Look at page 45, about halfway down you'll find the following direct quote...

"This has never not been the case."

Keep in mind that it was a direct response to the following:

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

If the term this does not include everything within that quote, then the term this has no clear meaning/referent.

If the term this does include everything in the quote, then the term this refers to everything in that quote..

At this point, you're just ranting and raving and not saying anything coherent, whatsoever.

This...

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

...has always been the case.

Yes, but that's not what you said in your previous incoherent ramble, and "this" is not a "post-truth" world since it's not "post-truth."

Prefixing the term "truth" with the term "the" is not always appropriate.

That issue actually reflects yet another problem that arises in a post truth world.

Except we're not in a "Post-Truth" world; were in the "same-lack-of-Truth-we've-always-had world.

To those who've been skirting around this...

Politician's have a reputation for being dishonest. Nothing new here...

I agree.

If most folk had the right kind of understanding, that could be corrected. As long as most folk do not have that, politicians who betray the trust of the overwhelming majority of those over whom they wield power cannot be identified isolated and exorcised.

Legislation is legitimized moral thought/belief, and nothing more...

Politicians' moral thought/belief has efficacy. They - quite literally - legitimize their own moral thought/belief.

Think about that for a moment or two...

Those who knowingly harm the overwhelming majority of citizens and justify doing so by virtue of acting on behalf of the interest of the very few will continue to glorify the notion that political corruption is the norm so that there is no legal recourse.

Here's an interesting fact to consider...

Elected officials do not necessarily write the legislation that they pass. Perhaps this be put a bit differently... Legislation that becomes law is not necessarily written by elected officials. The law effects/affects ordinary citizens.

:-x

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

...has always been the case, and then saying that "we're not in a Post-Truth world" is to both affirm and deny the existence of a post truth world. That is a performative contradiction.

No, it's not, since to say we're in a Post-Truth world is to say we were once in a "Truth world," and I made very clear we never has a "Truth-world." So, you're speaking performative nonsense.

Post truth world...

That has never not been the case.

No, Non-Truth world; this has never not been the case. See my last post for clarification.

Fuck off Sand...

Charming retort well-representing your intellect...:)

I'll let the record stand...

As wii I.

Those who claim we've moved into a 'post-truth' age assume a (radical) temporal break in which public actors (politicians, journalists, businessmen, etc.) of previous times supposedly held fast to some notion of objective truth, even when misrepresenting it in order to serve their interests.

Banno seemed to suggest that the very notion of objective reality no longer holds sway, and that this development has been caused by various postmodern thinkers; so it is they who are to blame for our current predicament, with Trump being the most egregious example of a general trend. I doubt that Trump has any familiarity with, or interest in, the likes of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and others who have engaged in questioning the idea of a purely objective, disinterested perspective devoid of historically and socially-conditioned guiding presuppositions.

I mentioned one of the sophists in Plato's dialogues who seemed to have a developed understanding of the intimate and difficult relationship between truth, being, power, etc. The point I was suggesting is that this is not a new issue at all. The character of Thrasymachus in The Republic, for instance, shows some striking similarities with the contemptible figure of Donald Trump.

Anyhow, I'll gladly accept the post-truth characterization if someone can show that important political figures in previous ages were genuinely devoted to things like truth, justice, the common good etc. Imperialism, genocide, two world wars, the growing alignment of corporate with political power, etc. should, at the very least, give us pause before acquiescing to this claim.

footnotes to Plato? >:)

Yes indeed! This very issue seems a central focus of many of those ancient dialogues.

Socrates was put to death for genuinely searching for truth, largely by challenging the collective illusions/prejudices of his community.

Let's be honest for a minute and admit that that type of integrity is definitely not the trait most political figures have lived by.

Post-truth? Pft. Just another lie.

Let's be honest for a minute and admit that that type of integrity is definitely not the trait most political figures have lived by. — Erik

Sure. Neither is it the trait that most people who have ever stepped foot on Earth have lived by.

