Yeah I think that's true. So I should probably not use the term "eschatological" here to avoid confusion, or I should at least qualify it in the way you outline.

There's no overcoming our finitude.

Well, I think Heidegger would actually agree with you to a certain extent, while Hegel obviously wouldn't. The former didn't think that trajectory represented any sort of linear development or progress at all, but rather a series of loosely connected dispensations of Being, actually culminating in its oblivion.

There's what seems to be an eschatological element to Heidegger, though, with a possible recovering of our essence through an awareness of its intimate link to Being. His philosophy endeavors to prepare us for that overcoming of alienation and resulting nihilism. But the cost of this is the giving up of the isolated and a-historical ego, which is somehow impervious to historical forces and desirous of eternalizing a particular understanding of things.

But what would this eternal Truth be? And how do we, as radically finite beings, ever attain an understanding of it? My guess is that whatever it is, it has a history; and one which, incidentally, may not diminish its significance in the way I'd imagine you think it would.

They're probably two of the greatest innovators IMO, and precisely because they were keenly aware of the (often) subtle ways in which historical forces shape the way we perceive and understand ourselves and our world.

They tried to make sense, each in his own unique way, of the trajectory of philosophy from the ancients to the (post)moderns, and the heavy influence these developments had on affairs well beyond philosophy's seemingly narrow confines.

Analytical philosophers, too, despite being less concerned with the original sources and later development of the tradition, are no less caught within a set of guiding assumptions (an understanding of Being--or the Being of beings--as Heidegger would say) that didn't just materialize one random day.

They clearly didn't create this understanding for themselves in isolation from broader social, historical, and linguistic forces.

It's an interesting discussion though.

I'd admit that Wittgenstein seemed much less read than, say, Heidegger or Nietzsche, concerning the main thinkers in the tradition.

Maybe his path was more intuitive than historical. He and Heidegger shared some surprisingly similar positions (e.g. primacy of engaged activity over detached theorizing), and likely reached these in much different ways.

But still, he wasn't entirely ignorant of the traditional "problems" and attempted solutions outlined by previous philosophical figures.

Well, I'd argue that an influence can be indirect, and can therefore go undetected and unacknowledged. So Witty is working off of Frege, Russell et al and they were clearly influenced by previous sources within the unfolding tradition of Western thought.

I'm also inclined to think Wittgenstein knew more ancient philosophy than he let on. I've heard this mentioned by some biographers. I think, moreover, its near impossible to be ensconced at a prestigious place like Cambridge and not become at least somewhat familiar with the basic standpoints of the major figures in Western philosophy, such as Plato and Aristotle.

But, as usual, I could be wrong.

But can you give a single example of someone who worked in complete independence from other thinkers, Agustino, and still made a significant contribution in any area of philosophy?

I think the creative appropriation of sources within the tradition (or even drawing on sources outside of that tradition) can allow one to see things from a different (new) perspective.

But convince me otherwise. I like to think I'm fairly open-minded.

Sorry, Heidegger wasn't an archiver, a mere collector of information. He engaged and interpreted great thinkers, and integrated those engagements and interpretations into his own original ideas, which is a mark of his originality and genius That is what most great thinkers do, since few come up with ideas solely their own. — Thanatos Sand

Yeah, seriously, that was a surprisingly dumb comment of Agustino's.

What would Kant be without Descartes, Hume, and others? What would Nietzsche be without Schopenhauer, Kant, the pre-Socratics...? What would Schopenhauer be without Plato, Kant....? What would Plato be without Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates...? What would Descartes be without the medieval theologians...? What would they be without Aristotle...? What would Aristotle be without Plato...? I'm leaving so many influences out for each of these.

This seems an interconnected tradition in which significant thinkers engage with their predecessors (and contemporaries) in order to make some "original" contribution. I'd imagine that takes a lot of skill and a tremendous amount of effort.

I've toyed with the idea that Nietzsche is a "religious" thinker of sorts who ultimately wants to destroy the entire edifice of modern civilization out of a desire to pave the way for something else; something much more profound, perhaps even something "spiritual" as long as that term is qualified in significant ways.

Something like: this world is holy; this world is divine; this world is worthy of awe and reverence; the (over)man as the highest creative force of this process is also divine. Anything which doesn't tend in this direction--be it Christianity, scientific rationalism, or whatever--must be annihilated.

