“Post-truth” was the 2016 word of the year, inspired by Trump and Brexit. But what does it mean? Is it coherent? Can we ever actually be post-truth? If so, are we now?
Dylan and Zach subject the concept to some analysis. They base their discussion on an interview in Vox of a philosopher named Simon Blackburn.
“I like to consider what we do as proceeding along a conscious awareness that the mere act of doing philosophy is a fundamentally anti-fascistic exercise. The practice of philosophy is political in a world where quality argumentation, truth, concern for issues of moral goodness all of sudden become politically contentious.” – Zach (at 1:06:25)
Outline for the episode:
3:40- Introducing post-truth
5:30- Prolegomenon to Analytic Structuralist Aphorisms
7:15- What is truth?
9:04- The correspondence theory of truth
16:19- The coherence theory of truth
17:07- The Pragmatist theory of truth
27:11- What is post-truth? Blackburn’s take- and our critiques of him
33:21- Oxford Dictionary’s (better) definition of post-truth
36:38- Post-truth vs. lying
41:49- Paradoxes in post-truth and fascism- the incoherence is the point
46:56- So the post-modernists were right all along?
49:29- Who is to blame for this mess?
53:55- Flat-earth theory hot takes
59:20- Are the post-modernists to blame?
1:00:27- Can we be held responsible for misinterpretations of our writing? (Ex. Nietzsche)
1:04:01- How can we get out of this?
1:08:03- A posteriori Supererogatory Deductions
- Read the Vox article
- Read Zach’s article on incoherence and fascism
- We recommend Lee McIntyre’s book Post Truth.
Reach out to us with your thoughts, critiques, arguments at email@example.com