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..
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.
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.
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.
Post truth world...
That has never not been the case.
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
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.
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
“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/
>:) Say one thing and do another, isn't that what we expect of one another?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
>:OWhat 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
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.I'm sure they did the same to us, vilifying the evil capitalists and the Great Satan. — 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.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
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 ;) .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
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:
The notion of the nonpartisan, fair, and balanced media is really a kind of mid-20th century phenomenon
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.