De nieuwe poortwachters van de waarheid

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
M. Simons
{"title":"De nieuwe poortwachters van de waarheid","authors":"M. Simons","doi":"10.2143/TVF.82.1.3287460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The central claim of this article is that post-truth requires a political and socio-economical perspective, rather than a moral or epistemological one. The article consists of two parts. The first part offers a critical examination of the dominant analyses of post-truth in terms of shifting standards of the origin and the evaluation of facts. Moreover, the claim that postmodernism is the cause of post-truth is examined and refuted. In the second part an alternative perspective is developed, centring around the notion of gatekeepers. Rather than linking post-truth to bullshit and postmodernism, it should be understood as a symptom of a contemporary shift in the gatekeepers of truth and knowledge. Knowledge and truth are always mediated in society through the hands of gatekeeping institutions such as journalism or science. Post-truth is a symptom of a broader transformation of the gatekeeping institutions of our current society. It therefore requires a political philosophy of these institutional shifts and the new risks they involve.","PeriodicalId":53935,"journal":{"name":"TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR FILOSOFIE","volume":"7 1","pages":"33-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR FILOSOFIE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2143/TVF.82.1.3287460","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The central claim of this article is that post-truth requires a political and socio-economical perspective, rather than a moral or epistemological one. The article consists of two parts. The first part offers a critical examination of the dominant analyses of post-truth in terms of shifting standards of the origin and the evaluation of facts. Moreover, the claim that postmodernism is the cause of post-truth is examined and refuted. In the second part an alternative perspective is developed, centring around the notion of gatekeepers. Rather than linking post-truth to bullshit and postmodernism, it should be understood as a symptom of a contemporary shift in the gatekeepers of truth and knowledge. Knowledge and truth are always mediated in society through the hands of gatekeeping institutions such as journalism or science. Post-truth is a symptom of a broader transformation of the gatekeeping institutions of our current society. It therefore requires a political philosophy of these institutional shifts and the new risks they involve.
真理的新看门人
本文的核心主张是,后真相需要政治和社会经济的视角,而不是道德或认识论的视角。本文由两部分组成。第一部分对后真相的主流分析进行了批判性的审视,从起源标准和事实评估的角度进行了转变。此外,本文还对后现代主义是后真理成因的说法进行了检验和驳斥。第二部分以看门人的概念为中心,提出了另一种观点。与其将后真相与扯淡和后现代主义联系起来,它更应该被理解为当代真理和知识守门人转变的一种症状。在社会中,知识和真理总是通过新闻或科学等把关机构的手来中介的。后真相是我们当前社会守门机构发生更广泛转变的一个症状。因此,需要对这些制度转变及其带来的新风险有一种政治哲学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: In het Tijdschrift voor Filosofie verschijnen thematische bijdragen, historische en kritische studies, literatuuroverzichten, boekbesprekingen en kronieken. Het staat open voor alle actuele stromingen in en voor discussies op de verscheidene domeinen van de filosofie. Het Tijdschrift voor Filosofie bevat bijdragen van filosofen uit verschillende landen. Het besteedt in het bijzonder aandacht aan het wijsgerige leven in Nederland en Vlaanderen en wil op wetenschappelijk niveau het wijsgerig gesprek in het Nederlands bevorderen. Elke bijdrage wordt ‘dubbel blind’ beoordeeld door tenminste twee deskundigen, afkomstig van verschillende universiteiten.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信