Political visions are judged by the worlds they create, not their factual truth

Evidence

After all, among the things we need to live well is a sense of something better, something out ahead—toward which we can move, together, in hope and aspiration. Such visions (of promise and possibility) aren’t really issues of truth or falsehood, exactly. They are, rather, the work of imagination. They are dreams. By these lights, “stone soup” isn’t really a “lie”—it’s more like one of those very special stories that the literary theorists call a “hyperstition”: a tale that has the power to make itself true. Some of these are bad, and some of these are good. But one doesn’t evaluate them on the basis of the conformity with the world-as-it-is. One evaluates them on the basis of the worlds they bring into being. — The Friends of Attention, Attensity!, 434

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Introduces the key working term ‘hyperstition’ — a story that makes itself true — and its evaluative criterion.
  • XREF: The visionary-versus-truth distinction is essentially Arendt’s own tension in ‘Lying in Politics,’ which the passage invokes directly. — connects to: Some political falsehoods aim at affirmation of authority, not belief — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New
, 164; Ideologies are judged by social effects, not by their truth value — Cristian Tileagă, The Nature of Prejudice: Society,
, 490; Words do not label pre-existing political objects but must be made real through interpretation — Timothy Mitchell, Colonising Egypt, 430 (+1 more)

Broader Connections