THE F4LL4CY OF 4BSOLUTE TRUTHS 4ND THE ILLUSION OF CERT4INTIES

This article contains 7.015 words.

Who has never been certain about something, only to realise later how wrong they were? Let them cast the first stone.

We live in an age where information is abundant, but wisdom is not so much. Amidst a veritable sea of data, many of us cling to ‘absolute truths’ like shipwrecked sailors in search of a lifeline. But are these certainties really solid, or just fragile constructs ready to crumble in the face of deeper questioning?

In this article, we will venture to explore how the search for absolute truths can be futile. We will also take a look at the human need for security, analyse - very briefly - the role of philosophy in the construction of knowledge, and reflect on how unquestionable certainties can be somewhat dangerous in an increasingly polarised society.

 

The Search for Truth

 

Since the dawn of civilisation, human beings have sought answers to the big questions of existence: ‘Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going?’ These questions reflect our search for security and stability. With them and from them, we create narratives, myths and religions that offer us comforting certainties.

These certainties, in turn, are camouflaged as absolute truths, which are nothing more than information seen as universal, immutable and independent of context. Simple examples of this would be: ‘the sun rises in the east’ or ‘two plus two equals four’.

So far, so good. But the issue deepens when we begin to apply this mathematical logic to moral, cultural or subjective questions, such as: ‘There is only one true God’ or ‘a certain lifestyle is the right one...’.

It is in these phrases that we realise how much the need for truth is rooted in our desire for control. Uncertainty breeds anxiety, and the human mind, in its eagerness for predictability, constructs belief systems that promise to have an explanation for everything. At that moment, these ‘truths’ become pillars upon which we build our identities and societies.

However, these constructs often ignore the complexity of the world and of individuals themselves. In seeking definitive answers, we run the risk of outsourcing our view of reality, thus discarding the various nuances and perspectives that exist. Our history is full of examples of how unquestionable certainties have led to dogma, intolerance and even atrocities.

And those who think that dogmatism is the exclusive property of religions are mistaken. In some cases, science also slips into arrogance. Meanwhile, society loves to preach what is ‘normal.’ Since humans began organising barbecues and erecting temples, they have tried to transform their certainties into absolute truths. But does this really make sense?

 

Historical Origin

 

Philosophy has been grappling with this question since its inception. Over the years, the list of thinkers who have pondered the subject is long, so below you will find a smorgasbord of information that mentions some of these historical figures. Unlike the essay on the Illusion of the Self, here we will not follow a chronological order.

 

Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and Absolutist Faith

 

Socrates said, ‘I know that I know nothing,’ while using his maieutic technique—the art of bringing ideas to birth—to make others give birth to their ignorance. Meanwhile, Plato, his disciple, proposed the existence of a world of ideas, where eternal and immutable truths reside. For him, the world we live in was just a poorly made shadow of this higher reality.

Aristotle, somewhat more ‘worldly,’ brought us a more empirical approach, which sought to understand reality through observation and logic. He believed that truth could be achieved through reason and careful analysis of phenomena.

In the Middle Ages, we have the absolutisation of faith. Questioning was a sin, period. Truth came from above - literally - God, the Church and the Kings. In this story, Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas even tried to rationalise faith, but even so, things revolved around obedience to the certainty of the afterlife (something that prevails to this day).

 

The Enlightenment and the Rise of the Empire of Reason

 

A few centuries later, the Enlightenment arrived, and with it, Descartes, Newton and company. Let's say that, by trading the cassock for a lab coat, reason became the new God and took over the empire.

René Descartes, although seeking certainties, also recognised the importance of doubt. His methodology consisted of doubting everything until he found an unquestionable basis for knowledge. The guy who said, ‘I think, therefore I am,’ became a landmark in the search for solid fundamentalism. However, he also came to recognise the limits of rationality, admitting the possibility of an ‘evil genius’ that could deceive our senses and thoughts. Yes, in the end, the guy kind of characterised the ego.

 

Modern Philosophy, Scepticism and the Death of Truth

 

Moving forward to the 18th century, more precisely between 1739 and 1740, when David Hume published his most important work, ’ Treatise of Human Nature,’ in which he delved deeper into the ideas of scepticism - a philosophical movement created by Pyrrho of Elis that argued that suspension of judgement was the only rational attitude in the face of the impossibility of achieving truth with certainty. Hume argued that our perceptions are fallible and that we cannot fully trust our senses to obtain certain knowledge.

