I wouldn't call people thinking/believing that they really have no choice in the matter being "more honest"....

Those things I mentioned earlier used to be punishable by law...

How else does one lie, if not under the guise of truth?

Oh...

Blatantly, knowingly, and unabashedly... Proudly even... this has become acceptable...

Yeah.

That's new.

So lies are acceptable as long as they're presented as truths?

Or is there some moral hierarchy among types of liars, those who pretend to tell the truth being superior to those who make no such attempt?

I'm honestly trying to understand the position.

I feel like there is an important matter at stake here which I've come close to discerning at times, but then lose track of when Trump (and politics generally) is brought back as the focal point.

You were seeking a meaningful distinction that - I presume - would warrant sensibly calling the world "post" truth.

I'm satisfying that on short order.

But you've admitted that the previous era was not one of truth. So referring to this one as post-truth is misleading.

As I mentioned way back in the thread, the term post-truth should be given up for something which more accurately captures the distinction you're making.

Would you agree or disagree with that?

I've admitted no such thing.

So then, in previous eras politicians did not lie?

No, lying requires truth.

There's a lot of dishonesty and insincerity in today's world and there most likely always has been. — creativesoul

I haven't followed many of your contributions here but I stand corrected. But 'most likely'? Really?

So do Trump's lies require truth, too?

All lies require truth.

I think people falsely assume that Trump's supporters know he's lying but don't care, and the profusion of these uneducated, emotionally-driven supporters of his is what distinguishes this post-truth age (and the typical Trump supporter) from those that predated it.

I'd surmise that the average Trump supporter believes that he tells the truth on important issues (e.g. Deep State, corrupt mainstream media, etc) while finding the trivial ones either irrelevant or even humorous. That's my hunch as someone who's in intimate contact with many of them.

So if we give up the idea of objective truth, then there's really no such thing as a lie? Therefore you can pretty much say whatever you want.

Not being facetious here but that sounds like a fairly sophisticated philosophical position to my feeble mind.

By the way...

I, for one, most certainly do not talk about 'a search for truth', although I can understand why some others do...

Nor would I prefix the term with "objective"...

I think Nietzsche at times comes close to this. Truths are simply lies that people believe in. Useful fictions.

All belief presupposes it's own truth. Some folk believe lies.

By the way...

I, for one, most certainly do not talk about 'a search for truth', although I can understand why some others do... — creativesoul

Fair enough. But how does one recognize truth if not to actively seek it out? It doesn't seem to just randomly fall into your lap. Seems an acknowledgement of one's ignorance along with a concomitant desire to actually know are both necessary. Not many people, I'd imagine, even make it this far.

I think about the conditions under which my beliefs and opinions have shifted over the years, and these always involved discovering a new set of facts which challenged my guiding presuppositions.

For instance, the idea that the US champions freedom and democracy at home and abroad (a belief I held for all of my youth) was undermined by certain actions that I became aware of only much later: things like overthrowing a democratically-elected regime in Iran and propping up a dictator more amenable to our business interests in its place, our supporting the Saudi royal family and giving China most-favored nation trading status, despite the undemocratic nature of the regimes and their horrible disregard of human rights.

The common denominator in these and similar actions appeared to be the expansion of financial interests for a select few, and had absolutely nothing to do with adhering to a set of principles like truth, justice and freedom.

So I held a belief which didn't match with 'reality.' At first I tried to resolve the cognitive dissonance through rationalizing away those actions which ran contrary to our professed principles by contextualizing them. Supporting brutal dictators was in some cases the lesser of two evils.

But the ultimate step after gaining more and more information concerning US politics--both foreign and domestic--was to finally accept the hard truth: while this nation's principles may be extremely admirable, they've clearly been used quite frequently as "noble lies" to maintain the illusions of cave dwellers like myself. And often to do the dirty work of supporting the 'elites' who benefit most from the situation.

My point in this long and tedious personal digression is twofold. First, to show that (in my case at least) arriving at the truth is a difficult process that involves both emotional and factual aspects. Facts were important, but not enough at the start. My emotional attachment to a particular conception of America was very strong and would not allow me to accept the significance of certain facts right away.

