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.

You're not putting it into the appropriate context, since most of Trump's voters--and there were a lot of them--believed Trump would "put America First" and bring back jobs and crack down on immigration (which he did do). So, Trump's election was not an affirmation of a new "Post-Truth" world.

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

Nobody said it was the way you said It was to begin with because the way you said it is above is not the way it is. However, many people knew Bush lied about WMDs and still voted him in for a second term.

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.

Did you really ask how people could harbor so much trust in government when the government has lied to us about Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, the NSA unconstitutionally monitoring our phones, and the government's close ties with the banks they let screw over millions of Americans? Have you even been living in America? If Americans didn't distrust our government, they'd be naïve fools.

And voting for Trump because voters distrusted the government just shows they picked one out of two terrible options. Hillary sucked, too. It certainly doesn't point to the existence of a "Post-Truth world."

They would have to believe that they could trust him to correct what they wanted fixed.

Not necessarily, many also voted for him because they couldn't stand Hillary Clinton who's stupid "deplorables" comment made them feel she wouldn't be there for them. And everyone picks a president because they hope they'll fix things. That also doesn't point to a "Post-Truth world"

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.

Your going off the rails here. Trumpys may be a bit clueless, but none of them wanted or event thought they could have everyone replaced. And Sanders was an outsider, and the best candidate, and many smart people supported him. Outsiders can be good things--Bobby Kennedy was an outsider.

Here's the thing though...

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

Here's the thing, though...

Nobody thinks that way.

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?

You tell us, and tell us why it is relevant to the discussion.

I will. Sit down and shut the fuck up. You're making yourself look bad.

You confirmed everything I wrote, all the while denying it...

The only one who is making himself look bad is you, both with your stupidity and your pathetic meltdown.

And the only thing I confirmed was that stupidity, and now you're throwing a tantrum like a spanked child. So, the one who needs to sit down and shut the fuck up is you...:)

That'll work. 8-) — Erik

Okay, I finished it! It was good, I agree with Heidegger on quite a few issues there, so thanks for sharing. Just as a warning for other people, secondary sources on this work - as on most other philosophical works I've read - are absolutely useless. I almost have no clue how people are writing their secondary sources, since I see very little resemblance to the message of the original. For example, this was crap:

https://belate.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/heidegger-letter-on-humanism/

Whoever wrote that should shut down his blog immediately.

To qualify what I agree on would be difficult since he covers quite a bit of ground. But I basically agree with the overall gist, and had similar thoughts before myself too, but coming more from the phenomenology of Max Picard. The part I found most agreement with is page 263 until page 266, especially where he goes over showing the importance of thinking about values, morality, God, etc. without taking these for granted. We take the symbols for granted, and this masks the fact that we don't actually know them at all. So a denial of the superficial symbol isn't a denial of its true meaning.

I also developed a skepticism of logic - I don't view logic and rationalism as primary, not even the law of noncontradiction - largely because of my study of Pseudo-Dionysus, the Bible, the Tao Te Ching and also Zhuangzi. So in that I agree with Heidegger that before we can think of logic and metaphysics we must think Being (although I would say we must think God). The importance of meditation on the Logos on page 265 was also quite good.

And of course, regarding the forgetfulness of Being (and all our problems emerging from there), I completely agree, that is pretty much what Max Picard says as well, except that he says it's a forgetfulness of God. So I also agree that "escaping" our age can only happen through remembrance - anamnesis - as Plato would say - of God. But I wouldn't think that is something that we can do by ourselves so to say... at least on a collective level. A single man cannot be the light of an age.

But on an individual level it's about remembering an experience (for thinking Being presupposes it), which is so difficult to remember or become aware of precisely because it is, as Heidegger says, so close to us, which actually makes it so far in the sense that we do not see it.

I also agree with his interpretation of Materialism (where every being appears as the material of labor - as a tool, or an object to do something with, instead of in-itself).

And I agree with his dismissal of metaphysics as too superficial an analysis - so to speak by the time we're going metaphysics, we have already forgotten that which metaphysics itself presupposes.

There's a few more things there, but that's a quick outline of the things that I found most productive in there.

Overall, I think that Heidegger, much like other previous thinkers, are trying to recover, or remember in their own age, the same essential "thing" (for lack of a better word), and in this philosophy is perennial and not historical, although we ourselves are historical beings, who nevertheless transcend our place in history (his discussion of transcendence was also interesting).

However, I will say that he is difficult to read which reminded me of the time I was ploughing through Being and Time - this letter clarified through some of Being and Time for me. There are thinkers who express the same ideas as Heidegger (I mentioned some of them), but I found them more accessible. Although perhaps being accessible has the fault that it doesn't make you think through the symbols, and rather has you take them for granted rather than relating them to your own experience.

