I think the notion of "post-truth" is a bit misleading; it's more a case of post-honesty, of promoting beliefs which have little or no justification, or of just plain lying in order to sway or deceive others to serve an agenda. — Janus

I think this is an important strand of the problem. Vested interest groups have always lied to gain advantage. But when I think about this post-honesty/post truth issue I find myself wondering more and more about the average person and what they believe and why. Is the accuracy of reporting a criterion of value anymore? Is evidence important? Does something have to comport with actuality in order to be believable? For a lot of people the answer seems to be no. Are people more credulous now than they were in the mid or early 20th century? Is there some other factor going on in relation to what people will believe?

Which system do you believe ‘pierces the veil’ better in understanding the mystery of the purpose of living for a 20th Century human? — David S

My own judgment is that there is no ultimate reality or mystery to solve, or purpose to find, nor any thought system that will work or appeal to all. I'm for making things up as I go, and happy to steal the odd idea from wherever if it looks like that idea can help. Personally I avoid systems, for we are already encrusted with all kinds of conceptual detritus and schemas just through socialization and enculturation. For me the journey is more about learning to ditch bad habits and unhelpful thinking.

Nice. Good example. In a funny kind of way the die hard supporters of political parties or candidates have never much seemed to concern themselves with the truth of claims made by their representatives. And politics trades on perception and personal judgements - so a significant aspect of it has always been 'beyond truth'. Where it gets particularly uncomfortable for me is where we might have a viable constituency which believes something untrue (let's say The Protocols to the Elders of Zion) and is ripe to be coopted into a political force by a predatory candidate.

I don't really follow politics - can you give me an example of post-truth being used? No one brags about being post-truth do they? I thought it was just one of those (media) commentary terms to describe a politician who will do whatever, or say whatever it takes to maintain traction with supporters. I googled the history of the term from the 1990's but got distracted. I am interested more in the point of demarcation between where beliefs split from the different and dumb (but within the normal parameters), to the extravagantly loopy (like shape shifting lizard people).

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'. — Jack Cummins

Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent. Kind of old news, right?

But there is a difference between news which supports an elite or skews accounts in various ways and disseminating views that America is under threat from shape shifting lizard people and pederast conspiracies.

Ok. Interesting. I think the issue of us being bombarded by information useless and helpful is another problem. I’m fairly certain most people just ignore most of it. I know I do.

Then in your second paragraph you claim that people are not interested in truth. Are you trying to make a distinction between their perception of their commitment to truth and what they actually do? — Joshs

Indeed. What I'm suggesting is that people hold ideas as certain without any attempt to assess if the ideas or models they hold are true. Seems to me that the truth often matters very little to those who hold The Truth.

Is the assertion that those who hold onto racist and misogynist views are simply ‘factually incorrect’ itself a circular argument? — Joshs

I would argue that their ideas are harmful to other people, which is a judgment call on my part, and I am comfortable with the contradictions or inadequacies inherent in holding this view.

I am intending this to be more about the meaning of truth and how this comes into play in values. Some may see truth as a matter of logic and, to what extent is it about the principles of rationality or about human meaning and the framing of understanding? it is in this context which I raise the question of 'post- truth' and its significance, in relation to the idea of 'truth'. How do you understand the concept of 'post-truth" itself? — Jack Cummins

I don't think this subject has much to do with truth as such. It's about a distrust of mainstream truth, not the notion of truth per say. Trump voters, for instance, are very certain about truth.

But I don't think truth has ever been especially popular with people. People tend to follow the dominant narratives and prejudices of their culture or subculture. Certainly those who follow religions (for instance) have rarely been concerned with examining the truth of their beliefs. These are unquestioned and inherited models of reality. Nor have racists or misogynists been much concerned with the truth of their worldview and values either.

One of the concerns today is there seems to be too many competing truths to build stable shared agreement about how society should function. We have almost lost common values and have become atomised and riddled with internecine conflicts. In trying to determine how to manage an economy, deal with poverty, provide education and negotiate geopolitical, issues this is a dangerous space. But perhaps we never had shared values, perhaps we just had dominant mainstream, held strong by fear of difference and fear of consequences.

Perhaps this situation was inevitable, since the post-Enlightenment questioning, skeptical spirit was bound to keep peeling the layers of the onion away only to find at some point that there were no layers left.

Perhaps it's not excessive thinking (do you mean rumination?) that is the problem. It is inadequate thinking. Do you have specific evidence that justifies the claims that 1) there is too much thinking and that 2) it is causing us harm in some way?

