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. — Agustino
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. — Thanatos Sand
I don't think the term "post-truth" refers to falsity. As explained here, "Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored.
Post-truth differs from traditional contesting and falsifying of truth by rendering it of 'secondary' importance."
There are quite a few actually, but support for me is not very vocal let's say.I think I'm one of the few people here who's extremely receptive to some of your seemingly reactionary social positions! >:) — Erik
It's good that you added the "I'd imagine" bit :PTwo people typically say they will love each other until death with the genuine intention to follow it through, I'd imagine, but eventually new circumstances in the relationship change their level of commitment. — Erik
But I do think it does characterise most relationships. Most relationships are formed on the basis of mutual advantage, or enlightened egoism, and not on the basis of love. They stay together because, for example, they'd feel lonely otherwise. Or they stay together because they need to satisfy their sexual desires and lust. Or they stay together because they're seen better socially speaking if they have a partner. And so forth.That's possible in some cases (e.g. a marriage entered into by one party strictly to get the other's money) but I'm not so cynical to think it characterizes most relationships. — Erik
Thank you! I do appreciate your posts too!I do see and appreciate how you find these myriad things--many cultural rather than overtly political--to be related to the topic at hand. I'll give you that. — Erik
A quick glance at the historical records shows that truth and the role that it plays in everything ever thought/believed, spoken, and/or written has been largely misunderstood and/or de-valued. — creativesoul
I think you really believe there is some widespread breakdown in comprehension of the concept of truth.
Strange. I don't see that. Trump was a demagogue, taking advantage of a democracy the way his kind have been known to do for thousands of years. — Mongrel
On the one hand, there is overwhelming evidence that institutions are less trusted now than they were several generations ago. A chunk of that is down to Vietnam. But then there's the stuff Chris Hayes writes about in Twilight of the Elites. (Essential reading!)
That doesn't mean people no longer believe in truth, but they're no longer sure where to find it. — Srap Tasmaner
And you can pile onto this the saturation of our culture with media, the loss of distinction between fiction and non-fiction in a gazillion ways, and I think, yeah, there's a real problem here. — Srap Tasmaner
On the one hand, there is overwhelming evidence that institutions are less trusted now than they were several generations ago. A chunk of that is down to Vietnam. But then there's the stuff Chris Hayes writes about in Twilight of the Elites. (Essential reading!)
Then there's Trump. I remember hearing a bit on NPR where a Trump supporter in coal country said he didn't think Trump would or could actually bring back coal jobs, but it was just nice that he was saying something. Showed that he cared.
Okay, so the "literal" truth of what he said was not even an issue. Trump was in essence "virtue signaling."
And you can pile onto this the saturation of our culture with media, the loss of distinction between fiction and non-fiction in a gazillion ways, and I think, yeah, there's a real problem here.
Is the one who has deceived not only the other person but also themselves not infinitely worse off than the one who has merely deceived the other? ;)There's a difference between being a fool who has, or at least feels and believes (even if delusively) that he or she has good intentions, and a devious one who lies cynically and exploitatively merely to serve their own ends and/or advantage.
So, there is a vast difference between the lover who says I will love you forever, and then finds that they had been under the illusions of a romantic dream that did not work out as they expected, and the person who says cunningly "I love you" in order to deceive another into allowing themselves to be exploited. — John
The one who deceives only the other person is more self-aware than the other one.What do you mean by "better off"? — John
Is being unaware of something the same as being innocent? :POne is innocent and the other guilty. Which is, of course, not to claim that all self-deception is innocent. ;) — John
The one who deceives only the other person is more self-aware than the other one. — Agustino
Is being unaware of something the same as being innocent? — Agustino
Without self-awareness one doesn't even have the chance of stopping oneself from committing evil. Self-awareness is presupposed in becoming good.What real advantage is self-awareness if it leads one to use it for evil ends? — John
I think it's rather a question of making yourself consciously unaware of something.since self-deception is possible only insofar as one is (consciously, at least) unaware that one is deceiving oneself, no? — John
Yes I am, hurry press on the breaks!! >:OYou are not driving towards a conclusion that there is no valid distinction between innocence and ignorance, are you? — John
Without self-awareness one doesn't even have the chance of stopping oneself from committing evil. Self-awareness is presupposed in becoming good. — Agustino
I think it's rather a question of making yourself consciously unaware of something. — Agustino
Innocence is not even thinking or having the impulse to do something evil — Agustino
Because Trump believes he is innocent,... he therefore does not think he is at any legal risk for a coverup. In his mind, they said, there is nothing to conceal.
