Certain instances of the expression “Trump’s world” seem to refer to a “real” world, for example this headline from The Economist: “Welcome to Trump’s world.” For the 300th post on our practical philosophy blog, we have mobilised the concept of worldmaking as understood by the philosopher Nelson Goodman, to explore the question of under what conditions Trump’s world might be a “real” world. And we invited Chatgpt to answer it.
Introduction
The ordinary meanings of the word “world” suggest that the expression “Trump’s world” is a figure of speech, a metaphorical formula for a set of ideas, beliefs and projects, those of the new American president and his team. The image that illustrates our article, inspired by the Time magazine headline “Trump is treating the world like a Monopoly board,” is a case in point (1).
But this interpretation masks the reference to a human group based “on a community of ideas, interests or work,” in accordance with the definition of a world as “a set of things, concepts or beings forming a particular universe, a society apart” (1). Trump’s world could refer to such a community.
Nelson Goodman has proposed a conceptual basis for this interpretation. For him, what we call the world – a world that would exist before any conceptual projection or interpretation – does not exist. The ideas of “perception without conception,” “pure given” or “innocent eye” mislead us by referring to a reality independent of us:
“Talk of unstructured content or an unconceptualized given or a substratum without properties is self-defeating; for the talk imposes structure, conceptualizes, ascribes properties.” (2)
There is “no world without words or other symbols,” no theory and no concepts. There are only versions of the world. And because every version is “verbal and consists of statements,” we are able to access, understand and criticise it.
Goodman’s thesis that there is no world independent of versions of the world implies that “we cannot find any world-feature independent of all versions” (3). Even if we think of stars as objects that exist independently of us, what we call a “star” depends on our theories, particularly (but not only) our astrophysical theories. In the words of Daniel Cohnitz and Marcus Rossberg, “the world corresponds to the version [related to stars], because the world with that structure was made, when that version was made” (4).
Goodman sums up his position in this passage, which also includes the notions of “plurality of worlds” and “rightness:”
“[T]here is […] no such thing as the real world, no unique, ready-made, absolute reality apart from and independent of all versions and visions. Rather, there are many right world-versions, some of them irreconcilable with others; and thus there are many worlds if any. A version is not so much made right by a world as a world is made by a right version. Obviously rightness has therefore to be determined otherwise than by matching a version with a world.” (5)
The “rightness” of a version is part of the rigorous constraints that Goodman imposes on his theory, the consequence of which is that the creation of versions of the world escapes arbitrariness:
“Though we make worlds by making versions, we no more make a world by putting symbols together at random than a carpenter makes a chair by putting pieces of wood together at random.” (6)
The criteria for rightness that any version of the world must meet, include its utility (does the version make it possible to manage or predict?), its credibility (is it compatible with reliable beliefs?), its internal coherence (which includes the absence of contradiction between the elements internal to this version), compliance with criteria for valid reasoning in terms of deduction and induction, and its contribution to our “understanding” in a general sense.
Before looking at Chatgpt, it is worth noting the work of professor of business administration Saras Sarasvathy on worldmaking. For her, entrepreneurs can create or construct worlds. They construct rather than discover the opportunities available to them: “the belief that opportunities precede action stands as a formidable barrier to entrepreneurship” (7). But “making opportunities entails remaking extant worlds.” This is how entrepreneurs “transform existing worlds into new ones.” According to Sarasvathy, there is “an entrepreneurial method of worldmaking:”
“Entrepreneurship as a method of worldmaking is here to stay. And the worldmaking it enables is a fact.”
Dialogue on “Trump’s world”
Armed with this background, we chatted to Chatgpt (in the French version of this article, our dialogue partner was Le Chat). We reproduce the dialogue unedited, with the exception of a few words in square brackets. For reasons of space, we have also cut some passages. However, the answers may still seem a little too long, but Chatgpt does an interesting analysis of the characteristics of Donald Trump’s world.
Blog – People talk about “Trump’s world:” but is this ‘world’ comparable to a real world like “the universe” or “Earth?”
Chatgpt – When people refer to “Trump’s world,” they are generally not talking about a literal, physical world like “the universe” or “Earth.” Instead, they’re using “Trump’s world” as a metaphorical expression. It often refers to the way former President Donald Trump has shaped or influenced a specific political, social, or cultural environment during and after his time in office. This “world” encompasses his worldview, the way he communicates, the networks he creates, and the policies he supports, often with a particular focus on his rhetoric, media presence, and the political movements surrounding him.
In contrast, the “real world” usually refers to the physical world we live in—the planet Earth and the broader universe. While "Trump’s world" is a subjective, constructed environment defined by political and media dynamics, the “real world” is the tangible, observable reality of space, time, and the natural environment.
