Nah, "malevolent" rarely gets thrown out as a description for Trump, as opposed to Netanyahu or Putin, and you haven't even made an argument for him being malevolent, so even you're not sure.

Feel free to show what he's done that makes him malevolent any time.

there are none so blind as those who will not see

1. There is never just one problem; there are always many that are never neatly tied together.

This presupposes knowledge of all the problems. We do not have that. What we do have is a list of all the things that we think/believe are a problem.

I say that we start there.

2. A single problem can never be identified or reduced into full clarity as what that problem is and what exactly constitutes and contributes to that problem can never be fully discerned or agreed on.

If this is true then it is false. If this is false then it is true.

The liar all over again.

A factual statement:An overwhelming majority of US citizens think/believe that most and/or all politicians are dishonest.


p1. Citizens vote for politicians based upon their public narrative and/or others' about them.
p2. Politicians do not express their own thought/belief when giving a speech.
p3. Politicians do not necessarily write legislation.
p4. Politicians do not necessarily express their own thought/belief about legislation.
p5. Politicians have the ability to accrue very large sums of money by virtue of being a politician.
p6. Some of the folk writing legislation have clear-cut financial incentive to increase revenue of very wealthy people while knowingly causing quantifiable damage/harm to average citizens.
p7. When there are conflicts of financial interest between very wealthy and average citizens, any and all government officials who wield power over all citizens must always err on the side of the overwhelming majority(average citizens).


A factual statement:Since it is the case that a politician's narrative is being crafted by someone else, we cannot ensure that that narrative does not have very wealthy campaign contributors as it's source.

There does seem to be some strange compulsive schoolyard insult syndrome going on: "You're a troll and an idiot", "No, you're the only troll and idiot", "No, you are..." and so on. — Janus

That sort of thing.

A few day ago I tracked the sub-thread back to a throw-away comment; if there is something in Heidegger or Nietzsche that's relevant, let's have it out on the table in place of the pathetic posturing.

Define the problem — creativesoul

Can a post-truth society last?

Well, that's not what the OP was about; though that is the direction in which the thread has been driven.

The OP is about truth, lies and bullshit; and the stability of a social system based on bullshit.

↪Thanatos Sand there are none so blind as those who will not see

You just described yourself perfectly, and thanks for showing you can't show how Trump is "malevolent."

1. There is never just one problem; there are always many that are never neatly tied together.

This presupposes knowledge of all the problems. We do not have that. What we do have is a list of all the things that we think/believe are a problem.

I say that we start there.

No it doesn't. It shows knowledge of previous reality. To assume there is just one problem or many neatly tied together presupposes both knowledge of all problems and shows no knowledge of previous reality.

2. A single problem can never be identified or reduced into full clarity as what that problem is and what exactly constitutes and contributes to that problem can never be fully discerned or agreed on.

If this is true then it is false. If this is false then this is true.

The liar all over again.

Not only did your irrelevant quip not address my argument, it was nonsensical. We cannot have a discussion if you don't address what I wrote.

Janus
There does seem to be some strange compulsive schoolyard insult syndrome going on: "You're a troll and an idiot", "No, you're the only troll and idiot", "No, you are..." and so on.
— Janus

That sort of thing.

Not really, more like one person erroneously calling someone a troll because they can't counter their arguments and the accused correctly noting that behavior is itself trolling.

Can a post-truth society last?

Since we're not in a "Post-Truth" society, that cant' be the problem

I'm not playing.

And yet you just replied. And I wasn't "playing;" I was just responding to your erroneous comment.

But since this is a philosophy site, you might consider what would occur if we were in a post-truth society.

Or join me, in arguing that the very notion of a post-truth society is incoherent.

Thanatos Sand But since this is a philosophy site, you might consider what would occur if we were in a post-truth society. — Banno

The problem is neither you, nor anybody else, has been focusing on a "post-truth" society as a hypothetical, but as a present condition. You do that with your post here:

Define the problem
— creativesoul

Can a post-truth society last?

Or join me, in arguing that the very notion of a post-truth society is incoherent.

I've been doing this for a while. Others, particularly Creative, have been insisting its both coherent and descriptive of our present condition.

