What do you think?
Rate this book
Een kleine geschiedenis van de waarheid: troost in tijden van nepnieuws
In Een kleine geschiedenis van de waarheid stelt publieksfilosoof Julian Baggini ons gerust: de waarheid bestaat! In een tijd waarin we overspoeld worden door nepnieuws en politici glashard feiten ontkennen, toont Baggini ons verschillende bronnen van waarheid. In korte hoofdstukken wapent Baggini ons tegen de opkomst van social media als nieuwsbron en het groeiende wantrouwen van feiten. Een positief, inspirerend cadeau voor iedereen die klaar is met post-truth, alternative facts en fake news.
104 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2017
66 people are currently reading
574 people want to read
About the author
Julian Baggini
76 books597 followersJulian Baggini is a British philosopher and the author of several books about philosophy written for a general audience. He is the author of The Pig that Wants to be Eaten and 99 other thought experiments (2005) and is co-founder and editor of The Philosophers' Magazine. He was awarded his Ph.D. in 1996 from University College London for a thesis on the philosophy of personal identity. In addition to his popular philosophy books, Baggini contributes to The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer, and the BBC. He has been a regular guest on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews
June 2, 2019
“Establishing the truth requires ‘epistemic virtues’ like modesty, scepticism, openness to other perspectives, a spirit of collective enquiry, a readiness to confront power, a desire to create better truths, a willingness to let our morals be guided by the facts.”
February 1, 2018
This is a decent book, but I have to say I much prefer the author’s previous book, The Edge of Reason: A Rational Skeptic in an Irrational World, for reasons I’ll explain.
In A Short History of Truth, Baggini presents an interesting and often insightful analysis of the different forms of truth. He also advocates for a better attitude towards the pursuit of truth. In his own words:
“Establishing the truth requires ‘epistemic virtues’ like modesty, scepticism, openness to other perspectives, a spirit of collective enquiry, a readiness to confront power, a desire to create better truths, a willingness to let our morals be guided by the facts.”
This attitude of humility and toleration is well received, particularly in this climate, but one wonders if he takes it a little too far. He seems, at times, to be going out of his way to defend nonsense.
Chapter 10, for example, begins with an extended discussion on why young earth creationism is not completely unreasonable. This is taking the principle of charity a bit too far. When a subjective belief contradicts everything we know about objective reality, at some point we should feel comfortable labeling it as irrational without reservation.
Bagginni is likewise overly charitable on the topics of religion, homeopathy, and conspiracy theories.
Science has taught us, or should have taught us, that our feelings of subjective certainty are often, in fact usually, wrong. For example, ancient cultures were certain that the earth was stationary because it felt that way and it seemed certain. They were wrong, of course, but this was only discovered by those willing to defer to the methods of empirical observation that anyone could independently verify.
Science has since then demonstrated to us that most of what we feel is true about how the world operates and even how our own minds work is utterly false. This should suggest to us that we ought to be very skeptical about the reliability of our intuitions and inner convictions, or at least temper them with the best available evidence.
We won’t all always agree, but at least by valuing evidence and experience over feeling and emotion we can make progress and pursue productive dialogue. It also means that when someone claims they have special knowledge about God or some spiritual energy we can rightly demand to see the evidence.
Truth may not always be black and white, but some arguments are certainly better or worse than others, and in the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And this extraordinary evidence is exactly what is lacking in the fantastical claims of most religions and conspiracy theories.
I think it’s important to also remember David Hume’s distinction between ‘relations of ideas’ and ‘matters of fact.’ Relations of ideas represent the truths of mathematics and logic. Things like 2+2=4 are true by definition but can’t ever tell you anything about the world. These truths are certain but largely inconsequential.
Matters of fact, on the other hand, are empirical, such as the theory of gravity. And while they can never be proven to remain correct forever with 100 percent certainty, they tell us valuable information about the world that is true with varying degrees of probability.
The implication is that to know things about the world, we have to sacrifice the certainty of intuitive knowledge. This means our knowledge can and should change and we should retain some humility in our views. But it also means that we should be skeptical about anyone who claims to know things about the world using primarily intuitive means (emotion, feeling, revelation, etc.)
In the words of Werner Heisenberg, “It will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth.”
In A Short History of Truth, Baggini presents an interesting and often insightful analysis of the different forms of truth. He also advocates for a better attitude towards the pursuit of truth. In his own words:
“Establishing the truth requires ‘epistemic virtues’ like modesty, scepticism, openness to other perspectives, a spirit of collective enquiry, a readiness to confront power, a desire to create better truths, a willingness to let our morals be guided by the facts.”
This attitude of humility and toleration is well received, particularly in this climate, but one wonders if he takes it a little too far. He seems, at times, to be going out of his way to defend nonsense.
Chapter 10, for example, begins with an extended discussion on why young earth creationism is not completely unreasonable. This is taking the principle of charity a bit too far. When a subjective belief contradicts everything we know about objective reality, at some point we should feel comfortable labeling it as irrational without reservation.
Bagginni is likewise overly charitable on the topics of religion, homeopathy, and conspiracy theories.
Science has taught us, or should have taught us, that our feelings of subjective certainty are often, in fact usually, wrong. For example, ancient cultures were certain that the earth was stationary because it felt that way and it seemed certain. They were wrong, of course, but this was only discovered by those willing to defer to the methods of empirical observation that anyone could independently verify.
Science has since then demonstrated to us that most of what we feel is true about how the world operates and even how our own minds work is utterly false. This should suggest to us that we ought to be very skeptical about the reliability of our intuitions and inner convictions, or at least temper them with the best available evidence.
We won’t all always agree, but at least by valuing evidence and experience over feeling and emotion we can make progress and pursue productive dialogue. It also means that when someone claims they have special knowledge about God or some spiritual energy we can rightly demand to see the evidence.
Truth may not always be black and white, but some arguments are certainly better or worse than others, and in the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And this extraordinary evidence is exactly what is lacking in the fantastical claims of most religions and conspiracy theories.
I think it’s important to also remember David Hume’s distinction between ‘relations of ideas’ and ‘matters of fact.’ Relations of ideas represent the truths of mathematics and logic. Things like 2+2=4 are true by definition but can’t ever tell you anything about the world. These truths are certain but largely inconsequential.
Matters of fact, on the other hand, are empirical, such as the theory of gravity. And while they can never be proven to remain correct forever with 100 percent certainty, they tell us valuable information about the world that is true with varying degrees of probability.
The implication is that to know things about the world, we have to sacrifice the certainty of intuitive knowledge. This means our knowledge can and should change and we should retain some humility in our views. But it also means that we should be skeptical about anyone who claims to know things about the world using primarily intuitive means (emotion, feeling, revelation, etc.)
In the words of Werner Heisenberg, “It will never be possible by pure reason to arrive at some absolute truth.”
March 2, 2018
I read a book by Julian Baggini a number of years ago, which I remember as enjoyable and he appears occasionally on the Guardian online. A recent piece of his on there had me wanting to read something in his style, which is a kind of clear and plain English that informs: a kind of light read about topics that might not be considered that way, and not without depth.