You seem to interpret Heidegger in a more immanent sense than I do (for example your focus on this life, which is too Nietzschean for me, although I will say that being "spiritually rich" in my sense of the term enriches this life in much the same way as you intend to enrich it, rather than depreciating it).

So, there's been a long standing history of politicians being less than honest in their motives. The government has legitimized their own bribery. Legislation is not necessarily written by elected officials. Politicians' speeches are written by someone other than themselves.

It is no wonder that folk think that their votes do not matter in the big picture. It is no wonder that folk have a hard time believing much that politicians say. It is no wonder that someone like Trump could rise to power...

This bears repeating..

What good does it do to replace politicians, if it is not the politicians who are writing and implementing the laws?

Man you should honestly press the break pedal with those insults before you get banned. Literarily every time I stumble across your posts, you're insulting someone. What the hell? :s Is that how you practice your progressive virtue?

Likewise, what good does it do to focus upon which politician is more trustworthy, when it is the case that politicians do not write the laws?

There's a systemic problem in American government, and it cannot be corrected without correcting the system itself.

I'm not the one who insulted first; Creative Soul was. The fact you didn't notice that shows how biased, and worthless, your opinion is on the matter.

Have a good day. I won't be reading any more of your posts on this thread.

I'm not the one who insulted first; Creative Soul was. The fact you didn't notice that shows how biased, and worthless, your opinion is on the matter. — Thanatos Sand

Yes I am actually aware he insulted you first, but this isn't the first thread where I've seen this behaviour of yours. So why are you doing it my man? Why feel the need to insult strangers just because they disagree with you or insult you? :s

So, you admit your bias. Good. I haven't insulted anyone until then. But I've seen you insult people a lot. So, why feel the need to insult strangers just because they disagree with or insult you? :s

Some folk look for reasons to be insulted. Not much one can do about that.

Yep, and that was you, Creativesoul. Not much one can do about that...:)

Other folk show a tendency towards ad homs... regardless of whether or not they are blatantly insulting another.

I do not think that what I said insulted you Sand...

Am I wrong?

Other folk show a tendency towards ad homs... regardless of whether or not they are blatantly insulting another.

Yep, and that was you, too. You know yourself too well.

I do not think that what I said insulted you Sand...

Am I wrong?

Yes, you're very wrong, you tried to insult me, but I wasn't insulted.

But if you didn't insult me, I certainly didn't insult you. So, I'm good with either...:)

Oh. So, what I wrote did insult you?

Oh, So, what I wrote did insult you?

And you read my post poorly, I made it clear I wasn't insulted.

Nah. What you write irritates me. It reeks of insincerity.

Then you disagree with Augustino that I insulted you. Thanks for the support.

And it was very sincere...:)

So, you admit your bias. Good. I haven't insulted anyone until then. But I've seen you insult people a lot. So, why feel the need to insult strangers just because they disagree with or insult you? :s — Thanatos Sand

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/93150#Post_93150

That convo is just one example. If I spend 5mins digging through your posts I'll find many many insults. Way too many. In fact, I was reading through your posts earlier on, and the number of times you gratuitously insult people is staggering.

Regarding me insulting people, I sometimes do that, though generally not serious, and it's actually not that frequent. But you insulted four different people yesterday, calling two of us racists (for no adequate reason) and then when two other members pointed to this, you deflected it and told them they can't read or are racists themselves. You must consider yourself very smart and superior.

But if you want to play this stupid game let's play it properly. You say that what I said was racist. Let's ask the moderators, because racism is a banable offence according to the forum guidelines. So if what I said was racist, then I should be banned. But if it wasn't, then you should apologise. The moderators don't like me much anyway, so how about we ask them what they think? :) And if they think like you, then I will get banned, otherwise you must apologise. How about that? Are you willing to play or will you try to get out of it when the going gets tough? :)

LOL. Sorry, that conversation doesn't show one insult. Thanks for making my point for me. And calling someone a racist when they say racist things, as you did, isn't insulting someone. It's telling the truth.

Whether or not you were trying to insult me is another matter altogether. It seems that Augustino and I agree on that much(that that was your intent).

Sorry, you guys have no idea what my intent was. And you were clearly trying to insult me, even Augustino admitted that. Thanks for even more support.

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm not complaining that you insulted me. Here's the thing though...

If you think/believe that I insulted you by saying something, and then you say the same thing to me...

How is the one a case of insulting but the other is not?

What the hell are you talking about?

Your'e trying to say what my intent was, and you have no idea what my intent was.

And I never said you insulted me, I said you tried to but I wasnt' insulted, and that doesn't mean I was trying to insult you.

How can you not process that?

So... why are you being a coward? Let's play the game I asked you to play!

LOL. Sorry, not playing someone else's stupid game isn't cowardice. It's wisdom.

And thanks for further confirming you cant' show anywhere where I insulted anyone...:)