So he wants to destroy only as a prerequisite for eventual (re)creation. Destroy all values, destroy all idols, and then see what happens? Likely mass chaos and destruction. Only then can a new world arise out of the ashes of the previous one. If this is the ultimate scenario he's aiming at, then he has to exaggerate certain things and push us over the edge into complete barbarism. Not that he advocates barbarism for its own sake, but this is what we need to experience before we can really see and appreciate what value those prior values really had. I recall him saying as much in certain places.

I just feel he's too thoughtful and sensitive a soul to sincerely advocate for some of the things he does. I'm not trying to make him out to be a democrat or "progressive" by today's standards, but I do feel that he clearly recognizes the trajectory of modernity, with its cheapening of human life, and the world more generally, and wants to see it crumble as quickly as possible, all the while recognizing that it could persist in its illusions, its hypocrisies, its subtle barbarity, and its overall absurdity in perpetuity under the dominance of the Last Men.

So, paradoxically, he wants a much more humane world than this current false and shallow one, and the only way to precipitate this eventual shift is to tear this one down at its foundations.

But this is just a hunch of mine. As I mentioned, he seems like such a great-souled man that it's hard for me to think he's genuine in his praise for some of the things he does praise.

I'll admit this is a largely unsupportable perspective going off his body of work. But, especially in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, I feel there are intimations of a truly exceptional human being who loves "man" so much that he needs to destroy him in order to save him. Or some such.

I'm tired.

Greetings Erik! — creativesoul

Hey there, creative!

Apologies for the late response. I tend to be a little flaky at times, and, to be quite honest, I just didn't feel like posting anything the last couple of days.

I did read your thoughtful response to my long-winded rant, and there's not much I actually disagree with in it.

Maybe I'm just not feeling really argumentative at the moment, but don't be surprised if I come back with a few minor clarifications sometime within the next week or so.

I do appreciate your efforts.

That's all quite relevant. But at the same time let's not kid ourselves. Heidegger ain't the kind of philosopher who will make you take out your sword and follow him >:O - the way Nietzsche or Kierkegaard could. Heidegger does reveal some useful matters, but he is not, in this regard, life altering. — Agustino

Having read both quite a bit over the years, I think I can say with confidence that you'll find something even more radical and life-altering in Heidegger's writings than can be found in Nietzsche.

I'll concede that Heidegger lacks Nietzsche's force of personality (who doesn't?)--he's like a Kant or Hegel in that he's much more comfortable in an academic setting than guys like Nietzsche and Wittgenstein ever were, and his style (at least in the earlier stuff) seems to reflect this German academic context--but he compensates for this with his ability to uncover the historical and philosophical foundations of many things that Nietzsche only seemed to grasp in an intuitive and emotional level. In this sense they actually compliment each other rather nicely, IMO.

But both aimed at a deep and fundamental shift at the core of our being--specifically in the way we conceive of ourselves, and therefore in the way we understand and relate to the world as well. Their respective projects each represent a significant departure from dominant self-understandings today (although Heidegger will place much of the blame for our predicament on Nietzsche!), so in that sense they're both revolutionary philosophers in much the same way that Plato, Descartes, Kant, Hegel and only a few others are, at least within the Western tradition.

Nietzsche's project, as I understand it, aims at a transformation from the mediocre last man into the creative and life-affirming overman. Heidegger works in an opposite direction: moving us from our current state of calculating, willful subjectivity--a development which has reduced the world to a collection of exploitable resources at our constant disposal--and into Dasein, as a (thrown) participant in Being's historical unfolding.

For Heidegger, we're not the masters of Being projecting meaning onto a chaotic and inherently meaningless void, but rather a receptive openness which, at least at it's highest possibility, acts as the "shepherd" or guardian of Being. In a somewhat paradoxical way, this de-centering of humanity gives our lives more meaning and significance than previous "humanistic" interpretations (be they religious or secular) have.

That's obviously a brief sketch. The "early" Heidegger seems heavily indebted to Nietzsche whereas the "later" Heidegger tries to purge himself of this influence and move beyond it. That aside, I'd suggest giving Heidegger's relatively brief and accessible Letter on Humanism a read if you'd like to get an idea of how truly radical his thinking is. Hannah Arendt felt it was his best work, and I'm inclined to agree with her. I think you'll find it extremely congenial to your own outlook and concerns (as I understand them) with our modern technological consumer civilization.