One of the books I bought, mostly read, disappeared in the back seat of my car, possibly to an alternate universe, although I'm dubious about that kind of thing.
This book dances around the notion of truth, whether there is such a thing at all, whether it's relative or subjective and so on. The chapter headings have the adjectives Eternal, Authoritative, Esoteric, Reasoned, Empirical, Creative, Relative, Powerful, Moral and Holistic as the kinds of truths he's discussing.
It's a slim text, which I think suits this kind of thing: not a portentous volume, but a few words that get you to think. Baggini doesn't shout at you in his writing, and one can imagine a quiet calm presentation of ideas and facts. This doesn't mean that he has the mortgage on truth, or that you should agree with him because he's said or written it.
Very enjoyable anyway and suitable for under a tree in a slight breeze, or a train without people speaking, whether mobile phones, or anything else, with the world outside passing by.
One of the books I bought, mostly read, disappeared in the back seat of my car, possibly to an alternate universe, although I'm dubious about that kind of thing.
This book dances around the notion of truth, whether there is such a thing at all, whether it's relative or subjective and so on. The chapter headings have the adjectives Eternal, Authoritative, Esoteric, Reasoned, Empirical, Creative, Relative, Powerful, Moral and Holistic as the kinds of truths he's discussing.
It's a slim text, which I think suits this kind of thing: not a portentous volume, but a few words that get you to think. Baggini doesn't shout at you in his writing, and one can imagine a quiet calm presentation of ideas and facts. This doesn't mean that he has the mortgage on truth, or that you should agree with him because he's said or written it.
Very enjoyable anyway and suitable for under a tree in a slight breeze, or a train without people speaking, whether mobile phones, or anything else, with the world outside passing by.
March 16, 2021
Anyone who believes we must restore faith in truth understands neither faith nor truth.
January 7, 2019
A quick read and good introduction to the field. Much of it is (re)stating the obvious, but all in all it is a measured response with no real position.
Baggini places himself in the middleground of two poles he paints for the reader: the postmodern denier of the existence of truth and the right-wing conspiracy nut. He describes the form of truth and shows how diverging versions of the truth are reconcilable with each other, makes a rough sketch of the scientific method without subscribing to any particular version of it, praises humanist values and rationality ... and that is pretty much it.
The book never claims to be anything more than a typology of truths, and this typology does have merit, although it becomes a little foggy in the chapters about creative truths and relative truths.
Baggini places himself in the middleground of two poles he paints for the reader: the postmodern denier of the existence of truth and the right-wing conspiracy nut. He describes the form of truth and shows how diverging versions of the truth are reconcilable with each other, makes a rough sketch of the scientific method without subscribing to any particular version of it, praises humanist values and rationality ... and that is pretty much it.
The book never claims to be anything more than a typology of truths, and this typology does have merit, although it becomes a little foggy in the chapters about creative truths and relative truths.
December 8, 2019
Truth Be Told
Baggini has a way of explaining difficult thoughts precisely, in this case concisely, without losing the reader in unnecessary minutia. I would recommend this book to anyone who thinks that truth is a black and white concept and to those who know it is not.
Baggini has a way of explaining difficult thoughts precisely, in this case concisely, without losing the reader in unnecessary minutia. I would recommend this book to anyone who thinks that truth is a black and white concept and to those who know it is not.
October 8, 2025
“Para ser más inteligentes debemos comprender la forma en la que somos idiotas.”
August 5, 2018
Someone should read it to D.F.Trump
February 7, 2021
In A Short History of Truth: Consolations for a Post-Truth World (2017), Julian Baggini surveys ten types of truth the 21st-century society uses commonly. If you didn't know there are so many types of truth, this book is for you.
Overall, short and reasonable. Everything is covered minimally, so much nuance is lost and some statements can even be shown to be false on the basis of existing evidence (e.g., even from the start, where the Google Trends cited by the author have factually changed).
Warning: Spoilers from here on.
The book covers:
1. Eternal truths, including revelations and other religious beliefs, propose comprehensive grounds of truth. At the start of the 21st century, eternal truths are still believed by a majority of people. Baggini points out a paradox: "a majority [of people] believes in at least one revelation that the majority [believing in other revelations, which are mutually incompatible] judges to be false" (loc. 134)
2. Authoritative truth, where we believe something is true based on someone's authority in moral, religious, scientific, or other accepted expertise-related issues. Immanuel Kant cautions against thinking alone (full authority to self) vs. thinking along (no full authority, and make sure you are the one drawing the conclusion for yourself).
3. Esoteric truth, which are believed due to a strong (internal) feeling about their truthiness, but for which no compelling evidence exists. This class includes prominently conspiracy theories. (In contrast, exoteric truths depend on factors outside the believer.) David Hume gives us an effective approach to calibrate the belief we put in esoteric truths - proportionally with the (amount and quality of) evidence related to it; note a common fallacy remains that lots of evidence amounts to trusted evidence, as indicated by the common saying 'no smoke without a fire'.
4. Reasoned truths, where reason and logic help deduce any truth or falsehood from a trusted base, the ground truth. Mathematical proofs often follow this approach (but not fully, because a full deductive approach is simply too long and tedious for humans, see Philip J. Davis and Reuben Hersh's The Mathematical Experience). Good reasoning cannot fail, explain Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and others. However, say Hume, Kant and others, the models and assumptions used to reduce the world to objects to which reasoning can be applied can make objects sufficiently different from the world elements they represent, invalidating not the reasonable conclusion about them but its applicability to the real world.
5. Empirical truth appear from observation and experimentation with the world. This is the only way to obtain facts, which can be hsed in the scientific method to test (invalidate, but not validate) reasonable theories, say Francis Bacon and others. (What about thought experiments and in silico, simulation- or emulation-based, experiments?)
6. Creative truths, which include 'alternative facts', are not truths accepted in any form of scientific framework yet commomly believed.
7. Relative truths are believed differently by different people. This may happen for many different reasons, under the less-liked generalization of different culture, but including differences in method, differences in meaning, different assumptions of what should be included in the body of knowledge needed to represent the problem, the precision and accuracy of the result, etc. An example is counting the number of ways the Inuit express the world's phenomenon of ice; this language encodes very similar meaning with various word-particles, such as pre and suffixes, but are these merely variants of the same word (due to core meaning) or different words? Etc.
8. Powerful truths are truth produced and (re-)enforced by structures of power. Baggini points to the sugar industry promoting its interests by paying (otherwise reputable) scientists to reach misleading conclusions about the causes of heart disease (focus on fats, removed focus from sugars). Once the known experts have given this twist, the entire community of scientists followed, points out Ian Leslie. Michel Foucault analyzed various forms of powerful truths.
9. Moral truths are rooted in culture and values. Consider the idea that killing is wrong, then analyze it in various settings, e.g., killing a repeat killer, killing to protect family or country from imminent lethal threat, killing by mistake, killing as the only way out of a wicked problem.