I would agree that good thinking can be simple and efficient and need not take up prodigious amounts of time.

Not all addictions are bad, such as addiction to life, truth seeking, fighting injustice, altruism. — universeness

I think the question here is what is an addiction? As someone who works in the area, one of the views of addiction generally holds that an addiction is when your behaviour interferes with your ability to live a smooth, integrated life and causes harmful distortions (health, family disfunction, relationships, etc). Is truth seeking or altruism ever an addiction? Perhaps when in pursuing these you come unstuck in other ways. I certainly know of social justice advocates who neglect their own families to the point where a child has suicided from lack of attention and care from a parent who was always too busy 'helping others'. I also know of people who are obsessed with 'fighting injustice' but are utter bastards to other people.

The chaotic home life of some professional activists I have met are as dysfunctional as that of anyone with a substance addiction. I sometimes wonder if people throw themselves into causes because they struggle to make sense of relationships at a personal or intimate level. I also wonder if some people pursue philosophy and speculative work because they find it difficult to manage their personal life with actual human beings. For some perhaps taking refuge behind ideas and abstractions may be not much different than taking refuge in the bottle.

The 'indicators' of gender (clothes, accoutrements, tastes ) are available to all regardless of biological sex and often seem to me to be performance based. I generally avoid people who (to my taste) put too much time into their appearances, whether they present as male or female, mainly because in my experience it seems to be a harbinger of narcissistic tenancies (but not always). I guess this is a personal prejudice of mine.

So really what is a man and what is a woman? Everyone seems to just have their own subjective definition of these terms, and there's really no definite answer. — Susu

I think many or most subjects end up being like this - elusive. What does it mean to be strong? What is reality? What is the purpose of living? I can't think of many subjects that don't end up in the zone of contradictions and confusions, so why should gender be any different?

Thanks for taking the trouble to describe this in more detail. I'll mull over it.

The monolith to me always represented either the human unconscious (our full capacity unrealized) or a silent harbinger from an alien source which seeks to guide humans at key moments. I think it adds to the movie's enigmatical status to not quite grasp the monolith's purpose - it becomes a portent of the numinous.

Also, it is not in allowing others the right to speak; it is in understanding their speech on their terms, treating it as expressions of their interests, as possibilities of a human life. — Antony Nickles

Can you provide an example of this in action in one of the purported democracies?

Are we born with a certain set of morals or an inbuilt moral code or does this need to be learned, taught by experience? — David S

Human morality is all over the place. We seem to have evolved towards empathy and, as a social species, it's to our advantage to cooperate. But on specific issues like killing, theft, infanticide, lying, sexual behaviours, marriage, role of men and women, whatever it may be, we vary greatly between cultures, and often within a single religion or culture. Religions have dominated this discussion for so long that many people are hard wired to consider morality as immutable even when religious morality itself is based on the subjective preferences of believers. For my money, humans create morality to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve our preferred forms of order.

Back in the days of Walkman, people lamented that walking around listening to music on earphones was anti-social. They were cutting themselves off from everyone else. (Well, yes. I find earphones and MP3 players to be salvation on public transit.) — Bitter Crank

You've triggered me now! I've never used a walkman or listened to music on a device/phone. It can seem antisocial however it is often a mercy that people are preoccupied and listening to their music instead of talking or interacting. I just bought a car which has electronic everything. I hate it. I really should have bought a good 20 year-old car with none of the tech nonsense. I don't need to make calls in my car or use a camera to park it, nor do I need a screen to help me navigate. I just don't get the point of these banal features and they seem to have become compulsory. Another aspect of technology which I personally resent is that it is often imposed upon us. I can see how this might breed resentment and a desire to push back. :angry:

I'd also have preferred the OP would have referenced the Amish as an example of the intentional ludite as opposed to Ted Kaczynski. It's not necessary that every radical be malevolent. — Hanover

Nice.

OK. Fair enough. Though dismissive of word-pounding Philosophers. — Gnomon

Not dismissive. Just charmed and sometimes exasperated by our attempts to wrest control by non-stop talking and writing.

Because if I cease to exist at death, then all the people I’ve known and loved who have passed have also ceased to exist, a sad thought indeed. A thought that leads to questions about the meaning and purpose of life itself. — Art48

Gore Vidal once quipped, 'When I die, I take all of you with me.'