Finally, I'm not going to engage anyone on his philosophy who hasn't taken the time to actually read him. Without that common frame of reference it's honestly pointless. All of the above will likely elicit nothing but insults from those not familiar with his work. That's fine with me and I've learned to ignore these petty attacks. My friend, ciceronianus, is one of the few people who actually HAS read Heidegger around here who's able to offer up some relevant philosophical and ethical criticisms of his work without revealing his own ignorance.

Good stuff, Willow.

Being and Time is, in essence, a reading of Nietzsche and Hegel, and a reinterpretation of Husserl, through a Medieval theologian sensibility. — Thanatos Sand

One of the best one sentence summations of B&T I've ever seen.

For example Nietzsche's writings with regard to asceticism are pathetic. Asceticism is strength par excellence, not weakness. The ascetic is the man who can endure whatever it takes to achieve his goal - that's not a weak person. But the secret of the ascetic's endurance is precisely his renunciation of the world. That's why he is a master of fate, and not its slave. That's why he does not despair at setbacks. — Agustino

Yes I think this is at least partly true.

I see asceticism as being an inherently aristocratic endeavor, as is genuine Christianity as exemplified by Christ. You'd think he'd show a greater appreciation for these things than he did in his writings (although a grudging respect is given to Jesus).

At times Nietzsche seems to want us to be more like beasts of prey guided by our animal appetites.

But at other times I feel he has something much different in mind than that return to raw animal instincts. His Zarathustra intimates this IMO.

But perhaps we can discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of Nietzsche's thinking somewhere else?

Like start a new topic or something. :)

I'm not shying away from it, mind you, I just think it would be better had elsewhere.

But intellectual abstractions are operative in this world, aren't they? So even the otherworldy is ultimately thisworldy.

Life for us (human beings gifted with language) is almost always mediated through historical concepts, isn't it? The Being of beings is not a particular being, but the 'between' of subject and object which frames our understanding of the world and is subject to periodic shifts.

I'd also add that I'm not a Nietzschean by any stretch. I see some serious limitations in his thinking, including some pretty vulgar celebrations of things like cruelty and violence and slavery. Of course he'd consider such opinions on the matter to be shaped by Christianity's influence (even on secular culture), with its inherent hostility towards the supposedly hard truths of life as essentially will to power. That's probably at least partly true in my case.

But such criticisms from below are insulting to great thinkers like him. Instead of showing the limitations of Nietzsche's thinking it's more likely I'm only revealing my own.

He served as my initial impetus into philosophy, though, and will forever be important in my life in that regard. And I continue to go back to TSZ and Twilight of the Idols every few years. The dude knew how to light that fire deep in someone's soul, to get them to see the hollowness of modern bourgeoisie/commercial civilization, etc.

Nice Kierkegaard quotes by the way. He may have been a superior psychologist/philosopher compared to N. To repeat, I'm not an uncritical Nietzsche admirer. I think Heidegger was a vastly superior thinker in many ways, and he's been the primary intellectual influence for me in my journey thus far. But Nietzsche somehow got it going.

A concept or an idea is "otherworldly". — Agustino

What do you mean by otherwordly?

I want to make sure we have the same thing in mind before commenting.

Many of N. writings are quite the opposite of loving. N. often praises warriors and conquerors, and blood-thirsty men - certainly more often than he praises artists for example. I know some people have tried to disentangle his thoughts from this, but I've read his writings, and this is quite a hard job to do. — Agustino

What I had in mind was the occasional exuberance he expressed towards life in its entirety, even in its darker and more questionable aspects. A sort of Dionysian intoxication.

To accept--better: to embrace the fact--that the last man recurs eternally along with everything else was, if I recall correctly, one of his most difficult thoughts.

His dislike of Christianity, for instance, seems based upon his belief that it robs this world of its meaning and value by positing a 'better' world in the beyond. That's a fairly straightforward and uncontroversial position to take on his philosophy, I think.

So by lovingly I meant that emotional pull he felt to defend this world against its many slanderers.

But it's an elevated, almost superhuman perspective to adhere to. It's a bit like that of Heraclitus, who felt that to God all things are good and just, but men typically think some things just and others unjust.

As to the latter question, I believe he referred to it lovingly as Life--taken in a metaphysical sense as constant struggle, appropriation, excretion, etc. (Heraclitus' polemos with all in a state of constant flux). Will to power would be synonymous with Life IMO.

When I say metaphysical I don't mean something like an otherworldy Platonism, but rather as Heidegger understood it 'onto-theologically': as some concept or idea (typically God in past ages) which gathers together and grounds all particular phenomena at all times.

