math is a pretty rigorous truth system. within that system, there are strict ways to solve particular problems. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1289224929536143361

the question is whether those systems are applicable in other contexts. that is, does "2+2=4" mean, "James Lindsay is always right"?

does "2+3=4" mean that James Lindsay is right about trans issues, for instance?

does it mean that Lindsay is philosophically sophisticated about what objectivity means?

Lindsay is using math as a metaphor, while insisting it's not a metaphor, in an effort to leverage math's in system ability to create truth claims as a general stamp of approval on whatever shit vomits out of his mouth.

it's not really meant to convince anyone except true believers, of course.

but it's trivially easy to come up with instances outside of math where 2+2 doesn't equal 4.

like, even in science, if you're rounding, 2.4 +2.4 = 5, which is 2+2=5.

2 apples plus 2 oranges aren't really things you can necessarily add together. and so forth.

once you're out of the realm of pure mathematical abstraction, abstract math doesn't necessarily hold. it's not supposed to!

this isn't even a claim about objectivity. the existence of one objective truth that holds in one context doesn't mean that everything you say is an objective truth.

like, "my name is Noah" is objectively true, but if someone else says "my name is Noah," it might not be true!

the same statement in a different context might not be true. that's not because of relativism, even; it's just that statements rely on context for their truth, often.

and the relevant context of James' argument is that he doesn't actually care about truth. he's making statements in the interest of advancing his own status and harming people he dislikes.

and that's all "2+2=4"means when he says it. It's not a claim about numbers. It's a claim about power,and an excuse for justifying a politics of hate.

which was actually what Orwell was talking about. not that "if you don't believe 2+2=4 you're a monster." but, "innocuous truth claims can be used to justify violence int he right circumstances."

so that passage in Orwell re 2+2=4 is interesting to compare to the 1966 Shūsaku Endō novel Silence.

Silence is about a Christian in 17th century Japan who is forced to recant; I think he has to step on a picture of Jesus (it's a long time since I read it.)

he ends up doing so, and realizing that Jesus forgives him; it's a humane faith and repudiating Christianity to prevent suffering is actually in line with the faith.

Winston's faith isn't that flexible, right? if he can't believe 2+2=4 in all contexts, he has no core identity, and can be shaped however the powers that be wish.

interestingly 1984 also really believes that torture works. Silence not so much.

I think Orwell's smarter than people like Lindsay give him credit for (and make no mistake, Lindsay's whole thread is a gloss on Orwell.) But at the same time, it's sometimes worth reading other books.