Hakikatin Ötesi, Berisi, Kendisi: “Hakikat-ötesi” Kavramına Dair Eleştirel Bir Çözümleme

Abstract

“Hakikat-ötesi”, güncel toplumsal gerçekliğimizin ne olduğuna ve bugün karşılaştığımız birçok sorunun tasvirine dair tartışmalarda sıklıkla başvurulan bir kavrama dönüştü. Fakat yaygın tartışmalarda hakikatin ne olduğu sorusuna dair garip bir sessizlik söz konusudur. Bu durum bir yere kadar anlaşılabilir, çünkü bu soruyu mesele eden felsefe tarihinde genel uzlaşıya varılmış bir tanım yoktur. Fakat söz konusu sessizliğin bir riski, hakikati verili ve sadece bulunan bir şeymiş gibi varsayarak, bizleri savunması güç epistemoloji kuramlarına sığınmak zorunda bırakmak ve hakikat-ötesi dediğimiz durumun sebebini bir grup insanın cahilliğinde, aptallığında veya kötü niyetinde konumlandırmaktır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, hakikat-ötesi kavramının felsefi bir eleştirisini denemektir. Gerekçe arayışını neyin tatmin edebileceğine dair temel bir sorunu içeren bir yapının hatırlanması, kavramın kullanımlarının faydasına ve faydasızlığına ışık tutacaktır. Çalışmanın vardığı sonuç, hakikat-ötesi kavramının normatif ve betimsel düzlemlerde kaçınılmaz bir çift-anlamlılığı içerdiğidir. Hakikat-ötesi diyerek kavramsallaştırılmaya çalışılan toplumsal durumun tehlikesi, her şeyin tartışılır hale geldiği kuralsız bir görecilik değil, herhangi anlamlı bir tartışmayı imkânsız hale getiren toplumsal bir bölünmüşlük ve çatışma halidir. Öyleyse kavramın felsefi bir eleştirisinin göstereceği ilginç sonuç, hakikat-ötesinde söz konusu edilmek istenen meselenin—en genel anlamıyla—siyasi oluşudur.

Keywords

• Hakikat-ötesi
• Gerekçelendirme
• Kamusal Tartışma

The Hither Side of Truth: A Critical Appraisal of the Concept of “Post-Truth”

Abstract

One finds frequent appeals to the concept of post-truth in current debates that seek to describe and explain contemporary social reality and its problems. However, there is a strange silence in these debates regarding what truth is. This situation is understandable to the extent that the attempts to formulate a concept of truth have not arrived at a satisfactory definition with universal acceptance. But there remains a significant risk attached to this silence: The debates on post-truth go on as if truth is something that is merely given or found, and thereby force us into either undefended assumptions or faulty epistemological theories—the implication being that the situation that is supposed to be captured by post-truth is due to either the ignorance, stupidity or ill-will of a group of people. The goal of the present study is a philosophical critique of the concept of post-truth. It argues that recalling a certain structural problem associated with our attempts to justify claims to knowledge sheds light on the uses and abuses of the concept of post-truth.. The conclusion of the present study is that the concept of post-truth suffers from a fundamental ambiguity between its descriptive and normative meanings. The real danger of the social situation indicated by “post-truth” is not a relativism in which every claim becomes debatable, but rather a social division and conflict in which genuine debate becomes impossible. Therefore, a philosophical critique of the concept shows, ironically, that what is in question in the concept of post-truth is a political problem.

Keywords

• Post-truth
• Justification
• Public Debate

References

1. ARISTOTLE (1984). The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol 1 and 2., ed. Jonathan Barnes, Princeton University Press.
2. BAŞKIR, Ünsal Doğan (2020). “Yalan, Hakikat, Siyaset: Arendtçi Bir Bakış”, İzmir Felsefe Günleri 2019 Bildiri Kitabı (Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Felsefe Bölümü), Konak Belediyesi Yayınları.
3. BERLIN, Isaiah (1938). “Verification”, Procedeedings of the Aristotlean Society, 39/1938: 225-48
4. COSENTINO, Gabriele (2020). Social Media and the Post-Truth World Order The Global Dynamics of Disinformation, Palgrave Macmillan.
5. D’ANCONA, Matthew (2017). Post Truth: The New War on Truth and How to Fight Back, Ebury Press (e-book).
6. DAWKINS, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press.
7. EVANS, Richard John (2001). Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, Basic Books.
8. FRANKFURT, Harry Gordon (2005). On Bullshit, Princeton University Press.

9. FRANKS, Paul Walter (2005). All or Nothing: Systematicity, Transcendental Arguments and Skepticism in German Idealism, Harvard University Press.
10. FOUCAULT, Michel (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language, Pantheon Book.
11. FULLER, Steve (2018). Post-Truth Knowledge as a Power Game, Anthem Press.
12. GUDONIS, Marius (2017). “How Useful Is the Concept of Post-Truth in Analyzing Genocide Denial? Analysis of Online Comments on the Jedwabne Massacre”, Zoon Politikon, 8/2017: 141-182.
13. HACKING, Ian (2002). Historical Ontology, Harvard University Press.
14. HARSIN, Jayson (2015). “Regimes of Post Truth, Post Politics, and Attention Economies”, Communication, Culture & Critique, 8(2)/2015: 327–333.
15. HARSIN, Jayson (2018). “Post-truth and Critical Communication”, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, (https://oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-757).
16. KAKUTANI, Michiko (2018). The Death of Truth, Tim Duggan Books.
17. KALPOKAS, Ignas (2018). A Political Theory of Post-truth, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
18. KANT, Immanuel (1998). Critique of Pure Reason, çev. Paul Guyer ve Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press.
19. KEYES, Ralph (2004). Post-Truth Era Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life, St. Martin’s Press.
20. KOFMAN, Alexander (2018). “Bruno Latour, the Post-Truth Philosopher, Mounts a Defense of Science. Interview with Bruno Latour”, (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html).
21. KUHN, Thomas Samuel (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press.
22. LATOUR, Bruno (2005). Reassembling the Social An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Oxford University Press.
23. LEGG, Catherine (2018). “‘The Solution to Poor Opinions Is More Opinions’: Peircean Pragmatist Tactics for the Epistemic Long Game”, ss. 43-58, Post-Truth, Fake News, Viral Modernity & Higher Education, ed. Michael A. Peters, vd., Springer.
24. MCLINTYRE, Lee (2018). Post-truth, MIT Press
25. NEURATH, Otto (1973). “Anti-Spengler”, Empiricism and Sociology, ss. 158-213, D. Reidel Publishing Company.
26. PLATON (1997). Complete Works, ed. John Cooper, Hackett Publishing Company.
27. TRIVERS, Robert Ludlow (1972). “Parental investment and sexual selection.” Sexual Selection and The Descent of Man 1871-1971, ed. B. Campbell, Aldine Publishing Company.
28. VAN Prooijen vd. (2017). “Connecting the dots: Illusory pattern perception predicts belief in conspiracies and the supernatural”, European Journal of Social Psychology, (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225098).
29. YAZICI, Çiğdem (2020). “Hakikat Sonrası Duygular ve Eleştirel Düşünce”, Cogito: Eleştiri Zamanı, 100/2020: 246-254.