I see this new site as a place for new challenges...

Actually, I am more interested in ethics than metaphysics at the moment.

Was murder immoral before the first murder?

Banno's secret of course is to discuss the easiest most superficial and meanest subjects which everyone has the depth required to discuss - that's how he achieves the longest threads >:)

X-)

Explains why SX's discussions are so short.

I appreciate your comments, Erik, but I'd also appreciate if you could show me where I was initially cranky. I'm not saying you're lying, but I'd just appreciate a point of reference for my own knowledge's sake. — Thanatos Sand

>:O >:O >:O

If you show this guy a tree, he will still say it's not a tree - he'll be like "so where is the tree?! You said you'll show me a tree!!"

Explains why SX's discussions are so short. — Michael

I don't think SX's discussions are generally very profound (take that as significant), but they are highly scholastic and technical generally, which do require a lot more effort to engage in, hence attracting just a limited number of members.

Many of the profound topics on here though do end up being discussed at quite a superficial level though :P

Murder is by definition illegal killing. But what is illegal is not the very same as what is immoral. Murder need not, therefore, be always immoral.

Unless it is immoral to break the law, in which case murder need always be immoral.

Don't make me bust out the magic line again guys.

-

Anyway, a contribution: Having not read the 69 pages of this thread, I wonder about this line from the OP:

A post-truth world must fail. — Banno

I wonder if this is, uh... true. That truth - understood as veracity and not, say, the Truth of Christ - has any sway in the workings and the governance of society seems to me to be a particularly modern - and thus fragile - achievement. One wonders if Genghis Khan, or Vespasian, or Emperor Huangdi needed to hew to truth in order for their worlds to 'not fail'. One imagines they - and their 'worlds' - simply had more important, or simply other, things to care about.

Basically Banno I'm more pessimistic than you. I see no necessity that a post-truth society must fail. I think it will uphold itself just fine, even if that is to the detriment to all those involved. Without the institutions, cultural pressures and societal demands that valorize truth, I think it is perfectly possible to be indifferent to truth without 'failing' as such. All the more reason to fight for those institutions and exert that pressure of course, but I'm not so convinced about the some natural course of failure in the absence or devalorization of 'truth'. It just could be that things remain awful.

Point; but it cannot be immoral to break immoral laws.

We definitely aren't in the era of post new buzz phrases.

Personally I've transcended the truth, and await the fact-ocalypse

A few hours ago I was trying to think of examples of historical post-truth societies. Caligula came to mind, compared to, say, Trajan. Which adhered more closely to truth? Which was more stable?

Socrates (or Plato) would disagree (see Crito). Also Jesus (in some verses at least).

A few hours ago I was trying to think of examples of historical post-truth societies. — Banno

Arguably all theocracies.

Heh, I was going to use Caligula as my 'Roman emperor example', but I thought that'd be too easy. Anyway, I guess it depends what one understands by 'fail'. By 'fail' I suppose I mean unsustainable: as if post-truth (or pre-truth?) is simply an aberration of the natural course of truth. But then - I think nothing is natural, and everything must be fought for, worked at, or sustained by some kind of effort - especially truth. I guess I simply want to warn against a kind of political naïvety: the kind that says: 'look at all this post-truth - it's bound to fail eventually'. I think there's no hope - or truth - to be gleaned from this kind of thinking (but perhaps you never meant that anyway. Also, one imagines a radical left position - which I'm sympathetic to - that would say that the last 200 years have been one of unending crises the truth of which has not been properly registered).

One is reminded of a quote from one of Dubya's unnamed associates regarding this as well, speaking to a group of journalists: "[you journalists are part of the] ... reality-based community... people who believe that decisions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.... That’s not the way the world works anymore.... We’re [i.e., the United States] an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will— we’ll act again, creating other realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

"A few hours ago I was trying to think of examples of historical post-truth societies." — Banno

Arguably all theocracies. — Michael

The Soviet Union is the perfect example.

That example is very current now as ex-KGB officer lead Russia is using same antics and 'active measures' extremely successfully just like the Workers Paradise used in it's day. Only now without the baggage of any ideological restraints and with far more easier access to the intended target group through the internet.

