I find myself faced with this contradiction, while I try to make myself a model of democracy itself in largely plural society. As much as my models are based on idealization, I do try to put it to reality tests through running it down the “all set of possibilities” test, which has its own short-comings of not being objective, but is the closest to being objective.
I happened to reflect more on the very procedural aspect of democracy itself, not of decision through voting, but of decisions made through making the object itself popular so that the majority is burdened under this manipulation to indeed make those choices that they make and hence pass a decision. During a conference on “Lawfare” by Lisa Hajjar (co-editor of Jadaliyya), I was stricken by an interesting point presented during the conference, that of “lawfare” becoming a behavior that is increasingly justified through being followed by countries who control the “majority voice” on an international level, like US and Israel for example. But to implant this thought on almost every aspect of social sciences would not turn out to be very dangerous; it indeed does explain a lot of social, economic and political behavior today. Let us take social media for example. What we have today is acceptance of an idea based on its justification derived by majority behavior (or under the pressure of majority behavior) rather than being based on individual reasoning. We find contradictory ideas being presented as being coherent, and when a voice against the “truth” of its coherence is made, it is drowned and made to choke by the popularity behavior of revolting through the use of “majority voice behavior” rather than every individual justifying their act of revolution under their autonomy deriving validation of the cause or idea through reasons belonging to overlapping consensus.
Now that the world suffers from contradiction, can contradiction be defined as linear justification through majority consensus by bringing absolute death to reasoning?