|
|
|
|
|
|
by eindiran
1970 days ago
|
|
|
I don't understand how you took the idea that OP doesn't believe in truth from their post. Their point was that the "post-truth" framing implies that there was some golden age of rationality where we cared about truth and now we don't; but humans aren't exactly rational on their best days, so in some sense we've always been "post-truth". No one is asking that you think that "alternative facts" are true; OP is just saying that there wasn't significantly more truth in the media/discussions in the commons 30 years ago (or whenever the fabled golden age of truth was supposed to have occurred). |
|
|
Did you read the article?
> Here, “post” is meant to indicate not so much the idea that we are “past” truth in a temporal sense (as in “postwar”) but in the sense that truth has been eclipsed by less important matters like ideology
It does not imply a golden age of rationality at all.