Big liars and their character
The Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset said, in his book Meditations of Quixote, that a man is a man and his circumstances. In other words, a human being can only be understood in relation to his context, including the antecedents and results of his actions. Therefore, it is possible to talk about both with a reasonable degree of approximation, because if man and his circumstances are inseparable, they determine each other mutually.
William Golding, in his book The hot gates and other occasional pieces, wrote that “man produces evil as a bee produces honey”. Nowadays, however, humans and their actions have shown themselves to be exceptionally evil, as in many cases human atrocities have displayed an excruciating cruelty.
Everyone knows that Heraclitus of Ephesus wrote, in the 6th century BC, that a man’s character determines his destiny (éthos anthrópou daimonion). Thus, over time human actions end up determining the destiny not only of those who carry them out, but also of those who are influenced or governed by them.
In other words, a man's destiny is determined by what he does to himself, to other men and to the environment, but sooner or later he and/or those around him will receive due retribution, for good and for evil. Therefore, between character and destiny there is a circularity that involves everything in its relentless logic.
Character is at the origin of what human beings make happen. There are many examples. When Donald Trump called Vladimir Putin (who had just invaded Ukraine) “a genius”, he provided a striking example of the character of both.
It is obvious that just as there are individuals, there are also human collectives with bad character. This happens in countries where power is based on police systems, surveillance, corruption and the dissemination of false information. An episode that occurred in 2020 became well-known: Belarusian journalists refused to report false election results, and Russia sent Russian journalists to do it in their place. In Stalin's time, it was a common practice to erase from official photographs people who, having fallen from grace, had been executed by the Communist Party.
All of this is very old and, it seems, irremovable. In the time of Plato and Socrates, Xenophon, in his Hellenics, wrote that the dictator Critias defended terror on the grounds that if more people were being murdered by the authorities it was because such things “always happen when there are changes of government”. Which, as is easy to infer, is the usual argument of dictators and those who aspire to this condition.
Plato, a defender of authoritarian rules, tried to create a logic capable of explaining why formerly free peoples, like those of Athens, should become driven to submission. He intended to invent a system by which the State could accustom the masses, from childhood, to inferiority and servitude. This attempt gave rise to what can still be considered a masterpiece of falsehood: the “noble lie”, as Socrates called it in Book Three of the Republic.
In truth, Plato probably did not believe that aristocrats and rulers would be able to accept the lies they themselves created and disseminated, but he expected “the masses” to do so. And not without some reason: just look at the millions of votes given to politicians of bad character in some elections, many of which are also fraudulent. And just look at the opinion that American right-wing leader Mencius Moldbug has of the masses: “masses are asses”.
There are also the inevitable economic metaphors. Socrates, for whom Plato was a kind of privileged spokesman, said that although humans look the same, they are made of “different metals”. For him, gold was part of the composition of aristocrats and rulers. The “guardians” (the military) had less value, because they were made of silver. The other citizens were made of “vile metals”, such as iron and bronze.
We all know famous people, especially in politics, who do not respect rules, customs, morals and laws. We know that for many of them impunity is the rule, and it is often bought. People like this lack empathy, disrespect and offend others and do not observe the rights of the communities. They are sociopathic personalities in which sadism, narcissism and the habit of lying stand out. They do and say whatever they want and nothing bad appears to happen to them. On the contrary, they tend to be admired by crowds.
For these people, binary thought, which has been always wrongly considered the only valid logic, has become a set of commands to be obeyed, by force if necessary. People are increasingly faced with what should and should not be done, that is, with “do’s” and “don’ts”. Nothing new there, because in a way it has always been this way. What seems frightening is that this division increasingly tends to reverse things: yesterday’s “do’s” are getting to be today’s “don’ts”, and vice versa.
As absurd as it may seem, for authoritarian people today's “don'ts” include: democracy, culture, art, history, diplomacy, education, knowledge, science, language skills, reading, serenity, respect for sexual diversity, tolerance, transparency, fair elections, transparency, assistance to the disabled and dispossessed, laws, rights, disarmament, care for ecosystems, the right to life, and the sensible use of technology.
According to these same people, the current “do’s” are well known and not surprising: lies, censorship, surveillance, brutality, vulgarity, impulsiveness, destructiveness, eugenics, misogyny, xenophobia, fake news, conspiracy theories, hate speeches, corruption, contempt for laws and the judiciary, disrespect for sexual diversity, denialism, wars, politicization and instrumentalization of religions, armamentism, destruction of ecosystems, the “right” to attempt against life, irresponsible use of technology and so on.
Therefore the “do’s” and “don’ts” of full-blown sociopaths (or those on he way to it) and ordinary people are being quickly reversed. Both groups count in terms of large numbers, although the growth of sociopaths and those influenced by them is faster.
Still, it is reasonable to assume that there are not that many bad people in the world we live in – but it is also true to say that there are legions of them who admire and protect sociopaths and cover up their lies and crimes, even when they would be in no danger of doing so. This is one of the deepest enigmas of human nature, one that we have lived with for centuries and millennia and that we are still very far from understanding.