The 'Russia Collusion' story - it has now been documented that Trump Jnr and other senior campaign officials met with Russian agents in the hope that they would obtain material damaging to Trump's adversary. This is what 'collusion' means, and it is now beyond doubt that this occurred.
Nevertheless, up until the actual email trail was leaked a couple of weeks ago, both Trumps denied that such a meeting ever took place; in other words, they lied about it. Now that it is impossible to lie about it, they're trying to downplay it, saying that the meeting was 'only' about the issue of adoption of Russian infants. Another lie! Covering up lies with lies. But what is really disturbing, is that the fact of these lies, and the initial fact of actual collusion, are no source of shame for Trump, apparently. According to today's reports:
But then, this was quoted in the context of Trump interfering with Jnr's prepared statement about the 'Russia meeting'. So more confusion - even though there's nothing to hide, Trump acts like he is trying to hide something. I suppose there is no telling the truth to those who deceive themselves.
There are so many big issues that Trump clearly doesn't grasp. And he doesn't have any idea that these are things he doesn't know. It's like when he promises to 'fix the healthcare system', and then the GOP tries (and fails) to pass a bill which will in effect abolish healthcare for tens of millions of people. Trump himself doesn't understand what they're trying to do, or what his position on it is. He simply waves his arms around, and says 'Obamacare is a disaster', without any understanding of what it means. Even his assistants acknowledge that he doesn't understand healthcare.
That's where 'post truth' originated. And still, 80% of 'republicans' think Trump is doing great. They, like him, can't distinguish fact from fiction, or truth from wishful thinking.
A late answer, MongrelI think a lot of folks here have turned this into an analysis of the President of the United States. The OP explained he didn't mean to focus on that, but rather on this "post-truth" world some are experiencing.
If I falsified documentation on my job, I would be in danger of losing my job and my license (permanently). Honesty is taken very seriously where I work. On a larger scale honesty is important because hospital fraud will likely result in withdrawal of Medicare funding. No hospital in America can survive without Medicare.
So how is it where you live? Is there tolerance of fraud?
↪ssu How about Finland? Is honesty important in the Finnish society? — Mongrel
You have a point in that this isn't anything new.We're not in a post-truth world. Rather, it's always been that way(insert your choice of assertions/objections/reasons). We've always been in such a world, and it doesn't make much sense to call it 'post' truth. — creativesoul
Yet other nations aren't built on the same foundations. The Russian Empire, especially in it's last form as being the Soviet Union, didn't cherish something like the truth and everybody knew it. And hence in the end there wasn't nobody that believed in it.There were(and still are) people who realize the crucial role that trust and truth play in the success and sustainability of a nation like the US. Some of those people were once in government, some of those people still are, and the effects/affects of their input helped craft legislation that once assured the success of the majority. If that were not the case, anti-trust laws would not have ever existed. — creativesoul
I wrote:
A quick glance at the historical records shows that truth and the role that it plays in everything ever thought/believed, spoken, and/or written has been largely misunderstood and/or de-valued.
You replied:
That's a lot of confused people. Are you sure you're not the tuba player complaining that the band is going the wrong way?
It doesn't follow from the fact that many and/or most politicians misrepresent their own thought/belief that truth doesn't matter or that we live in a 'non-truth world'. If everyone lied, truth would still be operative in this world. Without truth there can be no such thing as a lie.
If one doesn't understand that, they do not understand the role that truth plays in all thought/belief. A collective misunderstanding results in a nation of people not knowing the difference between lying, making a true statement, and/or stating a falsehood. In a nation that has a majority of it's people who place absolute trust - unshakable certainty - in the truthfulness of demonstrable falsehoods, you'll find an inherently compromised collective mindset.
Those people wouldn't know a post-truth world if they lived in one.
It is quite simply not the case that every politician throughout American history has been the same with regard to lying, and the reasons for doing so. There were(and still are) people who realize the crucial role that trust and truth play in the success and sustainability of a nation like the US. Some of those people were once in government, some of those people still are, and the effects/affects of their input helped craft legislation that once assured the success of the majority. If that were not the case, anti-trust laws would not have ever existed.
Yet a lot in our "post-truth" times comes also from disinformation and the new ways that propaganda has developed from the old ways of the 19th and 20th Centuries when there were Limited number of media outlets and ways to get information.
First thing is to get people to be distrustful of what you earlier could trust, basically argument of "mainstream media being fake news". Then have them believe the "alternate media", which has the "real facts" hidden otherwise from the masses.
Telling the truth...
On your view, what is the criterion which when satisfied counts as telling the truth?
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.