Creative is setting out the problems within the current society that is being called "post-truth", and he doesn't care what you call it...

I'm not impressed with your para-consistency. Where I'm from it's self-contradictory, and no amount of rhetorical drivel changes that.

Can a post-truth society last? — Banno

A hypocritical society that lasts isn't to be preferred over an honest one that disappears.

I have no reason whatsoever to think/believe that you're speaking sincerely Sand and every reason to conclude otherwise. I've no further interest in addressing you.

Creative is setting the problems within the current society that is being called "post-truth", and he doesn't care what you call it...

Except Creative is erroneously describing our present condition by either directly using the term "post-truth" or by erroneously saying we live in a world others call "Post-Truth."

I'm not impressed with your para-consistency.

I've been entirely consistent. I'm not impressed by your lack of consistency or your inability to effectively make an argument or counter others'

If it's incoherent, then how could it exist much less last?

I have no reason whatsoever to think/believe that you're speaking sincerely Sand and every reason to conclude otherwise.

Actually, you have every reason to believe I'm speaking sincerely since you haven' shown in any way that I haven't been doing so.

I've no further interest in addressing you

My favorite sentence of yours by far.

Dear god dude. Your inability to interface charitably with literally anyone on this forum who you, to just one tiny degree, disagree with, in one tiny possible way, is absolutely disgusting. I literally can't comprehend how this is possible, other than the possibility that you're just willingly trolling us all on purpose to prove some kind of point, in a theatrical way. The fact that you just insulted Wayfarer after he offered a word of wisdom, take it or leave it...is just too much. You don't even realize the depth of the wealth of wisdom that you just absconded; a wealth of wisdom that you, like anyone else here, could have benefited from so profoundly.

Treating others poorly makes some folk feel good about themselves.

It's true. It doesn't abscond any of us from calling out the bullshit.

Dear god dude. Your inability to interface charitably with literally anyone on this forum who you, to just one tiny degree, disagree with, in one tiny possible way, is absolutely disgusting. I literally can't comprehend how this is possible, other than the possibility that you're just willingly trolling us all on purpose to prove some kind of point, in a theatrical way. The fact that you just insulted Wayfarer after he offers a word of wisdom, take it or leave it...is just too much. You don't even realize the depth of the wealth of wisdom that you just absconded; a wealth of wisdom that you, like anyone else here, could have benefited from so profoundly.

Dear god, dude. You just made a bunch of personal attacks on me, and you didn't back up a single one. So, you're just sadly trolling with rage and vitriol. Since this is the second time you have done that to me, I will no longer read a single one of your posts.

And I'm the one who is actually calling out your bullshit, now.

Noble Dust

Treating others poorly makes some folk feel good about themselves.

Then you and Noble Dust must feel really (and undeservedly) good about yourselves...:)

What?

Astonishingly, I find it was I who introduce Nietzsche into this thread:

The post-truth era of Trump is just what Nietzsche predicted

Ages ago.

I interpreted Wayfarer's remark to Thantos to be a bit condescending. I say that as someone who likes Wayfarer as a generally thoughtful and kind poster whose positions (other than here) are often very congenial to my own.

I should also add that I had my own rather ugly spat with Thanatos a couple weeks ago after being absent here for a bit and not getting an immediate 'feel' for his style. I was accused of being a racist and cut off from further discussion in the thread, which prompted an ugly outburst from me.

But after bouncing around the forums and seeing a bunch of his posts, I noticed that he was very knowledgeable, and could even be very gracious towards his interlocutors.

I'm only adding to this gossip because I've seen a lot of posters here calling for his ban lately, under some idea that he's a troll.

That's clearly not the case, and I hope he doesn't get banned. I think the next go around I have with him--and I'm sure we won't always be in agreement like we are here--I'll have a frame of reference and won't get too upset if he decides to end the particular conversation.

In other words I won't take it as personally as I did last time but only as a practical means of ending a pointless going around in circles.

Just my opinion if any moderators happen to look into this issue. I understand where you guys are coming from but also think the forum benefits from his presence as a professional academic (I think)--even if he occasionally comes across as rude and dismissive.

But we should get back to the topic...