There is a truth, you just lack the balls to take the risk of announcing it. You can never be perfectly sure of a truth. But you can accept the truth and preach it, as the truth, because you believe in it. And practically, the truth is not so hard to find. Only in some extreme theoretical situations, it is practically different.
Without accepting the truth, you can never move swiftly, confidently and decisively.
You will always be confused, conflicted and running in circles.
You should be open-minded up to a point.
Personal truth or objective truth though? You keep switching between "a" and "the", but the tone sounds like the former.
Wasnt your argument that every truth is personal?
Yeah, but Spatial's has been that there's only one truth. Figured I'd ask from the language used to clarify.
And that you cant get objective?
I think it's beyond our grasp to know the difference beyond portions of it that were not once there through personal detachment, but even then that's a subjective opinion of my own.
I do not see a way out of the subjectivity trap when the words themselves are both so all-or-nothing.
Well, my argument is that you can get objective to a reasonable level and believing it after you get to that level.
While still not "objective", reasonable seems to push things as we understand them further. They at least let us connect our points from a similar pool of knowledge and allow not just consensuses and compromises to be made, but even a sense of progress in a direction at all.
I definitely see the merits behind trying to keep things reasonable through a structure meant to share information and attempt to prevent bias, as it's averaged out logistics for how to get points across between two people, but that reason itself is still subjectively formed if we're to go poking through the semantics of it, and could have been built in an otherwise different way and still accomplished similar aims. What makes it so important however isn't just the details of it, but the fact that the exchange is one that is mutually understood and agreed on.
The room for consensus is where the most progress can be made, but building those bridges requires finding their "Mutual Voice" as I've been calling it. If that cannot be done then communication is mostly just a form of venting. Things like debate can serve as a way to get around the ego walls that'd otherwise block off another's view.
Much of reason is found through comparison, and reason, in my subjective opinion, seems to work. If we changed our understanding at it's foundations, it'd be through how not just ourselves, but the world responds to that information, that would stand to reformat what's otherwise understood to be "reason". For example, it was once seen as unreasonable to use a computer for more than an hour or two a day, now who knows what people'd consider reasonable for that.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