10. Holistic truths depend on many other truths, effectively forming a web (of knowledge). Thus, invalidating a previous belief (formerly, a truth) may impact many others; conversely, invalidating even a single truth may require invalidating many others. This aligns with the paradigm concept of Thomas Kuhn.
Overall, short and reasonable. Everything is covered minimally, so much nuance is lost and some statements can even be shown to be false on the basis of existing evidence (e.g., even from the start, where the Google Trends cited by the author have factually changed).
Warning: Spoilers from here on.
The book covers:
1. Eternal truths, including revelations and other religious beliefs, propose comprehensive grounds of truth. At the start of the 21st century, eternal truths are still believed by a majority of people. Baggini points out a paradox: "a majority [of people] believes in at least one revelation that the majority [believing in other revelations, which are mutually incompatible] judges to be false" (loc. 134)
2. Authoritative truth, where we believe something is true based on someone's authority in moral, religious, scientific, or other accepted expertise-related issues. Immanuel Kant cautions against thinking alone (full authority to self) vs. thinking along (no full authority, and make sure you are the one drawing the conclusion for yourself).
3. Esoteric truth, which are believed due to a strong (internal) feeling about their truthiness, but for which no compelling evidence exists. This class includes prominently conspiracy theories. (In contrast, exoteric truths depend on factors outside the believer.) David Hume gives us an effective approach to calibrate the belief we put in esoteric truths - proportionally with the (amount and quality of) evidence related to it; note a common fallacy remains that lots of evidence amounts to trusted evidence, as indicated by the common saying 'no smoke without a fire'.
4. Reasoned truths, where reason and logic help deduce any truth or falsehood from a trusted base, the ground truth. Mathematical proofs often follow this approach (but not fully, because a full deductive approach is simply too long and tedious for humans, see Philip J. Davis and Reuben Hersh's The Mathematical Experience). Good reasoning cannot fail, explain Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, and others. However, say Hume, Kant and others, the models and assumptions used to reduce the world to objects to which reasoning can be applied can make objects sufficiently different from the world elements they represent, invalidating not the reasonable conclusion about them but its applicability to the real world.
5. Empirical truth appear from observation and experimentation with the world. This is the only way to obtain facts, which can be hsed in the scientific method to test (invalidate, but not validate) reasonable theories, say Francis Bacon and others. (What about thought experiments and in silico, simulation- or emulation-based, experiments?)
6. Creative truths, which include 'alternative facts', are not truths accepted in any form of scientific framework yet commomly believed.
7. Relative truths are believed differently by different people. This may happen for many different reasons, under the less-liked generalization of different culture, but including differences in method, differences in meaning, different assumptions of what should be included in the body of knowledge needed to represent the problem, the precision and accuracy of the result, etc. An example is counting the number of ways the Inuit express the world's phenomenon of ice; this language encodes very similar meaning with various word-particles, such as pre and suffixes, but are these merely variants of the same word (due to core meaning) or different words? Etc.
8. Powerful truths are truth produced and (re-)enforced by structures of power. Baggini points to the sugar industry promoting its interests by paying (otherwise reputable) scientists to reach misleading conclusions about the causes of heart disease (focus on fats, removed focus from sugars). Once the known experts have given this twist, the entire community of scientists followed, points out Ian Leslie. Michel Foucault analyzed various forms of powerful truths.
9. Moral truths are rooted in culture and values. Consider the idea that killing is wrong, then analyze it in various settings, e.g., killing a repeat killer, killing to protect family or country from imminent lethal threat, killing by mistake, killing as the only way out of a wicked problem.
10. Holistic truths depend on many other truths, effectively forming a web (of knowledge). Thus, invalidating a previous belief (formerly, a truth) may impact many others; conversely, invalidating even a single truth may require invalidating many others. This aligns with the paradigm concept of Thomas Kuhn.
December 30, 2021
The context, is misleading; this is a classification, of various usages of the word truth. The work, is decidedly not too heavily connected with "post-truth"; perhaps the context for this later notion, is Trump, alt-facts and fake news. This argument is not made too well in this book. The categories presented, overlap; on some level it is not clear, also how they are related. This information, and the justification for the categories, and their relationships are absent. Obviously the relationship to the post Trump political world is not, fleshed out. Not recommended.
June 4, 2025
A mers la fix cu luna mai, a ficțiunii de tot felul pe care le primeam prin media. Cartea pune, prin lupa filosofică, religioasă și logică, sau științifică, degetul pe ideile de adevăr, care sunt mai vechi, sau reinterpretate în noi moduri.
În 2016, Oxford Dictionary a pus cuvântul „post-truth” drept cuvântul anului.
Titlul secundar vine de la faptul că, spune autorul, o unealtă Google care a scanat mii de cărți a arătat că „adevăr” a fost folosit ca și cuvânt doar o treime în anii prezenți, față de acum 150 de ani.
Lumea pare să nu mai creadă că există adevăr, ci doar opinii; ceea ce e adevărat pentru toți și ceea ce e adevărat pentru mine.
The French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy says: People listen less and less to policy and seem less concerned about whether the candidates are telling the truth. The author says, however, that people thus choose representatives based on more emotional considerations: losing trust in our brains, we tend to go with our guts and hearts instead.
O lecție pentru cine crede în înțelepciunea mulțimii: paradoxul că majoritatea nu acceptă o opinie majoritară (majoritatea crede o revelație a cuvântului unui Dumnezeu pe care majoritatea nu o crede adevărată).
Autoritatea adevărului – ne supunem autorității, dar când este corect să acceptăm (sau măcar să acordăm greutate) versiunii adevărului dată de o autoritate? Și cum alegem autoritatea? „Truth has become personalizez, ewith the individual sovereign over their own interpretation of reality”
Problemele cu adevărul:
- Problema noastră nu e cu definiția sau filosofia adevărului, ci cu modul și de către cine este stabilit adevărul.
- E adevărat sau e o judecată locală?
- Problema nu e absența adevărului, ci abundența
- By retreating into bubbles of the likeminded, people can strip out a lot of inconvenient complexities a wider perspectivw would give leading to a simpler but therefore also distorted network of belief
- To get our facts out, we have to get our attitudes to the facts right.
Tipuri de adevăr:
- Empirical truths: the strength of empirical truth resides in the fact that it is always open to scrutiny, revisions and rejections
- Creative truth, câteodată cuvintele fac adevarul, ca arunci cand un preot spune Va declar sot si soție și e adevarat
- Relative truth- the relativist argues there are no bare facts, only jnterpretation of facts, mediated through culture
- Powerful thurths: the truth is to have great power, witch is why anyone concerned with power and influence is also concerned to spin the truth in ways that suit them. Nebunia cu grăsimea is bad vine de la Ancel Keys, care se băga în seamă în vrema lui Eisenhower si era conectat și a abagat bani in studii care sa ii dea dreptate
”Every time we debunk an alleged truth propounded by the self interested powerful, we prove that truth can overcome power and must not always be its servant”
- Moral truth: de teama asupririlor din trecut, acum unele culturi sunt lăsate sa faca ceva cor in ideea in care sa nu fie asuprite sinasa sisteme ca mutilarea genitala si căsătoriile la 12 ani sunt lăsate sa continue
”New facts are inconvenient for the truth”
V-o recomand, de rasfoit o data la 4 ani sau 5 sau cand simti ca nu mai stii ce, cum, pe cine sa crezi.
