83,356
edits
Reasons to hope we are in a post truth world: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Reasons to hope we are in a post truth world (view source)
Revision as of 18:27, 18 December 2023
, 18 December 2023no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|philosophy|}}''This is a narrative. Feel free to reject it or adapt it. It’s not like I can stop you.'' | {{a|philosophy|}}''This is a narrative. Feel free to reject it or adapt it. It’s not like I can stop you.'' | ||
The defenders of liberal [[enlightenment]] — surely a | The defenders of liberal [[enlightenment]] — surely a noble cause in [[our stupid age]] — are given to blame the current predicament — call it the [[great delamination]], the [[moronic now]] — on a collective loss of faith in ''[[Truth|truth]]''. | ||
Nothing, runs the complaint, is objectively ''true'' any more. This opens the way for all kinds of personal delusions that somehow gain priority over erstwhile our eternal verities — consensus values by which collectively we used to navigate the manifold vicissitudes of this mortal coil. | |||
Examples of this: from the liberal left: [[Helen Pluckrose]], John Bennet, [[Kathleen Stock]]. From the reactionary right: [[Douglas Murray]], [[Jordan Peterson]]. Fake news. | Examples of this: from the liberal left: [[Helen Pluckrose]], John Bennet, [[Kathleen Stock]]. From the reactionary right: [[Douglas Murray]], [[Jordan Peterson]]. Fake news. | ||
===Was it ''ever'' thus?=== | |||
The argument turns out to rest upon a few questions that don’t deserve to be begged. Such as, ''really''? What was this consensus, because I sure can’t remember it. Was it some time before the end of history, before the Cold War — hang on, the Second World War — hang on, before the rise of Fascism — First World War — Colonial era? The JC is no more than an armchair historian, but has a hunch you would have to go back a fair way to find this elysian utopia of shared truth. And what was this concord about? Philosophical pissing marches go back into the dark ages. They are still not resolved — apparently further from resolution than ever. Even that arbiter of justified knowledge, Science has continued to change its mind about fundamental things. Even apparently mechanical, mathematically measurable things. If we cannot agree on the greatest ever footballer — as objectively measurable a human achievement as there can be — Pele? Beckenbauer? Maradona? Messi? Rapinoe? — what chance have we with the conflict in Gaza or Ukraine? | |||
One could go on. But it is less tedious to say, no, Truthists, your claim of mythical prior general accord is ''denied'', pending your provision of receipts and plausible substantiation. | |||
===“Untruthiness” is a heresy === | ===“Untruthiness” is a heresy === | ||
“Without truth there is nothing —” | “Without truth there is nothing —” | ||