I tend to think of the toxic aspect of post-truth as being when people accept lies without questioning them for themselves. I see it as a very blurry concept, as a way of blurring truth and untruths. I am not seeing it as an era as itself and it is probably a device which is used by politicians mainly.

The era from which it probably stems from though is postmodernism and I do have a fair amount of sympathy for some of the postmodern writers, like Baudrillard and Derrida. I am not sure about Lacan because I have found his writings difficult to read. The reason why I find the postmodern writers and their perspectives, going back to those of Michael Foucalt, is the way in which they do question cultural assumptions.

The questioning of cultural assumptions is the doorway into cultural relativism. This is where it gets tricky and I do struggle here in relation to 'truth' and objective measures. This may be different to 'post-truth', although cultural relativism can be seen as giving allowance for there being no absolutes and the slippery slope to that of people making it up as they wish to. So, the question is where 'truth' lies in relation to objectivity and subjectivity. Of course, there are various angles here potentially, ranging from psychological truths, which are recognized as such, to self deception and the wish to deceive others, especially in matters of significance, especially aspects of political agendas.

I am sure that trendiness comes into the picture regarding what is regarded as deception. The critical thinking about ideologies may in themselves be a form of ideology. For example, postmodernism and its emphasis on deconstruction was about looking at ideologies but it could also be seen as a form of ideology in its attempts to break down those of past eras. In thinking about ideas, some are more 'trendy' in certain contexts. For example, when I was a student there was a certain amount of trendiness attached to the Marxist left. It may be important for people to be aware of fashions and 'glamour' attached to specific belief systems.

The idea of post-truth is so ambiguous because it can just be an excuse for the acceptance of falsity and dishonesty.

Change may be a critical factor and it seems likely that the worldview of the present time is so different from that which emphasised the -supernatural'. Some of the philosophies of the past, including Aquinas and Kant developed metaphysics which had some 'supernatural' assumptions, especially the belief in God.

During the past few centuries belief in God and the supernatural, probably starting from Hume and the development of science. In that context, values are more related to human concerns. The understanding of one's own values, based on reflection may be important in that context. It may involve recognizing what ones considers as that which matters, as well as the cultural factors which have shaped or influenced personal beliefs.

A paradigm shift in philosophy would be interesting because there doesn't seem to be much new developments beyond those of the twentieth century. Or, maybe there are, but I am not aware of them. The idea of post-truth may signify that explanations are not sufficient for meanings or happiness. It may be that there is a void created by the way in which philosophy, such as realism, doesn't open up the imagination enough. Fabrication may be connected to the mythic aspects of human nature and the need to create stories. For this reason, some may find philosophy a little dry, and look to the arts for personal meaning and aesthetic appreciation.

I read one essay by Noam Chomsky, 'The Responsibilty of Intellectuals', in which he argues that the 'experts' in various disciplines have an important responsibility for enabling knowledge in the pursuit of 'truth'. In this way, thinkers, including those in philosophy, may have an important, critical role in demystification, especially in the context of potential 'post-truth'.

In my own last response to Banno, I may not have paid enough attention to his focus on belief. It is likely that it is possible to focus on beliefs rather than actual truths. Nevertheless, there are varying amounts of solidity of beliefs. For example, if someone believes in heaven and hell that cannot be verified because it is not material whereas if someone believes that it is the twentieth first century it is based on written dates.

Nevertheless, beliefs may be all one has, often on the basis of certain degrees of reliability of information and evidence. Also, rather than trying to fill in the gaps with fabrications of 'truth' scepticism may be more truthful, in admitting what is not known with any certainty.

It seems like you appreciate the problem of 'post-truth'. It may not be about most aspects of daily experience but the underlying narratives in the background of life, especially political ones. For example, statistics can be used to blur and distort. With the pandemic it may not have been that there was a conspiracy going on but that prior to the vaccines the leaders were not sure what to do next, so there was a lot of bravado to cover up this uncertainty.

Iti s hard to know how much information is correct. For example, even in medicine a lot of research is funded by drug companies so is likely to represent the interests of those companies.

What you are giving is the basis of descriptions, which is probably why logic matters. I am not sure that is the same as 'truth' because it would be possible to formulate lies or 'post-truths' according to the rules of logic. For example, I can show you how a couple of bits of fake news which I read could be seen as being in compliance with the rules of logically possible truths.