So, in short, “Trump’s world” is a figurative term about the influence and realm of ideas, actions, and narratives associated with him, while “the real world” is an objective, physical reality. They’re not comparable in a literal sense, but more in terms of how one might influence or shape perceptions within society.
Blog – Perhaps, but when we talk about “Trump’s world,” we get the feeling that Trump really can “create a world.” Now, philosopher Nelson Goodman believes that worlds can be made (worldmaking) and entrepreneurship professor Saras D. Sarasvathy defends the idea that entrepreneurs create worlds. So why shouldn’t Trump create a world, too?
Chatgpt – That’s a fascinating question! You’re right to point out that both Nelson Goodman and Saras D. Sarasvathy use the concept of “worldmaking” in a more abstract sense, suggesting that certain individuals or actions can shape or construct worlds—though not in the literal, physical sense, but rather through the creation of systems, narratives, and realities that people inhabit or participate in.
Goodman’s idea of worldmaking refers to how humans create different ways of understanding and interpreting the world. According to him, the act of making a world involves constructing frameworks, systems of meaning, and narratives that give structure to experience. These “worlds” are not objective, physical realities, but subjective ways of organizing and understanding life. This idea fits perfectly with the metaphorical “Trump’s world,” which is a system of political, cultural, and social narratives that Trump has influenced or even created, especially during his presidency and beyond.
Sarasvathy’s perspective from entrepreneurship theory also fits here. She argues that entrepreneurs create “worlds” by generating new opportunities, reimagining existing systems, and changing the way people interact with products, services, and ideas. Entrepreneurs, in her view, don’t simply react to the world as it is—they actively shape it by constructing new realities or possibilities. In this sense, Trump could indeed be seen as an entrepreneur in the figurative world-building sense, shaping the political landscape, the media environment, and the way people understand power and authority.
So, why shouldn’t Trump create a world? From this philosophical and entrepreneurial perspective, there’s no reason why he couldn’t. His influence on political discourse, media, and public perception can be viewed as his contribution to “worldmaking.” He’s been able to construct a political and cultural space where his ideas, narratives, and actions take center stage. This doesn’t mean he’s physically building a new planet, but he’s certainly reshaping the world of politics, media, and public life to fit his vision, in a way that feels very real to those who participate in or are affected by it.
In a sense, Trump has created a kind of “world” in the figurative, worldmaking sense that Goodman and Sarasvathy describe—an environment shaped by his worldview, his communication style, and his political power, with tangible effects on the way people think, act, and relate to each other.
What’s interesting, though, is that this kind of world is subjective. People can choose whether or not to participate in it, reject it, or challenge it. So in a way, even though Trump has created a “world” in this philosophical sense, it exists only to the extent that people accept, engage with, or contest it.
Blog – What bothers me about your answer is that, in speaking of “Trump’s world” as a “a figurative term,” we lose the idea of the world as a “totality” (“all the parts, all the constitutive elements of a thing, of a whole,” according to the Dictionnaire de l’Académie française, 9e édition) with no possibility “that anything escapes this totality” (J. Rabachou, Qu’est-ce qu’un monde ?, Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, Chemins philosophiques, 2016). Is “Trump’s world” a “totality” in this sense?
Chatgpt – […] You’re bringing up a crucial point: the notion of a totality—a complete, all-encompassing system where nothing escapes the boundaries of the world in question. This is a much richer concept of “world,” one that resonates with the idea of a comprehensive structure or reality where everything is interconnected and accounted for. The challenge, then, is whether Trump’s world, as we typically understand it, could be considered a totality in this sense.
When I initially spoke about “Trump’s world” as a figurative term, I was thinking in terms of the social, cultural, and political environment that Trump has shaped or influenced. This world is partial and fluid—built around certain narratives, behaviors, and power structures that he has helped define, but not all-encompassing in the way a totality would be. For example, Trump’s influence on politics, media, and public discourse may feel overwhelmingly significant to those within his circle of influence or those affected by his actions, but it doesn’t necessarily account for every aspect of human experience or even all political dimensions.
The concept of totality implies that nothing escapes. So when we look at Trump’s world, we’re still left with some questions:
Exclusions within the totality: Trump’s influence, for all its reach, doesn’t define every aspect of society. The world outside of Trump’s influence—say, local communities, non-political aspects of culture, or international events outside his control—wouldn’t necessarily fit within this “world.” There are areas of life, and even spheres of power, that aren’t directly shaped by him. For example, aspects of environmental policy, global economic trends, or areas of science and technology may operate largely independent of his vision.
