The title of this article is not merely a catchy philosophical phrase but an invitation to critically examine the tensions within contemporary discourse. Ontologically, truth and reality may seem synonymous, yet they often diverge in practical applications. Drawing on Platonic philosophy, we distinguish between truth—eternal, unchanging, and universal—and reality, which is fluid, contingent, and subject to interpretation. Plato's dualistic framework contrasts a higher, immutable truth with an imperfect, ever-shifting reality, shaped by perception and context. This distinction underpins our exploration of modern dilemmas, particularly the dangers of binary thinking.
This brings us to the purpose of this article. We aim to challenge certain assumptions of our time, using the distinction between truth and reality to explore the growing political issue of the normalisation of controversial symbols and rhetoric. By examining the gesture made by Elon Musk on the night of President Donald Trump’s second inauguration—and the quick defence of such symbols despite their obvious and harmful connotations—we seek to engage with the truth of these gestures and the complex reality of their context.
Whether you are reading this in the present moment or years into the future, we hope that the examples we explore remain relevant and contribute meaningfully to your intellectual considerations.
At the time of writing, Donald Trump is inaugurated for his second term as President of the United States, but the real spectacle has been his political partner: tech and media mogul Elon Musk. Musk’s name is hardly unfamiliar, yet it is striking that we find ourselves discussing him in a political context—not merely as a donor or supporter but as an active political force. Regardless of personal opinions on Musk’s policies, they merit evaluation, both pragmatically and philosophically.
We are neither prosecutors nor agents of persecution. Our aim is not to issue indictments but to engage critically with actions, rhetoric, and broader socio-political behaviours, using Musk as an illustrative case. This engagement requires nuance, for truth is often uncomfortable, and inquiry itself may invite critique.
If we were to assume the role of prosecutors, we would resist the impulse to deploy labels such as fascist, Nazi, or racist—terms that carry immense historical weight. The urge to categorise those we oppose with extreme terminology risks not only mischaracterization but also the erosion of these terms’ significance. Precision, then, is paramount
So, what is the issue with Elon Musk? Many readers will have their own opinions, but our goal is not to construct a sweeping indictment of Musk himself. Instead, we wish to problematise the now well-documented salute he made by discussing the truth of the gesture as we see it and why the reality is more complex. The truth of the gesture, variously interpreted as a Nazi gesture, an autistic hand-raise, a Roman general’s salute, or an expression of giving from the heart will be discussed next.
Truth and Reality in the Gesture
The truth of the gesture, in a Platonic sense, appears to align with the Nazi salute, for several reasons—though we remain open to counterarguments.
First, Musk is an intelligent and well-informed individual. While not all right-leaning figures are Nazi sympathizers, history suggests that certain extremist ideologues tend to find refuge in such political spaces. If Musk were unaware of the symbolic weight of the gesture, that would be surprising.
Second, if the defence is that the gesture was an expression of autism, we approach this claim with caution. While we are not experts in autism, it seems problematic to suggest that neurodivergence would naturally produce gestures widely recognised as politically and morally charged. Autistic individuals—especially those socialised in environments requiring them to "mask" unconventional behaviours—are often acutely aware of social norms, making this explanation uncertain at best.
Third, if the claim is that the gesture was a Roman general’s salute, historical context complicates this argument. The salute was adopted by Benito Mussolini’s fascist Italy and later co-opted by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime. In this regard, historical continuity matters.
Fourth, if the gesture was meant as an expression of giving, then the biomechanics of the motion seem dubious. Conventionally, when one gives, the palm faces upward, an open-handed offer. Musk’s salute, however, was palm-down—an unusual configuration for an act of generosity. Physiologically, this defence strains credibility.
Wrestling With Truth and Reality
Now we arrive at the crucial distinction between truth and reality. In a Platonic sense as we understand it. The truth of the gesture is likely a Nazi salute. But does this mean Elon Musk is a Nazi? The reality is more complex.
We do not know Musk’s true ideological commitments. However, his past actions raise questions: he has amplified pro-Nazi accounts, engaged with far right political parties like the British National Party (BNP) calling for the release of its leader Tommy Robinson from prison to personally calling the leader of Alternative for Germany (AfD), to congratulate them for their election results. Elon Musk has followed pro-apartheid accounts on social media—all while professing to be anti-extremist and anti-apartheid. Does this mean Musk aspires to orchestrate atrocities? That seems unlikely, though not impossible. Perhaps, the salute was an attempt to court a specific ideological base, a provocation meant to command media attention, or a deliberate nod to victory in the vein of Sieg Heil (“Hail Victory”) to said ideological base—a historically charged phrase used by Nazi Germany. It could be one of these explanations, all of them, or something in-between.
The fundamental point is that we must separate truth from reality. We should be able to acknowledge a truth —such as the problematic nature of Musk’s gesture—while also wrestling with the complexities of intent, meaning, and reception. This is not an exercise in absolution; it is an appeal to intellectual rigor. Those who admire Musk should not feel compelled to defend the indefensible simply because they respect his innovations or ambitions. The ability to criticize actions without surrendering admiration is, itself, a mark of independent thought.
