I think that this has gained more popularity nowdays: to break down past eras thinking.For example, postmodernism and its emphasis on deconstruction was about looking at ideologies but it could also be seen as a form of ideology in its attempts to break down those of past eras. — Jack Cummins
...indoor-irony-decoration. — Tom Storm
Maybe Agent Smith and myself are ' post-truth' imaginary entities emerging in the surreal world of cyber language games, in a post-Wittenstein illusory wasteland, such as that which TS Eliot stumbled upon once upon a time. — Jack Cummins
Sure you can. And then ask if each and every one is true... — Banno
But also there are non-boolean notions of truth. — Banno
You can recurse the procedure, asking if it's true that it's accurate, — fdrake
You can equally ask if it's accurate that it's true. It seems that all those terms; true, accurate, representative, right, "a good interpretation" all presuppose an actuality against which they represent the general idea of assessment. If there were no actuality there would nothing against which truth, accuracy, representation, rightness, and interpretations could be assessed. — Janus
'What has happened in recent years is that the shrinking of the moral arena from 'We' to 'I' has converged with the new technologies of communication to a damaging effect. What was once a public respect for truth has been replaced by the noise of the social media...'He also introduces the postmodernist perspective and its querying of objective meaning. This is what makes the concept of 'truth' in itself questionable. — Jack Cummins
For me the Aspidistra is an attractive understory plant; I'm not that big on it as an indoor plant, in fact I don't much like indoor plants. — Janus
"post-truth" is an inevitable consequence of this fragmentation and accelerated communication; but you will probably have noticed that fixed reference points and stable subgroups do believe the same things. "post-truth" is not really an attack on truth; things still fall down due to gravity; but a result of how banjaxed people came to realise sharing common frameworks, and even the idea of common frameworks, actually are in practice. You can easily come to agreement about the trivial; things fall down;, but the chaos makes agreement over what matters most in life and what guides society largely a matter of ideology (which is oscillatory, destablised, isolated in echo chambers, containing internal contradictions, known to be historically conditioned etc etc). "post-truth" is a statement of the irrelevance of truth to the world's trajectory except on things which are either trivial to verify; things fall down when dropped, you need water to live...; or sufficiently contextually demarcated; scientific knowledge in a given paradigm, legal interpretations. And even then, the latter two can have its presumptions doubted; the validity/incommensurability of paradigms + the suspicion towards the narratives of experts and the class bias introduced into law by who gets to lobby for its changes.
The social role of truth changed. Or it was realised to never be as it seemed to be. — fdrake
Philosophically it was prefigured by Kant; he was the trope codifier in the Western tradition of relativising judgement to humanities interpretations without relativising accuracy of those judgements with respect to what's judged — fdrake
Two things, postmodernism, as much as it is a philosophical concept with one meaning, is a bunch of arguments and analyses about how concepts are unstable in interpretation. That claim itself is true or false, but difficult to check. — fdrake
I'm interested that you say this is difficult to check. Are you saying it is hard to tell if there are multiple interpretations regarding a given concept? — Tom Storm
Can you provide a few points more on this? — Tom Storm
It was a nod to attacks on relativising narratives requiring a fixed background to articulate the relativising critique in. How do you even start doing anything without some conceptual framing device or shared standard of intelligibility? — fdrake
Are you saying it is hard to tell if there are multiple interpretations regarding a given concept? — Tom Storm
and how those entities manifest within the the context - for Kant the context of manifestation is the cognitive (ideal) structure of our minds (roughly), for eg Foucault it's relative to social institutions, for Derrida it's relative to discourses — fdrake
people still experience stuff in common ways, and the underlying reality itself doesn't need to change much between interpretive paradigms. Two different methods of thinking bout physics can still agree on gravity, even if there is no context above and beyond the development of science to judge those claims (and thus no "context independent justification". — fdrake
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.