I'm not sure how to resolve the contradiction. Perhaps something akin to Wittgenstein's throwing away the ladder once one has climbed it? Or maybe rejecting his metaphysics altogether as just one more historically-conditioned manifestation of Being (Heidegger's position) which will ultimately give way to something else?

You can do that while still acknowledging his significance as (e.g.) a psychologist--of which he has interesting things to say about this topic of post-truth--and prescient critic of many aspects of modernity.

What do you have in mind, Agustino?

I've noted the seemingly self-refuting aspects of Nietzsche's thought.

He clearly felt his was not just one perspective among many possible ones, but that it was much more aligned with truth than others (e.g. Platonic, Christian, socialist, etc.).

This doesn't make much sense (to me) without anchoring it in some metaphysical notion of reality which is distorted by those (supposedly) illusory perspectives.

By the way...

I, for one, most certainly do not talk about 'a search for truth', although I can understand why some others do... — creativesoul

Fair enough. But how does one recognize truth if not to actively seek it out? It doesn't seem to just randomly fall into your lap. Seems an acknowledgement of one's ignorance along with a concomitant desire to actually know are both necessary. Not many people, I'd imagine, even make it this far.

I think about the conditions under which my beliefs and opinions have shifted over the years, and these always involved discovering a new set of facts which challenged my guiding presuppositions.

For instance, the idea that the US champions freedom and democracy at home and abroad (a belief I held for all of my youth) was undermined by certain actions that I became aware of only much later: things like overthrowing a democratically-elected regime in Iran and propping up a dictator more amenable to our business interests in its place, our supporting the Saudi royal family and giving China most-favored nation trading status, despite the undemocratic nature of the regimes and their horrible disregard of human rights.

The common denominator in these and similar actions appeared to be the expansion of financial interests for a select few, and had absolutely nothing to do with adhering to a set of principles like truth, justice and freedom.

So I held a belief which didn't match with 'reality.' At first I tried to resolve the cognitive dissonance through rationalizing away those actions which ran contrary to our professed principles by contextualizing them. Supporting brutal dictators was in some cases the lesser of two evils.

But the ultimate step after gaining more and more information concerning US politics--both foreign and domestic--was to finally accept the hard truth: while this nation's principles may be extremely admirable, they've clearly been used quite frequently as "noble lies" to maintain the illusions of cave dwellers like myself. And often to do the dirty work of supporting the 'elites' who benefit most from the situation.

My point in this long and tedious personal digression is twofold. First, to show that (in my case at least) arriving at the truth is a difficult process that involves both emotional and factual aspects. Facts were important, but not enough at the start. My emotional attachment to a particular conception of America was very strong and would not allow me to accept the significance of certain facts right away.

The second point of bringing it up, is to challenge (yet again!) the idea that Trump's use of lies are ultimately more malicious and more consequential than those which have been used by other American politicians since this nation's inception, and more generally throughout human history. I was close to joining the military precisely because I believed we represented great things. I would never have done so absent those illusions. The simplified narrative of American moral superiority many of us have been fed is not only wrong, but it's had far-reaching (often negative) consequences for others around the globe.

This issue is very personal, and I don't buy the notion that it's fine (or even more acceptable) to deceive someone as long as they think you're telling them the truth. That's an incredibly insulting standpoint, and especially corrosive of the foundations of a democracy in which an informed electorate is an essential component. So we can hate Trump while simultaneously acknowledging the history of lies this country's politicians have engaged in.

So we're not in a post-truth age politically because we've never been in one in which politicians (or the special interests they almost always represent) were genuinely devoted to truth. I'm going to bludgeon you all with this point over and over and over again if necessary! Trump is more bold in his lying and an even more horrible human being than most, but that doesn't exonerate his political forbears in the least.

Diatribe over.

I think Nietzsche at times comes close to this. Truths are simply lies that people believe in. Useful fictions.

So if we give up the idea of objective truth, then there's really no such thing as a lie? Therefore you can pretty much say whatever you want.

Not being facetious here but that sounds like a fairly sophisticated philosophical position to my feeble mind.

I think people falsely assume that Trump's supporters know he's lying but don't care, and the profusion of these uneducated, emotionally-driven supporters of his is what distinguishes this post-truth age (and the typical Trump supporter) from those that predated it.

I'd surmise that the average Trump supporter believes that he tells the truth on important issues (e.g. Deep State, corrupt mainstream media, etc) while finding the trivial ones either irrelevant or even humorous. That's my hunch as someone who's in intimate contact with many of them.

