If they are taught, and think in the aforementioned terms, they will work from a conceptual framework that is inherently incapable of knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so.

Except you haven't shown that "if" to be true in any way. So, your concerns are unjustified.

No, they're your notions, and one's right there in quotes.

You really are terrible--or scared--of actually addressing my arguments.

Yeah, I think that the secular aspect of American society argued strongly against 'T'ruth, in the religious 'objective' sense and replaced it with 'truth' in the man-made sense.

Not only do you have no evidence this actually happened, you can't show it happened around the time of Trump's election. So, your notions of our living in a "Post-Truth" world and our living in one concurrent with Trump's presidency both fail.

That's very interesting, but when exactly has China ever used its leverage to help out the US? They're one of our worst "allies" in both they're pirating and hacking of our computer/intellectual properties ands servers and their awful human rights record that is just as bad as North Korea's.
— Thanatos Sand
Well, China didn't like the nuclear tests for one thing, even if the countries have been allies. Just to give one example, China has supported UN sanctions towards North Korea (Iike UN Security Council Resolution 1718). Just to refrain from using their veto is one way China can help the US and it can do more if it goes along with US initiatives. Of course the main thing is that North Korea is an bulwark against the US for China. Just think if the North Korean regime would fall and South Korea would swallow North Korea (just like East Germany was swallowed By West Germany). Then the Chinese would find US Troops and those Thaad-launchers on the Yalu-river. Not a nice scenario for the Chinese.

But all these things were to China's benefit, not just to ours. So, my point still stands that China has never really done anything for our benefit as an ally, as some of our actual allies have. I'm aware no ally does something solely out of altruism, but many--like England, Germany, or Canada--have come to our aid with the awareness of their benefit from both our benefit and our alliance. China has never shown itself to think in those terms, as they continue to wage piracy/hacking warfare against at us and laugh at our pathetic attempts to make them adhere to some semblance of a human rights standard.

And I agree with Mongrel that we're joined at the hip, but more like Siamese cat twins joined at the hip, constantly hissing at each other and working to be the strongest one in the "joining."

That's very interesting, but when exactly has China ever used its leverage to help out the US? They're one of our worst "allies" in both they're pirating and hacking of our computer/intellectual properties ands servers and their awful human rights record that is just as bad as North Korea's.

In too many ways....

That's possible, but I think the main reasons were twofold:

1. Hillary was a huge, powerful member of the DNC and she and the DNC had decided it was her "turn," particularly after how furious she was at Obama running against and beating her. And they did underestimate how unlikable--and how poor a campaigner--she was.

2. The DNC and Democrats have become so conservative, corporatist, and greatly tied to the Banks and corporate donors--including fracking companies--that they didn't want a progressive like Sanders to threaten all the money they've been making and promises they've made.

And you just did it again. Priceless...:)

Sorry, Aug, I'm only going to be responding to those who actually say something from now on.

Have a good one.

Oh yeah, old grandfather commie Sanders, who doesn't know two bobs of economics, as American President would have been great!

Augustino, you are really talented at showing how you really shouldn't speak at all. "Two bobs of economics" is so exemplary of that...:)

You have mentioned in this thread that you see Trump as a sign that the US will presently lose its influence in the world. I pointed out to you that he was elected, in part, because he was seen as an alternative to Clinton, who was expected to try to maintain the US's standing as if the Cold War is still going on.

So.. what you describe as failure of the US would be considered by many Americans to be success. By and large, the US doesn't want to be an empire. There's no percentage in it.

Well said. For Hillary, keeping American influence in the world meant voting for the disastrous Iraq war, toppling the Libyan government and pushing a coup in Honduras (both with disastrous) results, making the horrendous crucifying/stoning/beheading Saudi Arabia our main Arab ally and weapons trade partner, and pushing a disastrous war in Syria (even pushing a dangerous no-fly zone) which has led to growth of ISIS in the area just as it has done in Libya.

That is not positive "influence" in the world. It is corporate imperialism that would have led to millions more dead in those area and billions to trillions more paid for those killings to no profit to the average American citizen. So, Trump has been a domestic disaster and a foreign policy joke, but he hasn't cost us "positive" influence that Hillary would have brought. Again, we would all be better if the DNC didn't rig the primary against Sanders and he was our president.

Good
— Banno

Reminds me of what Steinbeck said about critics, that they're like eunuchs gathered around the marriage bed to watch a whole man perform the act of creation.

Critics actually watch/read/listen to acts of creation for their own acts of creation. As Wilde put it, artists look at the world and infuse it into their Art; critics look at Art and infuse it into their own.

Samuel Johnson, Kenneth Burke, Paul De Man, Roland Barthes, Leslie Fielder et al were hardly "eunuchs."

I've already don't that many times, and you've failed to address me every time. So, we're done and good night. I won't be reading any more of your rants or mistruths.

Sorry, Cavacava, corporations, governments, and economic systems have been skewing the truth for centuries. So, none of what you mentioned points to our being in a different "Post-Truth' world now.

That was a semi-coherent mess with not one shred of truth to it. You're coming unhinged, Creative. I suggest you call it a night before you embarrass yourself even further.

More evidence that Trump doesn't understand how to do his job or what he's talking about (as if more were needed.)

I've never debated that. I've just correctly said that isn't evidence of a "Post-Truth" world.

LOL. Oh, boy, who ever taught you philosophy sure scammed you...:)

Did anyone ever teach you to actually read?