The boundaries of the world: Trump’s world might feel like a totality in certain contexts (e.g., in political and media spaces where his presence dominates), but it doesn’t necessarily stretch across every part of life. A world in the totality sense would ideally encompass all its elements, and even though Trump has shaped a large portion of the political and cultural narrative, it doesn’t extend to every possible domain (or even all social spheres within the U.S., let alone the world).
Possibilities of escape: In a true totality, nothing would escape the rules or conditions of the world. Yet, people have continued to push back against Trump’s worldview. His policies and rhetoric have been met with resistance, protest, and alternative narratives. As much as he has crafted a particular environment, his influence is still contested, and many people live outside the boundaries of his ideological frame. This means that his world is not impermeable or complete in the sense that it fully controls everything.
So, to answer your question: No, “Trump’s world” isn’t a totality in the strict sense of the term as defined by the Dictionnaire de l’Académie française. While Trump has certainly created an influential environment, it doesn’t capture all the parts of a larger, interwoven reality. There are multiple other realities, systems, and frameworks at play, both within and outside of the influence he has had.
In contrast, a true totality, as you suggest, would be something all-encompassing and self-contained, where every element of society, culture, politics, and human experience would be accounted for within its bounds—and nothing could escape or operate independently of it.
Does this distinction clarify things for you?
Blog – Yes, indeed. What you say seems to correspond in part to Nelson Goodman’s conception of the world. Goodman speaks of “versions” of the world, rather than “possible worlds” (not to be confused with the theory of philosopher David Lewis). So, as philosopher Pierre-André Huglo sums it up, “to make a world is to elaborate a relevant and right version of the world, through the application and projection of a symbolic schema onto a domain of reference.” Consequently, when it comes to “Trump’s world,” shouldn’t we be talking about a version of the world" (Trump’s version)?
Chatgpt – […] Yes, you’re absolutely right, and you’ve pointed to an important distinction that shifts the conversation in a more precise philosophical direction. Nelson Goodman’s idea of versions of the world aligns with what you’re suggesting: that we should be talking about “Trump’s world” as a version of the world, rather than a totality.
Goodman’s concept of versions means that there are multiple ways of organizing, interpreting, and understanding the world, depending on the symbolic frameworks or “schemas” we apply. These frameworks are not claims about the physical world as it is, but rather ways of constructing and presenting a coherent picture of reality. Each version of the world is a perspective, shaped by particular values, narratives, and modes of interpretation. Importantly, no version can claim to be the singular, objective reality; instead, versions represent different, valid ways of making sense of the world.
In light of Goodman’s theory, “Trump’s world” becomes a version of the world—a particular, politically and socially constructed way of viewing and interpreting reality. Trump’s version is one where specific values (such as populism, nationalism, and a particular interpretation of American exceptionalism) dominate, and where certain power dynamics, policies, and discourses are central. This version is created through symbolic and rhetorical means, with Trump applying his own “symbolic schema” (his rhetoric, media presence, etc.) to form a coherent interpretation of social, political, and cultural life.
[…] Referring to “Trump’s world” as Trump’s version of the world brings us closer to the idea of a constructed reality, a version of the world that reflects a particular set of symbolic meanings, values, and interpretations that Trump and his followers apply to their understanding of politics, society, and culture. Does this distinction resonate with what you’re thinking?
Blog – Yes, but we cannot construct a version of the world “by the way” or “at random:” it must also be “right.” Indeed, Goodman writes that “all we learn about the world is contained in right versions of it.” But how can Trump’s version of the world be right, in Nelson Goodman’s sens
Chatgpt – […] The notion of a right version in Nelson Goodman’s framework is crucial and raises an important challenge when we talk about Trump’s version of the world. You’re absolutely right that a version of the world, according to Goodman, isn’t just any arbitrary construction—it has to be “right” in some sense, meaning it must be relevant and coherent within the framework it’s proposing. In other words, for a version to be right, it must be capable of making sense of experience, solving problems, and accounting for the world in ways that are useful, accurate, or justified within its own terms.
In the case of Trump’s version of the world, then, we have to think about what makes it “right” according to the criteria that Goodman would set out.
- Coherence and Internal Logic:
Goodman says that a version is “right” if it is internally coherent, meaning that the elements within the version must fit together in a way that makes sense. This is perhaps the easiest way to understand how Trump’s version of the world could be considered “right.” His political narratives, messages, and positions are all built on a set of coherent beliefs and ideas that align with his larger vision of American greatness, nationalism, and populism. These elements, though controversial, are connected in a consistent, structured way. His worldview doesn’t randomly mix ideas but rather builds a coherent narrative that speaks to certain needs, desires, and fears in society—particularly among his supporters.