So do Trump's lies require truth, too?

There's a lot of dishonesty and insincerity in today's world and there most likely always has been. — creativesoul

I haven't followed many of your contributions here but I stand corrected. But 'most likely'? Really?

So then, in previous eras politicians did not lie?

But you've admitted that the previous era was not one of truth. So referring to this one as post-truth is misleading.

As I mentioned way back in the thread, the term post-truth should be given up for something which more accurately captures the distinction you're making.

Would you agree or disagree with that?

I feel like there is an important matter at stake here which I've come close to discerning at times, but then lose track of when Trump (and politics generally) is brought back as the focal point.

Or is there some moral hierarchy among types of liars, those who pretend to tell the truth being superior to those who make no such attempt?

I'm honestly trying to understand the position.

So lies are acceptable as long as they're presented as truths?

It's almost like some are suggesting that what separates this world from the previous one is that, while in the the previous one people did lie, cheat and steal, they at least had the deceny to mask these under the guise of truth. People these days make no such attempt and this is somehow worse.

It's as if the illusion of truth was a superior predicament to be in compared to one where there's no attempt to conceal lies. In a Dostoevskyesque way, if we give up the notion of objective truth then all lies are permitted. It's an interesting point, and maybe it makes a lot of sense in ways I'm too dense to recognize at the moment.

Strange argument though, IMO, although I'll admit it may not be what those making it had in mind.

Well then maybe this post truth world is paradoxically more honest in its dishonesty than the less overtly mendacious one that preceded it. Assuming of course that a shift has taken place, which I'm still suspicious about.

But I do appreciate your input, creative, and I think one thing to take away from this is that equally well-intentioned people can disagree about important matters (be they religious, political, or whatever)--and what could be more important than truth?--while both think they're engaged in a search for truth.

I find it interesting when folk praise and condemn "X" for being "X". The appraisals have the power of confirmation bias on their side, as do the condemnations... The actor finds no hypocrisy because they're mired in self-gratification. — creativesoul

Perhaps this is the essence of truth/post truth issue that's being discussed here. Even here on a philosophy message forum, with relatively knowledgeable and intelligent people who devote a good deal of their time to thinking these sorts of issues through, we're not immune to this tendency towards confirmation bias and hypocrisy.

Whether we're atheists or theists, political progressives or conservatives, advocates of postmodernism or its detractors, almost all of us (if not all) actively search out support for our positions while mostly ignoring or rationalizing away (e.g. with protestations that our opponents, unlike us, are guilty of confirmation bias and letting their emotions distort objective assessments) those those that don't.

So, yet again, this apparent general human tendency we're witnessing right here renders even more support to the notion that the truth/post truth divide has been exaggerated, especially as used within the context of political discourse.

I'm sure that all politicians stretch the truth and lie on occasions. But Trump is a congenital liar, of a completely different magnitude to anyone who has occupied the office of the President. He's in a league of his own. — Wayfarer

I'll gladly concede that Obama seems a far superior human being in almost every way relative to Donald Trump.

That acknowledgement doesn't change the wider point being made here, that even Obama seems to have used sly tactics on occasion to deceive the American public about the actions of our government.

If that is the case, then the truth/post truth divide ostensibly precipitated by Trump cannot withstand scrutiny simply on the basis of this idiot's eager willingness to sacrifice the truth in the service of his monstrous ego.

I don't see the significance of the point as related to larger issues. Both Thanatos and myself have been consistent in maintaining that we've never lived in world in which politicians particularly valued truth above other considerations. We brought up those example to challenge the supposed temporal break between truth and post-truth that you feel Trump represents.

There are several contributors here who represent an attitude that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the DNC, are the root of all evil in US politics, and possibly the world . They will sometimes grudgingly acknowledge that Trump is an embarrassment and a buffoon, on account of him being impossible to defend, but such an acknowledgement is always followed by an immediate...'but the real villain is...' It's not a hard pattern to spot. — Wayfarer

That seems a rather purposeful misrepresentation of our positions here, Wayfarer, which is especially ironic considering the topic under discussion.

I find Thanatos to be the most clear-headed and honest participant in this debate. He obviously doesn't like Trump the man, and I'd imagine (based upon his very progressive positions outlined in other threads) he likes his political agenda even less. Yet he hasn't let those considerations cloud his judgement here. That's actually a good indication of the sort of integrity we should all like to see from politicians and media pundits these days.

