More and more we find ourselves living in a post-fact world, where subjective feelings are as valid evidence to support an argument as the objective facts of an issue. I believe that post-fact has evolved from the dissolution and a misunderstanding of postmodernism, which is leading to a change in not only philosophy, but is also eroding away at the language we use to make decisions.
For those who do not know, postmodernism is a philosophy that is a direct rejection of modernism. Modernism is the pursuit of absolute truths, focused mainly on discovering the building blocks that allow science, philosophy and art to reach some sort of ends. The modernists believe that all innovation is progress, generally speaking, and that positions should be taken to achieve such progress.
The postmodernist believes that nothing can be labeled or defined (ironic since they label themselves as postmodernists), there are no universal truths, morals are relative, words do not have defined meanings, and two conflicting viewpoints can both be right. The postmodernist seems to act as an agent of anarchy, however, this philosophy of uncertainty is what allows postmodernism to create thoughtful conversation.
To compare the difference between modernism and postmodernism, take this question: “is there a God?” The Modernist will likely take the position of yes or no. The postmodernist will answer, “I can’t say for certain one way or the other.” Because of this, a postmodernist must ask themself questions like, “If there is a God, at what point is it his responsibility to do good and at what point is it my responsibility to do good?” This question then evolves to, “At what point is it my responsibility to help my fellow man?” Whether someone is an atheist or a deist it is important to constantly ask a question like this. Simply asking the question of is there a God or not, does not address what the potential consequences are for either reality. For a postmodernist, this is a discussion worth having, because it challenges people to engage in internal reflection.
This is an example of deconstructing the question into something that will be beneficial to both sides of the debate, regardless of who is right and who is wrong. As a person who is neither a theologian or scientist, liberal or conservative, nationalist or globalist, the postmodernist is able to hold the modernists accountable and push groups toward meaningful answers, not just the correct ones. In this way, postmodernism is not anarchy, but is instead a process of inspection of the established order.
Post-fact on the other hand does not encourage thoughtful questioning, as post-fact people encourage rejection of all reality that is contrary to their own beliefs. Post-fact is not deconstruction, it is destruction; post-fact is intellectual anarchy.
This is extremely problematic when it comes to making informed decisions. Modernists will make an argument for one thing or another and take a position; the postmodernist will question the arguments of the modernist, not necessarily the position. This allows the modernist to sharpen their wit and make new revelations about reality. However, the post-fact person does not challenge arguments, only positions- “I disagree, because I feel like you are wrong.” While a postmodernist can drive a modernist up a wall with annoying questions, the two are at least speaking the same language of debate. However, the post-fact individual is speaking a different language entirely. The modernist compares the alternative hypothesis to the null, the postmodernist questions the null hypothesis. The post-fact person believes that the alternative hypothesis is the null hypothesis, because they say so.
This is why post-fact thinking must be resisted, because post-fact does not look to build, it only looks to distort reality to match the thinker's own preconceived notions and feeling on a topic. If post-fact becomes as popular of a thought process as modernism or postmodernism the very fabric of civil thought could be eroded away, as everyone fails to acknowledge any reality that is not their own.
Is there a way to defeat post-fact? I don’t know, as someone who was brought up in the remnants of a modern/postmodern America, I really can’t rationalize post-fact. However, maybe it is through postmodernism that we can get to the root of post-fact by deconstructing it and rebuilding it into a coherent philosophy that speaks the same language as modern/postmodernism. Or, perhaps, a new philosophy on thought will need to be developed in order to speak the post-fact language. Either way, Americans need to learn how to speak the same language to prevent the erosion of thought, and realize that there is a difference between taking a critical lenses to a topic and engaging in complete anarchy of reality and thought.
