Post-Truth as a Feature of Hypermodern Times

In this paper I will defend the idea of the success of post-truth as one of the main features of hypermodernity. In order to understand such a claim, I will start by defining “post-truth” and showing the key differences that separate it from simple manipulation or lies. I will explain how post-truth characterizes a whole new way of understanding the difference between truth and falsity: a new attitude of indifference to the sharp distinction that moderns and ancients had placed between these two notions. I will contend that this new attitude had been announced by the work of at least three recent philosophers: Harry Frankfurt, Gianni Vattimo and Mario Perniola. They give different names to “post-truth”, though, and attribute it to different causes (from anti-intellectualism to the new media and to sheer carelessness). After that, I will explore how two key aspects of hypermodernity (according to Gilles Lipovetsky), i.e. hyperindividualism and hyperconsumption, cohere with this spread of post-truth. Finally, I will summarily refer to some political and geopolitical events that corroborate the relevance of post-truth in our hypermodern world

Postmodernism is not a Relativism. Communication Practices and Ethical Attitudes in some Postmodern Thinkers

The different “postmodern” philosophies that arose from the 1970s to the 1990s have often been considered as a kind of irrationalist-skeptical-relativist “ideology” or assorted amalgam, which in our time would dangerously take over the philosophical academy and western cultures, with grave risk for universalist or simply rationalist projects. Nevertheless, as the title of this article shows, a closer examination of some trends of postmodern thought would be able to perceive that they not only are uncomfortable with the label “relativist,” “irrationalist” or “skeptical,” but also that they offer substantial arguments against, for example, the main theses of relativism. Naturally, none of these trends has any qualms about abominating universalism as well (the presumed mortal enemy of the relativists). Thus the most sensible conclusion would be that what really seems erroneous to authors such as those we shall approach here is the presumed dilemma (presented as inevitable) between relativism and universalism (it is curious that, at least as far as faith in the existence of such a dichotomy is concerned, these presumed irreconcilable enemies, which both the relativists and the universalists believe themselves to be, are plainly in agreement). Only if they subscribe to such a rejection of this dilemma could it be explained that important thinkers of the heterogeneous postmodern group (such as those whom I propose to have a dialogue with in this article) have scorned, on the one hand, any and all universal project of rationality, but have also strongly disallowed relativist proposals (just as, naturally, they have likewise taken advantage of the issue to deny their presumed adherence to relativism as such). This idea, however, has not been understood by a large part of the scholars involved today in epistemology and practical philosophy (the two philosophical specialties in which one most frequently faces the question of relativism). To approach this understanding, therefore, perhaps it would not be amiss to review the different arguments that some postmodern thinkers use against relativism. Specifically, we shall tale a look at the reasoning in this sense that has come from Gianni Vattimo (1936), Paul K. Feyerabend (1924-1994), and Richard Rorty (1931). All of them have too often had to suffer from the suspicion of being considered as relativists. To absolve philosophers such as these from such an accusation seems to be a sine qua non condition for understanding their true position towards the universalism versus relativism dilemma

Piruetas entre la trascendencia y la inmanencia: notas acerca de la ética del «primer» Wittgenstein

Si decidiésemos clasificar las teorías éticas en “inmanentistas” (aquellas que cifran lo éticamente aceptable en algún tipo de eventos del mundo, como por ejemplo el crecimiento utilitarista del beneficio general) y “trascendentalistas” (aquellas que ubican en algún espacio más allá de este mundo y esta vida el motivo de por qué comportarnos éticamente –por ejemplo, debido a alguna suerte de recompensa ultraterrena–), entonces el pensamiento moral del llamado “primer” Wittgenstein ocuparía un lugar especial entre ambos extremos de tal dicotomía. En cierta medida, podría decirse que la propuesta ética del Wittgenstein que reflexionaba en torno a los años de composición del Tractatus guarda un delicado equilibrio que evita tanto su exclusivo sometimiento ante instancias trascendentales (fundamentos), como su asimilación total por parte de motivaciones inmanentes (provechos) a la hora de justificar el hecho de actuar de un modo correcto. En el presente artículo nos asomaremos a tal pirueta wittgensteiniana entre ambos miembros del dualismo trascendente-inmanente, y sugeriremos que el peculiar lugar en que deja lo ético, entre lo celestial y lo terrenal, acaso no sea del todo ajeno a tesis de la religión cristiana como la de la encarnación de lo divino en el mundo terreno