0

The Three Filters of Socrates


Socrates is credited with the following anecdote, when one day someone came to find him to speak badly of one of his friends:

– Do you know what I just learned about your friend?

– A moment. Before you tell me more, I’d like you to pass the three-strainer test.

– The three colanders?!

– But yes, said Socrates. It’s my way of analyzing what I have to say and what I am told. You’ll understand … The first sieve is the truth. Have you checked if what you want to tell me is true?

– No. I just heard about it …

– Very well. So you do not know if it is the truth.

– (…)

– So let’s go to the second strainer: what do you want to teach me about my friend, is it something good?

– Oh no ! On the contrary.

– So, Socrates continued, you want to tell me bad things about him and you’re not sure they’re true.

– Uh …

– Finally, and this is my third colander, is it useful to tell me what my friend would have done?

– Useful, no, not really.

– So, concludes Socrates, if what you have to tell me is neither true, nor good, nor useful, what is the point of telling me about it?

We would gain, individually and collectively, to perform this test of three strainers or three filters each time we are about to say something about someone as well as when we receive news or information about a particular individual or a group. Is what we are going to mention true, that is, like reality, or is it a lie or something that we have not been able to check the veracity? Is it good or constructive, at least for the person or group? Is it useful? And we should ask ourselves the same questions when we hear or read about other human beings (or extraterrestrials), especially when these words tend to belittle them, belittle them, portray them negatively, damage their reputations, as they do so often nowadays, including in the mainstream media

If it is in the nature of Man to make value judgments about others and about himself, he also has the potential to do so under the light of his moral conscience. And it is thanks to this one, if he agrees to listen to it instead of preventing it, that he is able to determine if what he says or hears is true, good and useful or if on the contrary it is fallacious, harmful and / or vain. From this point of view, information should only be communicated if it passes these three filters of truth, kindness and utility. It should be discarded from the moment it fails to pass at least one of the three

As a practical exercise of such a filtering, we can try on information or misinformation such as the following: “The world elites tend to create a New World Order that will enslave Humanity”. It concerns a group of human beings, the “elites”, and exposes a negative trait concerning them, the will to enslave Humanity. Is this information true? To the extent that a part is about the future, we cannot guarantee it. The first part of the statement is at least partially true, since several members of the world elite caste (Sarkozy, Bush Sr., for example) have publicly affirmed the necessity of directing Humanity to this New World Order. Do all members of this caste wish to achieve this goal? Maybe not. However, and conventionally, a general statement does not preclude the existence of exceptions. Therefore, the first part of the statement can be considered as grossly based

Veracity is, however, much more difficult to assess in the case where the information element is about the future. Moreover, if the elites actually live to the enslavement of Humanity, it is unlikely that this goal is publicly confessed. To do so would make it much more difficult to reach the latter. While presenting the New World Order as something desirable makes it easier. Here we can only extrapolate the veracity on the basis of what the elites have already achieved to create their NWO. If these achievements tend to enslave rather than release human beings, then they support the plausibility of the information or warning mentioned above

Assuming that this information has a chance in two to pass the first filter of Socrates, what about the second? Is it good? For human beings not members of the elitist caste, being informed of such a harmful project concerning them is a very good thing for them, because it makes it much easier for them to abort the project. For the elites, and from their point of view, the communication of such information is, on the contrary, highly detrimental, at least in terms of their personality. But this could possibly serve their deepest being or their moral conscience. By balancing the number of concerned individuals and the potential of good in each case, we can consider that the second filter is passed

The utility here is evident for the mass of non-elite human beings. By being aware of such projects, they can prepare for them or adopt strategies to prevent them. On the other hand, the leak of such information only serves the elites on the level of souls, but in no way on that of material contingencies. If they want to be able to quietly continue to control events and enjoy their great material comfort, such a plan as to permanently enslave humanity should not be rumored. Here too, the utility filter is a matter of balancing

In summary, write or say that “the world’s elites tend to create a New World Order that will enslave Humanity” can pass the filters of Socrates with regard to most human beings. Now, we would benefit from doing such an exercise for all news, information and opinions broadcast by any means of communication (including word of mouth), by ourselves or by others

Poster un Commentaire / Post a comment

5000
  Subscribe  
Notify of