This sounds like a ploy to politicize philosophy. I would recommend avoiding it. The political spats will fade; [some of] the philosophical results will still be of interest later.

You know I've been talking with people about this problem for 10 years now, and my general observation is, there has been widespread absconsion from social responsibility on this issue. Philosophers are meant to be resolving these problems, not sneering at them.

Philosophers cannot resolve political problems. No one calling for this is genuinely interested in 'truth.' That is what you need to get.

The reason there are degrees in philosophy is because it's meant to help society, not promulgate nihilism. Simultaneously, I see people asking what they're meant to do with a philosophy degree all the time. Well here's a real job. We need to define ways to describe what truth is for the public so these problems go away. It's what we are meant to be doing.

The reason there are degrees in philosophy is because of an intellectual tradition in the Western world. There is no top-down function which philosophers are in service to.

Philosophers have tackled the relationship of society to truth before. Popper's The Open Society and its Enemies is an old example, and more recent is Frankfurt's On Bullshit, which is particularly relevant to Trump and the general "post-truth" thing.

That's pretty much what the Athenian assembly told Socrates. Pretty much word for word.

When I said truth is dieing of hemlock I wasnt kidding.

So you think explaining Popper to Trump supporters is the answer. No wonder there's cynicism. That's absurd.

I didn't say that. I don't think Trump supporters are generally amenable to being philosophized at, so to speak. But philosophers can and have been discussing how to understand the problems underlying post-truth politics, at least. Frankfurt more than Popper; On Bullshit is basically entirely about post-truth politics.

So the answer is, let the world go to hell and we'll talk to each other about how much more clever we are?

If you just want to say its bullshit, its not.

Empirical observation and semantic interpretation create an epistemological gap between the statement of a proposition and truth evaluation, during which it could be meaningfully claimed the statement is true without evidence yet being known. This gap can be exploited by those wishing to propagate fake news and false beliefs, by widening the epistemological gap as much as possible, thus enabling more circulation of false claims during longer periods of doubt, and the false claims cannot be reasonably denied during that time.

It's a problem with logic itself. It seems pretty obvious to me of course, and I just think we should be trying to explain it so people suspend belief like they should.

The problem I have is, when I try talking with other philosophers about it, THAT'S when I hear alot of bullshit.

Frankfurt's On Bullshit, which is particularly relevant to Trump and the general "post-truth" thing. — Pfhorrest

I second this...

That book is spot on!

:smile:

How can philosophers resurrect truth from its deathbed? How can philosophers find consensus on the best course forward in changing the public mind? — ernestm

Talk about the obvious everyday statements that are clearly true, and more importantly situate truth where it belongs... as one precipice of all human thought and belief, and thus of all human understanding.

maybe its a good book, I will look into it, but my problem is, I can state it in five lines, and all I hear is things like 'it's not philosophy's role to help the world understand what truth is.'

How can philosophers resurrect truth from its deathbed? How can philosophers find consensus on the best course forward in changing the public mind? — ernestm

Cultivate the sorts of thoughts that bestow the right amount of value in holding true belief about the world and/or ourselves, and seeking to rid ourselves of believing falsehoods by showing how it impedes our very ability to successfully navigate the world.

You and I seem to be in near complete agreement.

Pick any statement you like, Trump's notwithstanding, and then ask the following questions...

What would it take, what would have to be the case, what would have already had to have happened in order for that particular claim to be true?

What would it take, what would have to be the case, what would have already had to have happened in order for that particular claim to be false?

that a very beautiful sentiment, but people don't have the ability to judge what is true at all. Here's an example right now. It's impossible to prove intent of a crime if the crime isn't performed, and now the nation's leaders are impeaching the president for exactly that. Claimed intent with no action to prove it. at all. His crime is entirely inferred. If it went to a real court it would be thrown out. There's a demonstration just down the street with hundreds of people cheering.

How can philosophers resurrect truth from its deathbed? How can philosophers find consensus on the best course forward in changing the public mind? — ernestm

Honestly though...

As long as people are media puppets, and media dictates the narrative, and media is owned by giant corporations with tremendous political influence, and there are politicians who've been enriching themselves at the same time that they are causing demonstrable financial harm to an entire population and/or swathes thereof, as long as all these things are normal...

there's little hope that what needs to happen will.

The 2018 midterms were promising though... baby steps.