This sceptical approach allowed significant advances in philosophy and science by encouraging constant questioning and revision of beliefs. Scepticism, far from being a nihilistic stance, is a tool that can be used - and is used by some - to avoid dogmatism and promote a critical attitude open to continuous learning.

Everything was fine until the arrival of the 19th century. That was when the most vocal critic of absolute truths decided to speak up. Friedrich Nietzsche argued that truth is not something objective and immutable, but rather a human construct, shaped by interests, perspectives, and historical contexts. Let's say he gave modernity a philosophical punch in the face, because for him, so-called ‘truths’ were nothing more than illusions that we forget are illusions.

He saw the search for certainties as a form of denial of life in its fullness, regardless of all the contradictions and ambiguities it possesses.

His concept of ‘perspectivism’ proposes that there is no single truth, but rather multiple interpretations of reality, each valid within its own context. Obviously, this view challenges the idea of a universal truth and invites us to value the diversity of perspectives.

In addition, this citizen even called traditional morality ‘herd morality,’ as he saw it as an imposition of absolute values that repressed the will to power and human creativity. He also proposed the transvaluation of all values, encouraging the creation of new meanings and the affirmation of life in its entirety. All this criticism was not out of hatred, but because he realised that truth was fabricated and used as a weapon against the population.

Let's go crazy and travel to France in 1926, the moment in history when Paul-Michel Foucault was born. The guy declared that all truth is political. Whoever controls discourse and narratives controls what is considered true. If you need modern examples of this, just open your social media and see what the algorithm decides you should and will see today, or go to the cinema or watch TV.

 

Contemporary Society and the Illusion of Certainties

 

We are in the information age, but paradoxically, we are experiencing a crisis of confidence in knowledge. Social media and algorithms have their own information bubbles, where people are exposed almost exclusively to content that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs. This strengthens the illusion of unquestionable certainties and hinders dialogue between different perspectives.

At present, political and ideological polarisation has become a symptom of this trend. Groups close themselves off in their convictions, rejecting any information that contradicts their narratives. The complexity of issues is completely ignored in favour of simplistic and Manichean explanations.

Furthermore, the spread of fake news and conspiracy theories fuels mistrust. The search for absolute certainties leads many to embrace emotionally comforting explanations. This dynamic is insidious, as it undermines our ability to deal with the complexity of the world. This illusion prevents us from questioning, reflecting critically and opening ourselves up to learning. Instead of promoting understanding, it strengthens sectarianism and intolerance.

 

Religions: Providers of Unquestionable Truths since BC.

 

Ever since humans looked up at the sky and did not understand what thunder was, to worshipping cats as gods (no one can blame them), our species has been seeking answers in the divine. And that would not be a problem if we did not confuse religion with spirituality. Yes, they are two different things, but they can intersect if the individual chooses to do so.

Religion is basically an organised system of beliefs, practices and rituals that usually revolves around one or more deities. It is linked to institutions, sacred texts, dogmas and a community of believers. Some examples would be Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism, which have established structures, spiritual leaders (such as priests, pastors, imams) and specific rules of conduct to be followed.

Spirituality, on the other hand, is a more personal and individual experience of connection with something greater, be it a God, the universe, nature, one's inner self, all of them together or even in the masses (yes, this exists, see ‘Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster’ or Pastafarianism). The practice of spirituality does not necessarily require a connection to any religion or institution.

Anyone can be spiritual without following a specific religion. Root spirituality focuses on the search for self-knowledge, inner evolution (personal development as a whole) and connection with the purpose(s) of life - all of this, often far from mysticism - some common practices are meditation, contemplation, silence and introspection.

Religions emerged to fill the void of human understanding. By offering ‘explanations’ to questions such as ‘Where do we come from?’ and ‘What happens when we die?’, they created the foundations of their dogmas. A system of rules created and carefully wrapped in cellophane and labelled ‘eternal truth’, all so that it can be ‘rubbed in the face’ of anyone who dares to question it. After all, who needs to have doubts when you have a holy book that explains everything, right?

