What is the Idea of 'Post-truth' and its Philosophical Significance?
I have thinking about this while reading Jonathan Sacks' book, 'Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times', (2020). Sacks explores the nature of values, speaking of 'cultural climate changes'.He looks at fragmentation, and he has a chapter on the concept of post-truth, which is about the way in which there is so much fabrication in the knowledge and information, especially within the media and internet communication, even the concept and generation of 'fake news'.
He points to the way in which truth was based on the concept of trust and the significance of the principle of 'truth'. He argues,
'... for most of the history of the West there has been a countervailing principle, derived from religion on the one hand, philosophy on the other, that valued truth as an end in itself. It must not be bent, distorted, disguised or compromised for the sake of other ends'.
He also argues that,
'What has happened in recent years is that the shrinking of the moral arena from 'We' to 'I' has converged with the new technologies of communication to a damaging effect. What was once a public respect for truth has been replaced by the noise of the social media...'He also introduces the postmodernist perspective and its querying of objective meaning. This is what makes the concept of 'truth' in itself questionable.
So, to what extent can truth be explained logically, or empirically, or in terms of values and, to what extent does the idea of 'post-truth capture fragmentation in philosophical understanding? There are threads which explore the logical aspects of truth, but 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?
He points to the way in which truth was based on the concept of trust and the significance of the principle of 'truth'. He argues,
'... for most of the history of the West there has been a countervailing principle, derived from religion on the one hand, philosophy on the other, that valued truth as an end in itself. It must not be bent, distorted, disguised or compromised for the sake of other ends'.
He also argues that,
'What has happened in recent years is that the shrinking of the moral arena from 'We' to 'I' has converged with the new technologies of communication to a damaging effect. What was once a public respect for truth has been replaced by the noise of the social media...'He also introduces the postmodernist perspective and its querying of objective meaning. This is what makes the concept of 'truth' in itself questionable.
So, to what extent can truth be explained logically, or empirically, or in terms of values and, to what extent does the idea of 'post-truth capture fragmentation in philosophical understanding? There are threads which explore the logical aspects of truth, but 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?
Comments (153)
Does he say what the principle of truth is? Wouldnt its significance depend on that?
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.
Presumably, our values are what "drive" us - that is, what supply the motive power to what we actually do do in the world. I'd assume that there is a correlation between the awareness of the correspondence of one's values with something true, and the motive force there derived. To the extent that our values are based in fantasy, it'd be unlikely that we would actualize them. Truth really is the only pragmatic option.
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.
Ok; thanks.
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'.
But whatever is the truth, you only get as close to it as "believing this true."
So how can you ever be confident in the motivation behind your own beliefs?
More fucking relativist rubbish. It's true you wrote that, it's true you are reading this. Truth isn't private. But when folk mistake truth for mere belief, they open themselves up to post-truth and all the political errors that ensue.
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.
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.
Politicians exploit a longing for truth. If everyone was a postmodern philosopher, people like Trump would be screwed because everyone would start with the assumption that he's peddling myths of former greatness now gone down the toilet because we're stupid.
As it is, the people love the drama of being 'in the know' in a world of deluded followers of mainstream news.
Thats fine. We often do assert, or claim to know, what is true....or not true, or undeterminable, but only one of those, mind you.....and our own perspectives and biases do influence those assertions or claims. Thing is, our various perspectives and biases are not contained in our perceptions, which only informs us there is something to which an assignment of a truth value, is possible.
On the other hand, youd be correct to say the verification, or, the proof, for the truth values we assign, is through the process of perception. But this presupposes a truth value to which the proof relates, therefore cannot be the reason for the assignment, nor the methodology by which it is determined. You cant verify something that isnt there to be verified.
How big can a can aworms get anyway, right?
Our perceptions are in themselves perspectival biases.
whatever perception we have of the world is shaped by our efforts to organize and integrate all of the dimensions of our experience into a coherent whole. How we go about this will be dictated by the level
of our education, by our expectations, and by our desires, and so the vision we have will always be as much a reflection of ourselves and our prejudices as it is a discovery of how things really are.( John Russon)
So, does Russon mean to say that recognizing perspective as a necessary element is not a rejection of a shared reality?
Which writing did the quote come from?
Its from Human Experience
Philosophy, Neurosis,
and the Elements of Everyday Life
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.
Your second paragraph seems to contradict your first. You start by appearing to argue that people believe that they are very much committed to the truth ( like Trump supporters) , and in service of their notion of truth they proceed to embrace some positions and reject others.
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?
Thats the funny thing about truth. Theres not much left of it once we clear away bias and perspective, except a circular argument that truth is what is factually correct. Is the assertion that those who hold onto racist and misogynist views are simply factually incorrect itself a circular argument?
I understand this to be the psychological consensus. If such is the case, we are at a loss as to which to blame for our mistakes, our perception because they are biased, or our judgements because they are irrational. We have enough trouble with ourselves, without Ma Nature making it all the more troublesome.
I would agree with your quote, if it had said, Whatever understanding we have of the world....., as this is certainly influenced by our subjective inclinations as well as our reason.
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.
Quoting 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.
Broadly speaking, a value which satisfies a variable of a self-consistent function is a truth (Dewey-Quine?) Narrowly, a truth is also a public fiction without which a species cannot survive or a community cannot function (Nietzsche?)
