The futility of reason

(Source)

Power is of all time and the abuse of power, too. It’s certainly not only a feature of our time that leaders of world powers, especially autocratic leaders, do what they like and use – so abuse – their power for their own benefit, often with lies and irrational arguments. At moments their power must be reaffirmed they especially do, while granting favours to the people at the same time. Particularly autocrats rule this way, and others who think that they are not accountable often behave similarly. When things don’t go as they wish, they blame “the other”, whoever it may be. It’s never the autocratic leader himself who has made mistakes. The word “humility” does not appear in their vocabulary. Many have already written about this, sometimes with the consequence that, with an understatement, they themselves were sidetracked. But a few of the best descriptions of this process can be found in allegories, for instance in the fables credited to the Greek slave Aesop (c. 620-564 BC) or those written by the French poet Jean de La Fontaine (1621-1695), whose fables are mainly based on those by Aesop. Take, for example, the fable The Wolf and the Lamb. In the left column below you see Aesop’s version, and in the right column La Fontaine’s:

The Wolf and the Lamb As a wolf was lapping at the head of a running brook, he spied a stray lamb paddling, at some distance, down the stream. Having made up his mind to seize her, he thought to himself how he might justify his violence. “Villain!” said he, running up to her; “how dare you muddle the water that I am drinking!” "Indeed," said the lamb humbly, “I do not see how I can disturb the water, since it runs from you to me, not from me to you” “Be that as it may,” replied the wolf, “it was but a year ago that you called me many ill names.” “Oh, sir!” said the lamb, trembling, “a year ago I was not born.” “Well,” replied the wolf, “if it was not you, it was your father, and that is all the same. But it is no use trying to argue me out of my supper.” And without another word he fell upon the poor helpless lamb and tore her to pieces.

The Wolf and the Lamb Strength upon right with ease can trample,     As will appear by this example.      A gentle lamb to quench his thirst,     Came to a calm, transparent brook;      A hungry wolf, in hour accurst,      That spot for his adventures took:      “Rash creature!” cried he in a rage, “To trouble thus the waters as they flow,             While I my thirst assuage; I’ll punish thee, insulting little foe!” “I pray your majesty,” the Lamb replied, “Not to be angry, but observe the tide.      You stand above, and I below;      The water comes to me from you:      How can I trouble what you drink?”      “But I insist,” he said, “you do:      And I remember, now I think,      A year ago you treated me with scorn.”      “How could I? I was not then born,” Replied the Lamb. “Perhaps,” said Wolf—“agreed; It was your brother then, who was so bold.”     “I have no brother, sire, indeed.”     “'Twas some one of your family, I’m told,     For all of you dislike my breed,     Yourselves, your shepherds, and your curs;      But I'll have vengeance, my fine Sirs!” He said, not caring with more words to meet him, And bore the lamb into the wood to eat him.

There are several variants of this fable but in all their essence is that facts and reason don’t count for the strong. Facts are simply ignored or manipulated by them. Reason is what corresponds to their desires and wishes. The law of the strongest always applies, and innocence doesn’t shield.
Let me analyse the fable a little bit in detail (with the help of an AI search). In all versions, the moral is that any excuse will serve an autocrat. If he hasn’t one, he will fabricate a fake or false excuse. Might makes right, doesn’t it? In a position of power, you don’t need a valid reason to justify your actions. Must I explain then that the wolf refers to the autocrat, to the one who abuses power, and the lamb to his subject, and particularly to the vulnerable and innocent who cannot defend himself?
Secondly, reason and argument are not important. Whatever the lamb says, it is not taken into account and it is ignored, for example, when she says in Aesop’s version: “I do not see how I can disturb the water, since it runs from you to me, not from me to you.”
Thirdly, wicked and malicious people do what they like (the wolf wants to eat the lamb, anyhow) and they construct excuses or twist the truth for “justifying” their actions.

Down the ages, La Fontaine’s was not the only one who retold Aesop’s fable. Someone who also did was the Scottish poet Robert Henryson (c. 1425-1500) in his The Morall Fabillis of Esope the Phrygian (lines 2609ff). According to him, the lamb represents the law and the Scripture, while the wolf represents their perversions. Then there are three kinds of contemporary wolves who oppress the poor: dishonest lawyers; landowners wanting to extend their estates; and aristocrats who exploit their tenants. (see also Wikipedia) In view of this interpretation is it too far-reaching to say that there are three kinds of wolves today: autocrats who pervert the law; those who try to extend the territories of their countries under false pretences; and those who try to exploit their associates, allies and those dependent on them? Need I mention names?
But is this too political? The Latvian-American writer Eli Siegel (1902-1978), analysing La Fontaine’s fable, stated: “La Fontaine tells us that between having one’s way and being just, having one’s way is more powerful. It has been so, ever so many times. The most dangerous and ugly possibility inherent in the individual as individual is that the desire to have one’s way seems strong, while justice seems flat and interrupting. The wolf wants the lamb and the want itself is justice. This is the way we are. … It is so easy to find an inclination interesting and necessary; and it is so hard to see and care for what is proportionate, equitable, ethical…”
Isn’t there a wolf in all of us?