But don't get me wrong. This is not about disparaging the historical role of religions. Rather, it is about bringing to light the fact that many of them, throughout history, have used fear and promises of salvation to impose absolute certainties. Some religious and political leaders use religion as a tool of power and control. This information is a historical fact. Empires, kings and rulers have used religious doctrines to legitimise wars, the subjugation and enslavement of other peoples, repression and obedience.

The issue here is not faith. It is blind obedience. It all starts when religion becomes a mechanism of control, when it represses critical thinking in the name of a supposed revealed truth. Figures such as Hypatia of Alexandria, Giordano Bruno, Joan of Arc, William Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer, Jan Hus, Anne Askew, Mahatma Gandhi, Óscar Romero, Hrant Dink, Shahbaz Bhatti, Farkhunda Malikzada... and so many others paid with their lives for challenging dogma.

So tell me, what do the Crusades, the jihad and dictatorships have in common? Nothing more and nothing less than an absolute certainty that justifies atrocities.

Even today, in the 21st century, in the year 2025, religious persecution is, unfortunately, still a reality. Not to mention the various attacks on the rights of each individual, on freedom, health, science and life itself... all based on ancient texts interpreted literally.

It is important that we turn the page and understand that it is possible to have a religious and spiritual life that embraces doubt. Theologians such as Paul Tillich and philosophers such as Kierkegaard recognise faith as a leap into the unknown and not as absolute certainty. There is profound wisdom in accepting mystery and the unknowable - and in admitting that perhaps, just perhaps, we do not know everything and will never know everything.

 

Science and the Collapse of the Newtonian-Cartesian Paradigm

 

Contrary to what we see around us, science should not be followed like a holy book. It should not be interested in absolute and deterministic truths, but rather in refutable theories. The scientific method starts from doubt, not certainty. Hypotheses are proposed, tested, confirmed or discarded. With each discovery, new questions arise - and that is how it advances.

We live in an age where science is simultaneously deified and demonised. Some treat it as the great new religion, expecting definitive answers to everything from it. Others reject it, accusing it of being manipulated and corrupt. But what if it is both? God, Devil and a human construct, fallible and in need of constant revision and improvement... Does that sound familiar?

Great scientists such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos and Amit Goswami, for example, have shown us that scientific progress does not run in a linear fashion. Paradigms are broken, theories fall, others emerge. What is consensus today may be discarded tomorrow - and that's great. It is a sign that science is alive, restless and perhaps humble enough to admit its mistakes.

The crux of the matter here is when science is required to provide the certainty that religions promise. When we confuse ‘provisionally confirmed’ with ‘eternally true’. This demand is childish, a refusal to deal with the complexity and uncertainty of the world.

Intolerance, judgement and ‘witch hunts’ have also been part of the scientific community.

A good example of this is quantum physics, which since its origins in the early 20th century has faced absurd resistance within the scientific community itself. Its ideas were a slap in the face of the classical paradigm established by Newtonian physics.

The emblematic case of the famous Double Slit experiment was one such idea, which demonstrated how the behaviour of subatomic particles changes to waves, depending simply on whether or not they are being observed. Even in the face of consistent experimental results, many scientists who embraced these concepts were ridiculed and marginalised, all for suggesting that consciousness (the observer) can influence reality - a suggestion considered ‘heretical’ at the time. Some of these scientists even lost their academic positions or funding for defending ideas seen and interpreted as mystical or absurd by traditional scientific standards.

The documentary ‘What the Bleep Do We Know!?’, released in 2004, brought this discussion between the new discoveries of quantum physics and the conservatism of the scientific community to the forefront. The film was made accessible to the lay public, with a mix of interviews with physicists, doctors, philosophers and a fictional plot that explores how reality can be shaped by consciousness, based on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics.

In addition to the documentary being harshly criticised by the academic community, several of the experts involved suffered severe criticism and boycotts. Some even reported being isolated, discredited and even persecuted for their beliefs based on observable quantum phenomena.

Nevertheless, the persistence of these ideas — now corroborated by several other experiments, as well as winning a Nobel Prize — has demonstrated that science, while it needs scepticism, cannot ignore empirical evidence simply because it seems strange or uncomfortable to current logic.

 

Cultivating Healthy Doubt and Education

 

I don't know what you think, but I get the impression that our traditional education system has a rigid, standardised structure that prioritises rote memorisation and repetition of content. Teaching about cultivating doubt and critical thinking is non-existent within institutions, even those that are paid to teach students to be good professionals in their fields.

