As if the idea about “alternative facts” was not enough we now find ourselves in a situation in which those seeking to defend Trump make statements like this:
What Giuliani appears to be suggesting is that if two versions of a story exist, we cannot seriously talk about what the true story is. This would have some very serious implications on basic logic since the law of non-contradiction would find no place in Giuliani-logic. This is a historic low point in the defence of Trump though it was bad enough already.
I think this is a rather obvious example of the “Fair is Foul, Foul is Fair” attitude. Instead of providing facts, evidence and good reasons, Giuliani appeals to relativism. The disrespect for objective truth seems to found at the root of this administration, its’ strategy and some of its’ supporters. And those in here and elsewhere who oppose relativism seem to be rather silent on this issue. One gets the impression that at the heart of it, they actually believe that "Truth isn't truth."
"Truth isn't truth." Rudy Giuliani https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...acts-orwellian
I think this is a rather obvious example of the “Fair is Foul, Foul is Fair” attitude. Instead of providing facts, evidence and good reasons, Giuliani appeals to relativism. The disrespect for objective truth seems to found at the root of this administration, its’ strategy and some of its’ supporters. And those in here and elsewhere who oppose relativism seem to be rather silent on this issue. One gets the impression that at the heart of it, they actually believe that "Truth isn't truth."
Comment