ) on the condition of the “waiver” educes a stalemate response since-- as already expected by Corona --the lawmakers will not execute their own waiver because, in the first place, they are not on trial but Corona himself. In the end, Corona was trapped by the dilemma of his own convoluted fallacies, or shall we say, The Corona Paradox ! THE TRUTH AND THE ELEGANCE OF REASONING
The elegance of reasoning is intricately woven withi n an objective proposition of facts and coherent statements, not by a pullulated travesty of emotional appeals and strategic psychological intimations. One can cry over the death of one‟s mother or sibling, but it will not illuminate the Truth if it does not address the real issue. Emotional sentiments cannot substitute the epistemic value of the truth because they are subjective and affective experience. Anyone can twist the truth but not the contingent elements that surround it, i.e., (1) the “knower,” (2) the inextricable occurrence of the “object” to be known, and (3) the empirical existence between the knower and the object to be known within space and time. No one can prevent any individual from seeking the “object” of the truth; neither can anyone hide it unless he or she is a Super Human Being who can magi cally deface the occurrence of the truth within time and space. The Truth illuminates the human intellect to seek its presence with grace, probity, and rationality, and not the human intellect to create the Truth in order to illuminate its presence for personal interests. The truth exists because it is simultaneously and universally felt and perceived by intelligent beings that live within the perimeters of its ontological presence. The Truth may be quantifiable but not mutable!
A SOUND REASONING is not exclusive to the logicians, logicians, philosophers, or scientists. Everyone can be rational because it is inherent, as human being, to seek seek the the truth based on reason and common sense. One does need a degree in PhD to be rational, but an attitude with decency, nobility, and humility to seek the truth that illuminates the condition of humanity and the highest good of the society. Every day, we are barraged by fallacious arguments from newspaper to television, from social media to a daily conversation. In social network, network , for instance, we are quick qu ick to react to any „popular issue,‟ as if our mind is programmed to respond and virally spread any “hot topic” without rationalizing whether the given data possesses an epistemic value or denuded with meaning and substance. What is a fallacy and how does it affect our logical reasoning amidst the insalubrious prêt-à-porter information being guzzled on us by social media, mass media, media , and mass culture? THE CORONA FALLACY (Definition and Etymology)
Fallacy, from Latin “fallacia” literally means “de ceit,” is an error of reasoning or inference, either deceptive or contradictory in context and substance. There are various kinds of fallacies that can be found in any argument, written or verbal. The most recent one is derived from Chief Justice Renato Corona‟s testimony Corona‟s testimony before the impeachment trial court on May 22, 2012 before the Philippines Senate. His testimonial discourse, with all due respect to the Chief Justice, is laden with fallacious inferences and suppositions in an attempt to deviate the allegation against him on undeclared assets and hi dden dollar accounts. By definition, The Corona Paradox (The Corona Fallacy), as coined by this writer, is a complex fallacy that circumnavigates on circuitous irrelevant issues, culminating in a new supposition that leads to selfcontradiction (ad absurdum) and implausibility (ad ridiculum ) of the proposed argument. It is a digression from the main thesis, which begets more fallacies in the process of reasoning, t hus subverting the veracity of the argument with absurd and contradictory inferences and conclusions. This kind of fallacy is common among politicians and government officials who officials who are caught in the quagmire of corruption, sex scandals, lies, and deceits. Instead of giving a straightforward answer to the allegation against them, they engage in a litany of denial by redirecting the issue either toward their self-serving self-serving repertoire of achievements or to th eir political opponents as an orchestrated “black propaganda” or “smear campaign” against them. Example Don José: Captain Pedro, why don‟t you yo u expose your unexplained wealth and dollar accounts to the townsfolk of our barrio? Captain Pedro: That‟s a blatant lie, Don José! I‟m an honest man, I have done many good things to things to the barrio, and the whole townsfolk can attest to that. Besides, you are up for revenge against me when I