In addition to completing traditional secondary education, I studied History at a private university. Truth be told, I didn't graduate; I dropped out because I couldn't afford to continue and, besides, I realised that studying at university was just an unconscious attempt to make my parents proud and not what I wanted.

However, during my time there and in the subjects I studied, I never heard anyone talk about the uncertainty and/or inaccuracy of history. Everything there is treated as fact, simply because it is written in a book.

The history we all learn, both at university and outside it, is largely the history told by the winning side - and that simple fact alone makes it deeply biased and inaccurate. Often, so-called historical facts are nothing more than manipulated records that have been filtered through political, cultural and religious interests. It is these filters that choose what should be remembered and what should be forgotten.

Within this context, it is clear that the voices of minorities - who, paradoxically, would be the true silenced majorities - rarely have a place in books. Entire peoples, with their struggles, cultures and perspectives, have been - and continue to be - erased and/or portrayed in a completely distorted manner.

The most alarming thing, in my unsolicited opinion, is that just because something is written in a book, even if it is educational, it is not - and never has been - a guarantee that it happened exactly that way. This should be announced to students on the first day of class. They should be informed that erroneous translations, biased interpretations and even document falsification are part of the history of History. Yes, there are countless cases in which data has been deliberately forged in order to sustain narratives of domination, authoritarian regimes, justify wars and perpetuate religious dogmas.

Philosophers such as bell hooks, Paulo Freire, and Edgar Morin remind us that the educational process must be questioning, dialogical, and, above all, liberating. An education system that does not encourage questioning is just a factory of obedient automatons, not thinking beings.

It is necessary to teach from an early age that there is nothing wrong with not knowing something. That changing one's mind, even hundreds of times, is not a sign of weakness, but of intellectual maturity. That doubts are not black holes or seven-headed monsters, but doors to new discoveries and new knowledge.

Obviously, this would require a profound, if not abysmal, change in the way we conceive knowledge. We would need to leave behind the paradigm of right answers and welcome the productivity that doubt brings. And before you think that this is all cheap relativism, you had better stop right there, because this is just intellectual honesty.

This absence of doubt makes individuals more vulnerable to accepting absolutist information without prior analysis, which makes them easy prey for religious, political and social dogmas. A mind that has not learned to question becomes hostage to manipulative ideologies and corrupt systems. This is how authoritarian regimes and inequalities perpetuate themselves, with people who have not learned to think for themselves and who have not been encouraged to question what appears to be obvious.

Thus, any educational system that does not teach questioning ends up teaching—albeit indirectly—blind obedience. It doesn't take a genius to know that this comes at a high price: freedom of thought, intellectual autonomy and, consequently, true democracy. Accepting what ‘official history’ says without question is the same as giving up the truth, all in the name of convenience. It is allowing our past to be used as a tool of control in our present.

 

And what about the role of the family? Where does it fit in?

 

In matters such as this, we know that ‘the hole is always much deeper’. Human beings learn through repetition, regardless of whether this repetition involves something good or bad, love or pain... With this in mind, it is not surprising that there is a disconnect between schools and the family environment. This is often one of the most critical and neglected points when it comes to the formation of critical thinking.

School and family are two systems that should be in tune with each other. Together, they would be complementary pillars in the construction of each individual. However, what we see in practice is a growing gap between these two worlds.

It is important to bear in mind that cultivating and teaching critical thinking in classrooms, which are often overcrowded with more than twenty students, is indeed a Herculean challenge. In such a scenario, teachers, who are already overworked and poorly paid, find themselves facing a class where most students arrive emotionally unstable, with no clear sense of boundaries, mutual respect, or active listening—things that are fundamental to any exchange, even the most basic.

Thus, the school environment, a place that should be a fertile ground for the flourishing of ideas, ends up becoming a veritable emotional battlefield. It becomes an almost impossible mission to encourage questioning and reflection when most of the time is spent just trying to maintain order. The development of analytical thinking requires attention and dialogue, but under these conditions, this ends up being supplanted by a chaotic reality, where the priority becomes control rather than the growth of the individuals who find themselves there.

This raises the question of whether schools can even try, with limited resources, to fulfil a role that is not theirs alone, that of educating conscious, emotionally healthy and critical citizens. But without family support to provide a foundation, reinforce values, encourage listening and stimulate curiosity? Ah, that becomes a task worthy of Hercules.

