This whole idea we're dealing with now about the
alternative facts and post-factuality is pretty
familiar to the 1920s. It’s a vision that's very
similar to the central premise of the fascist vision.
It's important because if you don't have the facts,
you don't have the rule of law. If you don't have the
rule of law, you can't have democracy.
Sociologists say that a belief in truth is what makes
trust in authority possible. Without trust, without
respect for journalists or doctors or politicians, a
society can’t hang together. Nobody trusts anyone,
which leaves society open to resentment and propaganda,
and of course to demagogues.
If a community or country can't hold together
horizontally by way of an idea of factuality, then
someone comes along vertically with a huge myth, and
that person wins.
> But people live in a world of subjective interpretation of it.
Everyone's subjective truth is not equal. What are the consequences of that? What are the consequences of believing your subjective truth is more authoritative than someone who has spent more time understanding a problem than you or a consensus of such people?
What you've described, via subjective truth, is the core ideology of might makes right. If you equate the truths, you are saying that the subjective truths are equal, therefore who can shout the loudest is who can spread their truth. If you believe in objective truth, then it is a clear conclusion that not everyone's subjective truth is equal and you must figure out ways to determine which truths are lower quality.
> How exactly do you know what is True when you don't know what you don't know?
Contradictions are the one thing we can be confident means something is wrong, so truth can be explored through contradictions. Entities that frequently contradict themselves are bad faith, and that creates a strong indication that their truth is probably not the truth.
Everyone's subjective truth is not equal. What are the consequences of that? What are the consequences of believing your subjective truth is more authoritative than someone who has spent more time understanding a problem than you or a consensus of such people?
What you've described, via subjective truth, is the core ideology of might makes right. If you equate the truths, you are saying that the subjective truths are equal, therefore who can shout the loudest is who can spread their truth. If you believe in objective truth, then it is a clear conclusion that not everyone's subjective truth is equal and you must figure out ways to determine which truths are lower quality.
> How exactly do you know what is True when you don't know what you don't know?
Contradictions are the one thing we can be confident means something is wrong, so truth can be explored through contradictions. Entities that frequently contradict themselves are bad faith, and that creates a strong indication that their truth is probably not the truth.