Performative contradictions aren't acceptable Sand...

I agree that Trump is unusually dishonest. For instance, he would exaggerate the number of floors in his buildings. It's called lying.

His lies aren't a result of an inability to properly identify a truthbearer. He lies to make himself seem bigger and stronger. It's sort of like a human version of a peacock fanning out its tail.

The reason he gets away with it is that nobody expects a builder to lie about the number of stories in a building. It's the expectation of honesty that allows him to get some mileage out of his lies.

So he's not a manifestation of some collective truth malfunction.

Performative contradictions aren't acceptable Sand...

That's fine since I made no performative contradictions, and you haven't shown I have, Creatchy

Seems we disagree.

The manifestation of Trump most certainly is an inevitable consequence of a collective misunderstanding regarding truth. Between those that know and don't value it enough and those who do not know you have enough to elect someone like Trump.

Well... add a splash of distrust and a dollop of not being able to further discriminate between logical possibility - which is a direct consequence of truth conceived as anything other than correspondence - then the recipe is complete.

Saying that "X" has never not been the case is to say that "X" has always been the case. When one says either, and then says that "X" is not the case, it is a performative contradiction.

That's offering the speaker the benefit of the doubt, by the way. It could also be that the speaker doesn't know what they're talking about, what they believe, or a case of deliberately misrespresenting their own thought/belief.

As I mentioned, the reason his lies are effective is that people expect honesty. There is no collective misunderstanding.

Are you American btw?

I agree that people expect honesty... generally speaking presume it in everyday conversation. I

I'm curious, though...

What leads you to think/believe that most folk know how to tell the difference between true and false statements, and/or what counts as lying.

I am American.

I've never encountered a person who didn't seem to understand the concept of truth.

Saying that "X" has never not been the case is to say that "X" has always been the case. When one says either, and then says that "X" is not the case, it is a performative contradiction.

Except I never did that since I repeated my assertion that x--not a post-truth world, but a non-truth world--has never not been the case, which renders the notion of a post-truth world inaccurate.

So, you just made a very performative error. And since you agreed with me that we've never not had a non-truth world, and thus are not having a post-truth world, the performative contradiction is yours as well. Congrats...:)

Yup. Nearly everyone knows whether or not some claims are true/false. Simple ones that are easily verifiable/falsifiable. They can look for themselves. Most claims aren't so easily assessed. Political speak is most certainly not so easy for a layperson to effectively critique.

Ask people if they know what makes a statement true or not.

Here's something worth considering...

I've noticed that Trump has a habit of making completely unverifiable/unfalsifiable claims. He says things that force folk to choose between which source to trust.

This claim...

"We're not in a Post-Truth world..."

...conflicts with this claim...

"It has never not been the case that a post truth world..."

I think that perhaps you meant to say that the conditions I set out earlier that lead to a post truth world have always been the case.

No. What you call a post- truth world is what we've always had.

No. What I call a post truth world was not captured in the quote.

But I think you'll agree that difficulty ascertaining the truth is a separate issue from failing to value truth.

Well that gets nuanced... very quickly.

No. What I call a post truth world was not captured in the quote.

Of course it is. You refer to it in your first sentence:

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

We're not in a Post-Truth world..."

...conflicts with this claim...

"It has never not been the case that a post truth world..."

I never made the second statement, so now you're just pathetically lying, and those statements don't even contradict.

So, you're living in your own non-truth world, since you're just a liar, now.

Look at page 45, about halfway down you'll find the following direct quote...

"This has never not been the case."

Keep in mind that it was a direct response to the following:

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

If the term this does not include everything within that quote, then the term this has no clear meaning/referent.

If the term this does include everything in the quote, then the term this refers to everything in that quote..

This...

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

...has always been the case.

Sorry Mongrel...

The aforementioned nuance warrants attention. I'll set it out. Let me know what you think afterwards... if you would, that is.

...I think you'll agree that difficulty ascertaining the truth is a separate issue from failing to value truth.

Let truth be X. We arrive at...

I think you'll agree that difficulty ascertaining the X is a separate issue from failing to value X.

You see the problem?

'the "X"' is not "X"

Equivocation is at hand.

Prefixing the term "truth" with the term "the" is not always appropriate.

That issue actually reflects yet another problem that arises in a post truth world.

I think you really believe there is some widespread breakdown in comprehension of the concept of truth.

Strange. I don't see that. Trump was a demagogue, taking advantage of a democracy the way his kind have been known to do for thousands of years.

We've had very different communities around us... respectively.

I do not think the following...

...difficulty ascertaining the truth is a separate issue from failing to value truth...

...is applicable to my position. I mean, it just doesn't make much sense to me. On my view, it would be translated like this...

Difficulty ascertaining the correspondence is a separate issue from failing to value correspondence.

On my view values are similar to lots of other things in that they require thought/belief as a result of consisting in/of mental correlations, but more importantly...

Values are attributed... solely and exclusively.

Being valuable isn't.

Hence... the aforementioned nuance.

By the way, Mongrel...

Yup. I really do believe that if more folk knew the central role that truth plays in their own thought/belief system, they would be better armed.

I may be many things, but an insincere speaker is not one of them. There's a bit of irony here in that you're just now realizing that I'm speaking sincerely.

You have no reason at all to think otherwise of me, unless distrust is the starting point.

Yet another consequence of misunderstanding truth and the role that it plays within everything ever thought/believed, spoken, and/or written.

When yes or no questions are scoffed at, and intentionally avoiding commitment in speech is accepted as the norm... glorified even... as though it is an admirable thing to do. Getting away with it and all...

Cleverness is often infused with insincerity. Most cannot distinguish the two, or it doesn't dawn on them, as a result of accepting insincerity as the norm.

Yet another consequence of misunderstanding truth and it's role...

a post truth world...

Saying that this...

The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.

...has always been the case, and then saying that "we're not in a Post-Truth world" is to both affirm and deny the existence of a post truth world. That is a performative contradiction.

You wrote:

Trump was... ...taking advantage of a democracy the way his kind have been known to do for thousands of years.

A quick glance at the historical records shows that truth and the role that it plays in everything ever thought/believed, spoken, and/or written has been largely misunderstood and/or de-valued.

Neither is acceptable. Those two sets of circumstances have been simultaneously operating in the collective thought/belief system for thousands of years.

Post truth world...

That has never not been the case.

You very well may be right Michael...

That is a more charitable reading. Indeed.

To that, I would've responded differently...

How can one care about that which they cannot ascertain?

This seems pedantic. You could always rephrase Mongrel's claim as "But I think you'll agree that difficulty ascertaining what is true is a separate issue from failing to care about what is true."

So whereas one person might not know whether or not a certain health care act will actually benefit the people, another doesn't give a damn either way and just wants to score a win for the optics.