The Reasons – Binary Thinking
Psychologist Kevin Dutton, in his book Black and White Thinking: The Burden of a Binary Brain in a Complex World, explores how the human mind is wired for binary thinking. While we will not delve into his work in detail, we invoke its core insights to better understand the interplay between truth and reality—and the dangers of failing to distinguish them.
Dutton argues that the tendency to see the world in stark contrasts—good or bad, right or wrong, friend or enemy—has evolutionary roots. In life-or-death situations, such cognitive shortcuts allowed our ancestors to make rapid decisions. However, in today’s world of complexity and nuance, this instinct can lead to polarization, misjudgment, and an unwillingness to engage with ambiguity. Too often, we assume that acknowledging one truth necessitates abandoning another, as if critique and appreciation cannot coexist.
Yet reality does not conform to such rigid divisions. It is possible—indeed, necessary—to recognize Elon Musk’s intellectual contributions and the positive impact of his innovations while also critically assessing his faults, some of which may be serious. To highlight one does not mean erasing the other. This is where the distinction between truth and reality becomes vital: truth pertains to objective facts, while reality is textured by perception, interpretation, and context. A situation, person, or action can embody multiple truths at once, and the complexity of reality demands that we hold these truths in tension rather than reduce them to simplistic opposites.
Dutton describes reality as a spectrum, a continuum rather than a dichotomy. However, engaging with this spectrum requires effort—it is intellectually and emotionally demanding to resist the pull of binary thinking. But if we surrender to mental laziness, we risk embracing a distorted view of the world, one that blinds us to nuance and forecloses meaningful inquiry. The path forward demands that we remain vigilant thinkers, willing to engage with complexity rather than retreat into the comfort of absolutes—for if we do not, we may find ourselves heading toward concerning avenues where oversimplification fuels division, misunderstanding, and unintended consequences.
The Concern: A Future of Entrenched Divides
Binaries can fuel division, leading to an "us versus them" mentality that undermines collective solidarity. When political discourse becomes strictly oppositional, we lose our ability to recognize shared humanity. History warns us that oppression advances in increments, targeting one group at a time while the rest remain passive, believing themselves safe. A historical warning is found in Martin Niemöller’s famous poem, which describes the creeping dangers of apathy:
First, they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
If we fail to engage with the complexities of truth and reality—even when the answers are uncomfortable, ambiguous, or challenging—if we continue to reduce multifaceted issues into neat, binary oppositions without acknowledging the shades of grey in between, then the divisions that already fragment our discourse will only grow wider. When we refuse to critically examine the nuances of actions and intentions, preferring instead to cast everything in simplistic terms, we not only undermine the potential for meaningful conversation but also enable polarization to take deeper root in our societies. In this environment, the consequences of unchecked binaries could manifest in a way that mirrors the historical warnings of indifference and inaction. Our version of this warning for today could look something like this:
First, they came for the immigrants, and I did not speak out—because I was not an immigrant. Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Muslim. Then they came for the working class, and I did not speak out—because I was not working-class. Then they came for the intellectuals, and I did not speak out—because I was not an intellectual. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
The Conclusion
We end as we began: this article is not just a piece of philosophical prose but an invitation to wrestle with the complexities of truth and reality. The issue at hand is deceptively simple—truth and reality are not the same. A truth about an action does not necessarily redefine the entire reality of our perception, yet our binary tendencies often push us to conflate the two.
The reasons for this are more intricate. Our minds are wired for binary thinking, making it difficult to resist cognitive biases—primacy bias, recency bias, confirmation bias. The task before us is to remain critically engaged, problematizing daily reality while acknowledging objective truths, rather than succumbing to oversimplification. True intellectual maturity requires grappling with complexity, not catastrophizing it.
The concerns we have raised should not be dismissed lightly. If these are indeed times of resurgent authoritarianism, we must be vigilant, shaking off the shackles of binary thinking for the greater good. Political ideology exists on a spectrum, and if this article has imparted anything, it is that recognizing truth does not require ideological conformity. It is not "woke" to call a Nazi salute abhorrent—it is simply the truth. Wrestling with the reality of who performs such an act does not absolve or excuse it.
If we are to preserve the integrity of our discourse and our society, we must learn to hold multiple truths in tension, rejecting the false comfort of absolutes. Only then can we engage with the world as it truly is—complex, contradictory, and always demanding our scrutiny.
About the Authors
Kola Adeosun is a Nigerian-British educator and journalist based in Southampton, UK. He teaches at Southampton Solent University, where his work explores the intersections of sport, geopolitics, social change, philosophy, and globalisation. Beyond academia, Kola has written widely on sport and its role in shaping societies, contributing to both scholarly research and public discourse.
Ato Kenya Rockcliffe, an educator and Sport for Development practitioner, has nearly two decades of experience advancing social justice through sport. Having earned several advanced degrees, Ato teaches at the University of Trinidad and Tobago and serves as a module coordinator for the University of London (International Sports Management program).
Comments