One was that I read that the chain of shops, which was Woolworths, was going to be opening some stores again. That would make sense potentially as something which would be possible. Also, I read at some point during the pandemic that the sale of all alcohol was going to be stopped and the basis for this would be about essential and nonessential items. As there were restrictions on items which were not seen as essential it was possible logically. I went as far as telling my flatmates that the sale of alcohol would be stopping.

So, descriptive formulas are dependent on evidence in the first place. Some aspects are more verifiable than others. For example, the kettle is boiling can be observed by the steam, the kettle switching off and being hot to touch. In such situations it is sensory perception which is the basis for observations.

Such descriptions are dependent on observation according to a philosophy of realism. Part of the problem with some aspects of philosophy is that it goes into the area of abstraction, especially metaphysics, which may be why some people are extremely wary of it. Apart from the nature of abstract truths people rely on others' observation, especially in the media. When events on the other side of the world are described it depends on the accuracy and reliability of accounts. I am not saying that they are made up, but the focus or angle may have some distortions. For example, I know some Africans who say how the portrayal of Africa in the news presents a false picture because it shows the poorest villages. It is a matter of focus in framing of 'news', but what is omitted or excluded affects public opinion.

I don't understand how you see truth as being so simple because I see it as complicated in most instances. I am interested to know how you define truth, because it may be that we define it differently. My basic working definition would probably be that truth involves clear, reliable, trustworthy and certain established information or knowledge.

I am definitely not in favour of arguing that there is no such thing as 'truth' at all but it is simply not straightforward. I am not sure if the distinction between 'truth' and absolute 'truth' is particularly helpful as it may make truth too commonplace.
If truth was simple there would probably be no need for philosophy because everyone would agree.

The biggest areas of disagreement about truth may be related to religion and politics. These are idea based but such perspectives do come into the way in which events and 'facts' are interpreted. Even in history, it is about looking at different sources. I am not wishing to say that there is no truth at all, but it may involve putting together different fragments. It is sometimes like a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces, making the picture incomplete. This even corresponds with the role of the participant observer in an experiment, which involves subjectivity in the process of understanding.

Uncertainty exists in relation to 'established truth', but that truth is not absolute even if people think that it is. For example, many people framed understanding in relation to the Newtonian- Cartesian model and quantum physics brought a paradigm shift which affected science so much. Of course, paradigm shifts are rare and whether there will ever be another is unknown.

Most shifts are about small ones and the issues around Covid_19 are based on general understanding of immunology. Personally, I had the vaccine but I know many who didn't because they were afraid of the risks. I also remember when I was working in mental health nursing, having a flu jab was recommended but so many people chose not to, based on fear.

Fear is generated through lack of certainty, and even questioning of authorised knowledge occurs a lot, including medicine as a whole, as well as political leaders. There is a lot of uncertainty and it may be due to an overload of information, especially on the internet. People can go to extremes of believing almost anything on the internet, or to the other of not trusting expert sources.

The varying degrees of depth of knowledge and ideas, ranging from science, academic sources to the more informal ideas of the media. In some ways, human beings, with the insights of science, and being able to access so much information from the past have so much to access for finding 'truth' in the clearest possible way. Nevertheless, sifting through this, can be an arduous task and it may need philosophers to facilitate putting it all together in the attempt to avoid so much confusion. Apart from post-truth which may be deliberate twisting of ideas and knowledge, the task may be to give more clarity of 'truth' in the aftermath of postmodernism and the way it opened up cultural relativism.

It is hard to know the reality of Amazons and other aspects of mythic fables, including the idea of a matriarchy preceding a patriarchy. There are statues of goddesses, but it is difficult to know what this represents historically. Ideas about gods and gender are diverse, with the Hindus having some androgynous deities.

In Christianity, there is a mixed picture because the Virgin mother is presented as a female role model against a background of Christianity and its patriarchal elements. The Virgin Mary may be contrasted with Mary Magdalene, who some have seen as Jesus's wife based on aspects of Gnostic writings.

In some countries, there has been infanticide of female infants. The current reproductive technology has the power to choose the sex of the child being conceived. Perhaps, at some point biological men will be able to give birth. The story of the 'pregnant man', and there may have been a number of these caused a lot of sensation. However, it was different from a biological man giving birth because it involved a biological female having taken male hormones but still having female internal organs and fertility. Nevertheless, unless the person was trans I am not sure that many men would wish to give birth.

