That assumes Postmodern theorists say anything goes when it comes to Truth, and they don't. You're free to name one if you can. It also incorrectly assumes Trump is our first mendacious president and he isn't. Obama straight up lied to the American people about unconstitutionallly monitoring our phones and Bush' WMD lies have cost over a million lives.

That assumes Postmodern theorists say anything goes when it comes to Truth — Thanatos Sand

So, educate me.

I just did. I told you none said that when you had incorrectly said they did.

You don't seem to get the "discussion" bit.


So what do they say? Or, what do you say? Be interesting.

No, you don't seem to get the discussion bit. I ended the discussion we had by correcting your incorrect notion.

As to the Postmodernists, there are many of them with different views. Which one gave you the idea that "anything goes" when it comes to Truth?

My main objection to the notion that we're just now moving towards a "post truth" world--especially within context of politics--is that it implies that people in previous eras were committed to some notion of truth untainted with considerations of power, self-interest, etc.

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical but I don't think that has ever been the case, so the term "post-truth" should be replaced by something that more accurately captures the distinction Banno made in the OP between lying and bullshitting.

That line of thinking is interesting, but it does seem more philosophically than politically relevant since politicians (with some exceptions) have always been full of shit. Thanatos Sand gave some good, obvious recent examples of this phenomena as it relates to more respectable presidents than Trump, and that's just scratching the surface.

I found this quote from Karl Rove interesting. Rove was one of GW Bush's advisors, I believe.

"...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 new 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."

Perhaps I'm being overly cynical but I don't think that has ever been the case, so the term "post-truth" should be replaced by something that more accurately captures the distinction Banno made in the OP between lying and bullshitting.

I agree with what you said in your first paragraph, but the distinction between lying and bullshitting is unclear since "lying" denotes a multitude of different ways to tell untruths or strategic half-truths, or strategic manipulation of spinning of the truth, and bullshitting is just one of them.

If you could make clear what you see as the substantial difference between the terms, that would be helpful.

I found this quote from Karl Rove interesting. Rove was one of GW Bush's advisors, I believe.

"...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 new 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."

Yeah, that sounds like Rove's philosophy. He may have been a complete scumbag, but he was clearly as self-aware one.

I may very well be wrong here, but it seems like the liar believes in objective truth (even while misrepresenting it) while the bullshitter thinks that truth is completely subjective. I think of the debate in terms outlined way back in Plato's Protagoras, where Protagoras famously claims that "man is the measure of all things," which seems to imply an extreme form of relativism.

But at the very least I'd be interested in Banno's fleshing this out a bit more. I read the OP again and perhaps you're right that he's setting up a PoMo strawman.

I think you're on the right track.

I haven't read Frankfurt's book, but my sense of the bullshitter is that he is not just a subjectivist but indifferent to questions of truth and falsity. You say what you say just for the effect, for instance as a move in a negotiation. Might be true, might be false, who cares? I think there is a concern that the bullshitter can naturally morph into a confabulist who isn't even sure when he's telling the truth.

I may very well be wrong here, but it seems like the liar believes in objective truth (even while misrepresenting it) while the bullshitter thinks that truth is completely subjective. I think of the debate in terms outlined way back in Plato's Protagoras, where Protagoras famously claims that "man is the measure of all things," which seems to imply an extreme form of relativism.

I got ya. I guess it would say that someone who actually freed themselves from the socio-cultural concept of "Truth" they grew up with would be a Platonic ideal that just doesnt' exist in humanity. Even Trump can see that Ivanka is (probably), as opposed to Bannon or Erik Jr, his daughter, and he knows the White House is in Washington, not Valhalla.

The term was selected by the Oxford Dictionary as 2016 Word of the Year.

The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

It is similar to Frankfurt's technical use of "Bullshit" in that truth and falsehood cease to be significant. The post-truth world is the result of the ascendancy of the bullshitter, who is contrasted with the liar in that while the liar knows what is true and what is false, and knowingly speaks falsehoods, the bullshitter does not know or care for truth.

But of course truth is what is still there despite what you say about it. A post-truth world must fail. — Banno

Okay, after re-reading this I do sense some problems with attempting to contrast the two.

For one thing, the attempt to shape public opinion has almost always involved manipulative appeals to the emotions and biases of the crowd. Facts that don't fit the particular agenda of the speaker/writer are conveniently ignored, while those that do lend it support are highlighted, even exaggerated for maximum effect. Nothing new here.

Another problem, as I see it, is in their respective stances towards truth, which I don't see as all that different: If the liar knows the truth yet still peddles falsehoods (or even omits important information), then s/he is ipso facto showing a lack of concern for the truth, and is therefore a bullshitter (by the definition provided). What's the difference here? Is it that the liar suffers pangs of conscience when deceiving whereas the bullshitter is a sociopath totally devoid of that sort of guilt?

And if some things can be considered more important than truth (e.g. social stability, personal and/or national interests, etc.), a position tacitly acknowledged by both, then the distinction seems to break down even more. Is the main difference found in the extent to which each lies? Is it found in the end(s) for which they lie? Both taken together? Something else besides or along with these? One is conscious and the other unconscious of their lies, perhaps? Does an unconscious lie even make sense? Whatever the case, it all starts to look a bit muddled and arbitrary.

Anyhow, the underlying assumption seems to be that the bullshitter is much worse than the liar, and far more dangerous to the public. Liars may not be perfect, but hey, at least they're not bullshitters. If anything, the difference would seem more a matter of degree than of kind: the bullshitter lies to a greater extent, and in the pursuit of more nefarious ends, than the liar.

Just some quick and philosophically naive thoughts/questions on the topic.

I'm still open to the idea that you may be on to something important here (more of an intuition), but I'm having a hard time pinpointing exactly what it is. In the political arena Trump does seem to represent at least a more brazen disregard for truth than is normally seen, even amongst the professional liars and hypocrites who typically inhabit this world.

got ya. I guess it would say that someone who actually freed themselves from the socio-cultural concept of "Truth" they grew up with would be a Platonic ideal that just doesnt' exist in humanity. Even Trump can see that Ivanka is (probably), as opposed to Bannon or Erik Jr, his daughter, and he knows the White House is in Washington, not Valhalla. — Thanatos Sand

Yes exactly right IMO.

I think you're on the right track.

I haven't read Frankfurt's book, but my sense of the bullshitter is that he is not just a subjectivist but indifferent to questions of truth and falsity. You say what you say just for the effect, for instance as a move in a negotiation. Might be true, might be false, who cares? I think there is a concern that the bullshitter can naturally morph into a confabulist who isn't even sure when he's telling the truth. — Srap Tasmaner

Fascinating. Hard to even fathom anyone with such a blatant disregard for truth. It would seem like s/he would still have to maintain the appearance of interest in it, if for no other reason than that they need others to sincerely believe that they have been lied to (in Trump's case, for instance, by the mainstream media and other representatives of the so-called "deep state") in order to rally them to the cause.

In the political arena Trump does seem to represent at least a more brazen disregard for truth than is normally seen, even amongst the professional liars and hypocrites who typically inhabit this world. — Erik

Which is great, because it is unmasking everyone else. That's why they hate Trump.

I don't really want to bring this back to Trump, but as much as I dislike the the guy I don't think he can be accused of the extreme position of neither knowing nor caring about the difference between truth and falsehood.

I remember the debate in which his taxes were brought up--specifically the fact that he had exploited loopholes to avoid paying them--and how he responded with the candid "that makes me smart" comment. I took that as a somewhat surprising and unconventional (especially for a politician) admission that he had in fact lied to the IRS, or, at the very least, had placed his financial self-interest above the truth--and the public good for that matter.

It felt like he was using his penchant for deceit as a personal selling point, wearing it as a badge of honor of sorts, as if that personal trait would make him an exceptional politician once it was channeled away from his personal business endeavors and towards the larger interests of his constituency. Ran completely counter to what one would expect from a more polished career politician, and in an odd and troubling way (IMO) that seemed to appeal to his supporters.

Maybe there's a hint here of the possible difference between liar and bullshitter? As if Trump was suggesting something a bit counter-intuitive and anomalous like: "Come on guys, you know all politicians lie, but they normally lie in a way that screws you over by working against your interests...well, I'm a liar too just like them, but you have my word that I'm going to lie on your behalf if elected, and in the service of your interests."

But subordinating truth to personal interest seems to happen all the time among politicians--a group which taken as a whole seems to draw in ambitious types--and Trump may not be as unique as others would like to believe in this regard.

It felt like he was using his penchant for deceit as a selling point, wearing it as a badge of honor, as of that personal trait would make him an exceptional politician once it was channeled away from his personal business endeavors and towards the larger interests of his constituency. — Erik

Yes yes, by all means! But that's what the media is already doing! The media is already telling us that the Wolves of Wall Street are the "real men", who have all the money, women and enjoyment! They are constantly being portrayed as the "great" and "successful" men, who have a right to trample everyone else under their feet.

Isn't the hypocrisy outrageous? That the media for example is angered by Trump's comments about women, but they forget that they are his professors? Who taught Trump that the strong man is the man who grabs them by the *****? Trump is just a good student - he wanted to be an actor at one point when he was young. So why do they protest against Trump when they are the ones who taught him that that's what a strong man is supposed to do? Trump is the real face of the liberal media. Their obsessions with sex, their treatment of sex as a source of self-esteem - those are the reasons why Trump is who he is.

I was actually recently reading a newspaper article about a very powerful man in Eastern Europe and his family. And when they were commenting about his sons' "misbehaviours", in truth, they portrayed them as people to be admired and emulated - as what the rest of us would also do if only we were rich and successful. Prey on married women, cause divorces, buy extravagant cars, etc. So why does the media "condemn" them by portraying them as "successful", "powerful", etc.? Have we started to commend a thief for not getting caught, looking with admiration at his skill, and condemn him merely for getting caught? :s Is theft wrong only if you're caught? Because clearly that's what our media is telling us.

Well, those are the guiding values of our materialistic and individualistic commercial civilization. Our politicians, media, educational system, etc. are all geared towards creating consumers who buy the the shit that's produced and marketed to us. Brave New World. All things reduced to exploitable and manipulable resources.

From that standpoint Trump is a symptom rather than a cause of this current world order. I sometimes think individual and collective effort would be better expended on working to shift those values and assumptions which currently hold sway instead of just going after Trump as a particularly obnoxious (and now powerful) individual who happens to have gained so much power.

Of course doing both is good IMO, but going after the man while not questioning the world which produced him is a bit shortsighted. He's got money, fame, women and all the things that are so prized by so many. And probably have been for a long time, if not always. But these values are contingent too, and subject to potentially significant historical shifts.

What if people stopped buying things they didn't really need, and read books instead of watching TV or being on their phones all the time, and freely chose to live a life of relative simplicity, and rejected the dominant values of our society by spending their time doing other things than working and buying stuff and numbing themselves with the latest mindless entertainment? Is this so out of the question? Not going to happen anytime soon, obviously, but we could do little things here and now to prepare the way for future generations.

Maybe we needed a buffoon like Trump to finally show us how absurd this current world really is, and how this has been in the making for much longer than Trump has been around.

Not interested in debating anyone on Trump's merits or lack thereof by the way. Again, my main interests are with broader cultural and ontological issues than with the daily nonsense that's US politics. Not saying this isn't at all important.

Eh, I'm a little delirious and need some sleep.

How many thousands of years ago did the first human condemn the present age as if the world was once perfect or even slightly better? It must satisfy some need...

But what?

Good point, Mongrel. I'd imagine discontent with the the present is a necessary condition for change. I won't say "progress" since that seems a somewhat subjective determination and a debatable point.

Progress may be it. The concept of progress is said to be an innovation of the fertile crescent region circa 1000 BC. Prior to that time seemed more cyclical because the cycle didn't change much. If a city was lost to the desert all memory of it was lost as well.

It's a side effect of knowledge of history. Nice myth anyway.

I've often thought about this issue. One can love the present even with its perceived imperfections, maybe even because of these from a certain perspective, and criticize certain aspects of it at the same time without necessarily being contradictory.

Thinking along the lines of Nietzsche's joyful affirmation of life in its entirety, and willing the eternal recurrence of the same, all the while railing against particular features of the present (as having originated in things that happened long ago) and projecting new possibilities into the future. That tension has, and probably always will, be a feature of human existence until we're all dead.

I certainly like many things about modern life and would not wish to return to some imagined golden era. But I'd also like to take those good things that have been brought about by the hard work of recent centuries and begin to subordinate the economy to what I feel are more elevated and non-instrumental things.

Just my thoughts.

But, yeah, I really need to get some sleep and come back later with a clear head.

How many thousands of years ago did the first human condemn the present age as if the world was once perfect or even slightly better? It must satisfy some need...

But what? — Mongrel

You always butt into discussions and send them down a tangent which has nothing to do with the topic. If you're curious about this, I would suggest that you open a separate thread, since it is afterall a separate issue than what is being discussed here.

Well, those are the guiding values of our materialistic and individualistic commercial civilization. — Erik

My point is that we've done nothing to stop those guiding values, but quite the contrary. Every time when you engage in locker room talk for example, you are cementing these guiding values. Every time you use expressions like "no one would want to have sex with him, he doesn't know how to play his cards right" and so forth, you're cementing those values. Just recently I had to straighten out a friend because she said a similar thing about a guy here to me. So I had to question her about what she means, and if she suggests that if he were "a better card player" then he should be a guy we should admire instead of look down upon.

People promote this crap without even knowing what they're doing. If you don't do anything to make these values uncool, but quite the contrary you let it slide each and every time, you're an accomplice to this age. And this is absolutely not harmless fun because people internalise those values without even knowing it because of acting in this manner.

