Constitutions proclaim the right to "freedom of expression", election campaigns build upon this fruitful claim to derive other weighty and robust adaptations, people further their claim of this virtue with a beacon on the ship of prerogatives. Reverence substitutes itself with "chest thumping attitude" with the possessors of this virtue.
Governments hold this virtue precariously, attributing the state of "Achilles heel" to this virtue in the giant pyramid of constitutional framework. Enemy states more often than not revisit this "catalyst corner" to accelerate their invasive conquests.
Historical statistics provide us with examples of illimitable civil wars that either sprouted out upon "tinkering" with this virtue or accelerated with a mere innocuous reference to this virtue.
Valiance embraced otherwise common men that fought for protecting the integrity of their dearest virtue, turning them into martyrs overnight. So, how genuine is the requirement of this virtue for the smooth functioning of a cemented structure such as a nation or a civilization?
I will adopt a commonly known mathematical approach of "proof by contradiction", where the original proposition is assumed to be false and the derivation is then shown to end up in a logical impasse, eventually proving that the assumption was indeed wrong.
Let us assume that the "freedom of expression" henceforth abbreviated as Fex is not required and build a hypothetical nation or civilization Hn.
In Hn, owing to the lack of Fex, individuals with isolated belief systems would find it difficult to perpetuate their ideals, they would be frequently plagued with "maladroit precipitation" of ideals, this incapacity would lead to reserves of energy from various sources within Hn mummifying into piles of wasted intellect. This wasted intellect would eventually drain the Hn from its natural pool of cerebral think tank and Hn would cease to progress. But this is not a logical impasse yet. The assumption presently remains unhindered; let's move on with the next step in this mathematical derivation.
A civilization progresses with a facade of collective expressions, these expressions are not a magical concerted prime force that gains form over night, instead this "magical concerted prime force" emerges victorious out of an incessant supply of individual expressions. An expression’s gain or loss of weight depends on each new individual's critical measurement of it by "confer or confute" logic. As individuals intone their consensus for an expression, they become part of an advertisement of that expression by inflating it with their opinions. These inflated expressions are then lifted into higher plateaus of critical reasoning where they compete with other such expressions. The multidimensional critical treatment of these expressions leads to a final "concerted prime force" upon which a civilization wheels into progressive states.
The individuals of this advertising campaign would then find themselves in a new role; the owners of hitherto abstract expressions which were once a minority, together with bearers of such like-expressive individuals become a "concerted authority".
In the absence of judicious and centralized stands of critical reasoning by the "concerted authority", inflated expressions would cease to gain attention, for the attention would never be duly rewarded, or in other words the inflated expressions would require a "yardstick" provided by a concerted authority so to climb into the higher plateaus of critical reasoning, in the absence of which the inflated expressions would stay in their reduced form and eventually deflate under their own weight.
Moreover, absence of Fex would by virtue of it, precludes any possibility of universally defining some of the civilization's dogmatic ideals such as "offence". Individuals in Hn would take offence for both positive and negative Fex owing to the absence of a "concerted authority" to draw solid lines between positive and negative Fex.
This predicament can only be met with by the inclusion of a concerted authority into Hn. But, the inclusion of a "concerted authority" into Hn would logically follow from a Hn with Fex as discussed above.
In Hn with no Fex, the validity of a positive or negative stand of Fex would be isolated by the adherents of a localized regime and this would never transpire into a universal dogma. This means total chaos and a civilization that is doomed to regress into anarchy.
A Hn with anarchy exists for a brief period of time before dissolving into nothingness or falling prey to another civilization Hn1 with Fex1. Thus Hn that is assumed at the beginning of this mathematical derivation is not independent and self supportive.
Hence, it is an "invalid" Hn. Therefore the assumption is wrong.
Comments