➡️No one can make up your mind for you unles you you make up your mind to let them!
În 2016, Oxford Dictionary a pus cuvântul „post-truth” drept cuvântul anului.
Titlul secundar vine de la faptul că, spune autorul, o unealtă Google care a scanat mii de cărți a arătat că „adevăr” a fost folosit ca și cuvânt doar o treime în anii prezenți, față de acum 150 de ani.
Lumea pare să nu mai creadă că există adevăr, ci doar opinii; ceea ce e adevărat pentru toți și ceea ce e adevărat pentru mine.
The French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy says: People listen less and less to policy and seem less concerned about whether the candidates are telling the truth. The author says, however, that people thus choose representatives based on more emotional considerations: losing trust in our brains, we tend to go with our guts and hearts instead.
O lecție pentru cine crede în înțelepciunea mulțimii: paradoxul că majoritatea nu acceptă o opinie majoritară (majoritatea crede o revelație a cuvântului unui Dumnezeu pe care majoritatea nu o crede adevărată).
Autoritatea adevărului – ne supunem autorității, dar când este corect să acceptăm (sau măcar să acordăm greutate) versiunii adevărului dată de o autoritate? Și cum alegem autoritatea? „Truth has become personalizez, ewith the individual sovereign over their own interpretation of reality”
Problemele cu adevărul:
- Problema noastră nu e cu definiția sau filosofia adevărului, ci cu modul și de către cine este stabilit adevărul.
- E adevărat sau e o judecată locală?
- Problema nu e absența adevărului, ci abundența
- By retreating into bubbles of the likeminded, people can strip out a lot of inconvenient complexities a wider perspectivw would give leading to a simpler but therefore also distorted network of belief
- To get our facts out, we have to get our attitudes to the facts right.
Tipuri de adevăr:
- Empirical truths: the strength of empirical truth resides in the fact that it is always open to scrutiny, revisions and rejections
- Creative truth, câteodată cuvintele fac adevarul, ca arunci cand un preot spune Va declar sot si soție și e adevarat
- Relative truth- the relativist argues there are no bare facts, only jnterpretation of facts, mediated through culture
- Powerful thurths: the truth is to have great power, witch is why anyone concerned with power and influence is also concerned to spin the truth in ways that suit them. Nebunia cu grăsimea is bad vine de la Ancel Keys, care se băga în seamă în vrema lui Eisenhower si era conectat și a abagat bani in studii care sa ii dea dreptate
”Every time we debunk an alleged truth propounded by the self interested powerful, we prove that truth can overcome power and must not always be its servant”
- Moral truth: de teama asupririlor din trecut, acum unele culturi sunt lăsate sa faca ceva cor in ideea in care sa nu fie asuprite sinasa sisteme ca mutilarea genitala si căsătoriile la 12 ani sunt lăsate sa continue
”New facts are inconvenient for the truth”
V-o recomand, de rasfoit o data la 4 ani sau 5 sau cand simti ca nu mai stii ce, cum, pe cine sa crezi.
➡️No one can make up your mind for you unles you you make up your mind to let them!
July 19, 2019
One thing this book is not, is a short history of truth. Fifty years ago the title would probably have been: "Everything you always wanted to know about truth but were afraid to ask". Anyway, the sub-title is excellent and so the book itself is.
Instead of a history, Baggini gives us 10 short essays on one aspect of truth. About eternal truths, esoteric truths, relative truths etc.
What immediately made me like the writer is that he starts off his chapter on eternal truths with the story Smith and Moroni. A story, he says, that that any non-Mormon will not only think is untrue, "but obviously, outrageously, ludicrously false".
And yet, why should a story be more absurd just because the revelation happened only recently? He comes back to religion at the end of the book when he talks about Young Earth Creationists. They are not at all irrational, he says, as one would assume. Within their framework they are fully rational. That is why they try to explain away all contradictions. And, again in their framework, they succeed splendidly. So the belief is indeed immune to refutation.
The main target of the book is relativism. But he does not condemn it but explains why people endorse it. (Not always out of laziness or for evil purposes. For example, one root of cultural relativism is post-colonial guilt. But that does not mean that stoning adulterers to death is just a cultural phenomenon that is neither good nor bad. It is bad.)
In the end it is the facts that count. One very good example he gives is the idea that Eskimos have fifty words for snow. Something that everybody used to "know". But "a later, less virulent but still vigorous counter-meme is that the 'Eskimo words for snow' story is in fact an urban myth." (p. 69) Which is correct? Are truths not really just relative? Depends on what you mean by 'snow', depends on what you mean by language. Etc. But in the end, "crucially, once we choose a convention to follow and count accordingly, our answer is determined by the facts, not us." (p. 72)
Quoting Blackburn, he says, we should not try to kill relativism, but to draw its teeth.
I would like to have seen a bit more technical details especially about the connection between truth and meaning, but I am happy with what he delivered. I cannot find anything I disagree with, with one minor exception at the very end of the book when he claims that truth is not a philosophical abstraction but central to how we live and make sense of ourselves. I do not see a contradiction. Truth is also a philosophical abstraction. Apart from this, an exceptionally good book.
"'How do you know?' and 'What do you mean by...?' are philosopher’s questions that have been bastardised by a cynical society." (p. 4)
Instead of a history, Baggini gives us 10 short essays on one aspect of truth. About eternal truths, esoteric truths, relative truths etc.
What immediately made me like the writer is that he starts off his chapter on eternal truths with the story Smith and Moroni. A story, he says, that that any non-Mormon will not only think is untrue, "but obviously, outrageously, ludicrously false".
And yet, why should a story be more absurd just because the revelation happened only recently? He comes back to religion at the end of the book when he talks about Young Earth Creationists. They are not at all irrational, he says, as one would assume. Within their framework they are fully rational. That is why they try to explain away all contradictions. And, again in their framework, they succeed splendidly. So the belief is indeed immune to refutation.
The main target of the book is relativism. But he does not condemn it but explains why people endorse it. (Not always out of laziness or for evil purposes. For example, one root of cultural relativism is post-colonial guilt. But that does not mean that stoning adulterers to death is just a cultural phenomenon that is neither good nor bad. It is bad.)
In the end it is the facts that count. One very good example he gives is the idea that Eskimos have fifty words for snow. Something that everybody used to "know". But "a later, less virulent but still vigorous counter-meme is that the 'Eskimo words for snow' story is in fact an urban myth." (p. 69) Which is correct? Are truths not really just relative? Depends on what you mean by 'snow', depends on what you mean by language. Etc. But in the end, "crucially, once we choose a convention to follow and count accordingly, our answer is determined by the facts, not us." (p. 72)
Quoting Blackburn, he says, we should not try to kill relativism, but to draw its teeth.