For me it indicates ... wtf ... "alternative facts" (i.e. H. Frankfurt's bullshit).
:up: :100:
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'.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Keep in mind that uncertainty only exists against a background of truth. We only know there are novel viruses because we know there are viruses. Medical professionals are actively looking for problems with the vaccine, and for long-term health issue from the virus, against a background of knowledge of our immune systems. That background knowledge is constantly growing.
Post truth would have us disbelieve what we know in order to render us malleable.
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.
Arrkh, forget about "absolute" truth. It's a nonsense expression. You responded to my post, so you understood it, you now it was in English, you know it was a response to your post, you know it was set against the background of call-and-answer that constitutes the forums, that it made reference to current affairs... and so on and so forth. Overwhelmingly, we agree as to what is the case. Supposing the need for an absolute truth adds nothing, gets you no further, indeed, blocks your path.
Plain old truth will suffice.
Jack, some people are what we in the trade call wrong.
Claiming that there no such thing as truth, or that truth is relative to someone's perspective, fumbles the issue rather than addressing it.
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.
Yes; and it is simple; and there isn't any need for philosophy, in so far as working out what is true and what isn't.
Disagreement in politics and religion isn't so much about what is the case, as about what folk choose to be the case. It's direction of fit, again. We disagree as to what we want. Framing that disagreement in terms of truth is... problematic. If philosophy has a role here, it might be in sorting such things out.
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.
That's just the point; one cannot define a simple.
Consider, first, are you asking if it is your, or my, definition of "truth" that is true? As if we might step outside of those definitions in such a discussion...
Notice the special place of truth? We can't get away form it in order to analyses it. It is presupposed by analysis.
Then consider the good old T-sentence; "The kettle is boiling" will be true only if the kettle is boiling. IT says so little, and yet what it does say is right. If a properly formed T-sentence has, on the right, the meaning of the sentence mentioned on the left, then it cannot be wrong.
Notice the special place of meaning here? We can't make sense of truth unless we also make sense of meaning.
Consider also, the difference between asking what truth is and asking which sentences are true. The kettle is boiling only if "The kettle is boiling" is true, and yet that doesn't tell us if the kettle is boiling, nor help us to make tea.
I suggest that you don't need a definition of truth, and that any that might be proffered, beyond the T-sentence, would lead us astray - there will be situations in which it doesn't fit.
It's not truth that is complicated, but deciding which sentences are true and which false. And that is as it should be, since what makes a sentence true or false depends intimately on the meaning of the sentence, and hence varies from one to another.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Well, if a sentence is certain or known, it is true, so those aspects already assume truth. And a sentence can be clear, reliable and from a trusted source and yet false, so they don't help, either. Perhaps you would be better thinking of what you have said here as a definition of what you ought believe, rather than of truth.
Epimenedes was himself Cretan.
If everybody's lyin', there are, intriguingly, no truths i.e. we're livin' in a world of lies. Given this simple truth, a paradox that deserves further study, we must recalibrate ourselves to value things other than verum (truth). This is, in my humble opinion, what post-truth is all about. What those "things other than verum (truth)" are is anybody's guess. From having no choice (but to believe truths), we now have a choice (to believe any number of falsehoods that we wish).
This is an interesting topic, but @Banno's right here with
Quoting Banno
The idea of 'Post Truth' is not really about truth at all, it's about belief. The people using the term (and rhetorical devices it describes) want us to do something, and for that they merely need to change our beliefs, not the whole concept of truth.
As a rhetorical device (or collection of devices really), the idea is to throw shade on the methods we used to rely on to decide what to believe, particularly in those cases where we are not ourselves sufficiently knowledgeable to decide empirically. But the aim is still to get us to believe that something is 'true' (or not 'true') and as such requires the same definition of truth as before.
The matter of trust is interesting, but unrelated to truth as a concept. It's related more to those methods. What we're seeing in the 'Post Truth' world is nothing more than politicians and campaign leaders attempting to co-opt the same credentials experts used to have for the entitlement to have their views taken seriously in public discourse aimed at establishing what we ought to to believe. To do this trick, they have to undermine the public trust in expertise (since raising themselves to that level is not an option). I think it's this process of undermining trust in expertise that Sachs is referring to, but that's about criteria for inclusion in the debate, not so much about Truth itself.
No, indeed. I understand 'Post Truth' to be a group term describing a set of rhetorical tools which all make use of the same basic theme - that of eliminating the criteria which previously barred entry into serious debate, that of expertise. The aim being to remove what might previously have been a leash on certain political ideas being taken forward.
Climate change is a good example. Where previously we might have had discussions about the best way to combat it, 'post truth' rhetorical tools allow politicians to pursue policies which don't even address it because they've opened the door to their voter's own lay opinions being included in the debate.
Of course, no one refers to such a trick directly, the term is used pejoratively by political opponents (who, in my experience, use exactly the same trick to their own ends - what smart politician is going to turn down such a powerful weapon).
Yes, I think something like that can happen these days in a way that would not have been possible 20 or 30 years ago. It's very worrying. We see a sweeping increase in populism and a rise in far-right politics such as we've seen in Sweden recently. Removing that leash was dangerous, but there seems to be little incentive to return it now.