Bernie 2020!

that a very beautiful sentiment, but people don't have the ability to judge what is true at all. — ernestm

The people's minds that need changed the most will never so be if language like the above is the only tool in the toolbox...

For far too long, the American culture has glorified horrible behaviour towards others. If Mrs. Clinton could possibly feel comfortable enough to call all Trump supporters by some clearly berating derogatory namesake, then that goes to show you what counts as ethics in that community...

It's impossible to prove intent of a crime if the crime isn't performed, and now the nation's leaders are impeaching the president for exactly that. — ernestm

Trump's behaviour is the very epitome of obstructing justice.

The 2020 election stuff surrounding the first article of impeachment is a shiny object.

Maybe if philosophy could find a way to make formalized logical structure a generally intuitive subject by some pedagogical technique, citizens would think of information more in terms of argumentation that's actually getting somewhere and precise justification. That I think is what really distinguishes philosophy, its concern with orderedness in expression. Could probably make everyone's thinking more cogent to be self-imposed standardized logical in conjunction with at least some public contexts.

This was the first TIME cover to appear without any image since its founding in 1923 ... — ernestm

April 1966 - Is God Dead?



As for a "War on truth" ... well, once upon a time, Holy Mother Church made good coin burning (pagan) science at the stake, but things haven't quite swung back around to that just yet; and probably won't ...

... so, like the "Dark Ages" in the wake of Rome's collapse and the subsequent Catholic Inquistion's reign of terror which, besides pogroms of heretics, "witches", Jews, Muslims, et al, (e.g.) prohibited autopsies for medical research, burned Bruno at the stake for his Copernicanism and silenced Galileo in every way possible ..., this too shall pass. 'Anti-intellectualism', broadly speaking, is as American as baseball, apple-pie, conspiracy theories & lynchings. But I don't think it's controversial to say the predominant trends in philosophy are post-postmodern (i.e. we've moved past dada/kitsch-like obscurant paeans to meta-antimeta - so-called "deconstructive" - relativisms :roll: (à la Frankfurter's bullshit) which had been a mid-20th century onanistic "war on truth" parlor game that's no longer fashionable ...)

Edit: Pfhorrest beat me to the Frankfurter reference before I could post. :up:

How can philosophers resurrect truth from its deathbed? — ernestm

'Corrupt the youth' by using humor (comedy) to expose the self-refuting nature of anti-truth claims. Debates or lectures posted on video sites and social media. And script writing or consulting for shows like Family Guy, True Detective,,etc.

How can philosophers find consensus on the best course forward in changing the public mind? — ernestm

Leave the ivory tower and 'become' (e.g.) activists, politricksters or (Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert et al -like) talk-show hosts ... to counter all the self-help woo, televangelical grifting, and wingnut agitprop (e.g. cluster-FOX'd Noise) drowning public spaces in mindrotting bile. And forming "consensus ... in ... the public mind", however, isn't what philosophers (are supposed to) do; the best are, so to speak, born posthumously.

:up: FeelTheBern! :cool:

The real damage being done during the Trump administration is left on the side. It is neglected - in part at least - as a direct result of the push towards ratings being driven by clearly immoral behaviours. Far too many Americans have granted their consent to otherwise shameful immoral behaviour. As Perry Ferrel noted back in the late eighties...

Nothing's Shocking.

I hope it will pass... like a bad case of Trumpian gas!

Should everything work out for the better, it will be a boost to the American form of government. I'm afraid that political change is often said to be slow... especially by those looking to have it slowed.

Don't believe it!

Bernie 2020!

I agree. What about making a game?

A game, a school activity, element of literature curriculum, the possibilities are endless.

A game, a school activity, element of literature curriculum, the possibilities are endless. — Enrique

Yes. Yes. Yes.

A child's game.

A computer game could be a success.

His crime is entirely inferred — ernestm

That's not at all true regarding the second article. The first is a shiny object. You've been distracted by it. Don't be. Watch the congressional testimony concerning the second article. The public denouncing of the clearly outlined constitutional process, the refusal to allow several witnesses to testify under oath, not obeying the very rules which are meant to govern all politicians behaviours, etc.

Everyone is equal under the law, and is bound by it, including the president.

We need to hear the testimony of several individuals which Trump refused to allow to honor their subpoena. We need to know all of the relevant facts.