Post-truth as Immoderate Speech: Philosophical Approaches of H. Arendt and L. Strauss in Contemporary Discussions of Truth and Politics

One of the important issues of contemporary political thought is the complex relationship between truth and politics, the combination of which can lead to the depoliticization of the community under the “tyrannical” influence of truth or, on the contrary, the substitution of truth with politically advantageous lies. A relevant context emphasizing the dangerous consequences of the conflict between truth and politics is the spread of post-truth as a phenomenon expressing the alarming state of the modern public sphere. The article is devoted to comprehending the crisis of political life associated with the emergence of the phenomenon of post-truth, as well as the possibilities of resolving the modern conflict of truth and politics. The theoretical basis of the study comprises the philosophical ideas of H. Arendt and L. Strauss, which substantiate the incompatibility between truth and the world of human affairs. The author analyzes Arendt’s main ideas related to the tyrannical nature of truth, as well as the interpretation of these ideas by modern post-truth researchers. It is found that Arendt’s theory lacks a normative dimension important for understanding the nature of post-truth, and its interpretation by contemporary critics of post-truth contains an unfounded assumption about the possibility of the political legitimization of truth. On the basis of Strauss’s “On Tyranny”, alternative views to Arendt’s on the contradiction between truth and politics are reconstructed. The author proposes to rethink modern conceptions of post-truth and to present it as an ethico-political phenomenon caused by the lack of moral responsibility of political subjects for the search and defense of truth and for the preservation of political life from its tyrannical influence. The key danger of post-truth is the concealment of the value content of political life, and the practical means of overcoming it can be to ensure a value-pluralistic approach to the public sphere, and to raise the question of the virtue of participants in political life.