What about children who arrive at school without any reference to respect, empathy or reflection? It is obvious that teachers will not teach them these things, but will simply put out fires. The crisis is not confined to schools; it is also present in homes. The family environment should be the first place where children learn emotional education and values, but often this environment is completely dysfunctional.

In families marked by neglect, lack of dialogue, violence and complete instability, it is no surprise that children grow up without any sense of boundaries, respect, listening and affection. This will be directly reflected in their behaviour at school. Unstable children and adolescents cannot concentrate, let alone develop critical thinking. So how can we expect these individuals with potential to question the world if they lack clarity about themselves? This is something that many adults still lack today. Why is that?

Without this alliance between home and school, entire generations are built that are fragile, emotionally deprived, and intellectually vulnerable. Coincidentally, these are the perfect prey for ready-made narratives that control systems use. What we see in families and schools is only a reflection of the hierarchy of problems, which, without intervention and questioning, continues to perpetuate itself in a domesticated, reactive and easily manipulated population.

 

The Danger of Ideological Certainties and Politics

 

Now, let's talk about one of the most splendid cradles of absolute certainties: politics. It's a battle between left and right, progressives and conservatives, where everything looks more like a WWE ring than a democracy.

Speaking of politics, in its deepest and purest essence, it is intended to be the instrument of organisation of society for the collective good. However, what we have is the use of this power, which has been transformed into a means of self-preservation for elites, manipulation and dissemination of ideological certainties that come to be defended and repeated with religious fervour.

It is a dangerous game that becomes a trap when we begin to transform and simplify the complexity of the world into Manichean narratives that fuel hatred and segregation between groups and blind ordinary citizens to the real structural issues. We are so immersed in the illusion of choosing between ‘opposing sides’ that we end up supporting the perpetuation of the hierarchy of problems that arises from poorly planned, intentionally omissive and/or openly corrupt political decisions.

While the people—who should be at the centre of the system—fight in the streets, content to be the expendable pawns in power games, those in power legislate their own causes, disguised as pro-people solutions.

And no matter how noble ideologies may be, they become weapons when they turn into religion. When a political party becomes a sect, any dissent becomes treason. And that is where logical-critical thinking gives way to fanaticism – and we know very well where that can end.

Nietzsche warned us countless times about the dangers of imposed morality, and Hannah Arendt showed us how totalitarianism feeds on a people's inability to think. Real politics requires dialogue, healthy confrontation of ideas and plurality, an open space where different views can and must be debated. Where the winner should be, exclusively, the ideals aimed at the population - regardless of majority or minority. But this is only possible when we recognise that our certainties can and must be questioned.

Struggles between nations, internal conflicts and wars disguised as diplomacy are merely extensions of the political theatre, where the innocent always pay with blood, hunger and misery for decisions they certainly did not choose. And, as if that were not enough, it is in this scenario of disputes and chaos that religion often enters as a strategic ally of these systems. Instead of acting as a force for spiritual emancipation and consolation, it becomes an ideological arm that only reinforces the status quo. Its dogmas are used as mental chains, anaesthetising critical consciousness by promoting blind obedience, and consequently, this obedience favours precisely those who should be questioned.

The marriage between politics and religion is as old as human civilisation, and this union remains one of the most effective forms of mass control. While the people go hungry and pray for miracles, those in power continue to make decisions that further deepen inequality, sabotaging any possibility of true democracy, one in which the system serves the people and not the other way around.

 

The Programming of Beliefs in the Age of Technology and Algorithms

 

Our world is becoming increasingly digital. We spend more time interacting with screens than with people – I should know – and our certainties are being silently shaped and satisfied by algorithms. ‘Personalised experience’ means that the algorithm decides and delivers what you see, what you read, who you interact with and, in some cases, what you think.

The problem is not the use of algorithms, but rather their inappropriate use by social networks and other digital platforms. This has shaped people's behaviour in a worrying way. Most of these systems are designed to maximise the time users spend on the platforms, promoting ever greater engagement with certain content, regardless of its quality and/or veracity.

