In George Orwell’s novel “1984,” the protagonist, Winston Smith, is tortured into crying out that 2 + 2 = 5. This capitulation on Winston’s part — coming as it does near the end of the novel — can be seen on numerous symbolic levels; the party’s ability to manipulate the very fabric of reality in the eyes of its adherents, a deliberate attempt to enforce mindless conformity, even Winston’s ultimate loss of individuality.
Today, we are faced with many such questions that should ultimately be as self-evident as the answer to that question which Winston faces in a fictional novel.
How many genders are there?
Is gender determined at birth by genetics?
Are black criminals really over-represented in crime statistics?
Are men and women (assuming you can define either) fundamentally different, or different at all?
Does humanity have the power to destroy the planet it lives on?
I’m not primarily concerned with answering these questions in this piece. Nor is this list a comprehensive shakedown of everything I consider self-evident. But every mathematical statement, no matter how simple or complex, has to start somewhere with an axiom. Just like every statement made in words must start with a definition. In order to know what something is, we also have to know what it is not.
So why are issues like gender and “climate change” so controversial when answering the above questions should be as simple as an arithmetic equation I learned at the age of five? Why is there so much controversy where there should be none, and no controversy where it should be?
1984 may have been a work of fiction in its day, but it was also very prescient. When we argue over such things as gender or anthropogenic climate change, we may as well be arguing over whether 2 + 2 = 4 or 5. And just because Oceana was written about in a work of fiction, don’t take it for granted that the “2 + 2 = 5” crowd can’t win in our world today. The strides they have made already ought to be terrifying to anyone who still believes in “4…”