Nostr Web Client

I agree with you on a lot of stuff, including how claims of truth are relative to a framework and the truths they describe may even be subjective, and that the appropriate epistemology may even be subjective.

I think that you are, however, confusing a consensus on the subjective claims of truth, or on the means of claiming truth, with objective truth, when you say

> So, if all religious understanding (whether about god or gods, Confucianism or Taoism) is only *relatively* true, then they might as well be false. We’re looking for something that True, always and everywhere.

Something that is true everywhere and always is still perfectly achievable in a subjective framework, if your framework applies soundly to the whole universe. The fact that there is not consensus on this is not reliably indicative of it being false anywhere, ever. This applies whether they outright deny your framework and understanding or they merely do not understand it or don't know of it at all. The framework can still be concordant with reality under any of these conditions.

For two ostensibly contradictory interpretations of reality to both be the truth, it is often a difference in frameworks between minds that makes it appear that way, when in reality there is no such contradiction, and so a consensus on truth can exist properly understood, while appearing to have very different and incompatible claims if you interpret them through a framework in which the claims lose their meaning. I think that is one of the things that people do when they confuse consensus with truth, or get stuck on the words or definitions of concepts and forget the relativeness of the meaning, which it looks like you are trying to not do, but are still doing.

Kevin's Bacon 10mo ago

This is not even to cover the different kinds of truth or to specify any of my preferred epistemological frameworks, just sort of a meta thing. Piaget invented a field called genetic epistemology to cover a lot of this meta stuff and explain how truths can be concordant with reality in the way I've described. I only just learned of him, so I'll be looking more into that soon.

I consider myself a kind of rationalist, realist, with I would say a strong conceptualization of the relativeness of meaning to frameworks and to the objective reality to be beheld. A lot of my philosophy is concordant with Objectivism, but I don't believe in their dogmatic claim that there is no god just because they don't understand what God is and can't measure him, and so they further define God as outside of all of existence. That's the empiricist's fallacy plus victory by definition.

Despite my strong rationalist a priori bend, in fact reinforcing it, I have also a predilection to the critical inspection that is the essence of Critical Rationalism, and a fondness for his form of empirical falsification that forms the backbone of most modern scientific inquiry (well, the good science that is done that's not completely ruined by fiat and superstitious dogmatic nonsense)

I do hope this is an engaging conversation for you and doesn't come off as gloating or anything. This is just me.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

j'ai les clés 10mo ago

Same thing here. What do you mean “different kinds of truth”? To me, that’s a non sequitur. I’m not familiar with Piaget or genetic epistemology, but describing how “truths can be concordant with reality” is, to me, just a way of describing opinions that are functional/useful to a given set of conditions. What you call “reality” I call “your perception of it.” There’s really no other way to describe it. All we have are our perceptions.

It is only when we *stop* perceiving that we see what is underlying. THAT, and only that, is the Truth that is always-and-everywhere. Everything else is just mind stuff. God, dogma, religion, beliefs, opinions, “truths” (concordant or not), all of these are nothing more than concepts, mental objects, which people take as being 100% true. But it isn’t. Referring back to my initial response to you, consider the “truth” of Hanuman to a devout Hindu. It carries no more truth than Athena or Jesus. This isn’t about consensus. No belief is True.