3 ms·

You can make a distinction between empirical truths and things (often claims) that are right and wrong. The former has no 'history'; while the latter is context

You can make a distinction between empirical truths and things (often claims) that are right and wrong. The former has no 'history'; while the latter is contextual and tied up in the practice and expression of reasons, which is to say, it is essentially historical and cultural. That's really all that postmodern thought says really. Naturally, for a government to be right or wrong, requires that citizens be critical of it, almost actively antagonistic in their demands for reasons, evidence (be it empirical or otherwise) and clarification. Postmodern thought is a critical tool. So that's not that different than what we have right now (most of HN for instance is hyper-critical of nearly all government truth claims), only the demands on citizens are likely outpacing their resources and abilities.

jfengel 3y ago
Even empirical truth has a remarkable degree of social construction. Consider the notion of "force", as empirical as it gets. But then you look at relativity or even just centrifugal force. Scientific revolutions consist of reinterpreting objective facts. It's not just "nothing is real", which is just intellectual laziness. It's noting that we always interpret the world; we can't avoid it. Ordinary interactions usually arrive at similar interpretations, but people have a remarkable way of being influenced in that judgment. And sometimes that can lead to some really bad outcomes. It's important to recognize that the potential is always there even in things that seem obvious.