Starting with the basic ideas like the 'correspondence theory of truth' and 'identity theory of truth' I stumbled upon the English philosopher F.H. Bradley and his book 'Truth and Reality'. In the beginning, he defines truth as something that satisfies intellect, that means something that is rational and logical. Further, this kind of truth leads to 'goodness' which he defines as something that gives a feeling a contentment and suppresses unrest. No where is the mention of a 'facts' or 'evidence' so I was thinking how valid are the his definitions or should I continue reading? Also, if truth satisfies intellect with logical reasoning, the post-truth has world has not eradicated but morphed what is logically and rationally correct as the advent of alternative facts (plus emotional manipulations like sense of belonginess/nationalism) increases. So, I argue against the fact that satisfaction of intellect leads to truth as this kind of satisfaction is attainable through these morphed logical/rational arguments + emotional manipulation.