Part of the problem (as I see it) is the bipartisan use of these tools. No one wants to put the leash back on. The moment we return to using qualification as a criteria for inclusion the right are going to weaken their positions on environmental issues, gun control (in America), welfare...; the left are going to lose ground on identity politics, public health, globalisation... Both sides use these tools to good effect and neither are willing to let them go, consequences go hang!
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.
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.
[quote=Hobbes, Leviathan]And as to the faculties of the mind I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. That which may perhaps make such equality incredible is but a vain conceit of one's own wisdom, which almost all men think they have in a greater degree than any vulgar person. But this proves that men are in that point equal, rather than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of anything than that every man is contented with his share.[/quote]
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.
Given modern shifts - as in over the past few centuries - and the seeming acceleration of these shifts due to technological advances and greater integration/clashes, we are jumping from one huge cultural revolution to the next within a generation rather than within several generations this has destabilised many peoples views of what is or is not true because where tradition and cultural values tended to pull each other along back and forth over time (like the skis of someone traversing a flat surface) we are now witnesses each ski going off down its own slope. What seemed like two united parts are now having to be reimagined and we are stuck with two monopole entities and frantically trying to create two new complete poles to compensate for the disorientating effects.
What you might be able to see here is that the item that needs to be addressed is change. Change is the monopole that shadows both so some kind of paradigm shift needs to be imagined in order to create a better sense of stability.
How can Change be two different items? I do not pretend to know. I can say that tradition and cultural values are certainly pieces of the puzzle. Accepting that they are two completely different things will be the first step.
The common, perhaps it could be said universal, understanding of truth is simply "accordance with actuality". That's the basic idea, but of course in practice it's not always and everywhere so easy to see just what is and is not in accordance with actuality.
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.
It's trendy for every generation to define lying and deception in politics again. Hopefully from a new angle.
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?
Quoting Tom Storm
These are interesting questions. My initial thought is that in relation to almost everything we call knowledge and information people do not have access, or at least easy access, to the evidence. Scientific knowledge is a prime example, but also what is presented in the media as news. We have an attitude of reliance on the informedness and honesty of the "experts" in the various fields of inquiry, knowledge and information.
" Does something have to comport with actuality in order to be believable?". I think this is the nub of the issue; in most cases we simply don't know and cannot find out, for example, whether the news we are served up is true. Probably people believe what they want to believe or what is presented by those whose ostensible values they identify with, or maybe they believe someone because they like the look of their face, they think they look honest or down to earth, and so on.
Or in the case of conspiracy theorists, they don't believe anything mainstream, because they don't trust any authority and they think everything it presents must be false due to the whole system being rigged and corrupt; but they believe one another just because they share the distrust and rejection of authority. So absurd memes proliferate in the petri dish of disaffection with establishment.
"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?".
Possibly there is more anti-establishment sentiment around these days.
Agree.
Quoting Janus
Yes, that's likely too.
These days even the notion of an expert is highly contentious. And setting aside philosophical questions about epistemology for a moment, it does seem that people chose the experts or commentators who provide the scaffolding in support of their preexisting biases or beliefs.
I am still wondering about factors like QAnon and how it is that this emerging religion and untruths told in its wake seems to be attractive to people. Is it what happens when people no longer trust a mainstream narrative? Or is it a concatenative end result of economic and social factors, like diminished education, lack of opportunity, primitive forms of Christianity and a spread in magical thinking as a kind of protest against scientism and the technocratic approach to social concerns?
I think this is probably right, but it also seems to be the case that there are "official" expert spokespeople in the mainstream media, at least. It seems to be mainly in the areas of economicx and (of course) politics and political issues that conflicting views get presented there, and people align their choices with there preferred political views. It doesn't seem to be so much the case in science.
Quoting Tom Storm
I think it's probably generally a mixture of all the factors you mention here,with some or others of them being predominate in individual cases. Although I would say it is more a case that there is an element of protest against science than scientism, since I think most of the people caught up in QAnon and other conspiracy theories probably wouldn't have a clear idea of the distinction between science and scientism.
That said, there are probably those who do get the distinction, but think that science as an institution is so corrupted by vested interests that it cannot, as it is presented to the public, be trusted. And I would say there is an element, but only an element, of truth in that. The tendency of those who think without nuance is to totalize the recognition of some corruption to think in terms of absolute corruption; it's facile thinking, that is it's the common mode of "tribal" thinking ("you're either for us or agin us").
On what other grounds would you have people choose which experts to believe?
I would privilege an expert qualified in the subject for starters, and then maybe pay additional attention to someone who holds a different view to mine because they may know something I don't. I did this on the subject of Jesus as a real person. I used to be a mythicist but read additional work by Professor Bart Ehrman, who presents the argument Jesus was likely a real person, even if the NT is recounting a legend. I found him convincing.
Ah, yes. I consider the term 'expert' to already cover the idea of it being a relevant field, but I see what you mean about people abusing the term. I'd also add that, although it's not always clear cut, one can identity (and so rule out) obvious conflicts of interest. For example, if a climate expert is directly paid by a fossil fuel company.
Quoting Tom Storm
That's an interesting approach, but then, what would you use as your criteria for then believing that expert? What's the convincer?
