The Myth of Post-Truth

Why Truth Has Always Been Personal

I don’t have it in me to record a podcast episode this week, so you’re getting an article instead. I’m sorry if you were looking forward to my audio, but that will be back next week. Subscribe below so you don’t miss next week’s episode.

I wanted to write today about the idea of being “post-truth.” It was something I posted on Mastodon and in Substack Notes (Follow my personal profile on Substack to see my Notes!). It’s the idea that we’re in an era where the truth doesn’t seem to matter anymore. People just say whatever they want, nobody seems to care about the facts, and it feels a lot like we’re just making it up as we go along.

Are we really post-truth?

No, I don’t believe we are, and here’s why. Existentialism says we create our own meanings from experience because experience has no inherent meaning of its own. The only way meaning is created from an experience is if at least one conscious being observes the event and assigns meaning to it; otherwise, it has none.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no conscious being there to create meaning out of the tree falling, then the tree falling doesn’t matter. There is no inherent meaning built into the idea that the tree fell. The Universe is not concerned with events themselves. The only reason anything matters is because some human or animal has decided it does.

So, if the foundation of experience is existentialist in nature, then to be truly existentialist, we have to allow everybody to create their own meaning from experience. We’ve always done this in a fairly limited way. When we see a movie with friends and we all have different perspectives on it, we tend to accept those differing views. That’s existentialism at work. The only difference now is that it applies to everything—even things we once believed required an agreed-upon shared meaning. The idea that we need such agreement is an illusion that is now cracking. It’s a very human impulse to believe we need agreement in this way.

How do we create societies and communities when everybody has a different view of what they should look like?

We limit the role of governmental control over the lives and opinions of individuals. I believe that everybody should be fully supported with food, clothing, shelter, education, and healthcare. But I also believe that everybody should be left alone.

The reason we have politics and government is because of the illusion that shared agreement is necessary. If we let that illusion fall away, the government as it exists today—and politics—are no longer needed. Government could be radically restructured so that its only job is resource distribution.

Politics exist to enforce agreement, born from the human need to be right. But when we have a society that is existentialist in nature, where interpretations of experience vary widely, the political system fails immediately because there isn’t enough shared agreement to sustain it. What we’re seeing currently is that politics only work because people want to keep their jobs, not because there is genuine shared agreement.

Aren’t societies built on shared agreement?

What if we rethink the foundation of society and what it needs to look like? Maybe there are options beyond agreed-upon morals and values. What about resources? What about simple connection? The idea that a society has to be built on shared values is nothing more than limited thinking and a fear of what happens when people don’t agree with each other.

Wouldn’t there be more conflicts if nobody agreed with each other?

The goal is acceptance of all views—whether we agree, disagree, or believe they are true or not. It’s not our concern whether others believe what we believe. Part of the reason we are where we are today is this idea that we’re meant to make others believe as we do. We keep trying to shut each other down, and clearly, it doesn’t work. Look at the division that has been created because of that strategy.

I believe in radical freedom, meaning that all actions—helpful or harmful—should be allowed. Society today is built on a fear of harm, leading to endless attempts to control, regulate, and suppress human behavior. But harm is subjective, and efforts to eliminate it have only created more division and suffering. A world without imposed limits would force individuals to take full responsibility for their choices, interactions, and consequences. The only real foundation for peace is the removal of the pressure to survive. When people are free from survival, much of what we call ‘harm’ today would lose its fuel. The rest would be governed by the natural laws of cause and effect, allowing individuals to navigate consequences without external enforcement.

By completely removing the need for shared agreement, restructuring society and the government’s role within it, allowing radical freedom of the individual, and practicing radical acceptance of experience, we ultimately create societies that are happier, healthier, and safer for all. Shared agreement is not only not required, it creates unnecessary conflict and division that doesn’t solve anything. We don’t need to create more problems, we need to stop believing that the lack of shared agreement is a problem that needs to be solved in the first place.

Love to all.

Della