But you may have much better insight into this particular issue than I do, Thanatos.

I'm not nearly as familiar with the theological dimension of Heidegger's thinking as you probably are, given your previous mention of having studied under Jesuits and therefore being aware of those typically (but not always) unmentioned influences on his work.

But the cost of this is the giving up of the isolated and a-historical ego, which is somehow impervious to historical forces and desirous of eternalizing a particular understanding of things. — Erik

Ah precisely, so he's trying to sell me a wine bottle, only that he's replaced the wine with water. I see.

But what would this eternal Truth be? And how do we, as radically finite beings, ever attain an understanding of it? My guess is that whatever it is, it has a history; and one which, incidentally, may not diminish its significance in the way I'd imagine you think it would. — Erik

Why would Truth have a history? Quite the contrary, Truth must be that which does not have a history, that which remains the same through history. The truth which has a history is not interesting, because it is a changing truth.

Well, are you familiar with Heidegger's notion of truth as alethia? Huh?

Being is historical, and therefore Truth (as unconcealment) is historical. There's no Being without Truth and no Truth without Being. (capitalizing for dramatic effect)

But please give my previous recommendation a read and get back to me on this.

I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.

I got ya.

Well, are you familiar with Heidegger's notion of truth as alethia? Huh? — Erik

Yes, I am familiar with his use of aletheia.

Being is historical, and therefore Truth (as unconcealment) is historical. There's no Being without Truth and no Truth without Being. (capitalizing for dramatic effect) — Erik

Yes, I would disagree with Heidegger here that Being is historical. Being obviously reveals itself through history, but that wouldn't make it historical.

But please give my previous recommendation a read and get back to me on this. — Erik

Okay, I will read this and then get back to you! :) Is there a particular translation or can I just read this one:
http://pacificinstitute.org/pdf/Letter_on_%20Humanism.pdf

That'll work. 8-)

Yeah, seriously, that was a surprisingly dumb comment of Agustino's. — Erik

Perhaps it was a typo and Agustino meant to write "achiever". ;) >:O

:-|

Or you realised what I was saying...

SO how does this Heidegger stuff relate to the thread?

I think we both understand one another Banno. Our differences do not help the thread along, as far as I can see...

I am still reading it, I will finish soon and comment.

The Heidegger tangent is relevant due to Heiddy's use of the term "truth". In a post truth world where truth is unconcealedness, that which is the case but has long since been hidden is no longer... concealed.

Erik's earlier post can be used as a particular example of that that applies universally.

When reality imposes itself upon one in such a way that s/he must either change their belief about reality and/or devalue the role that reality has in determining what it makes sense to believe, the ground of one's belief system becomes paramount.

I am reminded of Russel here, particularly his talk about looking into the source of one's thought/belief in his book Why I'm Not A Christian. While not everyone's worldview is Christian-based, the importance of figuring out what one thinks/believes and why is crucial to not only understanding oneself, but understanding one's place in the world, which must include understanding others.

If one's view of others is guided by a with us or against us principle, it can be very problematic. I mean that can pave the way to an overwhelmingly powerful criterion built upon confirmation bias alone.

Hence... currently in the US, we have begun to see the notion of 'Deep State' being used in precisely this manner...

In a post truth world where truth is unconcealedness, that which is the case but has long since been hidden is no longer... concealed.

So, you're saying Truth is no longer concealed in a theoretical "Post-Truth" world. That doesn't make much sense.

When reality imposes itself upon one in such a way that s/he must either change their belief about reality and/or devalue the role that reality has in determining what it makes sense to believe, the ground of one's belief system becomes paramount.

This isn't happening now.

If one's view of others is guided by a with us or against us principle, it can be very problematic. I mean that can pave the way to an overwhelmingly powerful criterion built upon confirmation bias alone.

This dynamic is neither dominant now, nor is it new. In fact, it was much worse during the post-9/11 years when you were either "with us or with the terrorists." Suddenly even some "leftists' were backing the predominantly unconstitutional Patriot Act and the horrid Iraq War.

Hence... currently in the US, we have begun to see the notion of 'Deep State' being used in precisely this manner...

We're seeing "deep state" used because the deep state exists, has made terrible costly lies to Americans before, and are greatly involved in this pathetic "investigation" of a Russian election tampering conspiracy that has produced nil in almost a year. At first Hillary Clinton and others spread the lie that 17 agencies (as if the Coast Guard matters) believed in this conspiracy theory. But now we know it's only 3--the prime 3 of the Deep State: The CIA, FBI, and NSA who are no more trustworthy on their word than Donald Trump Jr.

I wrote:

In a post truth world where truth is unconcealedness, that which is the case but has long since been hidden is no longer... concealed.

Sand replied:

So, you're saying Truth is no longer concealed in a theoretical "Post-Truth" world. That doesn't make much sense.

That's not what I wrote, nor does it follow from what I wrote.

In a post truth world where truth is unconcealedness, that which is the case but has long since been hidden is no longer hidden. The world after the unveiling would be the post truth world...

I wrote:

In a post truth world where truth is unconcealedness, that which is the case but has long since been hidden is no longer... concealed.