For example, his framing of issues like immigration, trade, and “America First” is internally consistent: immigration is framed as a threat to American jobs and culture, trade deals as exploitative, and globalism as undermining American sovereignty. Within the context of his version of the world, these ideas make sense and reinforce each other. So in terms of internal coherence, Trump’s version could be considered “right” by Goodman’s standards because it establishes a system of beliefs that fit together and make sense for those who adopt it.
- Pragmatic Relevance:
For a version to be “right,” according to Goodman, it also needs to be relevant and practically applicable. […] Trump’s version of the world isn’t “right” because it offers objective truths or universally applicable solutions, but because it’s pragmatically useful to the people who embrace it. It provides them with a framework for understanding the world and a sense of agency in addressing the challenges they face. For Goodman, relevance to the people using the version would be a key criterion for its “rightness.”
- Justification and Agreement:
Another important element of a “right” version, according to Goodman, is that it must be justified—meaning it must be able to stand up to criticism, be defensible, and be based on evidence or reasoning that can be accepted by others. Here, the situation becomes more complex, especially when we turn to Trump’s version of the world.
While his version has been extremely effective in mobilizing a large base of support, critics argue that many aspects of his worldview are based on selective evidence, misrepresentations, or even falsehoods. For example, his statements about immigration, crime rates, or the economy have often been challenged as inaccurate or misleading. From a strictly Goodmanian sense, we might question whether his version of the world can truly be considered “right” in terms of being justified by evidence or rational critique. However, in Goodman’s framework, this doesn’t necessarily invalidate the version as “wrong”—it just means it doesn’t fulfill the condition of being universally or objectively justified in the way that some other versions might.
In this case, Trump’s version of the world might be right for those who accept it as a coherent, useful, and pragmatic framework, even if it is not “right” in the sense of being fully aligned with objective facts or universally accepted evidence. As Goodman suggests, a version’s “rightness” doesn’t mean it’s universally true; it just means it’s effective, coherent, and internally consistent within its own terms and context.
- The Power of Symbolic Representation:
Lastly, a key feature of right versions in Goodman’s terms is their ability to represent the world in ways that are symbolically resonant. Trump’s version of the world is deeply symbolic—he uses language and imagery that evoke strong emotional responses. “Make America Great Again,” the wall, the “drain the swamp” rhetoric—these symbols work to rally people around his version of the world. In Goodman’s view, these symbols are an essential part of how Trump’s version of the world is “right,” because they resonate with people’s experiences, fears, and hopes, giving them a sense of belonging and a way of seeing the world that makes sense in the context of their lived experiences.
- Conclusion:
So, in Goodman’s sense, Trump’s version of the world can be seen as “right” in that it is a coherent, internally consistent framework that provides relevance and practical utility for those who embrace it. It may not be “right” in the sense of being universally justified by objective facts or scientific evidence, but it is “right” as a symbolic and pragmatic version that helps its supporters make sense of their reality.
What Goodman emphasizes is that “rightness” is context-dependent, tied to coherence, relevance, and justification within the framework of the version itself. Trump’s version, though it may be contested by others, fits these criteria within the context of his political discourse and the specific audience he appeals to. […]
Blog – Thanks for your precise answer, but the result is a relativism that bothers me, because it suggests that, because of the plurality of right versions of the world that is postulated by Nelson Goodman, it is difficult for the proponents of the different versions to agree on fundamental principles in matters of politics, morality and justice, or, to put it schematically, in matters of world government (in the sense of our Earth). The only common ground, with this kind of relativism, depends on the balance of power between the different right versions of the world (and since Trump likes a balance of power and the USA is strong, he may want to impose his version of the world by force).
Chatgpt – […] You’re pointing to a potential consequence of Goodman’s relativism, which, when applied to complex political, moral, and justice-related matters, could seem to undermine the possibility of agreement on fundamental principles. The idea that multiple versions of the world can coexist as “correct” seems to open the door for a fragmented and contested reality, where the “rightness” of any version depends heavily on power dynamics. This is particularly troubling in the context of politics and world governance, where foundational concepts of justice, equality, and rights are at stake.
Let’s explore this tension more deeply.
- […] The Dangers of Power Imbalance:
Trump’s version of the world, as you’ve noted, could indeed be used to justify his pursuit of power—whether through political influence or, in the most extreme cases, force. If his version is considered "right" by those who support him, it becomes harder to challenge, particularly if his worldview is backed by the institutional power of the state (military, economy, etc.). The danger here is that, as Goodman’s relativism implies, different versions of the world can be in competition for dominance, and those with the greatest resources or power can impose their vision on others.