Needless to say, this dynamic creates a loop of addictive and repetitive consumption. Users, without even realising it, are constantly exposed to similar information, which reinforces existing beliefs and limits the range of perspectives. As a result, ‘cognitive laziness’ develops, in which users become less likely to seek new information or question what is presented to them. It must be said that this continuous exposure to algorithmically selected content can affect mental health, contributing to anxiety, depression and social isolation.

In her book ‘The Age of Surveillance Capitalism’, Shoshana Zuboff shows us that big tech companies not only monitor our behaviour, but also shape it, thus creating environments that increase usage time, consumption and, of course, profit to the point of no return. And for those who think there are no consequences, know that we have already exchanged our free will for personalised recommendations. Our subjectivity is being co-opted by machines that have no ethics, only metrics.

Parallel to all this, we are witnessing the rise of digital influencers. This raises some very significant thorny ethical and legal issues. Many of these influencers use their audience to promote products and services, both their own and those of others, which is not a problem in itself. However, very few consider the implications that these products/services may have on their followers. It may be an exaggeration on my part, but it brings to light how much profit is more important than people's lives, even for those who say they love their followers.

A very interesting case that serves as an example is that of a Brazilian influencer who is embroiled in controversy related to the promotion of online gambling. The characterisation and stance she took during her testimony before the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI) on Gambling is noteworthy.

Anyone who understands the basics of image production and behavioural profile analysis can see what was really at stake there. Loose hair, minimal makeup, prescription glasses, a pink water bottle covered in stickers, a sweatshirt printed with her daughter's face, taking photos, relaxed and at ease... a pose and image constructed to portray a ‘friendly and innocent girl’ — and, thanks to marketing, she will certainly sell many water bottles and sweatshirts.

This lady stated that she had no knowledge that people were losing money on the game of chance she was promoting. Sorry, but saying something like that is like a doctor performing surgery without anaesthetic and saying they didn't know the patient could feel pain. I sincerely don't believe that this woman is someone of such limited intelligence, but we also know that the culture of ‘I didn't know...’ has exonerated many - including those who shouldn't have been.

The example cited above highlights the lack of responsibility and empathy of some influencers when endorsing potentially harmful products, exploiting the trust of their followers and contributing to the spread of questionable practices. It is essential that there be greater awareness and regulation of the activities of these professionals, ensuring that the influence they exert is based on ethics and responsibility, as is already the case in any other profession.

It is important to emphasise that responsibility for the current scenario of digital manipulation and misleading influence does not lie solely with content producers, but also with the audience that consumes this type of material. Blaming individuals exclusively for their ignorance and vulnerability would be unfair, especially in a country where millions still live in poverty, deprived of quality education and often with empty stomachs.

A population that is hungry, exhausted by inhumane working hours and without access to – or time for – critical thinking, becomes easy prey for promises of easy money, such as those made by these games of chance promoted on social media. For these individuals, who struggle daily for crumbs, any financial shortcut, even if dubious and unreliable, becomes a legitimate hope.

This hope is, in most cases, a trap, carefully nurtured by a system that profits from ignorance and despair. Without real public policies that guarantee even the basics – quality food and education, free time for leisure – the population will continue to be manipulated and used by screens that sell illusions and empty consciences.

 

The Supreme Court of Cancellation Culture

 

Whereas religion and the state once imposed their dogmas, now we have cancellation culture. Citizens and social media users, in their desire for justice, albeit often legitimate, are driven by emotional impulses rather than analysis of the facts—which, in most cases, are not even fully known to the public. Thus, cancellation has become the new public shaming.

This culture, in its most toxic form, is based on the principle that certain discourses, behaviours and ideas do not even deserve to be heard. One mistake – or even a questionable interpretation – is enough for the verdict to be handed down: guilty, excluded and socially annihilated.

Although this emerged as an attempt to hold public figures accountable for harmful attitudes, it often ends up becoming a distorted practice. It no longer promotes justice and awareness, but fosters hatred, intolerance and even death threats, all based on hasty judgements and biased interpretations.

Judith Butler had already pointed out that discourses are performative, but also relational. This means that these discourses cannot be dissociated from what they say, when they were said, and how they were received. To ignore this is to practise an authoritarian rigour that permeates fundamentalism.

In addition, every day, judgements are made based on rumours, amplified by gossip channels, represented by people who consider themselves journalists, but whose sole purpose is to dig up and expose intimate aspects of other people's lives. This feeds an audience that often prefers the illusion of other people's scandals to facing their own existential voids.