Yes, that's a very important one, where it can be known.
Quoting Isaac
On this I can only make judgements based on the arguments provided and assembled. Am I convinced or not? So I am not for a moment suggesting the method is foolproof. Me being the potential fool in this instance. But I do think that in general it is good to expose yourself to diverse thinking on any given subject to try to enrich or change your own views. I am quite happy to be wrong.
On some subjects I simply don't have the expertise to make a call like this. Take the so-called many worlds theory versus the Copenhagen interpretation. In this instance it's a case of buggered if I know. But I do know on judgement I am more likely to accept Sean Carroll than Deepak Chopra.
Thanks. One of the aspects of psychology I'm interested in is how people make judgments like that, particularly ones which seem to inform beliefs. I think people often take for granted the idea that some process is taking place which has some hook into the real world (such that following it is more likely to yield truer beliefs than not doing so would), but I find very few people can explain what they think that mechanism is nor how it works.
Some arguments just seem to sound more 'convincing' than others, but without being able to put a finger on exactly why.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes, I feel much the same way. Partly expertise, partly a gut feeling that Chopra is somehow 'selling' something in a way I don't like. But also in there is the fact that accepting Chopra's version pulls on the threads of my other beliefs in a way that Carroll's version doesn't. I simply have to do less work to believe Carroll.
Indeed. And this is a fascinating subject. While I think the 'art' of making judgments is complex and somewhat perplexing, I think it's likely we can determine when it is badly executed e.g., when people make calls on life decisions based on someone's hair color or on numerology, or on what a clairvoyant tells them.
Do you have a tentative model for identifying when judgements are likely to be well founded? To me it seems to be about a web of information which comes together to provide a kind of coherence and satisfaction. But as human beings we are inconsistent and we do not always have time or opportunities to be vigilant.
I agree. I think this is where relevant expertise comes in - not that 'relevance' isn't a judgement in itself, but this comes down to what you say here...
Quoting Tom Storm
Matters like relevance, qualification, trustworthiness... all rely on a web of prior beliefs (that qualification is a measure of likelihood of being right, that universities fairly accurately measure that qualification, that subject matters in institutions are well-delineated... etc). The notion here is that any proposition can be seen as being at the end of a very, very long sentence (a Ramsey sentence), that starts with "If...." - followed by all the priors.
Quoting Tom Storm
Much as yours it seems. I think there's actually a very wide range of factors we take into account, but that including them all become a sort of habit such that when we're clear-headed, we follow this 'habit' and it leads to more successful beliefs on average.
The problem with explicating this habit further is that it doesn't seem to be able to escape from the circularity of judgement. We could say it involved coherence, lack of bias, open-mindedness... but you can see all those properties are also themselves judgements. Two people (or even one person from day-to-day) are unlikely to fully agree as to what to beliefs cohere, whether bias applies, how 'open' one's mind need be etc.
It seems to me the most we can say is that when a judgement is wrong, it's likely to be wrong because of one of those factors (there's probably a few others too), but we can't compare two judgements and say which will be right by looking at those measures.
I do find though, in my experience, that people generally can tell the difference between a clear-headed judgement and one that has been made by, for example, following the crowd, or relying on tradition, something like that. The difference seems to be that people can rarely provide reasoning for the latter types of judgement. I'm not, myself, convinced that judgements are the result of these reasons, but being able to provide them, even if post hoc, seems to be a distinguishing feature of the more clear-headed decisions.
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'.
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.
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.
The idea of post-truth is so ambiguous because it can just be an excuse for the acceptance of falsity and dishonesty.
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.
What do you mean by post-truth? My understanding is this is a term used by critics to describe unethical positions held in politics and culture. I don't think it is an era as such - is a plumber post truth, a chiropodist? And no one proudly proclaims themselves a post-truth ambassador. In fact, the post-truth activists, like Trump, are more likely to be insistent on the importance of certainty. They are not like those nefarious post-modern relativists that Jordan B Peterson is always warning us about.
I wonder it what is important about post-truth is located not in the purveyors of untruths, but in those who accept the lies. Because for many people public discourse no longer has to map onto or match real world events or facts. It's the general public's judgment ultimately which makes post-truth realizable.
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 wonder if that's a different phenomenon. One would have to call the era of Joseph Goebbels an era of post-truth and a hallmark of fascism is when the lie becomes institutionalized. George Orwell wrote a definitive study of the ultimate post-truth society back in 1948. None of this has anything to do with post-modernism. Do you think post-modernism has had any real influence on public discourse, other than in poorly understood and misconstrued vignettes?
I didn't know that George Orwell wrote about the idea of a 'post-truth society' and it is interesting that he was able to perceive the possibility at that time. As far as the influence of postmodernism, it may be hard to says it's distinct influence because there were many diverse influences. Mainly, I see it as having a lot of impact on the social sciences and the humanities. Here, it may have had influence on the academic understanding of politics and education.
I am aware that even though I never came across the idea of postmodernism until I was about 17, most of the teachers who had taught me probably came from a training background influenced by postmodernism. For example, I can remember that my mother seemed surprised that the history which I was doing at school was based on analysis of various sources as a means for critical analysis. This is opposite to the way people in the past may have been taught history as about clear dates and facts.
