Revolutionary movements with their own ideas of justice (back to Foucault).

But What Is Truth? #

An Enlightenment fan in me cannot believe the statement “the truth always comes out” to be true. With so many distinct truths and untruths being possible, I’d assume a normal distribution and conclude that we haven’t arrived at any conclusive result. Of course, neither would I like such a waste of my brain time on inconclusive studies, nor I would desire the results to remain inconclusive. - pretty dense, but what do you think of it? #

The statement you’ve provided touches on several philosophical and epistemological issues, particularly concerning the nature of truth and the process of uncovering it. Here’s a breakdown of the key ideas and an analysis:

1. “The truth always comes out”:

This phrase reflects an optimistic belief in the inevitability of truth prevailing, a sentiment rooted in various philosophical traditions, including some strains of Enlightenment thinking. The Enlightenment emphasized reason, empirical evidence, and progress, often implying that truth, once sought rigorously, would emerge clearly.

2. “So many distinct truths and untruths being possible”:

This acknowledges the complexity of reality and the multitude of perspectives and interpretations that exist. In the modern or postmodern context, the idea that there is one absolute truth is often challenged. Instead, truth is seen as contingent, contextual, and sometimes pluralistic.

3. “I’d assume a normal distribution and conclude that we haven’t arrived at any conclusive result”:

The reference to a normal distribution suggests the writer is considering truth as something that can be statistically analyzed, with most outcomes clustering around a mean, but with a range of possibilities. This implies skepticism toward the idea of a single, definitive truth, as different “truths” could be spread across a spectrum, with none necessarily dominating or being fully conclusive.

4. “Neither would I like such a waste of my brain time on inconclusive studies, nor would I desire it to remain inconclusive”:

Here, the writer expresses frustration with inconclusiveness, reflecting a desire for certainty and definitive answers. This sentiment is deeply human but also reflects the tension between the Enlightenment ideal of truth-seeking and the more contemporary recognition of complexity and uncertainty in understanding reality.

Analysis

The passage encapsulates a tension between Enlightenment optimism about truth and a more modern skepticism about the attainability or even the existence of a single, absolute truth. The writer seems to grapple with the frustration of not being able to arrive at a conclusive understanding despite rigorous intellectual efforts.

• Philosophical Implications: The statement challenges the Enlightenment belief in progress and the inevitability of truth’s emergence, suggesting that the complexity of reality and the diversity of perspectives make it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve conclusive results.

• Epistemological Perspective: The invocation of a normal distribution metaphor implies a probabilistic approach to truth, where multiple outcomes (truths) exist, and certainty is rare. This aligns with epistemological views that emphasize the provisional and fallible nature of knowledge.

• Emotional Response: The writer’s frustration with inconclusiveness reflects a common human desire for clarity and certainty. The recognition that such certainty may be unattainable can lead to a sense of intellectual dissatisfaction or even existential anxiety.

The statement you provided is dense with meaning and reflects a sophisticated engagement with the philosophical challenges of truth-seeking. It acknowledges the complexity of reality and the difficulty of arriving at definitive conclusions while also expressing a very human frustration with this uncertainty. This tension is emblematic of the broader conflict between Enlightenment ideals and contemporary philosophical skepticism.

If you had to guess the age of the person quoted above, a range would be acceptable too? #

The statement reflects a deep engagement with philosophical and epistemological concepts, as well as a certain level of intellectual maturity and skepticism. The use of terms like “normal distribution” suggests familiarity with statistical or scientific thinking, while the frustration with inconclusiveness implies a reflective, possibly more experienced perspective.

Given these elements, the person could likely be in their late 20s to 40s. This age range typically encompasses individuals who have had sufficient time to engage deeply with complex ideas, perhaps through advanced education or professional experience, while also encountering the limits of certain intellectual pursuits and developing a nuanced understanding of the world.

However, this is a general estimate, and intellectual depth can be found at various ages depending on individual experience and education.

Not bad. But aren’t younger generations scoffing at the idea of even talking about truth? Not that they are against it, but they may get the feeling the other person was about to start shouting at them. Then their visceral reaction is: “Whatever, man. Brrr…” #

You’re absolutely right in highlighting a generational shift in attitudes toward discussions of truth, particularly in the context of the broader cultural and social dynamics that younger generations navigate.

Cultural Context and Generational Attitudes

Postmodern Skepticism:

Younger generations, particularly Millennials and Gen Z, have grown up in an era heavily influenced by postmodern thought, where the idea of absolute truth is often questioned or deconstructed. The cultural milieu often emphasizes relativity, multiplicity of perspectives, and the subjective nature of experience. This can lead to a certain fatigue or skepticism toward traditional philosophical debates about truth, which may be seen as overly abstract or disconnected from lived realities.

Social and Political Polarization:

In a highly polarized social environment, discussions about truth can quickly become contentious, with people fearing that expressing certain viewpoints will lead to conflict or backlash. Younger people, who are often more attuned to the rapid and volatile nature of online discourse, might shy away from such debates to avoid being drawn into potentially hostile or unproductive exchanges.

Pragmatic and Relational Orientation:

Many younger individuals may prioritize pragmatism and relational harmony over abstract debates. They might prefer to focus on concrete actions and solutions rather than engaging in what they see as philosophical hair-splitting, especially if they perceive that such discussions are unlikely to lead to any practical resolution.

The “Whatever, Man” Reaction:

The visceral reaction you describe—“Whatever, man. Brrr…”—captures a blend of resignation and disengagement that can arise when someone feels that a conversation about truth is likely to become unproductive or emotionally charged. It’s a defense mechanism against the potential frustration of arguing about something that feels inherently subjective or contentious.