I would like to have seen a bit more technical details especially about the connection between truth and meaning, but I am happy with what he delivered. I cannot find anything I disagree with, with one minor exception at the very end of the book when he claims that truth is not a philosophical abstraction but central to how we live and make sense of ourselves. I do not see a contradiction. Truth is also a philosophical abstraction. Apart from this, an exceptionally good book.
"'How do you know?' and 'What do you mean by...?' are philosopher’s questions that have been bastardised by a cynical society." (p. 4)
October 4, 2020
Truth is an eternally relevant topic. But it seems more relevant now in our modern age. We can feel that truth is harder and harder to grasp and to make it worse, we seem to have reached a point that often not only are we unsure what the truth is, but sometimes it does not seem to matter.
I enjoyed the book's layout. It is very simple, organized, and concise. It talks about several types of truth: eternal, authoritative, esoteric, reasoned, evidence-based, creative, relative, powerful, moral, and holistic. I'm surprised he managed this many, but they are all reasonably argued and it didn't feel like forced categories.
However, I was a bit disappointed in the actual content, at least compared to what I expected. It claims to deal with the history of truth, and I was hoping for some sort of timeline or historical context about truth and how that relates to our current age. No such thing is done. In fact, there isn't any historical factor at all, and I'm confused about why such a title was picked.
Nevertheless, it is indeed a book about truth and it is well written. Each type of truth reads like an essay, and they flow well without ever being complicated. I didn't like the beginning as such as it seemed to have superstitious thought against skeptical/rational thought (in search of truth) which to me feels like a low-hanging fruit is that barely worth writing about. But that tone ended quickly and the more I read the more I liked it.
To give you an idea of what is mentioned, the 2nd truth is about authority. Truth is complicated, and it often requires extensive knowledge to grasp it, knowledge we don't have. But experts do have that knowledge, from immersing themselves in that specific field for many years. We need to trust the experts, but at the same time, you may think someone is an expert when they are not. Your judgment is who to trust is intuitive, and there isn't an expert to tell you what experts to trust (and which experts tells you to trust that one?), or when the experts get it right or not.
I also enjoyed the flawed notion of truth has a distilled pure logical endeavor, coming from the rationalism of Descartes and Spinoza, which oversimply reality and ignore crucial context. The very last chapter, "holistic truths", was my favorite. It emphasized how truth isn't isolated, but it is connected to other beliefs and form a coherent worldview.
I enjoyed the book, even though I felt a bit betrayed by the title. It reads very quickly and it is all very accessible. If the topic of truth interests you, and particularly the many facets of truth, it's worth reading.
I enjoyed the book's layout. It is very simple, organized, and concise. It talks about several types of truth: eternal, authoritative, esoteric, reasoned, evidence-based, creative, relative, powerful, moral, and holistic. I'm surprised he managed this many, but they are all reasonably argued and it didn't feel like forced categories.
However, I was a bit disappointed in the actual content, at least compared to what I expected. It claims to deal with the history of truth, and I was hoping for some sort of timeline or historical context about truth and how that relates to our current age. No such thing is done. In fact, there isn't any historical factor at all, and I'm confused about why such a title was picked.
Nevertheless, it is indeed a book about truth and it is well written. Each type of truth reads like an essay, and they flow well without ever being complicated. I didn't like the beginning as such as it seemed to have superstitious thought against skeptical/rational thought (in search of truth) which to me feels like a low-hanging fruit is that barely worth writing about. But that tone ended quickly and the more I read the more I liked it.
To give you an idea of what is mentioned, the 2nd truth is about authority. Truth is complicated, and it often requires extensive knowledge to grasp it, knowledge we don't have. But experts do have that knowledge, from immersing themselves in that specific field for many years. We need to trust the experts, but at the same time, you may think someone is an expert when they are not. Your judgment is who to trust is intuitive, and there isn't an expert to tell you what experts to trust (and which experts tells you to trust that one?), or when the experts get it right or not.
I also enjoyed the flawed notion of truth has a distilled pure logical endeavor, coming from the rationalism of Descartes and Spinoza, which oversimply reality and ignore crucial context. The very last chapter, "holistic truths", was my favorite. It emphasized how truth isn't isolated, but it is connected to other beliefs and form a coherent worldview.
I enjoyed the book, even though I felt a bit betrayed by the title. It reads very quickly and it is all very accessible. If the topic of truth interests you, and particularly the many facets of truth, it's worth reading.
June 4, 2023
An important defense of epistemic virtues (e.g. humility, scepticism, objectivity) and the nuances of articulating objective truths in a "post-truth" era.
Some interesting ideas off the top of my head:
- Truths are not so much "relative" as they are incomplete, which points to the importance of empirical fact-gathering to widen our collective web of beliefs.
- The etymology of pre-judice is "pre-judgement". Thus, to judge without adequate knowledge is to show prejudice.
- We should be comfortable with uncertainty and complexity in articulating truths. Probabilistic statements can be objectively true, and many truths don't have sharply defined boundaries.
- Hume's fork in epistemology: relations of ideas and matters of fact. A priori statements concern connections between concepts, but concepts can manifest themselves in experience in a myriad of ways, hence the need for empirical research.
- Moral truths are shaped by facts about the world. Fact, combined with fellow-feeling can provide us with an adequate moral compass. We do not need to put moral truths in the same category as scientific truths for it to have an objective component.
- Beliefs rarely operate in isolation and are usually bundled with a host of consistent explanations of some phenomena.
- Whether to trust a proclaimed expert boils down to 3 things: 1) do you think the field of study is legitimate? 2) do you think the group in which the expert belongs to is legitimate in their claim to knowledge? 3) does the particular expert have the required expertise?
I think the book would be more interesting if it included more discussions on the nature of subjective/personal truths, and at least some examples originating from the eastern traditions. Almost all of the examples concern the west, which seems to be an unfortunate pattern with the popular philosophy works from the British authors. I think a diverse discussion of "truths" should also be diverse in the catalog of cultural/historical examples, so the omission is quite disappointing, although not altogether unexpected
Some interesting ideas off the top of my head:
- Truths are not so much "relative" as they are incomplete, which points to the importance of empirical fact-gathering to widen our collective web of beliefs.
- The etymology of pre-judice is "pre-judgement". Thus, to judge without adequate knowledge is to show prejudice.
- We should be comfortable with uncertainty and complexity in articulating truths. Probabilistic statements can be objectively true, and many truths don't have sharply defined boundaries.
- Hume's fork in epistemology: relations of ideas and matters of fact. A priori statements concern connections between concepts, but concepts can manifest themselves in experience in a myriad of ways, hence the need for empirical research.
- Moral truths are shaped by facts about the world. Fact, combined with fellow-feeling can provide us with an adequate moral compass. We do not need to put moral truths in the same category as scientific truths for it to have an objective component.
- Beliefs rarely operate in isolation and are usually bundled with a host of consistent explanations of some phenomena.
