What is the post-truth world? The answer to that question could be answered through two phenomena; one is to say that the degree of the real is how contemporary science builds it up. That could be proclaimed as the objectivist response. The opposite of it, however, would be the constructivist answer which addresses “worldwide realities” for the sake of “local values” or “social meaning,” to an extent that the measure of the reality is whatever certain/specific communities characterize, or administer, as real. The issue with the objectivist view is that contemporary science will in general reject that the ‘real’ can be known; to be sure, and especially powerful strand characterizes the real by its “objective unknowability.” The issue with the constructivist view is that it is introduced on the same ontology of inexplicability, which it tries to challenge.
For reasons that go beyond the obvious, “post-truth” was named the 2016 word of the year. Scholars have proposed that politics has been unmoored from “consensual facts” that have become “discredited as creations of a privileged establishment,” among other causes. The Laffer curve is an example of “expert falsehoods.” Consensual facts can range from general principles — “a rising tide lifts all boats” — to “expert lies.” Politicians have reinforced “alt-facts” endorsed by the media, think tanks, and a partisan base in response to such facts (or lies). Alt-facts, on the other hand, are so far from reality that they’ve been labeled “obtuse” (in the technical meaning), i.e., an expression of a complete lack of concern for the truth, or “indifference to how things truly are.”
We are awash in information, but the truth is in short supply. As Walter Lippmann should have taught us that the 24-hour news cycle is all about “signalizing” events—war, crime, scandal—that appear out of nowhere and then fade away after a minute’s attention. The internet as a source of information spans billions of miles and is half an inch thick. Only in bits and pieces will reality find its way into the freshest, hottest viewpoint, breaking headlines, viral links, and clickbait. We’re looking for answers and significance, but we don’t seem to know where to look – misplacing the address of reality.
Truth, according to Lippmann, is discovered through discovering “hidden facts” and putting them “into relation with each other.” The setting determines the meaning, and it’s the context that’s missing. The digital age is all about speed and volume, but it’s not interested in explanations. The Internet of Beef constantly bombards us with provocative content to which we are supposed to reply immediately. We gain very little insight into the world as a result of this.
The context puzzle is the simplest to solve. When we put down the laptop and smartphone and take up that great device for absorbing meaning: the book, hidden facts and their relationships begin to appear. We should read history books of all kinds if we want to understand the origins of our current predicament if we want to know why we are so prosperous, educated, and free, but so miserable.
Subjective interpretations and emotive narratives take the place of objective facts, and experts are seen as a cartel of villains rather than trusted sources of information and expertise. One of the most notable characteristics of the post-truth phenomenon is the confusion surrounding it and the difficulty in understanding it, which is reflected in the multiplicity of interpretations. People are rallying around the new concept and labeling it the post-truth phenomenon, whether it’s an old phenomenon, a new phenomenon, or a revamping and intensification of an existing phenomenon. Everyone considers the post-truth phenomenon to be harmful and is attempting to comprehend it in order to cope with it.