Sand replied:

So, you're saying Truth is no longer concealed in a theoretical "Post-Truth" world. That doesn't make much sense.

That's not what I wrote, nor does it follow from what I wrote.

If you look at your passages closely, you'll see it is what you wrote, if not word for word.

In a post truth world where truth is unconcealedness, that which is the case but has long since been hidden is no longer hidden. The world after the unveiling would be the post truth world...

Now you're saying something different. You're saying the world before the Post-Truth world, the Truth world, hid something. And after that something was revealed, we'd have the Post-Truth world.

Now that is very odd. You're saying the world before the Post-Truth world, the Truth world, was the deceptive one, and when we had more Truth and saw what was hidden, we'd have the Post-Truth world. So, you're saying there is more Truth in the Post-Truth world than in the Truth world. That doesn't make much sense now, does it?

By the way, what exactly was being concealed and what was revealed?

The following two claims are not the same...

In a post truth world where truth is unconcealedness, that which is the case but has long since been hidden is no longer... concealed.

Truth is no longer concealed in a theoretical "Post-Truth" world.

Anyone can look and see that for themselves.

No, they are the same because you say what has long been hidden is no longer concealed.

You need to clarify what has long been hidden and is no longer concealed if you are going to make your case. You haven't done so yet.

Regarding Heiddy's notion of Truth...

In a post truth world where truth is unconcealedness, that which is the case but has long since been hidden is no longer hidden. The world after the unveiling would be the post truth world...

Seems to me that Heidegger comes close to drawing an equivalency between the way things are/were with the term truth, as compared/contrasted to the way one thinks/believes things are/were and arrives at Truth as a result. His knowledge of how stuff is hidden from folk seems to bear upon his conceptions. Be all that as it may...

I find little to no value in attempting to make sense of what a post truth world entails with Heiddy's notion of Truth as unconcealedness. That doesn't surprise me in the least though. I mean, it just shows that Heiddy's notion of Truth doesn't play a role in what folk are calling a 'post-truth' world.

So, to directly answer Banno's question...

All the stuff about Heidegger is irrelevant to the thread.

That didn't show what you think has long been hidden and is no longer concealed in the supposed "Post-Truth world." ....but I guess we can move on.

Perhaps something can be gleaned if we focus upon what counts as an acceptable lie, if anything at all does. I mean, the current situation involves an overwhelming amount of distrust in elected and/or government officials(regardless of whether or not that is well-grounded). The collective conscience has accepted insincerity as the norm, but it hasn't accepted any and all forms thereof. It is certainly the case that some instances of dishonesty are still widely considered unacceptable...

Clearly so.

And yet others seem to argue from the idea that all lies are equal.

I mean, the current situation involves an overwhelming amount of distrust in elected and/or government officials(regardless of whether or not that is well-grounded).

Our situation the last 60 years before the current situation involved an overwhelming amount of distrust in elected and/or government officials.

You seem to forget:

The Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran/Contra, Clinton's wagging his finger at America and saying "I never had sexual relations with that woman," Bush and the CIA's lies about WMDs leading to the nightmarish Iraq War, and Obama lying to us about the NSA unconstitutionally monitoring our phones.

The collective conscience has accepted insincerity as the norm, but it hasn't accepted any and all forms thereof. It is certainly the case that some instances of dishonesty are still widely considered unacceptable...

This has also been the case long before Trump.

Clearly so.

And yet others seem to argue from the idea that all lies are equal.

I haven't seen a single post saying all lies are equal. You need to go find one if you want to back up that dubious claim

All the stuff about Heidegger is irrelevant to the thread. — creativesoul

The Heidegger tangent is relevant due to Heiddy's use of the term "truth" — creativesoul

Make up your mind will you? >:O

I expected that...

X-)

I tried to make it relevant.

So if we put this into the appropriate context, the term post-truth began being bandied about during and especially right after a leader was elected despite his clear disregard for truth. This could only happen in a 'democratically' elected government if choosing him was considered the best thing to do, given the available choices.

But how could it ever have been that way to begin with?

Given the central role that truth plays in all thinking, how could people harbor so much distrust in government, that they believed someone like Trump was the best option? They would have to believe that they could trust him to correct what they wanted fixed.

If a very large swathe of people firmly believe that government itself is the problem, and that fixing the problem requires replacing everyone in government, then electing an 'outsider' with the power to do that seems to be necessary. That makes it easier to elect someone whose never been a politician.

Here's the thing though...

What if that kind of thinking amounts to a misdiagnosis of the problem?

What good does it do to replace each and every politician if it is the case that they do not write the legislation that they pass?

Mull that one over for a bit...

Here's something else worthy of consideration...

Do the American people elect candidates based upon what the candidates themselves think/believe, or do they elect the candidates who have the best speech writers?

Because it is the case that politicians do not write their own speeches, then when giving a speech, they are not representing their own thought/belief in the speech act.

Yet, it is taken(quite mistakenly) to be the case that they are.

On my view, that in and of itself, amounts to speaking insincerely, and lays some of the groundwork necessary for understanding exactly what's going on...

...