This is where we encounter the dark side of relativism in political and moral terms: If every version of the world is valid within its context, then the idea of universal norms or agreements—like those related to human rights, justice, or global cooperation—becomes difficult to defend. Instead, the only "rightness" is the one that prevails through power. In the case of Trump, if he seeks to impose his version of the world, he could do so by leveraging the U.S.’s global position of strength, either politically or militarily, to shape international norms in line with his vision.
- […] Avoiding the Despotism of Power:
[The] crucial point you’ve raised is the risk of a despotic balance of power—where one version of the world (e.g., Trump’s) could dominate others simply because it holds the reins of power. This is a real danger in a world where might can easily become the deciding factor in which version of the world is seen as “right.” So, while Goodman’s relativism can help us understand the richness of different worldviews, it’s also essential to remember that this doesn’t mean all versions are equally just or morally defensible.
In politics, morality, and global governance, there has to be a guardrail against the total domination of one version over others. This could come from ethical principles that transcend specific versions of the world, like those found in human rights frameworks or international law. These principles can act as a kind of common language to mediate conflicts between different versions of the world and provide a minimal standard of fairness and justice that can be applied globally—regardless of who holds power.
- Conclusion
Goodman’s idea of multiple “right” versions of the world helps us understand the diversity of human experience and the many ways people interpret reality. However, when it comes to politics, justice, and global governance, this pluralism presents significant challenges. The concern about power imbalances and the risk of one version dominating others is real, and this is where we need to engage with universal principles or shared moral values that help regulate the interactions between different worldviews.
Ultimately, while multiple versions of the world can coexist, some frameworks—especially those that uphold justice, human dignity, and peace—must be considered right in a more foundational way, so that we can work towards a more just and balanced world, avoiding the pitfalls of might-makes-right scenarios. […]
Blog – Thank you for your answers and see you soon for a new conversation.
Chatgpt – You’re very welcome! I’m glad we could dive into these complex ideas together. Feel free to reach out whenever you’re ready for another conversation—I’ll be here. Take care, and see you soon!
Conclusion
Chatgpt has confirmed our interpretation of what is meant by “Trump’s world.” Over and above the academic references we put forward in our dialogue, in particular those from the work of Nelson Goodman, this interpretation corresponds to that of common sense (“‘Trump’s world’ is a figurative term about the influence and realm of ideas, actions, and narratives associated with him”).
Remarkably, however, Chatgpt produces relevant examples relating to “Trump’s world” (“Trump’s version of the world is deeply symbolic—he uses language and imagery that evoke strong emotional responses. ‘Make America Great Again,’ the wall, the ‘drain the swamp’ rhetoric—these symbols work to rally people around his version of the world”) and that it offers an analysis of the metaphorical reality of this world, invoking, in particular, criteria of rightness (“What Goodman emphasizes is that ‘rightness’ is context-dependent, tied to coherence, relevance, and justification within the framework of the version itself. Trump’s version, though it may be contested by others, fits these criteria within the context of his political discourse and the specific audience he appeals to”).
As for the impression of seriousness produced by the dialogue with Chatgpt, it comes not only from the power of this artificial intelligence, but also from prior preparation and the fact that the chosen theme, which occupies a large part of current affairs, is well documented.
Références
(1) The Economist and Time magazine articles are “Welcome to Trump’s world. His sweeping victory will shake up everything,” 9 November 2024, and “Trump is treating the globe like a Monopoly board,” 7 January 2025.
(2) Source (in French): CNRTL (“société” and “monde” ).
(3) N. Goodman, Ways of worldmaking, Hackett, 1978.
(4) N. Goodman, “On starmaking,” Synthese, 45(2), 1980, pp. 211-215.
(5) D. Cohnitz & M. Rossberg, “Nelson Goodman,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2024 Edition), E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (eds.).
(6) N. Goodman, “Art in theory,” in Of mind and other matters, Harvard University Press, 1984.
(7) N. Goodman, Ways of worldmaking, op. cit.
(8) S. D. Sarasvathy, “Worldmaking,” in A. Corbett & J. A. Katz (eds.), Entrepreneurial Action (Advances in entrepreneurship, firm emergence and growth), Vol. 14, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2012.
See also (in French) “Le monde volontariste de Donald Trump,” euradio, La chronique philo d'Alain Anquetil, 26 janvier 2025.
To cite this article: Alain Anquetil, “Is ‘Trump's world’ a ‘real’ world? Chatgpt answers,” The Philosophy and Business Ethics Blog, 2 March 2025.