Surely one reason why we are talking about "Post truth" now, actually.

1984

Was murder immoral before the first murder? — Michael

8And Cain said to Abel his brother, "Let us go out to the field," and when they were in the field Cain rose against Abel his brother and killed him. 9And the Lord said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother? And he said, "I do not know: am I my brother's keeper?" 10And He said, "What have you done? Listen! your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil. 11And so, cursed shall you be by the soil that gaped with its mouth to take your brother's blood from your hand. 12If you till the soil, it will no longer give you strength. A restless wanderer shall you be on the earth." 13 And Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is too great to bear. 14Now that You have driven me this day from the soil I must hide from Your presence, I shall be a restless wanderer on the earth and whoever finds me will kill me." 15And the Lord said to him, "Therefore whoever kills Cain shall suffer sevenfold vengeance." And the Lord set a mark upon Cain so that whoever found him would not slay him."

The missing man in the second Stalin picture is Nikolai Yezhov. The first phase of the Great Purge of the 30's was named after Yezhov, but he fell from grace and was shot in 1940. The writer Isaak Babel had an affair with Yezhov's wife Yevgenia, and sadly this meant Babel was arrested in '39, and eventually shot after a brief secret trial.

Since you only don't use the bolding all the time and it only seems to appear as your assertions and insults become more strident, I don't find your claim that it is merely for "delineation" purposes compelling at all.

Since I only use the boldings when my longer posts require them (or rarely when I'm pointing out an interlocutor's particular post), and you haven's shown otherwise; and you haven't shown they appear when my "assertions and insults become more strident;" or even shown that I made those strident assertions and insults; I don't find your claims compelling at all.

In fact, until you back up those erroneous claims, they're just not compelling, period.

Your longer posts are usually where the assertions and insults become more strident. Why would you need to use bolding to differentiate your comments from others' when the format of quoting and responding does the job perfectly well?

If you are genuinely blind to the poor character of your "engagements" with others on here then I can only feel for you and suggest that you try to develop a little more self-awareness. Paying some heed to the many similar responses others have made to you about this would be a good first step. Anyway, it's up to you; it's no skin off my nose either way. :)

Your longer posts are usually where the assertions and insults become more strident. Why would you need to use bolding to differentiate your comments from others' when the format of quoting and responding does the job perfectly well?

Again you fail to back up your erroneous negative claims about me. So, at this point, you're just trolling. And the format doesnt' do the job perfectly well because the separate quotes aren't well-delineated.

If you are genuinely blind to the poor character of your "engagements" with others on here then I can only feel for you and suggest that you try to develop a little more self-awareness.

No, the one who needs more self-awareness is you, since you fail again to back up your erroneous claims against me. If you are genuinely blind to the poor character that shows of you, I can only feel for you and suggest that you try to develop a little more self-awareness.

Paying some heed to the many similar responses others have made to you about this would be a good first step.

This sadly presumes a small group of people must be right because they agree. Using your poor logic, a thousand klansman must be right since they are all in agreement. Paying some heed to the fact you sadly miss this, have been trolling me, and are completely biased in the matter would be a good first step.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/trump_s_fixation_on_his_base_makes_american_weaker_just_as_russia_hoped.html

This is a Slate opinion piece by a journalist with a B.A. It doesn't establish anything.

And even the author says this: "As president, Trump has pursued this mission with gusto. That doesn’t mean he has served Putin deliberately; I doubt he has."

A bit of different context...

So, throughout history the term "truth" has been used in a few prominent and starkly different ways. This has caused much confusion and all sorts of contentiousness regarding proper usage. The Church used it in such a way as to almost claim ownership. Blah, blah, blah...

So, 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.

So, the popularity of talking about things while avoiding using the term "truth" grew exponentially and along with it grew greater misunderstanding than ever. Your truth my truth his truth her truth...

Rubbish.

Give it years... decades come and go...

Then....

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...

And perhaps the greatest irony I've ever known...

So, 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.

"Some folk" doesn't even come close to constituting all folk or even most folk.

So, no Post-Truth.

Non-sequitur. Try again.