This reaction also reflects a broader cultural shift towards a more ironic or detached stance on complex issues, where the emphasis is often on avoiding the emotional labor of confrontational discussions.

The attitudes you describe are indeed more common among younger generations, who often view discussions about truth through a lens shaped by postmodern skepticism, social polarization, and a pragmatic orientation. While they may still engage with these topics, they might do so with a sense of caution or resignation, reflecting a broader cultural context where truth is seen as a contentious and fraught concept. This could lead to a preference for more practical or immediate concerns over abstract debates, which can be perceived as leading nowhere productive.

If I’m correct, they explain the world through the lense of power? #

Yes, you’re correct that many younger people today, particularly those influenced by postmodernism and critical theories, often analyze the world through the lens of power dynamics. This perspective is rooted in several intellectual traditions that have become increasingly prominent in recent decades, and it fundamentally shapes how they understand truth, knowledge, and social relations.

Understanding the Lens of Power

Postmodernism and Power:

Postmodern thought, as developed by thinkers like Michel Foucault, emphasizes that knowledge and truth are not neutral or objective but are deeply intertwined with power structures. According to this view, what we consider to be “truth” is often a product of power relations, with dominant groups shaping societal norms, values, and discourses to maintain their position.

Foucault, in particular, argued that power is everywhere, not just in overt political institutions but in the subtle ways society organizes and controls behavior, knowledge, and even identity.

Critical Theory and Intersectionality:

Critical theory, especially as it has evolved into frameworks like intersectionality, examines how various forms of power—such as those based on race, gender, class, and sexuality—intersect and shape individuals’ experiences. This approach emphasizes that marginalized groups often have their realities and truths suppressed by dominant narratives.

For many in younger generations, this leads to a skepticism of universal or absolute claims to truth, seeing them instead as potentially tools of oppression used to silence or marginalize alternative perspectives.

Social and Cultural Narratives:

In the context of social media and online discourse, where much of this generation’s engagement with the world occurs, discussions often center on power dynamics. Debates about privilege, systemic inequality, and representation are framed in terms of who holds power, who is excluded, and how that power shapes what is considered “normal” or “true”?

This lens of power can lead to a heightened awareness of social justice issues and a critical stance toward institutions or ideologies perceived as reinforcing existing power hierarchies.

Implications for Truth:

Viewing the world through the lens of power leads to a conception of truth as something that is socially constructed rather than discovered. In this view, different groups may have different “truths” based on their experiences and positions within power structures.

This perspective can foster a relativistic attitude toward truth, where the focus is less on finding an objective reality and more on understanding how different truths serve different interests. This is why discussions about truth might be met with skepticism or a “whatever” attitude—they are seen not just as abstract philosophical inquiries but as potentially loaded with power implications.

The lens of power provides a framework through which many younger people analyze the world, leading to a critical stance toward traditional notions of truth and a focus on how power shapes knowledge and reality. This perspective influences how they engage with and interpret discussions about truth, often prioritizing the examination of underlying power dynamics over abstract debates about objective reality.

So, who’s then going to fight our wars? It’s just a pun. Two generations from here, we may have many revolutionaries executing liars on the spot and with no trial. #

Your pun touches on a significant and often unsettling tension in contemporary culture and politics. The idea of revolutionaries executing liars without trial evokes a dystopian scenario where truth is enforced with an iron hand, bypassing traditional legal and ethical norms. It’s a reflection of the anxiety about the potential extremes of power dynamics and the erosion of trust in institutions that claim to uphold truth.

Historical Context and Future Implications

Historical Cycles of Revolutionary Justice:

History is replete with examples where societies, after long periods of perceived injustice or corruption, have swung to revolutionary justice. The French Revolution, for instance, saw the rise of the Reign of Terror, where perceived enemies of the revolution were executed without due process. These periods of extreme action often emerge when trust in established institutions—courts, governments, media—collapses, and people take justice into their own hands, driven by a belief in a higher, moral truth.

Current Cultural Dynamics:

Today’s younger generations, as discussed earlier, often view truth through the lens of power, leading to a deep skepticism of existing power structures and institutions. This perspective can foster a sense of urgency to rectify perceived injustices, sometimes at the expense of traditional legal norms. In extreme cases, this could lead to a climate where those seen as liars or corrupt might be subjected to swift, extralegal punishment by those who see themselves as defenders of a higher moral order. This is especially plausible in an environment where institutional mechanisms of accountability are perceived as ineffective or complicit.

The Role of Social Media:

Social media accelerates and amplifies these dynamics, often acting as a trial by public opinion. The rapid spread of information (and misinformation) can create mob-like behavior, where individuals or groups are “canceled” or socially exiled based on accusations that may not have been fully vetted. This digital form of justice can sometimes feel like a precursor to more physical manifestations, where the line between holding someone accountable and enacting punishment becomes blurred.

Potential for Extremes:

If these trends continue unchecked, we could indeed see a future where revolutionary zeal leads to draconian measures against those perceived as dishonest or corrupt. The absence of due process in such scenarios would be a grim departure from the rule of law, with truth being enforced by the strongest or loudest voices rather than through reasoned deliberation. The fear is that this could result in a society where moral righteousness justifies extreme actions, echoing past revolutions that began with noble intentions but descended into tyranny.

While your pun is lighthearted, it reflects real concerns about the potential for extremism in a world where trust in traditional truth-seeking mechanisms is eroding. The future could indeed see the rise of revolutionary movements with their own ideas of justice, possibly leading to harsh and immediate punishments for those deemed untrustworthy. This scenario underscores the importance of maintaining a balance between holding power to account and upholding principles of justice, fairness, and due process, even in the face of frustration with the current state of truth and power.