You think so? I think one can do evil without awareness, but would that cease to be evil just because they don't perceive it as evil? What if someone has good intentions, but through their actions and ignorance actually cause a lot of evil? Are they not responsible? :s
— Agustino

Natural events cause evil, and animals cause evil. We can say those natural events are responsible, but not morally responsible, for the evil they cause.

No, they don't, they cause harm, which is substantially different from causing evil, defined as: "morally reprehensible." This denotes human activity, since objects and non-human animals cannot be "morally reprehensible" and cannot subscribe to a system of morals; only humans can.

*.

Whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime in meeting with that lawyer doesn't depend on whether or not Hillary committed a similar or different crime. This is a ridiculous claim. — Michael

There are several contributors here who represent an attitude that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the DNC, are the root of all evil in US politics, and possibly the world . They will sometimes grudgingly acknowledge that Trump is an embarrassment and a buffoon, on account of him being impossible to defend, but such an acknowledgement is always followed by an immediate...'but the real villain is...' It's not a hard pattern to spot.

Meanwhile, today's Post-Truth news is the infamous Boy Scout speech. Notwithstanding the fact that the head of the Scouts sent a written apology to the entire membership for the egregious and self-aggrandizing stump speech that Trump gave at what was supposed to be a ceremonial occasion (including having the assembled scouts boo the previous President), Trump now claims that it was 'the greatest ever speech' given to the Scouts.

This is in line with the 'biggest ever inauguration crowd' delusion, which has lead to a completely unnecessary enquiry into fraudulent voting in the USA, purely in service of Trump's narcissism.

There are several contributors here who represent an attitude that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the DNC, are the root of all evil in US politics, and possibly the world . They will sometimes grudgingly acknowledge that Trump is an embarrassment and a buffoon, on account of him being impossible to defend, but such an acknowledgement is always followed by an immediate...'but the real villain is...' It's not a hard pattern to spot.

I haven't seen one contributor who has said this, but you are free to actually back up your outlandish claim. You have yet to do so. So, the pattern seems to be only in your head.

Meanwhile, today's Post-Truth news is the infamous Boy Scout speech. Notwithstanding the fact that the head of the Scouts sent a written apology to the entire membership for the egregious and self-aggrandizing stump speech that Trump gave at what was supposed to be a ceremonial occasion (including having the assembled scouts boo the previous President), Trump now claims that it was 'the greatest ever speech' given to the Scouts.

This is ridiculous. People have been telling lies like this for centuries, and similar lies for millennia before that. So, we don't live in a "Post-truth" world since we never lived in a "Truth" world where truth was dominant.

This is in line with the 'biggest ever inauguration crowd' delusion, which has lead to a completely unnecessary enquiry into fraudulent voting in the USA, purely in service of Trump's narcissism.

And it's also in line with Obama's "We/The NSA aren't monitoring your phones," and Dubya's lies that Saddam had WMD's before he sent thousands of Americans to die, and Bill Clinton's lies that he "never had sexual relations with that woman." So the inauguration lie, or even all of Trump's lies, does not indicate a shift in the zeitgeist.

The lady doth protest too much...

The only lady is you. I, the man, didn't protest at all.

Feel free to actually address what I said, even though you're not very good at that.

There's a bit of deliciousness hereabouts...

A hallmark of the post truth world, as has been noted ad nauseum, is to distract attention away from importance and towards trivial bullshit. This move is realized with several means. The thread will bear witness to this, as an astute reader ought see by now.

In real life...

The American nation is on the verge of constitutional crisis. That is the root.

Obama foresaw what he left unsaid. I thank him for preserving the evidence, and history will look upon him favorably regarding that matter.

X-)

Nice follow-up!

Cheers.

In certain forms of government, the citizens vote based upon what they think/believe to be the case. It is imperative that publicly elected officials be truthful in their testimony. It is often the case that the public opinion is shaped by these official accounts. Voters need the facts to be presented in a truthful and complete enough manner that they will cast a vote based upon knowledge and not falsehood.

Common sense starts here...

There's a bit of deliciousness hereabouts...

A hallmark of the post truth world, as has been noted ad nauseum, is to distract attention away from importance and towards trivial bullshit. This move is realized with several means. The thread will bear witness to this, as an astute reader ought see by now.

Yes, and for that trivial bullshit, all one needs to do is read Creativesoul's banal and/or erroneous posts.

