In Defence of Post-Truth

Are we better off without the concept of truth?

To believe what philosophers say about their field, you might be forgiven for thinking that they are seekers after the truth. However, as in so many other cases, you shouldn’t believe the hype. On the contrary, philosophers are the ultimate experts in a post-truth world. They see ‘truth’ for what it is: the name of a brand ever in search of a product which everyone is compelled to buy. This helps to explain why philosophers are most confident appealing to the truth when they are trying to persuade non-philosophers, be they in courtrooms or classrooms.

Anyone who finds my judgement too harsh or cynical is invited to consider the careers of the key philosophical terms in which knowledge claims are transacted, not least ‘evidence’ and ‘truth’ itself. ‘Evidence’ is a good place to start because it feeds directly into the popular image of our post-truth world as ‘post-fact’, understood as a wilful denial of solid, if not incontrovertible, pieces of evidence, w

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Join the conversation

jj52 2 March 2017

There are a million, even a billion 'so called' truths.
What is true for one person is a lie to another, truth is subjective to ones beliefs and experiences and as we know each of us have different experiences from which we base our truth. Therefore post truth does not exist, it is a construct by which people are trying to understand the reality that has always been.

ost truth