Comment by Retric
3 hours ago
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.
>“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.
> 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.