In real life...

The American nation is on the verge of constitutional crisis. That is the root.

Obama foresaw what he left unsaid. I thank him for preserving the evidence, and history will look upon him favorably regarding that matter.

In real life, Creativesoul is being alarmist and hysterical. Obama had the NSA unconstitutionally monitor our phones and lied about it to the country. If you're looking for an actual constitutional crisis, look there. Thanks to Edward Snowden, an American hero for exposing Obama's lies.

There are several contributors here who represent an attitude that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the DNC, are the root of all evil in US politics, and possibly the world . They will sometimes grudgingly acknowledge that Trump is an embarrassment and a buffoon, on account of him being impossible to defend, but such an acknowledgement is always followed by an immediate...'but the real villain is...' It's not a hard pattern to spot. — Wayfarer

That seems a rather purposeful misrepresentation of our positions here, Wayfarer, which is especially ironic considering the topic under discussion.

I find Thanatos to be the most clear-headed and honest participant in this debate. He obviously doesn't like Trump the man, and I'd imagine (based upon his very progressive positions outlined in other threads) he likes his political agenda even less. Yet he hasn't let those considerations cloud his judgement here. That's actually a good indication of the sort of integrity we should all like to see from politicians and media pundits these days.

But let's circle back for a minute. Banno presented a topic that was intended to be about a growing cultural and political phenomena. The term post-truth was first articulated by scholars many years ago (about 30, I believe, from the linked articles I've read) and had absolutely nothing to do with Trump. Incidentally, Bill Clinton was implicated in it. Now Trump has obviously brought the matter to the forefront with his ridiculousness, but it transcends his particular case.

So we can talk about the topic at hand--whether or not we've entered into a post-truth world--or we can continue to fixate on Trump and avoid addressing the actual issue. Trump of course can be used as an example of this alleged new world, but the assumption that he personally set us on this path can only be answered honestly in the negative. If linking Trump to post-truth is the approach you're going to take, then it's equally fair for others to challenge that position by pointing out the many lies of his predecessors, as well as the consequences of those lies. One of the more significant consequences has been the growing distrust of government, which played a significant role in his presidential victory over Hillary. It also played a role in Bernie Sanders' popularity.

And if we're going to compare cases of presidential dishonesty, say, blatantly lying about a relative triviality like how many people attended your inauguration, or lying about Iraq's supposed WMD's and thus launching us into a bloody policy of regime change which has cost countless lives, then let's at least be honest and admit that an egotistical and opportunistic blowhard like Trump may be even less dangerous than other, more calculated and socially polished people who've held the office previously.

Just my thoughts.

I find Thanatos to be the most clear-headed and honest participant in this debate. He obviously doesn't like Trump the man, and I'd imagine (based upon his very progressive positions outlined in other threads) he likes his political agenda even less.

I appreciate that, Erik. And it's true: I do not like Trump, his reactionary political agenda, or continuation of the war on Syria. But we need to focus on and fight the terrible things we know he's doing, and all the establishment Dems and MSM want to focus on is what he might have been doing without solid evidence even backing that suspicion.

For those who wonder about the aforementioned preservation, I want only to bring your attention to how the Russian investigation progressed. Initially there was scant but solid evidence that Russian operatives were involved in attempting to influence the election. I mean, some of the people who were in Comey's sights were long known to be acting as Russian operatives(literally by decree). That is, some were already under investigation.

Someone who is already known to be working as a Russian operative(by decree) being hired by the Trump campaign results in possible collusion, and as such warrants furthering the investigation into one Paul Manafort. During Manafort's brief tenure working directly with Trump, Sessions, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, and the rest the Trump team, the Republican National platform underwent quite the remarkable change. Very few reports were produced. Even fewer people were aware of the aforementioned direct evidence that had already been gathered by the American intelligence community.

The change was the most favorable one possible to Russia and her best interests. A connection is quickly drawn between the meddling and Manafort and the platform change.

Trump wins.

Barack Hussein Obama used the powers bestowed upon the office of the presidency of the United States of America to have as many intelligence officers as legally possible to have their hands upon whatever evidence had been previously gathered.

Some voiced ill-begotten complaints. Few reports were given.

Trump is still not under investigation.

Trump fires Comey.