I don't see how meaning or purpose of life are diminished if this is the only life we have and death is the end. It might even be argued that on this basis life could be more precious to us. I don't value my car any less knowing it will be a heap of broken, rusty steel in 25 years. I don't value a lovely spring day any less knowing it will presently be over. I don't value a great evening with friends knowing it will be end in a few hours. I don't value life any less knowing it is finite.

When I ask questions it’s often to discover what others think and why. I may already have a tentative ‘answer’ and may be personally satisfied, despite the perceived tone. I come here mainly to see how people manage ideas and perhaps augment my own views along the way. I have an interest in philosophy while science doesn’t much interest me. I don't think there is a correct approach to philosophy or subjects that don't count.

Are the posters on this forum just talking cartoon animals? Or, is there a good reason for speculating beyond the limits of the senses? Are we on this forum just pounding words, for no better reason than a quick snack? — Gnomon

I think we are just pounding words, and testing ideas we are cartoon animals and searchers for truth.

Technology as a symbol of evil and its role in the total destruction of our world is a fairly appealing narrative. And Back to Eden solutions have long been popular. Technology seems to magnify all that is terrible about humans - from pesticides to nuclear bombs, chemical weapons to plastic bags and climate change. It can be argued that technology has robbed the world of its charm, displaced people of their jobs and suggested an apocalyptic future for us that is even more horrifying than religious end times. We don't need a theorised position to understand this.

Indeed and the speculative constructions and reinventions can go on forever. But why?

What do you see as the advantage of Tillich's use of what Heidegger called the ontological difference, the difference between Being and beings, the claim that God is the non-existent ground of what exists? Perhaps "God" is an attempt to ground what needs no ground. — Fooloso4

You tell me - I don't claim to understand it. To argue, as Tillich and Hart seem to do, that God is being itself but not a being leads us where? For me the notion that God is not personal but 'the ground of all being' is where you end up when the mainstream 'fairytale' no longer has traction. Is this a retreat into a type of symbolic mysticism, or is it a more sophisticated, existentialist construction of old ideas? For Tillich, when one tries to argue that god exists, you are denying him - I think that's the quote. I come to atheism as someone who has no sensus divinitatis (with apologies to Calvin). Arguments like this are fun but often seem to be like a pissing competition to redeem the idea of god by embracing greater and greater abstractions.

What do you make of Bentley Hart?

I’d say addressing the shallow end is worthwhile, especially because such people vote. — Art48

Well put and I agree. But perhaps here on a philosophy site it's a little rudimentary.

But it cannot lead to reformation or revolution. It will not work for a soldier, who must be prepared at times to put his own health and life at risk, and it will not work for a campaigner for social change. It will not end homelessness, nor will it defeat fascism. — unenlightened

Obviously.

:pray:

I grew up in the Australian Baptist tradition, which does not have a centralized system of dogma or authority, so individual churches varied. Some were evangelical. Some people in our group took the NT as literally true, but it was often seen as metaphor. The focus was on ethical teachings but there was also some contemplation of transcendence and mysticism. It's 40 years ago, so the memory is hazy.

Morally I must help him but the risk to me is very high. If I lose my housing I am unlikely to get back into housing because we have a housing crisis and I have subsidized housing and can not even afford one bedroom without help paying rent. — Athena

I work in the areas of mental health and substance misuse and many people I have worked with have had intellectual disabilities, cognitive impairments, brain injuries, mental ill health, histories of trauma and associated complex behaviors. Homelessness is common amongst this client group and I spent most of the 1990's working with rough sleepers in our rather large city.

There's one principle I follow which may be considered harsh and it focuses on personal boundaries. I am unlikely to put my own life, my health or my housing at risk. If I lose my stability, I am of no use in any other way and recovery may be impossible. I have watched several people come unstuck in their attempt to be of assistance to others.

I think it’s natural to doubt the stories are genuine stories about God. I’d say it’s natural to see them as ancient fables. Of course, I might be wrong. Maybe they are genuine, but then who provoked King David? Was it Satan or Yahweh? I once heard a Christian answer, “Both!” So, both Satan and Yahweh worked together to interfere with King David’s free will so that David would order a census? And then Yahweh had an angel kill 50,000 Hebrews to punish David for doing a census? Anything is possible, I suppose. But another explanation is that there just isn’t any room in the God mold for the story. So, devise an explanation, believable or not. Offer it and then quickly change the subject. — Art48

Humans create narratives to explain the world. Some of these stories are less persuasive than others. Today the Judeo-Christian god story isn't one of our more convincing tales, especially if one takes a literalist view. A literal account of Yahweh points to this deity as a grubby Mafia-style boss who uses intimidation, slavery and mass-murder to maintain control. If true, this is a god to boycott. This view is hardly an original position.