I am definitely all in favour of the search for 'truth' and see it as one of the purposes of philosophy. There is a danger if one gives up looking for truth. Probably, the most one can do is recognised that we all have 'blindspots' and be try to be aware of one's own subjective biases and values, through reflective thinking.

The way in which perceptions are subjective, involving biases, is what makes 'truth' unclear. I remember working and their being critical incidents. When various people present spoke or wrote reports there were so many variations in details and the specific sequences of events. When accounts differ there can be incidents of people trying to conceal aspects for their own benefit. However, some of it may be due to the way people process events. It may be such perception is based on internal narrative construction in the translation of experience into memories.

The ideas of Chomsky are relevant. I have a book of selected writings by him on my shelf. So, thanks for referring to him, because I hadn't made the link. So, I will have a look at his will have a look at his writings later today and see if there is anything relevant which I can find to add to this thread.

The 'Pandemos' is an interesting read and the question of 'truth' was an area of concern amidst the pandemic, as there was so much conspiracy theories. The facts were being ignored when some people were believing the conspiracies.

It is against a background of 'uncertainty' that such confusion about 'truth' often emerges. In the pandemic, it was about dealing with a previously unknown virus and both medical professionals were struggling to understand. Even now, there are still some uncertainties, when people are having long term health problems which are being seen as post-Covid. I read an article on my phone a couple of weeks ago, saying that there is some uncertainty about whether such problems are caused by the virus itself or the vaccine. I really don't know if there is any 'truth' for this, or the details of the evidence.

I get so many news items, some of which are controversial, showing up on my phone, which is probably why I wonder about the idea of 'post-truth', especially with the internet. One long disputed 'truth' is whether Princess Diana's death was simply a car crash or an assassination. Some other deaths of prominent figures have a certain amount of speculation, but a lot may be speculation. However, speculation may give rise to rumours and 'Chinese whispers' may generate a babble of post-truth.

I guess that the concept of 'post-truth' is 'bullshit'. It may be about gossip and outright lies. Some newspapers contain accounts which are probably false or biased forms of persuasion. I can remember being advised at one point by a college tutor to read various ones for this reason. Also, I remember in sociology that there was an emphasis on how the mass media represent the ideas of the elite who own the media companies, and how stories are put forward in order to sell the papers as 'the manufacture of news'.

I know that you believe in logic but to what extent is that the only basis for 'truth'? I am not dismissing logic and rationality, and I am not a complete relativist. But, logic may not give the full picture, because it leaves out the imagination and the realm of meanings.

The belief that some ideas are ultimately correct is one's point of view and establishing it universally is another matter entirely. Of course, there is consensus, which is the intersubjective aspect. This may lead to the empirical aspects, which give rise to realism. Alternatively, there are systems of rational thinking, such as a priori.

With these varying epistemological approaches there are ways of coming to explanations. Nevertheless, motivations for why people believe what they believe are significant, and it may be impossible for any to approach truth in complete objective neutrality. That is because each person comes from a subjective perspective based on sentience, emotions and life experiences.

Your post gave me a chance to clarify my own understanding of truth. I read Baggini's book several months ago and found it significant. However, I didn't bring into the thread on Pontius Pilate's question, 'What is truth?', because it is all about logical propositions and logic. I am inclined to think that Pilate's question about truth was not about logical propositions at all, but about various perspectives and biases in the process of perception.

I am not sure that 'post-truth' or 'truth' is simply a matter of logic and descriptive propositions. That was the approach of Bertrand Russell, which was influential in the analytic philosophy of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, it is only one perspective in the understanding of the meaning of 'truth'.

I would say that values are based on what matters and how meaningful is constructed. It may be partly based on fantasy, as some underlying mythic construct of reality. However, unless one lives in a soliptist reality it is related to tangible knowledge and epistemology. However, truth may be a rather imprecise idea because it can encompass understanding of explanations and culturally constructed and personal meanings. In many ways, it is a vague term, but, in spite of it, the concept of truth may be important for trying to formulate any philosophy, as the 'ultimate' perspective, or way of seeing. The understanding of 'post-truth' may arise in connection with the plurality of angles and perspectives.

As far as I can see, Jonathan Sacks doesn't come with a clear definition of the principle of truth. However, in my own reading, : the understanding of the meaning of the idea of 'truth' has been explored more fully in Julian Baggini's, 'A Short History of Truth: Consolations for a Post-Truth World' (2017). In this work, Baggini considers the various perspectives on the meaning of the concept of truth, including logical, esoteric, relative and moral truths'. This suggests how many aspire to the idea of understanding truth, but it has different angles and meanings, rather than being a straightforward principle.