What may be most significant is that postmodernism gave rise to critical theory. Also, it is a framework for scepticism. It is hard to know how important postmodernism is in the twentieth first century and it may be more read in relation to the arts currently, rather than for a credible basis for analysis of culture and ideas.
You are going to make do without truth? Go on, then; you first.
I'll watch from here. Should be worth a laugh.
1984 it's the story about how truth becomes irrelevant to the ongoing sustainability of a military dictatorship much like North Korea.
[i]Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposedif all records told the same talethen the lie passed into history and became truth. Who controls the past ran the Party slogan, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'[/i]
1984 George Orwell
I think that I have '1984' somewhere on my Kindle, so I may have a read. I read 'Animal Farm' at school as a child and as an adult and found Orwell's writing very good. It probably just feels a bit dated reading about '1984' as a futurist novel, just like Huxley's 'Brave New World'. However, some novels are probably significant for their philosophical ideas.
:wink:
By the way this is a juicy morsel. Pretty sure I agree. Can you expand in it a little?
It's just Wittgenstein's On Certainty, yet again. Doubting something is a language game, and so presupposes language and stuff to talk about, in a community. Doubt, like certainty, relies on a context.
So where Quoting Jack Cummins it also follows that there are certainties. Hence the foolishness of 's suggestion...
1984 is an over-the-top personal story told against the background of a process that integrated the resistance against the State with the agenda being opposed. Nobody likes having the stuff they are resisting actually helping the opponent.
So the first thing Orwell is asking is if there is another process.
You're not helping...
The salient point is that post truth is not novel. One way or another, the truth will out; because it is the stuff that doesn't care what you believe.
A favourite Trump apocryphal is that after defunding the folk who were to research and advise him about novel viruses, when Covid arrived, The dickhead threw his hands up in the air and said "Who knew?"...
So which parts of 1984 have not come to pass...?
I am helping. I read Orwell as saying we need a countervailing cluster of claims to oppose pure rhetoric.
A world, and we live in it.
Cheers.
And does it matter if those claims are true, or not?
I say "Yes"... You?
The devil advocate in me would like to argue both sides of that question.
What I meant to say about Orwell is that he had become aware of a certain process and intended to hold all to it. So, if that statement exhausts a number of possibilities, what is left?
:smirk:
Soporific online forums...?
Where one can convince oneself that there is no truth.
Is that the fate of our dear friends, and ?
What about you? Stand and deliver, my dear friend.
Infesting ad hominem response.
Is it an ad hom when the man is I?
What have you to offer?
:grin:
We need to think outside the box. Truth is priceless for it can make the difference between life and death; however if survival is our #1 priority, and evolution say it is, truth is just a means towards that end. Lies have value too (gennaion pseudos, pious fiction, white lies) and post-truth is probably just a recognition of this simple fact.
[quote=Brian Greene]The brain is designed for survival. Truth and survival are two entirely different things.[/quote]
I don't see the idea of post-truth as ambiguous, but rather I see it as incoherent. Nietzsche somewhere said that thinking what enhances the richness of life is more important than thinking what is true. They don't need to be the same; some truths may be debilitating.
In any case this idea of life-enhancement has nothing to do with so-called "post-truth". The thing about truth is that in all but the most prosaic cases we don't know what is true, but only what seems most plausible in light of what we already believe.
I've been looking for an aspidistra for years. We had one for the first few years of our marriage, but left it behind when we moved. Now all you can get are bloody peace lilies. The Proles are comparatively free, doublethink being an affliction of those who think.
Have you noticed Quoting Agent Smith's liking for latin? Reminiscent of Nadsat, from an alternate dystopia.
https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-home-garden/nsw/aspidistra+plants/k0c18397l3008839
so if you are serious about acquiring one, then you can do so easily...
:smile: I'm learning Latin (phrases).
It's funny how plants come in and out of fashion. I remember when the rubber tree (ficus elastica) was everywhere in the 1970's. It vanished for decades and suddenly came back (here anyway) as a kind of retro-chic-artisanal-hipster-indoor-irony-decoration.
The disasters happen when they get too big for indoors and people put them outside in their pots near the house and forget about them. They transform into a giant tree with roots than can lift the footings and crack brick walls. Over the time I was operating as a landscaper I was contracted to remove a few different kinds of figs that had transcended the indoor environment.
"A kind of retro-chic-artisanal-hipster-indoor-irony-decoration" I like it! :lol:
Keep the aspidistra flying!
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200021.txt
[quote=Orwell]Another evening wasted. Hours, days, years slipping by. Night after night, always the same. The lonely room, the womanless bed; dust, cigarette ash, the aspidistra leaves.[/quote]
@Jack Cummins
:lol: I'm sure you've heard of (hyperbolic) skepticism. Do we really know any truths? You might wanna refresh your memory on the the Doubting Thomas brigade. Start with Agrippa's trilemma. Truth(s)!? Pfft. :snicker:
Post-truth is simply the 20[sup]th[/sup] century avatar of (doubting) Thomas the Apostle, dear friend of Jesus who said ...
The Second Coming is just around the corner, guys and gals (if any)!
It's true that you can read and write sentences in English.