But many Christians see the Bible as a vast completion of allegories. I grew up in that tradition and we were taught that the stories of the Old Testament were myths - stories designed for teaching larger truths. Truths I might add I happily ignored as superfluous to requirements. There's a reason many Christians ignore the OT and focus on the ethical teachings of JC.

Overall I think to pillory the Bible for being taken as some kind of positivist text is too easy and for atheists, highlighting the absurdity of fundamentalist's beliefs and interpretations is also undemanding work. This is the shallow end of the pool. There is much more sophisticated theology by people like Paul Tillich or David Bentley Hart one could consider.

I hear you. The fact is, I care about all those questions but they still 'don't matter' in practical terms, as far as I can tell. I'm not saying I want to change anything but I find it interesting that a transformative idea - like truth or the nature of reality - may not actually transform how I conduct myself. But maybe this is a digression from the OP.

Nice. :up:

I keep coming back to the question how would a given idea (in philosophy) change how I live? I have noticed (and this is a bit dull) that questions like idealism versus physicalism, the problem of induction, theories of truth, etc, make no discernable difference to who I vote for, who I choose in a partner, getting a job, buying a house, picking a career or selecting friends, choosing the shopping and working out what to do next. We already have a schema we are operating in and only some kind of ontological disruption (a crisis) might reset those values. Or perhaps an experience of sudden enlightenment. Which I guess leads us to the familiar cave of Plato's.

whether the offspring of a young man's thought is a false phantom or is something imbued with life and truth.

There seems to be an innate tendency for people to divide the world into categories of truths and untruths, into viable pathways or roads to nowhere. :gasp:

As someone who doesn't really understand philosophy - what does that quote really mean? I also have little idea what is meant by wisdom. In the colloquial sense wisdom seems to mean good judgement. I don't think I have ever met someone who is 'wise' except perhaps in small increments regarding a given matter or two. When we point to another and say 'they are wise' are we not reporting about our own values, recognizing something of ourselves rather than the nature of the other? In other words, can those without wisdom identify the wise?

Stop offending me for god's sake, cause no kid knows if Ellen is a gay or not..... but they can really get confused with a picture of Ellen looking like a boy and dressing like a man. — Eros1982

I don't think any of this matters. People will choose the role model they want or none at all - and I am inclined to think that many people don't really have role models - it's quite an old fashioned, conservative notion this one. And as for confusion... confusion is often the first step towards learning and growing.

I think seeing trans people and gay people and people who look different for whatever reason just enriches all of our views of human diversity. And there will never be a shortage of women in dresses and 'girly girls' along with 'macho males'. These are visual clichés we are unlikely to lose. There's a smorgasbord of types and styles out there for us to celebrate. Much better than having a limited range of self-expression masquerading as 'natural'.

Should we call Danes supremacists just because some of them think it very special to be a Dane? — Eros1982

There is nothing like a Dane
Nothing in the world
There is nothing you can name
That is anything like a Dane.

I don't follow climate change debates. I am simply admiring the succinct and adroit manner of @Xtrix response.

I suggest you do a little more research rather than come here and make silly claims about the sun's influence on climate change. — Xtrix

Goodness, that was an impressive response. :clap:

The somewhat mawkish Neighbours theme was written by songwriters Jacky Trent and Tony Hatch. They actually wrote one of Scott Walker's greatest songs, Joanna. Oddly enough I was listening to it last night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUSmO1ttMvY

I recall on a thread before someone saying they don't feel comfortable calling themselves a philosopher. — Yohan

I certainly don't call myself a philosopher. It's not a question of 'feeling comfortable' it's a question of accurate reporting. I am here because I am interested to see what I may have missed by not paying much attention to philosophy throughout my life. In my opinion a person is not likely to be a philosopher unless they are doing some original thinking steeped in a deep understanding of key philosophical texts or matters.

Instead of "philosopher" I call myself

freethinker (offline) &

dialectical rodeo clown (online). — 180 Proof

I love this.

There’s a difference between aspiring to have certain qualities and aspiring to be like another person. It’s the latter that I find problematic. — Michael

I'm sure many would agree. But aspiring to have the virtuous qualities of certain others is a well known path too. Hence gurus and religious leaders like Gandhi. I think the problem is determining what moral goodness is and what 'venerating it' involves. But this belongs elsewhere.

Perhaps but isn't venerating moral goodness also problematic? :razz: