[0db532a0]

Collective subjectivism does not lead to universal truth even closely. There is no universal truth, but only your personal experience and perception. This is true both for things which you see, and also for morality. In Wittgenstein’s world, your subjective morality is neither true nor false.

[halfjew222]

What would you say of a hypothetical claim that was ideally translated to all languages that everyone, when asked, unforced, agreed that it was an accurate description of their subjective experience?

I'm digging underneath Wittgenstein's ideas of subjective morality a little bit. Humor me here and let me know what you think. I'm truly curious.

[kansface]

> What would you say of a hypothetical claim that was ideally translated to all languages that everyone, when asked, unforced, agreed that it was an accurate description of their subjective experience?

We don't actually learn anything fundamental here.

[0db532a0]

What if there is only one person left in the universe?

[woodandsteel]

Your position assumes something like cartesian dualism, which is itself based on a series of universal claims, and furthermore has been rejected by most philosophers of the last century, including Wittgenstein himself.

[antidesitter]

> There is no universal truth, but only your personal experience and perception.

Is that a universal truth?

[scythe]

The actual early-Wittgenstein retort to this question is to reference the saying/showing distinction. "That there are no universal truths is not a true proposition, but it is shown by there being no truth which is universal." Or something like that.

The late-Wittgenstein retort is to tell a better joke.