But yes, this has been my point as well. Trump unmasks all the hypocrites. All those who cry about Trump being post-truth, and destroying truth, etc. - they are the hypocrites, for they think prior to Trump things were different. But Trump is just dropping the mask - he is the student who fully understood what they were teaching all along.

So now they want to destroy Trump - but only because destroying Trump is a way of putting the mask back on and pretending everything is good - a way of deceiving themselves again.

But yes, this has been my point as well. Trump unmasks all the hypocrites. All those who cry about Trump being post-truth, and destroying truth, etc. - they are the hypocrites, for they think prior to Trump things were different. But Trump is just dropping the mask - he is the student who fully understood what they were teaching all along. — Agustino

Trump's just trying to feed his ego and bank account.

So now they want to destroy Trump - but only because destroying Trump is a way of putting the mask back on and pretending everything is good - a way of deceiving themselves again.

Not only (if at all). He's also doing terrible, and apparently criminal, things. That's why so many want him gone.

And to repeat for what seems like the hundredth time, this position implies zero support for Trump. It still seems hard for many people to disassociate these separate issues.

But blatant hypocrisy continues unabated, even among the ostensible defenders of a world dedicated to truth against Trump's repeated assaults.

Look at all the politicians up in arms about Russia's meddling in US domestic politics, including many who've supported our continued involvement in shaping the internal affairs of other nations. Were we living in a 'post-truth' world while engaging in clandestine (or overt) efforts to destabilize and influence the internal politics of other nations in favor of our perceived interests? What were those interests? Freedom? Democracy? Justice? Please.

I was never taught that my country supported oppressive dictators on occasion; or that we helped overthrow democratically-elected governments in favor of stooges for our (business) interests; or that we supported militant Islamic groups and cynically told them God was on their side; or that we give more money to Israel than any other nation, while this country has had a policy of forcefully removing native Palestinians from their homes; etc.

What I was taught was that we fought a war of independence against tyranny and for freedom, justice, democracy, and other inspiring things. And further, that these values continue to guide our actions around the globe.

Again, I would ask those committed to the idea that we've now moved into a 'post-truth' world: When exactly did we live in an age dedicated to truth?

These considerations are not meant to suggest moral equivalency between our actions and those of others, but only to challenge the idea that truth has ever been valued as highly as it's being made to appear at the moment, or above other interrelated things like global military and financial interests.

So truth in politics, as I see it, has almost always been subordinated to other, much less ethereal, things. I just don't see how anybody seriously dedicated to truth could think otherwise, although I'm very much open to having this cynical view challenged.

Let's be honest for a minute and admit that that type of integrity is definitely not the trait most political figures have lived by.
— Erik
Sure. Neither is it the trait that most people who have ever stepped foot on Earth have lived by. — Agustino

Agreed.

Again, I would ask those committed to the idea that we've now moved into a 'post-truth' world: When exactly did we live in an age dedicated to truth? — Erik

Mid-20th century, according to a Harvard Professor:

“I don’t think it’s new. If you look at political campaigns in the 19th century, there’s [some] pretty vicious rhetoric,” added Jennifer Hochschild, the H.L. Jayne Professor of Government at Harvard. “The media were very, very, very partisan through much of the 18th and 19th centuries. The notion of the nonpartisan, fair, and balanced media is really a kind of mid-20th century phenomenon. — http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/07/politics-in-a-post-truth-age/

Thanks, Michael, I'll check it out.

Look at all the politicians up in arms about Russia's meddling in US domestic politics, including many who've supported our continued involvement in shaping the internal affairs of other nations. Were we living in a 'post-truth' world while engaging in clandestine (or overt) efforts to destabilize and influence the internal politics of other nations in favor of our perceived interests? — Erik

>:) Say one thing and do another, isn't that what we expect of one another?

