"Truth Versus Fiction - The Winner And Still Champion: Fiction"

I give over today’s post to a New York Times article (written May 26, 2019) by Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari.  (Having little concern other bloggers will have beaten me to the punch.)

It’s about truth and fiction, and how the prevailing edge leans demonstrably towards fiction.  

That’s what Harari tells us.  (If you are too busy to read further.)

Truth may be eminently laudable.

But contrived fiction cleans its virtuous clock.

(Which I personally suspected, restricting my bragging exclusively to brackets.)

Lemme shut up, and let the guy talk.

Harari begins by delineating two kinds of power.  One kind is closely related to the truth.  E.g.,

“If you believe a false physical theory, you won’t be able to build an atom bomb.”

So there’s that.  You think roosters lay eggs, you’ll wait a long time for your omelet.

(I didn’t need that second example, but hey, it’s my blog.)

The second kind of power, to which Harari devotes the rest of the article, involves,

“… the power to manipulate human beliefs, thereby getting lots of people to cooperate effectively.”

People are galvanized to action, says Harari, through bolstering stories – and here’s the harrowing punch line:

“… these stories do not have to be true.”

Did somebody say “Yikes”?

Yeah.  It was me.  (And Crusaders going, “What if we came all this way, and there’s actually no ‘Holy Grail’?”)

Harari asserts that, although we know more true stuff than other animals, human beings

“… are both the smartest and the most gullible inhabitants of planet Earth.”

A cuddly example:

“No rabbit would have been willing to crash a plane into the World Trade Center in the hope of being rewarded with 72 virgin rabbits in the afterlife.”

(“Cwazy tewwowists.”)

Harari offers three distinct advantages of fictional stories over the truth:

One:  As a “distiguisher”:

“… whereas the truth is universal, fictions tend to be local.  Consequently, if we want to distinguish our tribe from foreigners, a fictional story {that is believed specifically by that subculture} will serve as a far better identity marker than a true story {that is believed by every Tom, Dick, and Achmed.}”

Advantage Two of Fictional Stories:  As tests of partisan loyalty.  Explains Harari,

“Shrewd leaders might sometimes deliberately say nonsensical things as a way to distinguish reliable devotees from fair-weather supporters.”

(Does any of that sound vaguely familiar?)

The third way fiction trumps the truth is that, unlike fabrication, which always makes its believers feel better, the unvarnished truth frequently hurts.

“We can have everything we want, and still lower taxes.”

Liar and winner.

“To get everything we want, we will have to raise taxes on everyone.”

No votes at all. 

Harari points out how people professing the most hideous nonsense are able to compartmentalize their thinking, so that, despite their dangerous beliefs, they can still make the trains run on time.

Meaning, if you are relying on “reasonable people” not to act murderously crazy –

Don’t.

Explaining fiction’s easily “K.0-ing” the truth, Harari concludes, saying,

“… the advantages of increased social cohesion are often so big that fictional stories routinely triumph over truth in human history…  The most powerful scholarly establishments in history, whether of Christian priests, Confucian mandarins or Communist ideologues – place unity above truth.  That’s why they were so powerful.”

“Fiction Carries The Day!”

Interesting story.

I wonder if it’s true.