NoLasagna

 This is an interesting topic because I've seen the notion of arbitrary in a variety of topics from my study into metaphysics, up into politics. A notion put forward is that arbitrary concepts can't be rational. The unspoken premise being those rational concepts are exact, concise, and not up to interpretation. For example, a square is a polygon of four equal sides and four equal angles. It's not like we'll be discussing whether a circle could apply. I won't discuss it here, but there are arguments around square being arbitrary - at least the way it is applied. There are two examples I wanted to focus on, one from metaphysics and the other in law: The concept of bald The age of majority The Concept of Bald Bald is hairless where there is normally hair, in this case, we'll speak of the top of the head. Questions: How little hair should one have? None? Half? Is there an actual quantity one has to fall below to be bald? What separates a bald person from a balding

 This article originally intended to be about some intellectuals on Twitter arguing that 2+2=5. I do have an interest in the math topic as such, but these people aren't interested in math. It's merely the facade of something much deeper that expands into many areas of ideas and politics. I've stripped the math discussion out of this article because it takes away from the main point. Whether the talking point is about decolonizing math, science, the police, the courts, etc, or whatever happens to be the main point in the future - the goal is the destruction of objective truth. They're not concerned that you think 2+2=5 is true, what they want from you to is to believe that 2+2 doesn't equal 4. Don't be confused by the stature of these intellectuals , or their conceptual/linguistic games to prove their point. They're not talking about math, science, or whatever the topic. They're only interested in convincing you that truth is simply unknowable. Throughou