The second point of bringing it up, is to challenge (yet again!) the idea that Trump's use of lies are ultimately more malicious and more consequential than those which have been used by other American politicians since this nation's inception, and more generally throughout human history. I was close to joining the military precisely because I believed we represented great things. I would never have done so absent those illusions. The simplified narrative of American moral superiority many of us have been fed is not only wrong, but it's had far-reaching (often negative) consequences for others around the globe.

This issue is very personal, and I don't buy the notion that it's fine (or even more acceptable) to deceive someone as long as they think you're telling them the truth. That's an incredibly insulting standpoint, and especially corrosive of the foundations of a democracy in which an informed electorate is an essential component. So we can hate Trump while simultaneously acknowledging the history of lies this country's politicians have engaged in.

So we're not in a post-truth age politically because we've never been in one in which politicians (or the special interests they almost always represent) were genuinely devoted to truth. I'm going to bludgeon you all with this point over and over and over again if necessary! Trump is more bold in his lying and an even more horrible human being than most, but that doesn't exonerate his political forbears in the least.

Diatribe over.

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.

No, it didn't.

That may still be the case.

That is true.

If it is not, then nothing would.

That makes no sense at all.

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.

No, those that view the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that Manafort is a Russian operative are the ones required to justify their conclusion.

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...

This is merely your unfounded opinion.

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.

No, it is not a post truth world, and everything you said to back up that claim is unfounded and untrue.

Yes Trump is a congenital liar, and CROOKED is a world class politician - that's what you told us before >:O give me a break... Reading your posts in this thread always makes my day man (Y)

I think Nietzsche at times comes close to this. Truths are simply lies that people believe in. — Erik

N. was wrong. If "Truths are simply lies that people believe in" then what about this assertion itself?

I've noted the seemingly self-refuting aspects of Nietzsche's thought.

He clearly felt his was not just one perspective among many possible ones, but that it was much more aligned with truth than others (e.g. Platonic, Christian, socialist, etc.).

This doesn't make much sense (to me) without anchoring it in some metaphysical notion of reality which is distorted by those (supposedly) illusory perspectives.

He clearly felt his was not just one perspective among many possible ones, but that it was much more aligned with truth than others (e.g. Platonic, Christian, socialist, etc.). — Erik

Yes precisely. So how are we to square with this blatant self-contradiction?

This doesn't make much sense (to me) without anchoring it in some metaphysical notion of reality which is distorted by those illusory perspectives. — Erik

What would that metaphysical notion be?

As to the latter question, I believe he referred to it lovingly as Life--taken in a metaphysical sense as constant struggle, appropriation, excretion, etc. (Heraclitus' polemos with all in a state of constant flux). Will to power would be synonymous with Life IMO.

When I say metaphysical I don't mean something like an otherworldy Platonism, but rather as Heidegger understood it 'onto-theologically': as some concept or idea (typically God in past ages) which gathers together and grounds all particular phenomena at all times.

I'm not sure how to resolve the contradiction. Perhaps something akin to Wittgenstein's throwing away the ladder once one has climbed it? Or maybe rejecting his metaphysics altogether as just one more historically-conditioned manifestation of Being (Heidegger's position) which will ultimately give way to something else?

You can do that while still acknowledging his significance as (e.g.) a psychologist--of which he has interesting things to say about this topic of post-truth--and prescient critic of many aspects of modernity.

What do you have in mind, Agustino?

For me, the picture that "post truth world" evokes is one where the people have become increasingly cynical about the corrupt and deceitful nature of politics as an institution, and since they feel helpless or too unconcerned to do anything about it, they resignedly anesthetize themselves to a situation almost nobody could be really happy about. They are numb to the truth to the point where whether politicians lie or not becomes a matter of merely shrugging the shoulders and/or rolling the eyes. Once this stage is set, Trump enters as the perfect performer.

This hasn't come close to happening, as millions of Americans are rejecting and protesting against Trump, and he has some of the lowest opinion ratings of any president in history.

The Sanders/Progressive movement is another indicator this hasn't happened as people are rejecting corrupt, corporate politics as usual and are demanding integrity and commitment to working for Americans from their elected officials.

The Sanders/Progressive movement is another indicator this hasn't happened as people are rejecting corrupt, corporate politics as usual and are demanding integrity and commitment to working for Americans from their elected officials — Thanatos Sand

The Sanders/Progressive movement >:O >:O >:O