Reaping what they sowed
/
A is A. Unless you're a post-modernist, in which case, what's your beef?
The NYT is suddenly concerned with the concept of "fake news" on the internet.
So concerned, in fact, that the White House press secretary had to remind Times reporter Gardiner Harris four times yesterday that there's still a First Amendment in this country, and the White House can't just ban items the Times considers to be untrue.
The Times claims to be upset that the masses aren't adhering to some form of objective truth, but the very concept of such a truth, of a reality where there discoverable, knowable things that stand on their own regardless of an observer's perspective, has been debunked and discredited for well over a century, and every modern university, indeed, even our grammar schools teach a moral lesson of relative truth, including relative morality.
Simply put, the coherence theory states that, “a true proposition is one that belongs to some designated coherent set of propositions.”.. However, these propositions or “beliefs” do not necessarily have anything to do with reality. Thus, one’s system of belief could be the product of their imagination, and this would not be a problem; what matters is whether it is coherent.
By “coherent” it is generally meant: “(1) [that] each member of the set [i.e. proposition] is consistent with any subset of the others and (2) [that] each is implied (inductively if not deductively) by all of the others taken as premises.” Essentially, a coherence theory of truth is a circular chain of propositions which may or may not actually represent reality. In addition, it must contain no contradictions within itself, that is, each proposition within one’s belief system must entail the other. However, this is not to say that one’s “coherent” system of belief will not contradict another’s. In this sense, truth is relative, varying from person to person, because it is not based upon any absolute standard; rather, it is based upon the coherence or consistency of one’s thought.
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth
From the mid-19th century and into the 20th the pragmatic theory of truth also began to take shape. Like the coherence theory, pragmatism is predicated upon nominilism and antirealism. Early proponents of this view include, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey.
The pragmatic theory is quite simple to understand, “[it] implies that a belief P is true if and only if P works or is useful to have. P is true just in case P exhibits certain values for those who accept it.” In this sense the pragmatic theory of truth is very practical; built upon utility, as opposed to objectivity. It is also relativistic, “Pragmatism . . . must be formulated relativistically, since whether it is useful to believe a proposition evidently varies from one believer to another.
Postmodern Theories of Truth
Postmodern Theories of truth can be broken down into three basic categories: Phenomenological, Structural, and Pragmatic. ...
What can be said with certainty is that postmodernists reject the correspondence theory of truth. In their view, “truth is relative to a linguistic community that shares the same narrative.” In other words, truth is determined by one’s community (i.e. culture, language, social environment). This may be represented by any one of the afore mentioned theories, as long as they are consistent with a subjective view of reality.
Like the coherent and pragmatic theories, postmodern theories are built upon antirealism and nominalism. Even more foundational, is their rejection of absolutes or dichotomous thinking. Dichotomous thinking occurs when, “someone divides a range of phenomena into two groups and goes on to claim that one is better than the other.” Examples of dichotomous thinking include distinctions between good and bad, right and wrong, or true and false.
It's hard to understand the Times' complaint except to observe that, having helped create today's world, they don't like it: notwithstanding everything its editors and readers were taught and believe. they still insist that there is an objective truth, which is whatever they say it is. Ironic that the left is screaming so loudly at the masses who learned the same philosophy from their teachers, and have proceeded to construct their own coherent reality: who is the Times to say they're wrong? According to the narrative propounded by the Left for oh so long, there is no wrong.
