Draft 2
I'm not clear about where we disagree...Let's figure it out!
That Tarassaco quote is poetry to me (nothing's wrong with poetry, imo). I haven't seen the book; it's philosophy, right? To me, Being is synonymous with Reality, and so is truth, so that part's ok with me. It has nothing to do with the myth of correspondence, so that's ok too. But it has nothing to do with empirical justification, so it has nothing to do with objective knowledge or the vagaries of communication (does it?).
I'm dealing with the latter subjects, which are relevant to practical wisdom (understanding what we should do and why we should do it).
The functionalities associated with wisdom
"Wisdom is not just one type of knowledge, but diverse. What a wise person needs to know and understand constitutes a varied list: the most important goals and values of life – the ultimate goal, if there is one; what means will reach these goals without too great a cost; what kinds of dangers threaten the achieving of these goals; how to recognize and avoid or minimize these dangers; what different types of human beings are like in their actions and motives (as this presents dangers or opportunities); what is not possible or feasible to achieve (or avoid); how to tell what is appropriate when; knowing when certain goals are sufficiently achieved; what limitations are unavoidable and how to accept them; how to improve oneself and one's relationships with others or society; knowing what the true and unapparent value of various things is; when to take a long-term view; knowing the variety and obduracy of facts, institutions, and human nature; understanding what one's real motives are; how to cope and deal with the major tragedies and dilemmas of life, and with the major good things too." Robert Nozick, 1989, quoted here (italics added)
Tarassaco's stuff is fine, but it doesn't seem to apply very closely to our practices with regard to developing broader and more coherent sets of understandings (does it?)
"Personal" truth?? Oxymoron?
"Your personal truth can be simple"
Hmmm. Does that conflict with "truth is complex," as you told me earlier? Have you changed your mind since then? [wondering...]
In my somewhat-less-than humble opinion:
Is "personal truth" like a belief or a feeling? Is a belief a truth? I don't get that beliefs are necessarily true; are they? And feelings aren't true or false, are they?
Most of us like simplicity, don't we? It's much easier to deal with than complexity, isn't it? Is that why we tend to oversimplify things (I think...)?
It's easier to substitute the idea of personal truth for the classical meaning of (epistemic) truth: linguistic descriptions that correspond to 'reality' (the reality? A reality? 'Reality' usually remains undefined in most of our conversations, doesn't it! Metaphysics is tough!).
Epistemic truth is (supposed to be) a question of justification, of true understandings. Personal truth never needs justification! It can be so simple and easy! (Notwithstanding the fact that some people agonize over their ideas, most self-truthers don't need to bother with deep or critical thinking.)
Did you read my post on facticity?
Zero replies! Do you intend to refute the past two hundred years of philosophical wisdom generated by the people who have understood that the correspondence theory of truth is fundamentally flawed? I can't. Nobody has; many very smart people have tried and failed.
The illusion of certainty
Certainty isn't truth, it's a feeling. It's distinct from justifiable confidence because it requires no justification. That's the problem with so-called personal truth - it's idiosyncratic and unjustifiable. It's a philosophical cop-out. (Please, Friend, don't takes this personally; it's not about anyone in particular. I don't write about individuals, I write about specific ideas and about humanity in general).
We can be certain about our beliefs, but I've learned that insisting that they truly correspond with the invisible stuff to which they refer is a poor way to communicate. This wasn't my idea! I learned practically everything that I understand from much wiser folks than I.
"the words used are merely agreed upon codes that can only tell one part of the story you wish to tell"
And that's why we shouldn't insist that linguistic assertions can be absolutely and certainly true in the epistemic sense.
I believe that you've made my point. Language is an imperfect mirror of the things to which we refer. It expresses abstractions; it's the basis of knowledge (beliefs, opinions, and theories), and (according to contemporary philosophical standards) there's never a justification for claiming that any of that stuff actually corresponds to something that we don't actually observe.
"The objection that may well have been the most effective in causing discontent with the correspondence theory is based on an epistemological concern. In a nutshell, the objection is that a correspondence theory of truth must inevitably lead into skepticism about the external world, because the required correspondence between our thoughts and reality is not ascertainable. " Sharon Ryan, 2013 (italics added)
Beliefs, opinions and theories are only as coherent as their justifications. In the postmodern world they might be deeply coherent, that is, if there's no evidence or logic that refutes them. We can be supremely confident about those things because no clear-thinking person should deny them.
A bachelor is an unmarried man. That's 'true' because of logic (a equals c and b equals c so a equals b). Kant called it an a priori assertion, but that's not inquiry, it's logic; it's about the relationships of symbols. Empirical assertions are completely different; they're based on observations and inference. They're what science is about; they're what argumentation is about. Coherency, not truth, is the gold standard for human understanding...
"The rest remains hidden behind layers of consciousness, unconsciousness, fear, education, culture, language, and so much more"
I agree. We can never know the absolute truth about anything other than the relationships of symbols in logic and math.
Now, yves, which part(s) of this (if any!?) don't cohere with your experience?
[wondering]
P.S. Did you see my blog post on values? It's related to the first part of the 'wisdom' definition above - clarifying one's purposes.
https://steemit.com/education/@rortian/applying-values-in-action-theory-and-practice
I don't apologize for writing too much ('cause I'm not clear that oversharing is a moral offense) but please forgive me anyway...that would be very kind...!
Thanks again for having inspired me.
Ahh.... too much to follow right now. Go read this: it is our community discussion! Hope it captures our discussion accurately. If not, I am sure you will correct me! :p
As for this last comment, could you please add some subheading? It would really help me follow the discussion. Steemit does not have the best UI and when you put multiple topics together in one piece, I have a difficult time responding. Pretty please?!
Did that. I'll be back when I catch my breath after reading your latest!
and then came this:
https://steemit.com/higherorderthinking/@rortian/community-discussion-continued
and this:
https://steemit.com/higherorderthinking/@rortian/community-discussion-continued
https://steemit.com/steemstem/@paulmozina/re-rortian-dealing-with-the-myth-of-facticity-20180407t151235328z#@rortian/re-paulmozina-re-rortian-dealing-with-the-myth-of-facticity-20180407t175146654z