There are several contributors here who represent an attitude that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the DNC, are the root of all evil in US politics, and possibly the world .
— Wayfarer

That seems a rather purposeful misrepresentation of our positions here, Wayfarer, — Erik

we're not in a "Post-Truth" world; were in the "same-lack-of-Truth-we've-always-had world. — Thanatos Sand

George. W. Bush lied about Saddam Hussain having WMD's, leading to a disastrous Iraq War.

Obama straight-up lied about having the NSA unconstitutionally monitor our phones when he knew perfectly well they were absolutely doing so.

Reagan lied to the country about taking money from Iran weapons deals to finance the horrendous Contas. — Thanatos Sand

The fact you see these lies as better than Trump's is pretty sad. — Thanatos Sand

I don't see the significance of the point as related to larger issues. Both Thanatos and myself have been consistent in maintaining that we've never lived in world in which politicians particularly valued truth above other considerations. We brought up those example to challenge the supposed temporal break between truth and post-truth that you feel Trump represents.

For those who wonder about the aforementioned preservation, I want only to bring your attention to how the Russian investigation progressed. Initially there was scant but solid evidence that Russian operatives were involved in attempting to influence the election. I mean, some of the people who were in Comey's sights were long known to be acting as Russian operatives(literally by decree). That is, some were already under investigation.

As a direct result of someone who is already known to be working as a Russian operative(by decree) being hired by the Trump campaign, that results in possible collusion, and as such warrants furthering the investigation into one Paul Manafort. During Manafort's brief tenure working directly with Trump, Sessions, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, and the rest the Trump team, the Republican National platform underwent quite the remarkable change. Very few reports were produced. Even fewer people were aware of the aforementioned direct evidence that had already been gathered by the American intelligence community.

The change was the most favorable one possible to Russia and her best interests. A connection is quickly drawn between the meddling and Manafort and the platform change.

This is a lot of unfounded conjecture. There has been no establishment of Russia and Trump's campaign causing the RNC platform to undergo remarkable change, which it didn't. And there certainly is no evidence showing the Russians hacked the election at all, much less in collusion with the Trump campaign.

Creative doesn't make the best arguments, if he even makes them, but he can whip up some wild stories.

Trump wins.

Yeah, because the Hillary campaign worked with CNN to pump up Trump during the primaries, Hillary Clinton was a terrible, unlikable candidate, and she ran a terrible campaign that ignored and lost the Rust Belt.

Barack Hussein Obama used the powers bestowed upon the office of the presidency of the United States of America to have as many intelligence officers as legally possible to have their hands upon whatever evidence had been previously gathered.

Barrack Hussein Obama unconstitutionally monitored our phones and lied about it to us. He's not trustworthy.

Trump fires Comey.

Yeah, and Hillary and members of her campaign wanted Obama to fire Comey when he was investigating her.

Trump, for obvious reasons draws attention to himself... I mean he is an attention whore if I've ever came across one.

So, are many politicians; Bill Clinton was one of the worst: just ask his wife who was furious at him for it during the campaign. It proves nothing of his colluding with the Russians to tamper with the election.

There are several contributors here who represent an attitude that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the DNC, are the root of all evil in US politics, and possibly the world .
— Wayfarer

That seems a rather purposeful misrepresentation of our positions here, Wayfarer,
— Erik

we're not in a "Post-Truth" world; were in the "same-lack-of-Truth-we've-always-had world.
— Thanatos Sand

George. W. Bush lied about Saddam Hussain having WMD's, leading to a disastrous Iraq War.

Obama straight-up lied about having the NSA unconstitutionally monitor our phones when he knew perfectly well they were absolutely doing so.

Reagan lied to the country about taking money from Iran weapons deals to finance the horrendous Contas.
— Thanatos Sand

The fact you see these lies as better than Trump's is pretty sad.
— Thanatos Sand

Sorry, Wayfarer, this interesting collection of partial quotes doesn't back up your ridiculous claim above at all. In fact, they just help prove how it's completely ridiculous.

In order to know what one is talking about when discussing what reporting is true and what reporting is not the participant must first know what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so...

In order to know what one is talking about when discussing what reporting is true and what reporting is not the participant must first know what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so...

And yet you commented on it when you have know idea what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so. Ironic...:)

When one enters into a philosophical debate, s/he volunteers to justify and/or ground any assertions made.

Refusing to answer pertinent questions is grounds for dismissal.