What I was taught was that we fought a war of independence against tyranny and for freedom, justice, democracy, and other inspiring things. And further, that these values continue to guide our actions around the globe. — Erik

>:O

It's true, Agustino, that's what I was taught in school as a child and believed in sincerely up until my college years, when I was finally exposed to alternative perspectives. This Manichean view was also buttressed in popular culture, among politicians, and to my knowledge was not significantly challenged by any 'mainstream' sources.

The commies and Arabs, for example, were always presented as embodying evil and contrasted with our inherent goodness and purity. Movies like the original Red Dawn, Rocky (forgot the number but the one with Ivan Drago), and many others I watched during my impressionable childhood invariably depicted these 'others' in caricatured ways.

Yet again, it's not so much that communists and Arab terrorists are actually good while we're actually evil--but rather that reality (truth) is much more complex than this simplified and manipulative narrative would have us believe. I'm sure they did the same to us, vilifying the evil capitalists and the Great Satan.

It came as a great shock and sadness to me that reality (objective truth?) didn't square with this image that had been projected upon me, and, as evidenced by this thread, I'm still struggling to come to grips with that radical disconnect between truth and appearance.

Look people are crying about post-truth, but tell me something. When two lovers say to each other "I will love you forever" and then they break up after 1 year, is that not post-truth? But what do people say - "eh, that's love". We have built an amazingly hypocritical society where liars don't even perceive themselves as liars anymore, because we're taught that it's normal and expected to lie.

I'm sure they did the same to us, vilifying the evil capitalists and the Great Satan. — Erik

Ah absolutely they did. I come from a communist country so I know they did. But here, the difference was that everyone knew but pretended they didn't know they were lying.

It came as a great shock and sadness to me that reality (objective truth?) didn't square with this image that had been projected upon me, and, as evidenced by this thread, I'm still struggling to come to grips with that radical disconnect between truth and appearance. — Erik

That's strange. For me since childhood the propaganda was never believable. I never believed it, but I was always disappointed we have built such a crooked world.

This may be my last foray here, at least for a bit, so I'll probably just sit back and try to be as receptive as possible to others' positions.

Seems like we're going around in circles after 47 pages. I still feel like there's something here that I may be missing.

I found some interesting things in ssu's post, for instance, and would like to think them through.

I found some interesting things in ssu's post, for instance, and would like to think them through. — Erik

To me, it sounds like ssu was saying it's okay to lie, so long as we pretend we're after the truth ;) ;) ;)

I was probably an exceptionally naive kid.

It also didn't help that I grew up in a very blue-collar household with parents who were both high school dropouts. There were no lively conversations about politics, philosophy, culture, and other sorts of things I imagine more educated and affluent families converse about around the dinner table.

I was probably an exceptionally naive kid.

It also didn't help that I grew up in a very blue-collar household with parents who were both high school dropouts. There were no lively conversations about politics, philosophy, culture, and other sorts of things I imagine more educated and affluent families converse about around the dinner table. — Erik

I think it's mostly about the culture that surrounds you. As I said, for me, nobody believed the state propaganda, but they pretended they do. And everyone knew this. So that culture is already subversive - this attitude was probably implanted in people by the viciousness of the secret police. So quite to the contrary of producing obedience, they produced disobedience. The US seems to have adopted the Brave New World model instead of the Big Brother one though. Give them mindless entertainment while we do the real business ;) .

Again, I would ask those committed to the idea that we've now moved into a 'post-truth' world: When exactly did we live in an age dedicated to truth?
— Erik

Mid-20th century, according to a Harvard Professor:

That's evidence-less support, and Harvard professors are often wrong. And the mid-20th century was full of lies from politicians and regular people. From top-down, politicians were making lies about communists in our midst that led to the horrendous Mccarthy hearings, there were lies about all the supposed terrible crimes by Blacks and Latinos, lies about the extreme dangers from comic books, and lies told to justify segregation and anti-Gay laws.

The notion of the nonpartisan, fair, and balanced media is really a kind of mid-20th century phenomenon

And this is erroneous, since the media, including the Walter Winchell's, backed all the above nonsense up.