- Whether to trust a proclaimed expert boils down to 3 things: 1) do you think the field of study is legitimate? 2) do you think the group in which the expert belongs to is legitimate in their claim to knowledge? 3) does the particular expert have the required expertise?
I think the book would be more interesting if it included more discussions on the nature of subjective/personal truths, and at least some examples originating from the eastern traditions. Almost all of the examples concern the west, which seems to be an unfortunate pattern with the popular philosophy works from the British authors. I think a diverse discussion of "truths" should also be diverse in the catalog of cultural/historical examples, so the omission is quite disappointing, although not altogether unexpected
April 12, 2023
"Post-truth" was the Oxford Word of the Yesr - 2016.
“Are we living in a post-truth era? Yes, but that’s because we’re a post-truth species.”
… says renowned author, Yuval Noah Harari.
This book, A Short History of Truth (Consolations for a Post-Truth World) - by one of my favourite 21st century philosophers - Julian Baggini tries to answer some critically important questions:
- How did we find ourselves in a “post-truth” world of “alternative facts”?
- Can we get out of it?
Julian attempts to look at what’s truth, to begin with … and in this book he shares 10 different understanding & approach to what we consider as ‘the truth’ 👇🏼
- Eternal Truths
- Authoritative Truths
- Esoteric Truths
- Seasoned Truths
- Empirical Truths
- Creative Truths
- Relative Truths
- Powerful Truths
- Moral Truths
- Holistic Truths
Each of these ‘truths’ are a chapter in this book, and each has been discussed adequately to understand its history, its followers (or examples), and finally its impact on our lives today.
One thing is for sure, after reading this book you will certainly question your own understanding of this word / concept - truth!
Julian says in this book that:
“Truth is there if we are prepared to look for it even though it is far from plain or simple.”
And suggests that maybe, “what we most need is a method of enquiry or a set of rules for establishing facts” …
… because how we reach the ‘truth’ has a strong influence on our trust on that truth.
A fascinating read … a quick read, but one that will make you think hard and introspect.
Highly recommended, particularly because how confusing (and out of reach, at times) ‘truth’ seems today.
“Are we living in a post-truth era? Yes, but that’s because we’re a post-truth species.”
… says renowned author, Yuval Noah Harari.
This book, A Short History of Truth (Consolations for a Post-Truth World) - by one of my favourite 21st century philosophers - Julian Baggini tries to answer some critically important questions:
- How did we find ourselves in a “post-truth” world of “alternative facts”?
- Can we get out of it?
Julian attempts to look at what’s truth, to begin with … and in this book he shares 10 different understanding & approach to what we consider as ‘the truth’ 👇🏼
- Eternal Truths
- Authoritative Truths
- Esoteric Truths
- Seasoned Truths
- Empirical Truths
- Creative Truths
- Relative Truths
- Powerful Truths
- Moral Truths
- Holistic Truths
Each of these ‘truths’ are a chapter in this book, and each has been discussed adequately to understand its history, its followers (or examples), and finally its impact on our lives today.
One thing is for sure, after reading this book you will certainly question your own understanding of this word / concept - truth!
Julian says in this book that:
“Truth is there if we are prepared to look for it even though it is far from plain or simple.”
And suggests that maybe, “what we most need is a method of enquiry or a set of rules for establishing facts” …
… because how we reach the ‘truth’ has a strong influence on our trust on that truth.
A fascinating read … a quick read, but one that will make you think hard and introspect.
Highly recommended, particularly because how confusing (and out of reach, at times) ‘truth’ seems today.
May 24, 2022
yazarın “gerçek” -ya da “hakikat”- kavramını 10 farklı sınıflandırmaya ayırarak açıkladığı kısa bir eser.
neyin gerçek veya doğru kabul edildiği konusunda herkesin kendi değer yargılarının önemli bir rolü var. değer yargısı olarak görülürse eğer bazı ön kabullerle ulaştığımız matematiksel işlemlerden, dini metinlerde yer alan ahlaki yargılara kadar; bir olgunun kendimizce gerçekliğini belirleyen temeller bulunuyor. tabii ki bunların hepsinin aynı kefeye konması da mümkün değil, bu sebeple yazarın bu hakikatleri sınıflandırma yaklaşımını mantıklı buluyorum. gerçekliğin sabit bir şey olamaması ise kabul edilebilir bir şey. bugün bilim dünyasının bize sunduğu fikirleri düşünelim örneğin. bilimin dogmatik olmaması sebebiyle, doğru kabul ettiğimiz birçok şeyin yarın yanlış olabileceğini biliyoruz. kutsal kitaplar kaynaklı dini doğruları kabul eden milyonlarca insana karşılık, kutsal kitaplarda bahsedilenlere inanmayan milyonlarca farklı insan var.
bir bilginin doğru olup olmadığını saptayacak teknolojik ve bilimsel gelişmeleri göz önünde bulundurursak, hakikati bulma konusunda bize yardımcı olabilecek çok fazla yeni unsur olmasına rağmen; deepfake, photoshop vb. farklı diğer teknolojiler sebebiyle de kesinliğinden emin olamayabiliriz. o bilginin doğru olup olmadığını teyit etmek için farklı otoriterlere ihtiyacımız bulunuyor. dezenformasyon diye bilinen çarpıtma bilgilerin doğru olup olmadığını tespit için teyit.org benzeri organizasyonlar ortaya çıktı örneğin. peki hangi otoriterinin doğru söylediğine nasıl emin olacağız?
neyin gerçek veya doğru kabul edildiği konusunda herkesin kendi değer yargılarının önemli bir rolü var. değer yargısı olarak görülürse eğer bazı ön kabullerle ulaştığımız matematiksel işlemlerden, dini metinlerde yer alan ahlaki yargılara kadar; bir olgunun kendimizce gerçekliğini belirleyen temeller bulunuyor. tabii ki bunların hepsinin aynı kefeye konması da mümkün değil, bu sebeple yazarın bu hakikatleri sınıflandırma yaklaşımını mantıklı buluyorum. gerçekliğin sabit bir şey olamaması ise kabul edilebilir bir şey. bugün bilim dünyasının bize sunduğu fikirleri düşünelim örneğin. bilimin dogmatik olmaması sebebiyle, doğru kabul ettiğimiz birçok şeyin yarın yanlış olabileceğini biliyoruz. kutsal kitaplar kaynaklı dini doğruları kabul eden milyonlarca insana karşılık, kutsal kitaplarda bahsedilenlere inanmayan milyonlarca farklı insan var.
bir bilginin doğru olup olmadığını saptayacak teknolojik ve bilimsel gelişmeleri göz önünde bulundurursak, hakikati bulma konusunda bize yardımcı olabilecek çok fazla yeni unsur olmasına rağmen; deepfake, photoshop vb. farklı diğer teknolojiler sebebiyle de kesinliğinden emin olamayabiliriz. o bilginin doğru olup olmadığını teyit etmek için farklı otoriterlere ihtiyacımız bulunuyor. dezenformasyon diye bilinen çarpıtma bilgilerin doğru olup olmadığını tespit için teyit.org benzeri organizasyonlar ortaya çıktı örneğin. peki hangi otoriterinin doğru söylediğine nasıl emin olacağız?