Ok! You got me! :smile:
I have just woken up and plan to read the thread later today but I just noticed your comment 'the Second Coming is around the corner' and I am relating a really unnerving dream which I had a week ago about the end of the world. In the dream everything went dark. Then, a huge cavern opened up and the cavern was filled with dead bodies. When I told my dream to someone the other day he said, 'That might be just how it will be.'
The reason why I think that this is relevant to the thread is because fear of the end of the world has been an ongoing fear for centuries, especially with the millennium. However, at this present time there is so much fear with the current Russian situation. On my phone, I see so much talk of whether this is going to be world wide nuclear war. I probably had the dream because I have always worried about the end of the world based on religious upbringing.
Reflecting on the underlying fear and news reports in the media, I am wondering how 'truth', fantasy, and some 'post truths' come together in people' s thinking and what role do mythical ideas and fantasised projections have in influencing what happens in world events?
All I can say is there's a paradox: We all care for our children, willing to even lay down our lives for them and yet, we're least bothered about human-induced climate change which will kill 'em all. It just doesn't add up now does it Jack.
This, I suppose, is exactly what philosophers have been trying to fix over the past 2.5k years - inconsistency in our thinking.
I haven't brought any children into the world and I worry about the future of humanity. I am surprised that people who have children and grandchildren are not distraught, not that I am advocating antinatalism. If anything, superficial entertainment as an aspect of 'post-truth' may be a means of distraction from fear of nuclear threat and the impending climate change crisis. It may be that light entertainment is a way of escape attempts from 'truth' and even philosophy as 'language games' be a retreat from deeper thinking, especially about the future of humanity and the planet.
[s]Perhaps, deep down in our subconscious, we all know what's gonna happen and all these attempts to forestall the inevitable is a mere formality we just perform to make ourselves feel better.[/s]
I agree with what you have said even though it is crossed out, like some borderline twighlight truth...
I have got to somewhere, so I will look at the thread tonight if it hasn't vanished in a puff of smoke, like an imaginary 'post-truth'.
[s]Stay safe Jack.[/s]
Maybe @Agent Smith and myself are ' post-truth' imaginary entities emerging in the surreal world of cyber language games, in a post-Wittenstein illusory wasteland, such as that which TS Eliot stumbled upon once upon a time.
I am still at home in grungy post- truth land because I was meant to be visiting new accommodation and I am waiting for the address to be sent to me by text. I live in a surreal world because my bed here is broken and I slide right down to the bottom and my original landlord has vanished somewhere in Pakistan. But, I try to keep a sense of humour as the only way of keeping safe in the face of absurdity.
[s]Bonam fortunam[/s].
Perhaps, one or both of us will create post romanticism as a new paradigm to challenge the flatllands of realism. Materialism is important, but not possibly the entire truth any more than idealism is. Sometimes, I hover on the brink of panpsychism, not just as a fanciful form of speculation but as a wider, all encompassing viewpoint. I may start a thread on that topic because this one may have gone as far as it may go and it is not as if I am really advocating post-truth, but understanding in a broken down world, a deeper search for 'truth' and absurdity, after existentialism, logical positivism and postmodernism.I are sure that many are satisfied with the ideas which they have but I am not, which is probably what keeps me starting threads...
[s]There's a lot of ideas floating around in the ideaverse to start a discussion on. I for one will grab every opportunity to participate in your threads, if and when I can.[/s]
Quoting Jack Cummins
In addition to world events , I think we tend to under-appreciate the effects that seasonal change has on our moods and dreams.
While Forum members Down Under are busy talking about sunny topics like plants and gardens, we in the northern hemisphere are observing the sun get dimmer, the days get darker, and the gardens decaying, while Dia de Los Muertos approaches.
Quoting Banno
The word truth is simply a compliment paid to sentences seen to be paying their way.( Richard Rorty)
I suggest if there is anything to tie together the myriad possible senses of that word true it would be the achievement of a relative recognizability or assimilability among experiences. Propositional truth is an attempt to apply the broader notion of truth to a narrowly defined domain of linguistic contexts.
We know all sorts of truths: the urge to shout true! can well up in us whenever a relative consistency emerges within a field of possibilities. The nature of this consistency will determine the sense of its being true.
Thanks for clarifying; it's a very long time since I read 1984 and to be honest even having being reminded, I don't remember the aspidistras...
I think that this has gained more popularity nowdays: to break down past eras thinking.
The basic problem I guess with every "post" -ism is that it genuinely needs extremely well understanding of what is criticized, yet if the study (as usual) is just the conclusions, then the whole idea of just what is passed is blurred to some stereotypical simplification. The past thinking to be criticized isn't at all understood. And this breaks the link to the previous scientific understanding.
It was filmed as A Merry War.
Is that true?
See? You cannot escape truth.
Is not a very good argument. You can use lots of words in that place with inequivalent meanings:
Is that true?
Is that accurate?
Is that representative?
Is that right?
Is that a good interpretation?
You can recurse the procedure, asking if it's true that it's accurate, but the other concepts aren't necessarily boolean whereas truth, by stipulation, is. Accuracy is a continuum or qualitative assessment, representativeness is multifaceted, right has multiple overlapping senses and in some regard is broader than accuracy, and a decent chunk of what a good interpretation is depends upon the context (whereas truth, by stipulation, does not).
Sure you can. And then ask if each and every one is true...