And what is the result of all this? A society that confuses accountability with revenge and justice with spectacle.

 

Cognitive Biases and Mental Comfort as Defence Mechanisms

 

Since we are talking about different areas, it is obvious that psychology could not be left out.

When we look at it from a psychological point of view, our belief in absolute truths is just another cell, comfortable, no doubt, but one that blocks our growth. Our brain is biologically programmed to seek patterns and certainties, an adaptive trait that, while useful for survival in dangerous environments, also ends up becoming an obstacle in the modern world.

When we encounter new knowledge and information, especially those that challenge our beliefs, our brain raises its shields and goes into resistance mode. This happens, in part, because of confirmation bias - an unconscious tendency to seek, interpret and remember information that validates what we already believe.

In addition, our reticular activating system (RAS) acts as a kind of perceptual gatekeeper, prioritising the entry of stimuli that align with our existing interests and beliefs, thereby reinforcing the same neural pathways and strengthening convictions, even if they are based on false and/or outdated assumptions.

Our ‘truths’ are formed in a very interesting, deeply emotional and instinctive way. Our brain is composed of three main systems: the R-complex (or reptilian brain), which deals with all automatic survival responses (fear, fight, flight), where reaction is pure and energy is conserved; the limbic system, which governs emotional relationships and emotions; and, finally, the neocortex, which is responsible for logical reasoning and critical thinking.

I believe you already understand which systems we normally act with (react with, in this case). In practice, our decisions are largely made by the first two systems, while the neocortex acts, in most cases, only as a rational justification after the fact. All of this means that much of what we call ‘truth’ is just emotion dressed up as logic.

This brings us to another unpleasant fact. Yes, another one in our hierarchy. This entire brain structure is well exploited and used by systems that have a deep understanding of how to manipulate human behaviour.

This is because an elegant madman named Edward Bernays (the father of advertising) was one of the first to apply the principles of his uncle Freud, psychoanalysis and the emotional unconscious, to induce behaviour in the masses through feelings, not reason. The propaganda model he helped create is still widely used, not only in the consumption of products, but also in the purchase of ideologies, beliefs and political narratives.

Our feelings have been transformed into lucrative opportunities, especially fear, scarcity and insecurity. The pain industry is real; we see it in the sensationalist media, in coaches who promise miracle solutions, in religions that sell salvation, and even in the pharmaceutical industry, which has been turning suffering into a product. Governments are not exempt from this; they also take advantage of this model when they use collective emotional crises to justify authoritarian measures or divert attention from systemic failures.

In a system that does not promote health, pain is no longer something to be understood and healed, but rather commodified, creating a cycle where citizens remain vulnerable, dependent, and emotionally fragmented. When we do not allow room for doubt, when fear and haste prevent analytical thinking, we, as human beings, become susceptible to all forms of manipulation.

In this and other contexts, cultivating awareness of oneself and the workings of one's own mind is much more than an intellectual luxury — it is an act of resistance.

 

Certainties are the New Opium of the People

 

If Marx said that religion was the opium of the people, what would he say today? That our certainties have become a drug that we are all addicted to? Political certainties, religious certainties, scientific certainties, digital certainties, moral certainties... We have never had so many certainties, but we have never been so disconnected from ourselves. We all want to be right, but few want to think. We prefer the ideological comfort zone to facing the abyss and admitting, ‘I don't know.’

And in light of everything that has been said here, it is clear that the development of more critical and analytical thinking is not just desirable, but urgent. We are constantly bombarded with information designed to generate quick reactions, blind adherence and irrational consumption. Meanwhile, self-discovery, doubt, questioning and reflection are seen as obstacles.

Ultimately, only truly critical thinking can free us from the subtle control that permeates the spheres mentioned above. Thinking has never been so necessary, so much so that today it is a revolutionary act. Every time we choose to reflect instead of react, we are not only freeing ourselves, but also helping to rewrite history with more truth, more awareness and more humanity.

Therefore, enough of flattering ignorance disguised as conviction. For many years I have heard that ignorance is a blessing. Yes, it may be, but it is also a prison that does not exempt us from our responsibility nor protect us. Life is uncertain, complex and often contradictory. The problem is not in making mistakes, but in insisting on them so as not to appear weak. The only certainty we should carry with us is that all others need to be questioned, at the very least.