Thinking along the lines of Nietzsche's joyful affirmation of life in its entirety, and willing the eternal recurrence of the same, all the while railing against particular features of the present (as having originated in things that happened long ago) and projecting new possibilities into the future. That tension has, and probably always will, be a feature of human existence until we're all dead. — Erik

I get that. Not to tangle the issue too much, but to some extent Trump was elected because of his power to evoke nostalgia. So it's interesting that a criticism of him might be that he represents a disease that contemporary philosophy can't address... as if maybe the old guard would have had better intellectual weapons. Do you think they would have? Is it worthy of nostalgia?

If someone asks us why shall a good man support Trump - then we shall answer that Trump is the truth of man, and we want our brother to have an honest look at himself. How can we change the world if we refuse to look at our own face, maybe for the first time? Those cowards, some of whom make their presence felt in this thread by protesting against Trump, are pony-hugging liberals in disguise. They hate Trump because they hate themselves - they will refuse to see their own wretchedness reflected in Trump - so they have to get rid of Trump, only to suppress their own selves.

How utterly hilarious to see them crying about Trump slighting the Truth, when their favorite TV shows slight the Truth each and every day, and behold, they keep on watching? Have they just now awakened and opened their eyes onto the world? Have they been fast asleep, so drawn into their petty play not to know the world they're living in? One has to wonder how deep blindness and stupidity can go.

They would all like to be the overmen on Wall Street, only that they lack the strength - they lack the opportunity. If only power were placed in their hands. But being weak, they hide their desire from themselves - so that they may be able to live with themselves. Instead they promote a fake morality - a hypocritical morality - motivated by their ressentiment and hatred of themselves and of the powerful (whom they nevertheless want to emulate). So on the one hand they condemn theft - but on the other they reward the thief by doing business with him. On the one hand they condemn adultery - on the other they enjoy seeing it in their movies. With one hand they take away, and with the other, behind their backs so that their eyes do not see, they give back what was taken!

That is their pity, for they have never actually rejected immorality. They have just deceived themselves, thinking that they have rejected what is immoral. But they haven't. The sad part is that their so called morality is a reaction to immorality, and not authentic and in-itself, and has the same illusory and shadowy constitution that its parent has. That is why when push comes to shove, they shall once again resort to immorality. If their daughter can marry that unrighteous rich man, then they will immediately agree, and at once will have forgotten all their concerns about morality.

The world pretends to hate men like Trump but actually loves them. The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally. We all knew, when we were speaking of morals, that it was merely speaking after all. When we hurt the other - we will retort by "I thought you'd be doing the same" - for we know that what we say is mere politics and nothing more. Indeed, we are surprised by those who expect us to keep our word - that person is really an Idiot for us. Suddenly the mask will go off, and our real face will show.

And the world pretends to love men like Marcus Aurelius, but actually hates them to the core, for true morality disrupts hypocrisy and pulls the cover. And men are too afraid to look at their own faces, and will do anything to keep the veil covering it. They will then start speaking of the complete acceptance of life as it is - as if there was anything more in there than a covert pleading to accept immorality, to drop the pretence. For their heart truly lusts for what is unclean, and their mind only pretends that it is otherwise. They envy Trump, instead of pity him. Indeed, they condemn pity, as the emotion belonging to the weak. But it is only the strong man who can look down on another with compassion and pity, for only the strong man knows what the other lacks. The weak can only look up at what they deem to be the strong with envy. And the one they deem to be the strong shows what their real values are.

When theft, adultery, promiscuity, deception, and the like become the standard - then the immoral shall look up to people exemplifying these "qualities". Even as they condemn them - they shall condemn - but it will be only in speaking, for in reality they will secretly envy those people. For their hearts have not yet renounced evil - nor have their minds seen evil as evil - rather they persist in secretly seeing evil as good.

Few and treasured as the stars in the heavens are those who are truly moral in their hearts, and love God with all their mind, heart, body and soul.

They hate Trump because they hate themselves — Agustino

Nah, I hate Trump because he's a prick.

The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones.

You really do live in an alternate reality.

His viewpoint is pretty vile.

ON BULLSHIT



See the discussion of Pascal's comment. What seems to have disgusted Wittgenstein is not that Pascal is lying, but that she is not even concerned with the truth of her utterance.

In the political arena Trump does seem to represent at least a more brazen disregard for truth than is normally seen, even amongst the professional liars and hypocrites who typically inhabit this world. — Erik

Here is the difference with Trump; despite his comments being shown to be false, they are repeated and acted on. Truth no longer plays a part in the dialogue, nor in the actions they entail.