But also there are non-boolean notions of truth.
See the bit in my post about recursing the procedure.
Quoting Banno
AFAIK those notions require precise interpretations of their truth values. The words I used have meanings which are far less precise and sometimes are a cluster of overlapping but distinct themes. I doubt the required underlying logic is even polyvalent because that requires the demarcation of sense into a countable set of values; I can't see how you'd map the sense of "representative" or "right" to a subset of the set of non-overlapping senses (valences) in that manner.
You can equally ask if it's accurate that it's true. It seems that all those terms; true, accurate, representative, right, "a good interpretation" all presuppose an actuality against which they represent the general idea of assessment. If there were no actuality there would nothing against which truth, accuracy, representation, rightness, and interpretations could be assessed.
That's about my criticism of the argument, yeah! Seems were on about the same page. Up to possible quibbles about whether actuality is only articulable with reference to the others. If you're using that as a proxy for the word use needing to "terminate" in a relation to things/events not words, I think I agree for the most part.
Putin, for one?
I guess I was wondering if some of those plaintive cries that there is no truth is a type of commitment avoidance.
Mmm... I agree that the cluster of concepts is inescapable, but not that any particular one is. They also don't seem to be equivalent concepts as there's matters of degree, qualitative evaluations, one has only two distinct values (that's truth), might have many values, have fuzzy boundaries, and the cluster elements are partially articulable in terms of the others. Implying that an account which features one also needs to account for the others and their interdependence, as well as their fuzzy boundaries and differences. None more fundamental than the others.
"The kettle is boiling" is accurate IFF the kettle is boiling?
"The kettle is boiling" is representative IFF the kettle is boiling?
"The kettle is boiling" is right IFF the kettle is boiling?
"The kettle is boiling" is a good interpretation IFF the kettle is boiling?
Each says a bit more than the truth. The truth is central in being simple.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Two things, postmodernism, as much as it is a philosophical concept with one meaning, is a bunch of arguments and analyses about how concepts are unstable in interpretation. That claim itself is true or false, but difficult to check. That the discourse has presumptions (stabilities) might make various destabilisations (regarding meaning, single senses of words, access to uninterpreted reality) within it performatively contradictory. However performative contradictions are commonplace in reality, and still have social presence. The bunch of philosophers in that group are as varied as metaphysicians (Deleuze), psychoanalysts (Lacan), philosophers of language and interpretation (Derrida) and social theorists (Foucault).
The second, postmodernism didn't arise from nowhere. Philosophically it was prefigured by Kant; he was the trope codifier in the Western tradition of relativising judgement to humanities interpretations without relativising accuracy of those judgements with respect to what's judged (though Kant people will hate me for writing that). But socially, you have to remember the context was after the second world war, the rise and fall of social revolutions and the Soviets, a transition of economic paradigms, the death of socialism, the fragmentation of popular political projects like unions and the incredible rise of communication technologies and mass media. These things served to speed up communication, make society more interconnected, but at the same time totally destabilise any sense of order. You had simultaneous acceleration of the fragmentation of the social body at the same time as the proliferation of new representations of it (like movie theatres, personal TVs, broadcasting...). The world also became increasingly secular over this time period, making religious fixed references unable to re-stablise the growing chaos. Postmodernism itself is a product of this climate, and so inherits or reacts against these themes; the death of institutions, the reimagination of the human subject, the destabilisation of narrative, the growth of interconnection and the domination of representations over what they represent (movies more real than reality).
"post-truth" is an inevitable consequence of this fragmentation and accelerated communication; but you will probably have noticed that fixed reference points and stable subgroups do believe the same things. "post-truth" is not really an attack on truth; things still fall down due to gravity; but a result of how banjaxed people came to realise sharing common frameworks, and even the idea of common frameworks, actually are in practice. You can easily come to agreement about the trivial; things fall down;, but the chaos makes agreement over what matters most in life and what guides society largely a matter of ideology (which is oscillatory, destablised, isolated in echo chambers, containing internal contradictions, known to be historically conditioned etc etc). "post-truth" is a statement of the irrelevance of truth to the world's trajectory except on things which are either trivial to verify; things fall down when dropped, you need water to live...; or sufficiently contextually demarcated; scientific knowledge in a given paradigm, legal interpretations. And even then, the latter two can have its presumptions doubted; the validity/incommensurability of paradigms + the suspicion towards the narratives of experts and the class bias introduced into law by who gets to lobby for its changes.
The social role of truth changed. Or it was realised to never be as it seemed to be.
I'd argue those T sentences aren't really "iffs". Since they are either sufficient but not necessary (truth is a concept requiring an exact match of a statement to a value, so may imply accuracy but not the other way around), or necessary but not sufficient. EG, a good interpretation of the kettle boiling might be that it was boiled for tea, there's nothing about an interpretation which means it has to be identified solely with the event referenced by the statement/its truth maker or equivalent event, even if it's granted that the equivalent event must have happened for the interpretation to be good.
You also picked a very easy example. Try parsing it for the original post. I'm not really interested in another discussion about whether the kettle is boiling and its T-sentence. I would be interested in you trying to address the argument regarding how the concepts can be recursed and thus are inequivalent by your original argument. In addition, you made each concept in the cluster all 'iff' each other with your repeated T-schema; the kettle is boiling is accurate iff it is a good interpretation; which a sneaky way to reject a claim of inequivalence without arguing against it.