Good you recognize that since the only gratuitous assertions have been yours.

So... pragmatism came along and fooled enough people into thinking of truth as man-made, subjective, and what-not that the sheer size of the population began to make it a habit of conflating truth with thought/belief.

That's an erroneous summary of Pragmatism and its development and it fails to address its various strains, such as the Pragmatism of William James and the Pragmatism of John Stuart Mill.

Along with pragmatism comes the mistaken conclusion that truth is man-made. It's much easier to go along with that when the Church and the usage of the term "truth" were virtually inseparable.

And you are still left with the significant problem undermining your very faulty argument: most people in the world did not embrace this rejection of Truth, certainly not in the Western nations. So, we are not in a Post-Truth world.

For most people, the baby is still here in various forms. Sorry.

Now, unless you can actually address my arguments, which you haven't done yet, or you start a new argument about Post-Truth, you and I are done.

If you fail to do either, I'll let you frolic with your delusions.

There are obviously two different senses of the term "post-truth" at work here. Yours and mine. I'm neither denying nor affirming the coherency of your usage. Nor need I.

Sand - on the other hand - is not granting an others' terms.

That was quick, apparently you lied about letting the chips fall where they may. And what is actually happening is you formulated an erroneous definition of a questionable term, "Post-Truth" based on your erroneous reasoning, and I've well pointed that out many times.

One cannot validly object to another's claims by virtue of using a different sense of a key term.

That is exactly what Sand has been doing. Anyone can check the record for themselves.

That's not what I did, or what I've been doing, and anyone can check the record for themselves. I validly objected to claim by the virtue of your fallacious reasoning and poor use of non-supportive evidence.

It's always easiest to criticize another's position when one begins with misunderstanding, and then refuses to admit that much.

Sigh

No, you've shown it's easiest to formulate an erroneous definition of a questionable term based on your erroneous reasoning.

You've shown nothing, and I've shown a lot, and the chips have already fallen my way.

....as to opinions, as you've shown, most people have bad ones.

Do you recognize that two different people can have two different notions of what counts as a "post-truth" world?

Do you recognize that's not the problem here or the problem with your reasoning?

Don't answer that, I already see you're lost on this.

I said nothing about Pragmatism.

Someone looking for proof?

Interesting that Sand should admit that.

I was.

Its' not interesting that I should admit that since you asked what "Are you objecting to the rise of pragmatism?" when I never said anything about Pragmatism and you never used the word.

So, it's interesting you admit to asking an irrelevant question.

Now...

Can you formulate a valid objection?

I already have in my many arguments on this current thread/discussion,.

Can you actually address those arguments for once?

There are obviously two different senses of the term "post-truth" at work here. Yours and mine. I'm neither denying nor affirming the coherency of your usage. Nor need I.

No, I've shown that your explanation for our world being a Post-Truth one does not show we live in a Post-world one. So, I've shown your usage is erroneous, illogical, and only semi-coherent. We can do that in debates.

You - on the other hand - are not granting an others' terms.

I'm not required to do so.

One cannot validly object to another's claims by virtue of using a different sense of a key term.

I didn't do that; I showed how your term made no sense.

Post truth...

It doesn't exist, and you have failed mightily in your attempts to show it does.

The ethical impact is clear...

Are the ends good for the overwhelming majority?

This is another huge non-sequitur. It doesn't establish a Post-Truth world at all...just like the rest of your erroneous arguments.

I've never claimed that a post truth world requires all folk to share the same misunderstanding. So, your talk about "all folk" and "most folk" is off target.

What you claim about "all folk" is irrelevant since it would have to be at least "most folk", and it's not in your hypotheses, for it to be a Post-Truth world. So, my talk was on-target; your erroneous criticism of it is not.

Are you objecting to the rise of pragmatism?

Now that's you second non-sequitur since I said nothing about Pragmatism.

The claim "No post-truth" doesn't follow from "Some folk doesn't mean all folk, or even most folk".

That is a non-sequitur.

Of course it does, since if only some/a minority of the people are not using the term "Truth,' it's not a Post-Truth word.

So, the only non-sequitur was your response above.

As result of the centuries long contentious debate over what truth actually was, there were some folk who were fed up with the seemingly useless task, so they began setting out how to talk and think about things without using the term...

Those ways of talking became more and more common...

Post-truth.

As I said before, some folk doesn't mean all folk or even most folk.

No Post-Truth.

See my last post on that. It's clear now I can't do anything to help you.

Goodbye, Creative.

And you fail to back up your erroneous concern. Ge back to me when you actually address my arguments. Otherwise, I'll let you flail in your silliness.

Try and actually make your point by addressing my arguments. You've been scared to do so so far.

No, that's you.

Everything I've said applies to what I was reporting on, and you haven't shown otherwise.

And you sure proved that, Rook.

You clearly are...;)

Thanks for showing you couldnt' show my post was a non-sequitur

Non-sequitur. Try again.

Sorry, not even close to a non-sequitur, and you haven't shown it was. Try Again.

There comes a time when knowing what truth is, how it emerges onto the world stage, and it's role becomes paramount to effectively removing a societal cancer. And yet, very very few have the aforementioned knowledge...


Post truth...

Not knowing what exactly "Truth" means does not mean we're in a Post-Truth world. In fact, that means we've never lived in a "Truth" world, so we can't be living in a "Post-Truth world.

Sorry, no Post-Truth.