The whole interplay between gender and racism in power is important as well as the way in which stereotypes impact on life. This involves the concept of otherness. One essay on this is 'The Other Question: Stereotype, discrimination and the discourse of colonialism. He speaks of power in discourse, saying how it involves
'articulation of difference_ racial and sexual. Such an articulation becomes crucial if it is held that the body is always simultaneously (if conflictually) inscribed in both the economy of discourse, dominanation and power.'

I am just also writing in response to your mention of thinking about gender in relation to race. It does seem that sexual inequality and racial inequality may have coexisted. It involves biological differences being used as a basis for subordination. During the last century there were major shifts in questioning racism and sexism. In particular, feminism identified the existence of a patriarchy in history.

Thinking about the nature of biological differences and the political aspects of this has been an important area. It has led to people querying gender essentialism. It is likely that in the aftermath of postmodernism, there are still a lot of questions, especially the interplay of biology, culture and politics. Mainstream religion, especially fundamentalism was an important dynamic force. In the twentieth first century, it may be that there is a void of uncertainty, especially in the 'post-truth' world.

It does seem that the nature of gender has been exaggerated so much culturally. Of course, in animal kingdoms there is sexual performance, so some may be due to the instinctual or biological patterns of nature. However, the sociology of gender has been important in pointing to the cultural aspects. In particular, the postmodernist deconstruction of gender was extremely important in the development of critical theory about gender and its dynamics.

I definitely agree that the hormonal explanations for gender are more important than ideas about reincarnation, which are purely speculative. There is also the possibility of neuroscience leading to new findings. One important area is trying to establish whether or not it is true that gender dysphoric individuals have physical differences here, possibly related to hormones in brain development before birth, and even afterwards.

There is also a lot that is not understood about the genetics of gender. One aspect is how gender differentiation, which was previously thought to be due to the sex chromosomes is not that simple. One gene which has been identified as extremely important is Foxl2. Apparently, this switches on or off certain processes in sexual differentiation.

The nature of sex chromosomes is an important area, although, mostly, sometimes people may exaggerate the importance of chromosomes. Most people have never had chromosome tests. Recently, I read that it has come to light that more men have chromosome disorders than previously thought. This includes XXY of Klinefelter's Syndrome and XYY. The nature of XYY chromosomes is of significance because it was found to be more prominent and associated with those who had committed crimes.

The gender of the 'mind' is an interesting area. It partly goes back to the debate about physicalism and the question of the wiring of the brain and whether there is any difference in brains. Also, how much is nurture and the nature of identity. My own thinking is that the nature of identity is influenced by many variables. This also includes embodiment and the experience of living in a specific body, and to what extent one feels content with the self which one projects in life.

The phrase sometimes used by gender dysphoric people, 'trapped in the wrong body' is an existential experience and seems to signify a form of dualism. It is like to be like a ghost in a machine, or a soul. At school, I can remember one history teacher saying that at one point in Christianity, there was a belief that women didn't have souls. Nowadays, the idea of a soul is not that prominent at all, and is replaced with the self, which is even open to dispute if it is taken to mean an actual entity.

One area of thought, however, is how the mind is seen if one believes in reincarnation. That is because even if conscious identity is not remembered clearly the previous life experiences may leave some traces of memory. I have come across a number of people, who don't identify as transgender but believe that they had lives in the opposite gender to the one in this life and feel affected by that belief. If there is any truth in the idea of reincarnation, it is likely that various lives would be in each gender, with an underlying development towards spiritual androgyny.

The issue of puberty blockers presents a big challenge to people seeking them and those caring for them. The issue has been given a lot of coverage in the English news by one individual, Kiera Bell. Kiera took puberty blockers and transitioned as a teenager, regretting it at age 21. She has now gone back to trying to live as female but has had treatment, including some surgery, some of which are irreversible. She maintains that she didn't have the capacity to consent due to adolescence being a time of emotional difficulty. She won her case in court. She says that she was not given enough psychological support when making decisions.

The case above has had major repercussions for the thinking about puberty blockers and age of transition. However, some people are determined that they wish to have puberty blockers in particular because it enables a much smoother transition, as it pprevents the need to have treatment to reverse the effects of puberty.