But let's circle back for a minute. Banno presented a topic that was intended to be about a growing cultural and political phenomena. The term post-truth was first articulated by scholars many years ago (about 30, I believe, from the linked articles I've read) and had absolutely nothing to do with Trump. Incidentally, Bill Clinton was implicated in it. Now Trump has obviously brought the matter to the forefront with his ridiculousness, but it transcends his particular case.

So we can talk about the topic at hand--whether or not we've entered into a post-truth world--or we can continue to fixate on Trump and avoid addressing the actual issue. Trump of course can be used as an example of this alleged new world, but the assumption that he personally set us on this path can only be answered honestly in the negative. If linking Trump to post-truth is the approach you're going to take, then it's equally fair for others to challenge that position by pointing out the many lies of his predecessors, as well as the consequences of those lies. One of the more significant consequences has been the growing distrust of government, which played a significant role in his presidential victory over Hillary. It also played a role in Bernie Sanders' popularity.

And if we're going to compare cases of presidential dishonesty, say, blatantly lying about a relative triviality like how many people attended your inauguration, or lying about Iraq's supposed WMD's and thus launching us into a bloody policy of regime change which has cost countless lives, then let's at least be honest and admit that an egotistical and opportunistic blowhard like Trump may be even less dangerous than other, more calculated and socially polished people who've held the office previously.

Just my thoughts.

"All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome."

Stumbled across this IMO relevant quote from Orwell, obviously predating the arrival of Trump and therefore spoken within what's supposed to have been the golden age of Truth.

This basic fact concerning human psychology has been exploited by politicians for a very long time, so again there doesn't seem anything radically new going on. It's a symbiotic relationship between a politician's proclivity to lie and the general population's tendency to believe those lies as long as their worldview is bolstered.

Maybe the profusion of media sources these days allow one to seek out any perspective they desire, specifically those which will validate rather than challenge their opinions. Those opinions in turn seem typically grounded in emotions rather than facts. Seems natural to seek out facts which reinforce our emotional biases and ignore, or diminish the significance of, those that don't. Is this new?

I also think many of us are more susceptible to this phenomena than we'd like to believe. Sure, it makes us feel good to fancy ourselves defenders of honesty and objectivity who have no strong political biases or assumptions, and who will follow the truth wherever it leads, regardless of whether or not it challenges our worldview. How many of us can honestly say that? I certainly can't say it.

I think Nietzsche made a good point (I forgot where) that honesty is rare even amongst the strongest, the bravest, the most genuine human beings. We must conceal many unflattering 'truths' about ourselves simply in order to cope effectively in this world. Why truth? Maybe illusions are more satisfying and life affirming.

Whatever the case, I still don't see this as a 'post-truth' world by way of contrast with a different, and more honest, one. As Banno mentioned, we're not just talking about Trump here (so pointing out his copious and ridiculous use of lies is not enough), but a more general trend in the direction of eschewing objective truth in favor of emotionally satisfying illusions which have little contact with, or regard for, a common 'reality.'

This process is apparently taking place in an intentional way, as something that both the manufacturers of bullshit and their consumers realize is not indicative of the truth of things. In other words, truth has become irrelevant and we can concoct any narrative we like as long as it validates our opinions and makes us feel good. That would be 'post-truth' IMO. Truth is no longer even valued or desired. That would separate this age from previous ones which valued truth even when deceiving, as paradoxical as that sounds.

I think I'm starting to get the gist of the issue, but I still think the term post-truth is extremely misleading and should therefore be replaced by something else, preferably something less likely to lead to the sort of confusions we're seeing here.

I continue to think that the average political partisan genuinely believes in the truth of their position(s); this goes for Trump voters who sincerely believe in things like the Deep State, and its ostensible desire to sabotage the Trump presidency by any means necessary. Playing devil's advocate: Is that idea totally ridiculous? Is the notion of an entrenched and corrupt 'establishment' designed to protect corporate global interests against any threats really so absurd?

Done rambling.

Spot on this entire thread IMO. (Y)

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

I think I'm one of the few people here who's extremely receptive to some of your seemingly reactionary social positions! >:)

I'd maybe disagree with you on this, though. Two 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.

It would only be a lie IMO if they knew beforehand they had no intention of upholding that commitment. 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.

That's not a matter of truth, as I understand it, but rather more of undervalued things like constancy and duty and commitment.

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.

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.