Sergio Santos

Disinterpretation Sergio Santos

Can we deal with the fact that our current understanding of information is tottering? No and at the same time, and at bottom, we must live with this embarrassment: we have given up any serious interpretation because we want to deal with facts only. We are now happy enough narrating by connecting facts, i.e., producing narratives. All is relative and beliefs are but subjective opinion. Our lives are but narratives. Ordinarily, the term misinformation has been relatively well understood for many years. The terms disinformation and malinformation are relatively new comers, but these are arguably intuitive enough that one can understand their meaning with a simple explanation. If misinformation is "false or inaccurate information that is communicated regardless of an intention to deceive", disinformation is a way of misinforming that is "deliberately deceptive or maliciously intended". Malinformation is information, but malicious. With such simple definitions it seems that the problem of information has been solved. Our will to deal with facts only is rooted in the fact that interpretation is seen as the "producing of narratives" and therefore as nihilism. Accordingly, the history of Western philosophy culminates with the claim that information is just facts. My intention here is to discuss this pretentiousness. Maybe the pretentiousness behind these definitions is first enabling the so-called misinforming by disinterpreting the concept of information.