I would also be interested in you trying to parse the post you originally responded to with this argument. Pick the first path or the second, otherwise I'm out.
Of course, they are not "iff"s. Iffs are truth-functional, not accuracy-functional...
It was known as the 'cast iron plant' because it would survive the darkness and neglect of London rooming houses. It is Orwell's symbol of a struggling lower middle class, people who valued education and class division but remained poor, surviving on pride and a certain snobbishness to distinguish them from labourers and servants. The aspidistra is the only concession to beauty in dingy houses and it clings to life as the people clung to their self-image of respectability. As often with Orwell, it is difficult sometimes to tell whether he is sneering or compassionate - some fascinating combination of the two.
Thanks. I enjoyed this acute summary of postmodernism.
Quoting fdrake
Can you provide a few points more on this?
Quoting fdrake
I'm interested that you say this is difficult to check. Are you saying it is hard to tell if there are multiple interpretations regarding a given concept?
I am not sure that it is possible to escape the issue of 'truth' if one has any serious interest in philosophy. If anything, relativism and potential post-truth create a maze of possibilities and make finding it a hard task.
Postmodernism definitely makes concepts unstable. It involves some kind of collapse of meaning and fragmentation. It may lead to the deeper understanding of the human construction of values. In many ways, the idea of post-truth does give rise to the question of whether there is any possibility of truth amidst so many untruths and lies. This is the extreme though and even though the construct of post-truth makes all verification of truth difficult it may lead to deeper reflection about the way in which any valid ideas are established. It could be a possibility for a more careful and critical formation of knowledge, based on the underlying approach of sceptical thinking about ideas, facts and objective knowledge.
It was a nod to attacks on relativising narratives requiring a fixed background to articulate the relativising critique in. How do you even start doing anything without some conceptual framing device or shared standard of intelligibility?
Quoting Tom Storm
Broadly speaking, Kant thought humans have concepts which configure our interpretations of the world. Without them, interpretation would be impossible. These are innate ideas like space and time, if we didn't have those we couldn't make sense of any experience.. To stress (again very roughly) Kant thought some of them were innate. Postmodern thinkers historicised that mechanism which shaped information which goes into interpretations, meaning that historical context can come to literally change how people interpret the world at a fundamental level. You move from the structure of the intellect/cognition structuring experience to that and historical and social circumstances. Foucault is particularly notable for their analysis of institutions and "epistemes", which are roughly epochs of knowledge and their social institutions.
Regardless of these commitments, people still experience stuff in common ways, and the underlying reality itself doesn't need to change much between interpretive paradigms. Two different methods of thinking bout physics can still agree on gravity, even if there is no context above and beyond the development of science to judge those claims (and thus no "context independent justification". These themes are different over all the thinkers AFAIK, but there's some commonality in a theme of contextualising judgements and tracking epochal shifts in how humans interpret things. You can't guarantee an interpretive paradigm is true (except from the vantage of another paradigm), but you can agree on what moves are valid and produce truths within it. In that regard there is a distinction between constraints on entity interpretation and how those entities manifest within the the context - for Kant the context of manifestation is the cognitive (ideal) structure of our minds (roughly), for eg Foucault it's relative to social institutions, for Derrida it's relative to (destabilising potentials in) discourses...
Quoting fdrake
This frequently intrigues me. I guess it is difficult to contextualize a thing without a conception of its opposite. I bet there's a clever-arsed way out of this, or around it.
I hope you don't mind me interjecting here. The way I read it @fdrake seemed to be suggesting that there might be a true interpretation among all the others, but that it is difficult to tell which one is true or even if there is one that is true; which means it is difficult to tell if concepts are unstable in interpretation or not.
For Derrida its relative to time . The same self is already an other with respect to itself moment to moment.
Quoting fdrake
Paradigm shifts in physics arent a good example of worldview differences because natural science makes use of a conventionalized, abstractive empirical vocabulary that is designed to mask individual differences in outlook and interpretation. The political, religious , philosophical and ethical realms are more sensitive to differences in worldview , which is why they often shown profound gaps in interpretation of fundamental features of the world.
Not sure I have ever understood this properly. I don't have a sense of difference (only continuity) so how do I know the me of yesterday is in any way different to me of now, apart from as a technicality? Is there an idiot's guide to Derrida and time?
Its very confusing stuff. Derrida has said:
"The iterability of an element divides its own identity a priori, even without taking into account that this identity can only determine or delimit itself through differential relations to other elements and hence that it bears the mark of this difference. It is because this iterability is differential, within each individual "element" as well as between "elements", because it splits each element while constituting it, because it marks it with an articulatory break, that the remainder, although indispensable, is never that of a full or fulfilling presence; it is a differential structure escaping the logic of presence..(LI53)."
What Derrida is saying here is that no meaning returns to itself identically, even for an instant. One cannot repeat, copy or reproduce a particular meaning or context, even by the simple act or recollection from memory or from some other form of recorded archive, without changing the sense of that context. To attempt to do so is to retrieve this `same' meaning slightly differently, to `split' it, to alter it, to re-invent it. One continues to be the same one moment to the next by not being self-identical.