It is questionable which people are in control, as having the 'tools for self-definition'? Is it the ones who conform happily to stereotypes or those who are gender dysphoric? It is a difficult area to think about, involving nature, nurture and free choice. There may also be dangers in overgeneralisations because each person's life experiences is unique.

It does seem to me that hypersexualisation is an aspect of Western culture. The context of this may be important in understanding why people develop transgender identities. This may be a useful area for thinking about, rather than simply viewing gender dysphoria as in terms of individual psychology.

I am inclined to think that a lot of the psychological differences between men and women are culturally significant more than anything else. Simone De Beauvoir argued that women are not made but become women. The sociologist, Ann Oakley, developed this in her analysis of the nurture aspect of gender development. Of course, there is still the critical role, which hormones have on the brain, and possibly some biological significance of the chromosomes too.

Your query about why do men have nipples is that all people have rudimentary aspects of the opposite sex. Not only do men have nipples but some have noticeable breast development, just as some women have facial hair. Many spend money on cosmetic procedures to reduce aspects of physical attributes of the opposite gender. Every foetus starts off as the same, before sexual differentiation takes place. In childhood, apart from primary sex characteristics, boys and girls look fairly similar until puberty.

I am still logged on, so I am wondering about nudity and masculinity and femininity. There are codes of dress and performance based on attire, and some exaggeration of gender differences. I wonder how this relates to the the concept of the naked self.To what extent does gender go back to biological aspects and cultural ones, and how are they blended in cultural and personal life?

I am about to go to bed, because it is after 1.30 am. However, I don't know about the Golden Record of Voyager 11, so I would appreciate you elaborating, especially its significance for gender, and I will read and follow it up tomorrow.

Gender definitely begins with reproduction. There is the question as to where, or how far this goes, in relation to 'what one is'. The search for identity may be far wider, but, nevertheless, most people have a basic gender identity independently. Some of the cultural aspects may be exaggerated.
.
For example, sometimes when I am just looking to buy a birthday card there seem to be divisions. When I was a child I can remember going to a birthday party of a girl who I knew and, buying a birthday card and present for her. Her mother complained that I had given a boy's card. I had simply chosen the card which I thought was the nicest one. In all aspects of life, gender is a codified form of expression and communication, which seems to operate independently of the basis of human reproduction.

Ideas of the 'perfect' male and female may leave many feeling lacking. I am not sure about your claim about whether 'very few straight men are actually men and very few straight women are actually women'. It is probably connected to transgender, although I am not convinced that the majority of people in magazines and movies are trans.

However, it may be that those who have found masculinity and femininity through conscious choice may have looked at its presentation and performance with greater precision. However, rather than simply being an area for trans people and gender deviant, it can be asked, more universally, what does it mean to be a man or woman?

I find it interesting that other species, other than humans, have gender as a form of performance. It does give rise to the essentialism of gender, as a biological imperative in nature.

I would argue that it is a complex interplay of biology and meaning. Authenticity of identity is about social meanings and interpretations. How one perceives biology and its significance may be important, as well as pragmatic concerns, as human beings exist in social structures and groups. However, the tension between biology and sociological aspects may exist, especially in relation to the understanding of biology in regard to sexuality, gender and social roles.

There is biology as a starting point and the societal factors come into play in the dynamics of social life. Ideas about gender and sexuality come into this. There may be contradictions and, also, values, which may even have a part to play in developing goals, and expectations. Also, the ideas of the differences between men and women may play a significant part, in goals and choices in personal life.

If the meaning of my thread question is unclear, I would add that I am trying to explore the ideas around essentialism, relating to gender and sexuality. I am also interested in social constructions and values and how these come into play in human interaction and relationships. How does masculinity and femininity come into this, especially in relation to personal identity?

To what extent are men and women different, or what it means to be a man or woman and how this question is explored introspectively? On the other hand, some may see men and women as being so different, so I am raising this as an area of debate, especially in relation to the role and understanding of biology in this. I am asking about the biological aspects of difference but also about the subjective meaning of this in personal and social life. What are the dynamics?

Some may take the view that it is absurd to think about turning all possibilities into dreams. What may be important is how different are men and women in the first place? The physical differences are such that physical changes, while not always one hundred per cent as completely as desired, are able to make looking like the opposite sex possible. You might try to change yourself into a butterfly and even, with the best science, you may come up against impossible obstacles.