by jimwalton » Mon Nov 25, 2019 5:11 pm
> because they think they have their own version of the truth.
Yeah, I'm not talking about one's own personal version of the truth. That's relativism, and I don't believe in that or subscribe to it. I believe in objective truth, for sure. What I'm talking about is epistemology: the act of knowing is always personal, and since truth is a value assessment, truth is not an abstract but rather is always linked to personal engagement. (As an aside, though this is not the subject of the discussion, this is how Jesus could say, "I am the truth." Truth is not an abstract state of being, a philosophy, or an expression of personal desire, but certainty expressed in personal engagement with objective reality.)
> There's a difference between deeming something as true, and it actually being true.
I agree. I wasn't using "deeming" as if it were a relativistic assessment. I used "deeming" as a way to say "only in human engagement and evaluation are sentences determined to be true." I should have expressed it that way.
> There is no understanding knowledge if everyone gets to decide what reality is.
I agree. We determine reality by consensus of assessment of the consistency of what we experience. (This takes us back to the original post.)
> I'm sorry, but none of this would work if reality itself wasn't objective. The computer you're typing this on wouldn't work.
I agree: Reality is objective. You seem to have misunderstood me.
> You've got an incredibly flawed understanding of realty, no doubt as a result of you trying to make sense of your religion.
Now you've gone even further into the land of misunderstanding. I am not saying that there is no such thing as objective reality. I would argue, there, that (1) you didn't read me accurately, and/or (2) maybe you colored my statements with your own presuppositions. I dunno, but now you're saying that my wanting to create my own reality and truth is how I was so foolish to fall for religion, which just isn't fair.