Claim your intellectual autonomy. Do not accept a closed package of ready-made certainties. Question everything — including this text.

If you enjoyed this provocation, I invite you to continue exploring other topics here in our space for ideas. Take a look at UN4RTificial o Blog, where you will find an oasis for restless minds. Feel free to comment, question, suggest topics, complain or share the link to our website with anyone who urgently needs to rethink their certainties. Come and be part of a community that thinks, provokes and transforms.

 

 ‘Illusion crumbles when we question reality.’ – UN4RT

 

Here are the sources, references and inspirations. The links lead to UN4RTificial o Blog, where you will find a mini-biography of the author and some of his works.

 

• Socrates, Apology of Socrates (written by Plato).
• Plato, The Republic.
• Aristotle, Metaphysics.
• Augustine of Hippo, Confessions.
• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica.
• René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy.
• David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature.
• Pirro Élis, Fragments on Ancient Scepticism.
• Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, The Gay Science.
• Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism.
• Paul-Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish.
• Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, also known as Pastafarianism, was founded by Bobby Henderson and has its own gospel, ‘The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster’ released in 2006.
• Hypatia of Alexandria, a 4th-century Neoplatonic philosopher, mathematician, and astronomer, who was brutally murdered by a Christian mob for being a symbol of thought and intellectual freedom amid religious and political conflicts.
• Giordano Bruno, Italian philosopher, astronomer and theologian of the 16th century, who was executed by the Inquisition for defending ideas considered heretical, such as the infinity of the universe and the multiplicity of inhabited worlds.
• Joan D’Arc was a 15th-century French peasant and warrior who led troops in the Hundred Years' War. She was burned alive by the Inquisition, unjustly accused of heresy and witchcraft, and her execution was politically motivated.
• William Tyndale was a 16th-century English scholar and theologian who was executed by strangulation and then burned for translating the Bible into English without the Church's permission.
• Thomas Cranmer was an Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the Anglican Reformation in the 16th century. He was burned alive on the orders of Queen Mary I for refusing to renounce his Protestant beliefs.
• Jan Hus was a 15th-century Czech theologian and reformer who was burned alive for heresy after criticising the abuses of the Catholic Church and advocating religious reform.
• Anne Askew, an English poet and Protestant reformer of the 16th century, was tortured and burned alive for refusing to renounce her religious beliefs and also for denying transubstantiation (the transformation of water into wine by Jesus of Nazareth), thus challenging the Catholic doctrine of the time.
• Mahatma Gandhi, Indian leader and pacifist, defender of Indian independence, was assassinated by a Hindu extremist who accused him of being too conciliatory towards Muslims.
• Óscar Romero, a Salvadoran archbishop and human rights defender, was assassinated by a gunman linked to the military regime while celebrating Mass. He had denounced violence and injustice during the civil war in El Salvador.
• Hrant Dink, a Turkish-Armenian journalist and activist who advocated reconciliation between Turks and Armenians, was assassinated by a nationalist in 2007 for making statements about the Armenian genocide and his fight for freedom of expression.
• Shahbaz Bhatti, a Pakistani politician and Minister for Minorities, was assassinated by Islamic extremists in 2011 for advocating the reform of Pakistan's blasphemy laws and protecting the rights of religious minorities, especially Christians.
• Farkhunda Malikzada, a 27-year-old Afghan student who was brutally lynched by a mob in 2015 after being falsely accused of burning the Quran. She became a symbol of the fight against gender violence and injustice in Afghanistan.
• Paul Tillich, a 20th-century German Protestant theologian and philosopher, was known for integrating theology with existentialist philosophy.
• Søren Kierkegaard, a 19th-century Danish philosopher, theologian and writer, considered the father of existentialism.
• Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
• Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
• Imre Lakatos, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.
• Amit Goswani, The Self-Aware Universe.
• What the Bleep Do We Know!?, 2004 film directed by William Arntz and Betsy Chasse.
• bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress.
• Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
• Edgar Morin, The Method.
• WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment, an American entertainment company known for its professional wrestling.
• Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.
• Judith Butler, Gender Trouble.
  Edward Bernays, 20th-century Austrian-American advertising executive and communication theorist.
• Karl Marx, 19th-century German philosopher, economist and revolutionary, known for founding scientific socialism and Marxism.