April 7, 2024
Erittäin hyvä teos! Teos käsittelee kymmentä erilaista totuuden kategoriaa ja niiden luonteita. Teos ei suinkaan ole pelkkää teoreettista käsitteiden määrittelyä, vaan se ennemminkin antaa käytännön apuvälineitä oman kriittisen ajattelun kehittämistä varten.
Teoksen ydinajatuksen voisi ehkä tiivistää jotenkin seuraavasti: millaisia asioita tulisi ottaa huomioon käsitellessä eri tyyppisiä totuuksia? Teos ohjaa kehittämiin ns. tiedollisia hyveitä kuten skeptisyyttä, nyöryyttä ja avoimuutta. Olennaisinta ei ole määrittää tiettyjä sääntöjä, mihin totuudet tulisi perustaa, vaan arvioida kontekstisidonnaisesti väitteiden luotettavuutta. Esimerkiksi tieteelliset totuudet ovat ominaisuuksiltaan erilaisia kuin vaikkapa moraaliset totuudet, mutta molempien tarkastelu edellyttää kriittistä tarkastelua, jotta niitä voi pitää uskottavina.
Teos on hyvin asiantuntevasti kirjoitettu. Teos on myös hyvin yleistajuinen, eikä sen ymmärtäminen vaadi minkäänlaista filosofista käsitetuntemusta taustalle. Olin myös positiivisesti yllättynyt, kuinka lyhyestä pituudesta huolimatta, aiheen käsittely ei jäänyt liian suppeaksi. Teoksen argumentit on siis ilmaistu varsin ytimekkäästi. Teoksessa mainitut havainnollistavat esimerkit samaistuttavat lukijaa, koska niitä voi hyvin verrata omiin kokemuksiin ja mielikuviin. 6/5.
Teoksen ydinajatuksen voisi ehkä tiivistää jotenkin seuraavasti: millaisia asioita tulisi ottaa huomioon käsitellessä eri tyyppisiä totuuksia? Teos ohjaa kehittämiin ns. tiedollisia hyveitä kuten skeptisyyttä, nyöryyttä ja avoimuutta. Olennaisinta ei ole määrittää tiettyjä sääntöjä, mihin totuudet tulisi perustaa, vaan arvioida kontekstisidonnaisesti väitteiden luotettavuutta. Esimerkiksi tieteelliset totuudet ovat ominaisuuksiltaan erilaisia kuin vaikkapa moraaliset totuudet, mutta molempien tarkastelu edellyttää kriittistä tarkastelua, jotta niitä voi pitää uskottavina.
Teos on hyvin asiantuntevasti kirjoitettu. Teos on myös hyvin yleistajuinen, eikä sen ymmärtäminen vaadi minkäänlaista filosofista käsitetuntemusta taustalle. Olin myös positiivisesti yllättynyt, kuinka lyhyestä pituudesta huolimatta, aiheen käsittely ei jäänyt liian suppeaksi. Teoksen argumentit on siis ilmaistu varsin ytimekkäästi. Teoksessa mainitut havainnollistavat esimerkit samaistuttavat lukijaa, koska niitä voi hyvin verrata omiin kokemuksiin ja mielikuviin. 6/5.
June 10, 2023
Más que una historia de la verdad, este ensayo es una taxonomía de la misma, escrita en un lenguaje claro y asequible. Y aunque algunas afirmaciones pueden parecer evidentes, otras dan pie a la reflexión o a la profundización bibliográfica. El texto, además, es una guía de cómo acercarse a la comprensión de aquellos que estamos convencidos de que están completamente equivocados. En este sentido son muy interesantes los capítulos reservados a las "verdades esotéricas" y a las "verdades holísticas". Hay que tomar esta breve obra, en cualquier caso, como una introducción, pues obviamente la mayoría de los capítulos se quedan cortos, si consideramos el posible desarrollo de cada uno de ellos. Así ocurre por ejemplo con las verdades morales (que entroncan directamente con la ética) o con las verdades relativas. Profundizar en cada tipo de verdad requeriría de varios libros. Tomado, sin embargo, como una breve introducción al tema, el libro se convierte un ensayo muy interesante desarrollado con ejemplos muy claros.
November 25, 2018
Provides some useful philosophical footing
A very short read that explores the epistemological question: how and why is it that we believe something to be true? It provides a very light touch on several schools of philosophy framed in contemporary examples. It also serves a gloss on the logic and limits of various “truths” as verified by reason alone, by observation alone, by science alone, by morality alone. It speaks briefly to the dangers to society of extreme relativism and the control of truth as vehicle to secure power. In the end it promotes a holistic approach to examining truth claims putting an emphasis on epistemological virtues like humility, desire to learn, openness to other perspectives.
Not a bad read for those that want a quick reference or tool to help frame or weigh the various truth claims in the current environment. Not as helpful for those that want a more substantive dive into the fundamental underpinnings of truth.
A very short read that explores the epistemological question: how and why is it that we believe something to be true? It provides a very light touch on several schools of philosophy framed in contemporary examples. It also serves a gloss on the logic and limits of various “truths” as verified by reason alone, by observation alone, by science alone, by morality alone. It speaks briefly to the dangers to society of extreme relativism and the control of truth as vehicle to secure power. In the end it promotes a holistic approach to examining truth claims putting an emphasis on epistemological virtues like humility, desire to learn, openness to other perspectives.
Not a bad read for those that want a quick reference or tool to help frame or weigh the various truth claims in the current environment. Not as helpful for those that want a more substantive dive into the fundamental underpinnings of truth.
October 6, 2019
10 versions of Truth discussed by a contemporary Italian philosopher.
I enjoyed the latter chapters more, especially on Moral Truths, Powerful Truths and Holistic Truths. We find ourself in a post-truth world, in part due to the inflexibility of tribal camps/movements. There is a futile (and primarily western) battle to *own* truth, a failure to listen more widely, accept nuance, alternative beliefs and take into account wider progress which can and ought to shift and adapt thinking away from dogmatic principles.
Truths are being manipulated constantly.
“Savvy citizens are right to be wary of anyone claiming to present the truth. We would always do well to ask ‘Cui bono?’ Who benefits from this version of ‘truth’?”
Other reviewers have argued that the author is too generous to those with untenable positions, but honestly, I feel better equipped with an improved understanding of how these positions have developed and become so entrenched.
I enjoyed the latter chapters more, especially on Moral Truths, Powerful Truths and Holistic Truths. We find ourself in a post-truth world, in part due to the inflexibility of tribal camps/movements. There is a futile (and primarily western) battle to *own* truth, a failure to listen more widely, accept nuance, alternative beliefs and take into account wider progress which can and ought to shift and adapt thinking away from dogmatic principles.
Truths are being manipulated constantly.
“Savvy citizens are right to be wary of anyone claiming to present the truth. We would always do well to ask ‘Cui bono?’ Who benefits from this version of ‘truth’?”
