[zarathustreal]

The notion of truth is an illusion, this has been a philosophical debate since the beginning of time. The fact is, every person occupies unique physical space and thus has unique life experiences and a unique perspective of each “event”. It’s the standard multi-sided coin phenomenon. Ask two people standing on opposite sides what is on the face and they’ll give you two different answers and both be right and both be wrong. It’s not a solvable problem because there is no observable objective reality that we can all agree on. Granted, I’m fairly certain there is an objective physical reality, it’s just not one that we can all observe the same and agree upon

[RiverCrochet]

Inaccurate.

> The fact is, every person occupies unique physical space and thus has unique life experiences and a unique perspective of each “event”.

#000000 and #000001 are unique, but most would simply call both colors "black", and not lose any advantage whatsoever. The fact we can communicate using common words and obtain desired effects most of the time disproves that uniqueness created by differing perspectives makes truth an "illusion" or meaningless.

[abustamam]

This appears to be true in a vacuum, but practically it's not for many "truths." For example, we can all agree that the holocaust was an atrocity that should have never happened. Certainly there are folks who don't believe that, or who don't even believe that it ever occurred, but the vast majority of reasonable people would consider those folks irrational (to put it mildly).

Now, I notice that I use "we all agree" and "vast majority," which is no way to explain an objective fact, but what we all agree on as a community or society _is_ reality. A society or community that has a different reality(s) than us is probably not a society or community that we would associate ourselves with.

This operates on several levels and dimensions; the common realities I share with my local Islamic community are different realities than I share with my tech community, or Toastmasters community, or even family.

Going back to the original point, yes, there are no realities that the entire global community can agree on, not even something as seemingly incontroversial as medicine (Christian Science for example https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/religion-context/case-studies/mi... ), but no individual is part of the global community. We choose our communities based on the realities that we accept to be true.

[Anotheroneagain]

>Now, I notice that I use "we all agree" and "vast majority," which is no way to explain an objective fact, but what we all agree on as a community or society _is_ reality. A society or community that has a different reality(s) than us is probably not a society or community that we would associate ourselves with.

This is literally schizophrenia, when two such communities meet, a massacre inevitably occurs.

[EnigmaFlare]

> or who don't even believe that it ever occurred, but the vast majority of reasonable people would consider those folks irrational

You're confusing rationally concluding something with feeling morally righteous for believing it. It's not irrational to disbelieve something that people only believe because they'll feel like a bad person or be punished for doubting. See religion, for example.

The only reason most people believe the holocaust happened is because they heard about it from general society. Same way they believe God created the world. Almost no layman has actually studied it. It's just a kind of common faith where being a believer is what's important rather than the content of the belief.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that the vast majority of believers aren't believing out of rationality but out of indoctrination.

Same is true of all sorts of beliefs in things that don't directly affect us. We believe them because everyone assures us they're true, not because we sat down and worked out the conclusion for ourselves.

[Anotheroneagain]

I know that you are posing as a teacher, who is sharing knowledge beyond what we would be capable of coming up with ourselves, but this is actually a very primitive thought to us. It's still a very simple thought to understand that the other side of the coin is still there when we're not seeing it, and that the other person is also right. Beyond your comprehension, we can even piece together the objective reality to a profound degree. At least those of us who could avoid the harm that you're doing to us.

Call a more advanced species to take a look, as our intelligence is clearly beyond your comprehension, and you are essentially torturing us here.

[draebek]

I share this viewpoint (is that ironic?), but it's almost entirely unhelpful when it comes time to make decisions, particularly decisions as a society or within a government, right? One powerful person's subjective reality that "all people who look like X should be executed" can most likely become the "subjective reality" of those X people real quick.

[lazide]

That’s a cop out that allows obvious delusion to spread.

If what someone is saying is 90% reality based and verifiable, and 10% subjective experiences/unverifiable, that doesn’t make what they say equivalent to someone who says something that is 90% falsified by verifiable reality and 10% subjective experiences/unverifiable.

The second person is just delusional or lying, full stop. Any other approach is just cowardice.

[gnramires]

I find equally valid (and perhaps more useful) to say that the notion of truth is the basis of all that exists, and this debate is far from simple. If we don't allow anything to be true at all, then even this discussion, any discussion, or anything at all seems rather pointless. If we're just exchanging gobbledygook, what's the point of even talking? I think there's a general presumption in talking that we're approaching something. That something is essentially truth (i.e. some accurate and/or useful model of some part of reality) or some kind of improvement or even enjoyment, which are both connected to ethics.

Sure, truth is in some senses unknowable (in particular in the 'The Map is not the Territory' sense), but we can have increasingly accurate and useful enough models that improve our lives. It's also the case that most human matters need specific answers, potentially extremely specific to their situation (and hard or impossible to know things, like what's going on in their minds), as well as some ethical and aesthetic frameworks that allows one thing to be good while other thing is bad. It's not obvious at first that ethics could be based on truth and science (and hence have somewhat-universal rights and wrongs), but I've come to believe that's the case indeed. Ethics really derives from fundamental truths about existence, like the reality and nature of suffering (and the nature of the workings of our minds), the nature of existence (for example, work is ethical insofar as it supports us existing at all), and so on.

If you think about it, the notion that anything goes, is really absurd: surely there are things you wouldn't accept essentially no matter what. It's much more absurd than the counterpart that there are true things, even about the nature of existence, that we can approach. The human mind (and minds in general!) can be studied using similar methods to the study of nature (with some necessary generalizations), and I believe that's what the 21st century is going to be all about :)

Edit: That's not to say 'vibes' are not important as well! From Goethe[1]:

"Art is long, life short, judgment difficult, opportunity transient. To act is easy, to think is hard; to act according to our thought is troublesome. Every beginning is cheerful: the threshold is the place of expectation. The boy stands astonished, his impressions guide him: he learns sportfully, seriousness comes on him by surprise. Imitation is born with us: what should be imitated is not easy to discover. The excellent is rarely found, more rarely valued. The height charms us, the steps to it do not: with the summit in our eye, we love to walk along the plain. It is but a part of art that can be taught: the artist needs it all. Who knows it half, speaks much, and is always wrong: who knows it wholly, inclines to act, and speaks seldom or late. The former have no secrets and no force : the instruction they can give is like baked bread, savory and satisfying for a single day; but flour cannot be sown, and seed-corn ought not to be ground. Words are good, but they are not the best. The best is not to be explained by words. The spirit in which we act is the highest matter. Action can be understood and again represented by the spirit alone. No one knows what he is doing while he acts aright, but of what is wrong we are always conscious. Whoever works with symbols only is a pedant, a hypocrite, or a bungler. There are many such, and they like to be together. Their babbling detains the scholar: their obstinate mediocrity vexes even the best. The instruction which the true artist gives us opens the mind; for, where words fail him, deeds speak. The true scholar learns from the known to unfold the unknown, and approaches more and more to being a master."

[1] Wilhelm Meister's Wanderjahre (Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship) Book VII Chapter IX