Both Thanatos and myself have been consistent in maintaining that we've never lived in world in which politicians particularly valued truth above other considerations. We brought up those example to challenge the supposed temporal break between truth and post-truth that you feel Trump represents. — Erik

I'm sure that all politicians stretch the truth and lie on occasions. But Trump is a congenital liar, of a completely different magnitude to anyone who has occupied the office of the President. He's in a league of his own.

When one enters into a philosophical debate, s/he volunteers to justify and/or ground any assertions made.

That's funny, since you've failed to do that over and over.

Refusing to answer pertinent questions is grounds for dismissal.

LOL. First of all, you never ask pertinent questions, and secondly it doesn't say that in the forum rules at all.

It used to be the case that the evidence currently at hand would be more than sufficient to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that one Paul Manafort was/is a Russian operative.

That may still be the case.

If it is not, then nothing would.

Those that view the evidence and arrive at any other conclusion are the ones required to justify that conclusion, for the evidence speaks for itself, bearing witness to the contrary.

I find it interesting when folk praise and condemn "X" for being "X". The appraisals have the power of confirmation bias on their side, as do the condemnations... The actor finds no hypocrisy because they're mired in self-gratification.

I'm sure that all politicians stretch the truth and lie on occasions. But Trump is a congenital liar, of a completely different magnitude to anyone who has occupied the office of the President. He's in a league of his own. — Wayfarer

I'll gladly concede that Obama seems a far superior human being in almost every way relative to Donald Trump.

That acknowledgement doesn't change the wider point being made here, that even Obama seems to have used sly tactics on occasion to deceive the American public about the actions of our government.

If that is the case, then the truth/post truth divide ostensibly precipitated by Trump cannot withstand scrutiny simply on the basis of this idiot's eager willingness to sacrifice the truth in the service of his monstrous ego.

I find it interesting when folk praise and condemn "X" for being "X". The appraisals have the power of confirmation bias on their side, as do the condemnations... The actor finds no hypocrisy because they're mired in self-gratification. — creativesoul

Perhaps this is the essence of truth/post truth issue that's being discussed here. Even here on a philosophy message forum, with relatively knowledgeable and intelligent people who devote a good deal of their time to thinking these sorts of issues through, we're not immune to this tendency towards confirmation bias and hypocrisy.

Whether we're atheists or theists, political progressives or conservatives, advocates of postmodernism or its detractors, almost all of us (if not all) actively search out support for our positions while mostly ignoring or rationalizing away (e.g. with protestations that our opponents, unlike us, are guilty of confirmation bias and letting their emotions distort objective assessments) those those that don't.

So, yet again, this apparent general human tendency we're witnessing right here renders even more support to the notion that the truth/post truth divide has been exaggerated, especially as used within the context of political discourse.

A much larger portion of the human population used to want to 'know the truth'. Intuitively, the reason why is obvious. Now, many would rather not know. Others don't care about all that, because they believe that they'll be fine without knowing it. Some know but do not want others to know, etc, etc...

Keep them fed, housed, and otherwise occupied.

There's a lot of dishonesty and insincerity in today's world and there most likely always has been. Any other conclusion is ill-begotten.

However, it is a post truth world, because dishonesty and insincerity used to be much more widely considered unacceptable. Monetary corruption in government used to be considered unacceptable. Politicians lying used to be considered unacceptable. News media peddling known falsehoods used to be considered unacceptable. Elected officials deliberately peddling known falsehoods used to be considered unacceptable.

Well then maybe this post truth world is paradoxically more honest in its dishonesty than the less overtly mendacious one that preceded it. Assuming of course that a shift has taken place, which I'm still suspicious about.

But I do appreciate your input, creative, and I think one thing to take away from this is that equally well-intentioned people can disagree about important matters (be they religious, political, or whatever)--and what could be more important than truth?--while both think they're engaged in a search for truth.

Talk of importance is fraught.

It's almost like some are suggesting that what separates this world from the previous one is that, while in the the previous one people did lie, cheat and steal, they at least had the deceny to mask these under the guise of truth. People these days make no such attempt and this is somehow worse.

It's as if the illusion of truth was a superior predicament to be in compared to one where there's no attempt to conceal lies. In a Dostoevskyesque way, if we give up the notion of objective truth then all lies are permitted. It's an interesting point, and maybe it makes a lot of sense in ways I'm too dense to recognize at the moment.

Strange argument though, IMO, although I'll admit it may not be what those making it had in mind.