favored to divide your 99-hectare rice farm to the farmers. I earned my family‟s wealth through hard work, my wife‟s inheritance, and from my mother (tears begin to well up from Captain Pedro‟s eyes). However, to satisfy your idiotic curiosity, I‟ll sign a waiver for the investigation of my dollar accounts, but I‟ll only release it only t o the barrio if you also sign yours so that the townsfolk will also know of your hidden dollar accounts. Now, the Captain of this barrio wishes to be excused from any of your nonsense scrutiny. Explanation
In this argument, Captain Pedro committed fallacies after fallacies in an attempt to deviate the accusation against him on his unexplained wealth and dollar accounts. The first fallacy is Argumentum ad Verecundiam (argument from modesty, or out of “authority”) when Don Pedro bellied his opponents invoking his “authority” as captain of t he barrio against his accuser(s) or “my words against theirs.” The second fallacy is Argumentum ad Populum (popular opinion or belief of the people) when Captain Pedro appealed to the kind indulgence of the townsfolk who could attest to his achievements, and as an honest captain of the barrio. The third fallacy is Argumentum ad Hominem when Captain Pedro attacked Don José‟s character as “vindictive” because he divided the latter‟s rice farm to the farmers. The fourth fallacy is Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity) when Captain Pedro cried after mentioning his mother, seeking sympathy not only from Don José but also to the townsfolk of the barrio. The fifth fallacy is “The Red Herring” (leading to a completely different argument) when Captain Pedro came up with a new supposition to cover up the allegation against h im by proposing to sign waiver for the investigation of his dollar accounts on condition that Don José should also sign a waiver to expose his own dollar accounts. The sixth fallacy is the Tu Quoque (“they are doing it, so I‟m doing it too”) when Captain Pedro implied that Don José should call it quits (psychological blackmail by self-absolution) because h e had also a hidden dollar accounts (psychological blackmail by implication). In this manner, Captain P edro indirectly admitted the accusation against him (a contradiction to his claim that the allegation against him was a blatant lie and that he was an “honest man”) with the intention to implicate Don José of his own wrongdoings (transference of guilt). Consequently, Captain Pedro was shackled by his own self-contradiction and the absurdity of the condition of his argument. THE BIRTH AND HISTORY OF 'THE CORONA PARADOX'
On May 22, 2012, millions of Filipinos watched the televised testimony of the chief justice of the Philippine Supreme Court, Renato C. Corona, before the Senate impeachment court due to an allegedly undeclared assets and dollar bank account deposits on his SALN or Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth.
Worse yet, the improbability (ad ridiculum ) on the condition of the “waiver” educes a stalemate response since-- as already expected by Corona --the lawmakers will not execute their own waiver because, in the first place, they are not on trial but Corona himself. In the end, Corona was trapped by the dilemma of his own convoluted fallacies, or shall we say, The Corona Paradox ! THE TRUTH AND THE ELEGANCE OF REASONING
The elegance of reasoning is intricately woven withi n an objective proposition of facts and coherent statements, not by a pullulated travesty of emotional appeals and strategic psychological intimations. One can cry over the death of one‟s mother or sibling, but it will not illuminate the Truth if it does not address the real issue. Emotional sentiments cannot substitute the epistemic value of the truth because they are subjective and affective experience. Anyone can twist the truth but not the contingent elements that surround it, i.e., (1) the “knower,” (2) the inextricable occurrence of the “object” to be known, and (3) the empirical existence between the knower and the object to be known within space and time. No one can prevent any individual from seeking the “object” of the truth; neither can anyone hide it unless he or she is a Super Human Being who can magi cally deface the occurrence of the truth within time and space. The Truth illuminates the human intellect to seek its presence with grace, probity, and rationality, and not the human intellect to create the Truth in order to illuminate its presence for personal interests. The truth exists because it is simultaneously and universally felt and perceived by intelligent beings that live within the perimeters of its ontological presence. The Truth may be quantifiable but not mutable!
