这篇文章的标题暗示了某种政治体制，在其中，真理是共同的货币，如果不是derigeur(拼写?)我不确定这是不是真的(就像我对假新闻的评论所暗示的那样)。当前事态中唯一重要的一点是，现任首席执行官和那些站在他一边的人在多大程度上操纵、歪曲和蓄意破坏真相。他们甚至都不偷偷摸摸。我愿意相信这完全是一种反常现象，我们将在几年内(如果不是几周或几个月的话)恢复正常。这当然是超现实的。在这个政治季节之前，这种混杂着自满情绪的激烈程度似乎是不可能的。矛盾的是，那些想要前所未有的改变的人得到了这些，甚至更多。肖恩·斯派塞(Sean Spicer)对吉米·坎摩尔(Jimmy Kimmel)的采访很有启发性，是特朗普观察家的必看节目。不管他是否决定在不确定的未来尝试重新进入鲨鱼缸。

So here we are---all these months later, and fake news is still boiling around our political lexicon. Mr. Trump has done much of what he promised to do. He has fulfilled the wildest dreams of some and the most vivid nightmares of others; played a lot of golf (by most accounts); compromised American foreign policy (by some accounts); and given one hell of a 'shiner'to statesmanship and diplomacy. There is an impeachment 'trial' coming, but, as a practical matter, all that is likely to do is to 'exonerate' him---in the sense that the probability of his being removed from office is zero to none. When the dust settles, he will still be president; his supporters will be affirmed; he will run for re-election (unless unable to do so due to health or some other contingency); and have at worst, a fifty-fifty chance of again winning office. So, what have we learned?. Apparently, not much, other than the sword of impeachment is, at most, a nerf bat. High crimes and misdemeanors is a misleading phrase---virtually meaningless when critically parsed. We think we know what high crimes are; or, at least, we think we SHOULD know: we see people convicted of murder and sent to prison, sometimes to serve life sentences without chance of parole. But what, pray tell, is a high misdemeanor? And what would punishment for such an offense look like?
I submit that we do not know the answers to these questions, nor can we even suggest answers which would fit.the vague description.

Recently, I remarked that an academic friend of some standing, disgusted with recent past and current events, moved to Ecuador. He is the same age as my older brother, with whom he graduated high school. Both men are nearing their eightieth year of life, and I am not that far behind them. One saw the writing on the wall sooner than the other; the academic, perhaps not wanting to abandon a good career; the computer engineer, leaving before his career was even settled. I haven't the resources or the inclination to leave now. But that is my own damned fault.

Anyone can be president of the United States. And that, is too damned bad. There ought to be a better selection committee.

刚读完一本小书，里面有一个叫恩格尔的法国人，和理查德·罗蒂争论关于真理这个概念的真实性。罗蒂自称是个实用主义者，但他并没有看到太多值得兴奋的东西。这与人们普遍认为罗蒂对自己的哲学“漠不关心”的看法是一致的。这位法国人当时是索邦大学的教授，他想尽办法用各种各样的问题和反对来激怒罗蒂，但美国人不会被纠缠。有人(我认为是恩格尔)说，真理是探究的一种规范，罗蒂在某一点上反驳说，有时真理可能是有用的(实用主义者的观点)，而在其他时候，虚假可能是有用的算法。因此，真理似乎存在于观察者的眼中，这是基于观察者在观看时的动机。所有这些都很好地总结和支持了这样一个概念:真理是相对的，也就是说，只有当各方能够并愿意就真理达成一致时，真理才有意义。我指的不是事实真相，比如:今天世界上某个地方阳光灿烂。我指的是自以为是的真理，比如斯克罗斯几乎每天都在说的荒谬言论。

Now, I know there are diametrically differing ideas (or they might as accurately be called opinions), as to what, if anything, constitutes truth. But, experience shows, as Rorty demonstrates, truth is about as useful as tits on a boar. It is misrepresented almost as often as there is a need to represent it. Maybe, at bottom, this is why Rorty made his remark about the usefulness of falsity? Or, perhaps, he was only trying to BE truthful? RR, rest in peace...

今天上午我写了一条格言，关于意见和知识之间的区别。由于我现在没有相关的文本，我将其总结:意见很像信仰，很大程度上是建立在人们想要对某事的看法上。它们不需要所有或任何可能支持它们的事实。另一方面，知识是基于事实的，每个有能力独立思考和调查的人都可以接触到的，或者换句话说:知识是真实的，当且仅当白雪是白的。当有人说雪是白的时候，即使有狗在上面撒尿，意见也会得到认可。意见往往是谎言;而知识通常是真理，这是我们所能表达的。(也许我以后会给你真正的格言。它远不像前面所说的那么口语化(而更基本)。)