There comes a time when knowing what truth is, how it emerges onto the world stage, and it's role becomes paramount to effectively removing a societal cancer. And yet, very very few have the aforementioned knowledge...


Post truth...

Not knowing what exactly "Truth" means does not mean we're in a Post-Truth world. In fact, that means we've never lived in a "Truth" world, so we can't be living in a "Post-Truth world.

Sorry, no Post-Truth.

Non-sequitur. Try again.

Sorry, not even close to a non-sequitur, and you haven't shown it was. Try Again.

You done yet?

You clearly are...;)

Thanks for showing you couldnt' show my post was a non-sequitur

Is that a yes?

Sigh...

Semantics are for rookies.

And you sure proved that, Rook.

Nothing you've said applies to what you were purportedly reporting upon, and nothing you've written shows otherwise.

No, that's you.

Everything I've said applies to what I was reporting on, and you haven't shown otherwise.

Try and actually make your point by addressing my arguments. You've been scared to do so so far.

It's my concern that you write stuff based on stuff that I do not write.

And you fail to back up your erroneous concern. Ge back to me when you actually address my arguments. Otherwise, I'll let you flail in your silliness.

Meant to write...

It's not my concern that you write stuff based on stuff that I do not write.

If you do not acknowledge the depth of that issue, there's not much more I can do to help you.

See my last post on that. It's clear now I can't do anything to help you.

Goodbye, Creative.

Can you formulate a valid objection?

I'm telling you that nothing you've said is based upon the meaning of the words in the quote box. Those words were expressed by me.

You want proof of that?

So, throughout history the term "truth" has been used in a few prominent and starkly different ways. This has caused much confusion and all sorts of contentiousness regarding proper usage. The Church used it in such a way as to almost claim ownership. Blah, blah, blah...

As result of the centuries long contentious debate over what truth actually was, there were some folk who were fed up with the seemingly useless task, so they began setting out how to talk and think about things without using the term...

Those ways of talking became more and more common...

So, the popularity of talking about things while avoiding using the term "truth" grew exponentially and along with it grew greater misunderstanding than ever. Eventually we arrive at saying things such as "Your truth", "my truth", "his truth", "her truth"...

That is to conflate belief and truth.

Give it years... decades come and go...

Then....

There comes a time when knowing what truth is, how it emerges onto the world stage, and it's role becomes paramount to effectively removing a societal cancer. And yet, very very few have the aforementioned knowledge...

And perhaps the greatest irony I've ever known...

Post-truth.

As result of the centuries long contentious debate over what truth actually was, there were some folk who were fed up with the seemingly useless task, so they began setting out how to talk and think about things without using the term...

Those ways of talking became more and more common...

Post-truth.

As I said before, some folk doesn't mean all folk or even most folk.

No Post-Truth.

The claim "No post-truth" doesn't follow from "Some folk doesn't mean all folk, or even most folk".

That is a non-sequitur.

I've never claimed that a post truth world requires all folk to share the same misunderstanding. So, your talk about "all folk" and "most folk" is off target.

That's a non-sequitur.

Are you objecting to the rise of pragmatism?

Post truth...

The ethical impact is clear...

Are the ends good for the overwhelming majority, and if not what needs to be done in order to correct the situation?

The problem with putting the idea of getting things done at the top of the list is that it's not good enough on it's face. Not just any thing. We must get the right sorts of things done. The things that are good for the overwhelming majority.

The claim "No post-truth" doesn't follow from "Some folk doesn't mean all folk, or even most folk".

That is a non-sequitur.

Of course it does, since if only some/a minority of the people are not using the term "Truth,' it's not a Post-Truth word.

So, the only non-sequitur was your response above.

I've never claimed that a post truth world requires all folk to share the same misunderstanding. So, your talk about "all folk" and "most folk" is off target.

What you claim about "all folk" is irrelevant since it would have to be at least "most folk", and it's not in your hypotheses, for it to be a Post-Truth world. So, my talk was on-target; your erroneous criticism of it is not.

Are you objecting to the rise of pragmatism?

Now that's you second non-sequitur since I said nothing about Pragmatism.

The ethical impact is clear...

Are the ends good for the overwhelming majority?

This is another huge non-sequitur. It doesn't establish a Post-Truth world at all...just like the rest of your erroneous arguments.

Post truth...

It doesn't exist, and you have failed mightily in your attempts to show it does.

There are obviously two different senses of the term "post-truth" at work here. Yours and mine. I'm neither denying nor affirming the coherency of your usage. Nor need I.

You - on the other hand - are not granting an others' terms.

One cannot validly object to another's claims by virtue of using a different sense of a key term.

That is exactly what you've been doing.

Now...

Can you formulate a valid objection?

I said nothing about Pragmatism.

Someone looking for proof?

Interesting that Sand should admit that.

I was.

There are obviously two different senses of the term "post-truth" at work here. Yours and mine. I'm neither denying nor affirming the coherency of your usage. Nor need I.

No, I've shown that your explanation for our world being a Post-Truth one does not show we live in a Post-world one. So, I've shown your usage is erroneous, illogical, and only semi-coherent. We can do that in debates.

You - on the other hand - are not granting an others' terms.

I'm not required to do so.

One cannot validly object to another's claims by virtue of using a different sense of a key term.

I didn't do that; I showed how your term made no sense.

Now...

Can you formulate a valid objection?

I already have in my many arguments on this current thread/discussion,.

Can you actually address those arguments for once?