mistyfox812 said:Well, that "extreme simplification" is exactly where the issue lies. If you claim there is no truth, then from my perspective, conversation becomes either total nonsense or merely an exercise in conforming to others.
If we reject the idea that speech is meaningless—since we are clearly all here trying to achieve some level of clarity—then we are left with the latter: speech is just social alignment. That would imply that the majority opinion is inherently "right," while any individual who refuses to conform is necessarily "wrong," simply because "right and wrong" supposedly don't exist. [/URL]
When I suggest that truth is inaccessible in this context, what I mean is that it is UNSPEAKABLE. However, as social beings (or rather, generic ones), we have to communicate—relying heavily on language—to understand one another, even if we don't necessarily agree.
In principle, a majority opinion is just as incapable of grasping the absolute truth as a minority view, yet it remains absolutely vital for our social fabric.
We can look back today and argue that Socrates was right (because we’ve formed a new consensus), but at the time, the prevailing public opinion condemned him and signed his death warrant.
So, communication is deeply meaningful, but its goal isn't to reach "The Truth" (despite what some people pretend), but rather to foster community.
Those who claim to "possess" the truth—take the Inquisition, Joseph Stalin, or Adolf Hitler, for example—have committed far more atrocities than those who are simply "ignorant." This makes the self-proclaimed keepers of truth incomparably more dangerous than those who are merely mistaken or just searching for answers. 😉