In a planet of generic untruth, the most reliable guides are logic and intuition. Bots can have human senses infinitely shaped with images, fabricated sounds, and fake films, as well as undermining human experience infinitely inferiable information, but they are never able to simulate a logical argument, due to the fact that the simulation of an argument is by definition not an argument, but an argument. Hence, the classical discipline of distinguishing correct arguments from its sophostic substitutes is crucial in this context.
However, a logically correct argument serves a reliable description of reality only to the degree that it grows from actual premises. These – in all the countless cases in which we do not have adequate cognition of self-obvious or experimental nature – can only be identified on the basis of well-trained intuition. So if, as a consequence of a fair and in-depth consultation with one's own mind, conscience, sense of good taste and sense of spiritual order, a given phenomenon appears to someone, embroidered by fundamental absurdity, grotesqueness, ridicule, insistence, tackyness, or abject aggressivity, then specified 1 has all right to presume that he may gotta deal with a generic fake, even though on its foundation a logically intricate construction.
In another words, in the planet of machine-produced informational kittens and sensual hallucinations, it remains to stick with a peculiar consequence of both the orders of reason and the suggestions of the spirit. Then untrueness – regardless of the multitude of its varieties, layers and lures – will never be able to bring a individual to the death belief that fact is his opposite, nor to the suicidal belief that it is simply a contractual, infinitely subjective or nonexistent issue.
Jakub Bożydar Wiśniewski
