| What's addressed as truth is not some holy artifact handed out for us by God, or what some theory of Logic defines as such. It's what people consider and call a truth. Language terms are defined by use. And people absolutely argue, fight, unite, or even go to war, for the version of those that they'll consider and call the truth of such matters. |
| |
| ▲ | Retric a day ago | parent [-] | | The English language has multiple independent definitions of the same word. You’re misusing that ambiguity here. “sincerity in action, character, and utterance” is different than “the body of real things, events, and facts” This distinction very much exists in how people talk about such things. You don’t need to “have faith” that something like gravity exists such that when you trip you can fall down. “We hold these truths to be self evident” isn’t how you talk about the distance between NYC and Boston. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea a day ago | parent [-] | | >“sincerity in action, character, and utterance” is different than “the body of real things, events, and facts” So? I didn't refer to truth in the former sense. I said there are several kinds of meanings of the term "truth", and that the one that's about mere facts about things that can be measured objectively (the stricter version of your second definition) is the least interesting one. The truths of the "We hold these truths to be self evident” variety, the truths of "this proposal is really bad", "this behavior is wrong", "this person is guilty", and many others even more nuanced varieties, are the ones that matter, and for those objective reality is nowhere near the "single source of truth", if it even applies at all. | | |
| ▲ | Retric a day ago | parent [-] | | > So By acknowledging that nobody considers these objective truths, there’s nothing interesting to say on the topic. You were playing around with the linguistic ambiguity for whatever reason using a different definition than was used by “There is only a single source of truth and that is objective reality.” and I called you out on it. Thus the subject dies. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | >By acknowledging that nobody considers these objective truths, there’s nothing interesting to say on the topic On the contrary, that's where most interesting things to say happen in the real social world. From relationships all the way to wars. >You were playing around with the linguistic ambiguity for whatever reason using a different definition than was used by “There is only a single source of truth and that is objective reality.” and I called you out on it. Nope, you were limited by the one definition you had in mind, unable to understand that real world, real people, don't constraint themselves to it, and argue regarding the truth or falsehood in all kinds of things that are not bound to "objective reality". In other words, you pedantically erased most of human life and discource on the truth (not to mention the incovenient other philosophical and dictionary definitions of it) with "well, ahchtually". | | |
| ▲ | Retric 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > you were limited by the one definition you had in mind Intentionally misunderstanding what someone said is at best wordplay, and wordplay is fucking boring. Stop being boring. |
|
|
|
|
|