Other reviewers have argued that the author is too generous to those with untenable positions, but honestly, I feel better equipped with an improved understanding of how these positions have developed and become so entrenched.
January 31, 2018
Elogio delle verità. Avete letto bene: non esiste la verità, esistono tante verità, l'autore ne identifica dieci, inquadrandole in altrettante aree che possono avere risonanze diverse. A queste verità succede quella che comunemente al giorno d'oggi viene chiamata "post-verità". Che significa questo? Mi pare di poter dire, allora, che la lista si allunga. Alla domanda "quid est veritas?" nemmeno il Cristo diede una risposta. Non perché non sapesse darne una, Lui non era uno stupido. Lo fu, invece, chi gliela pose quella domanda. Non si rendeva conto, infatti, che la Verità' ce l'aveva davanti. Il Cristo lo era, ma nessuno osò pensarlo e dirlo. Venne riconosciuto soltanto "dopo", quando si "compì" la storia. Posso dire, allora che nemmeno l'autore di questo ennesimo libro sulla verità riesce a spiegarci cosa esattamente essa sia. Tre stelle sono anche troppe, forse.
April 16, 2022
หนังสือเล่มนี้ชูความคิดว่า ความจริงมีหลายแง่มุม และสิ่งสำคัญในการหาความจริง ไม่ใช่เครื่องมือหรือหลักการ แต่เป็นทัศนคติ การค้นหาความจริงต้องใช้ epistemic virtues อาทิ ความถ่อมตน (ชอบประโยคหนึ่ง Reason demands modesty not certainty.) การตั้งข้อสงสัย (ชอบ We should be sceptical not cynical.) การเปิดกว้างต่อมุมมองอื่น จิตวิญญาณแห่งการสืบค้นร่วมกัน (ชอบ Alternative perspectives should be sought not as alternative truths but as enrichers of truth.) ความพร้อมที่จะเผชิญหน้ากับอำนาจ (ฟูโกต์บอก Truth isn't outside power, or lacking in power.) ความปรารถนาที่จะสร้างความจริงที่จริงกว่า (ชอบ Truths need to be created as well as found.) และความเต็มใจที่จะให้ศีลธรรมถูกชี้นำโดยข้อเท็จจริง (For a better morality we need better knowledge.) หนังสือสั้นและกระชับ แต่เปิดมุมมอง เหมาะสำหรับโลกยุค post-truth (ปี 2016 Oxford Dictionaries เสนอคำว่า post-truth เป็น Word of the Year)
November 20, 2017
I've seen few books pop up on truth after the whole "alternative facts" thing, and that is a good thing - truth is not something we should take easy on. This short but very readable book takes that stance and elaborates on a few concepts of truth and how they both can improve our perception and renew our attention to it. It is a nugget that can get you think better about truth, but it's also no substantial work on the matter. The author has also sold his soul to the whole "A Short History..." kind of title, that is not exactly true about the book. It's not a work of history, it's more of a short work of popular philosophy that includes a few historical musings.
March 25, 2020
Not all truths are alike. Some are simple, like how 10 plus 5 equals 15. Some are incomplete, like the truths of astrophysics, because as we learn about them we make tweaks here and there, some are shoved down our throats by those in power, like the myth of bad fats (as described in the book), and some are created out of thin air-- truths that we aspire to reach by believing in them, like the concept of human rights.
Mr. Baggini explains all the different kinds of truths (there are more than the 4 I stated) in an engaging and clear way. It has new ideas doesn't waste space.
If you were curious enough to read the reviews of the book, it's for you.
Mr. Baggini explains all the different kinds of truths (there are more than the 4 I stated) in an engaging and clear way. It has new ideas doesn't waste space.
If you were curious enough to read the reviews of the book, it's for you.
August 5, 2022
Es de estos libros que, aunque he leído de biblioteca, compraré en cuanto tenga oportunidad. El título lo dice todo; realmente breve y va a lo que va. Distintos enfoques sobre concepciones de verdad y justificaciones de distintas visiones. Sin florituras, los capítulos duran menos de diez páginas y no pretenden ser demasiado densos, aunque no por ello no te hacen pensar.
No soy el más ávido lector de filosofía, y por ello creo que puede ser bastante interesante para los que quieran internarse en ella.
No soy el más ávido lector de filosofía, y por ello creo que puede ser bastante interesante para los que quieran internarse en ella.
November 15, 2018
I don't know what to say, really.
This may be a 100 page book only, but it doesn't need more than that. Julian has a flair for making complicated and extensively researched concepts and materials sound easy and no brainer. I've learnt a lot about the different kinds of truths, and the book ends on a positive note, in how to unite together and find the truth together as one human race.
Beautiful.
This may be a 100 page book only, but it doesn't need more than that. Julian has a flair for making complicated and extensively researched concepts and materials sound easy and no brainer. I've learnt a lot about the different kinds of truths, and the book ends on a positive note, in how to unite together and find the truth together as one human race.
Beautiful.
December 28, 2019
Het is niet zozeer een geschiedenisboekje over waarheid, zoals de titel doet vermoeden, maar het geeft je wel op een heldere wijze inzicht in de manier waarop wij over waarheid nadenken, wat onze perceptie ervan is en wat voor rol waarheid speelt of kan spelen in ons bestaan. Baggini dicht de waarheid anno 2019, ondanks nepnieuws en Russische online trollenlegers, op hoopvolle wijze een waardevolle plaats in onze levens toe.
June 1, 2020
Not a history per se, but a good overview non-the-less.
Although it calls itself a short history, it's more of a thematic overview of ways contemporary people describe and justify truth and belief with some history speckled in.
Despite this, it is a very informative book that shines a light on a lot of contemporary issues surrounding our concepts of truth and ultimately suggests a way forward which I personally feel is a valid one.
Although it calls itself a short history, it's more of a thematic overview of ways contemporary people describe and justify truth and belief with some history speckled in.
Despite this, it is a very informative book that shines a light on a lot of contemporary issues surrounding our concepts of truth and ultimately suggests a way forward which I personally feel is a valid one.
April 10, 2024
When I picked this book up in the library, I wasn’t entirely sure of it’s premise. I see some reviewers mention a feeling of deception as a result of its trendy ‘a short history of…’ title. I didn’t face this disappointment as I didn’t go into the book with any real presuppositions.
In this short book the writer quite simply explores types of truth, and summarises how we can better interact with it. Very interesting read.
In this short book the writer quite simply explores types of truth, and summarises how we can better interact with it. Very interesting read.
June 9, 2024
Een kort maar helder betoog dat tot verder onderzoek aanzet. Het heeft me alvast aangezet bepaalde perspectieven te verbreden en meer grip te krijgen op een al bij al niet evident thema. Baggini had gerust wat breder mogen gaan, of langer stilgestaan bij bijvoorbeeld de exacte invloed van de structuralisten (niet evident) of de impact van nieuwe technologieën als AI. Maar dit was duidelijk niet de bedoeling van deze korte introductie.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews