What the hell...

I just got into a heated argument with my parents and my sister. It wasn't even about anything specific... but after cooling off, I realized they actually have a point. Then I thought about it some more and realized my sister is right, too. Of course, I still believe I'm right. Every side has arguments that feel equally heavy and valid. Some might be speculative, while others are 😁 solid—but you can defend any position if you believe it's the truth. If you simply pile up enough points, you’ll "win." Even if that doesn't mean you're actually correct; nobody can ever truly know every single fact.
Whether a stance is "right" often just comes down to how skilled and knowledgeable the person arguing is.

Take a random political debate, for example. I've heard dozens of reasons why Ronald Reagan should have intervened in the USA, and just as many reasons why he shouldn't have. But was it the right move? No one knows all the facts or the true balance of power at the time, so we can't say for sure.

So, having realized this, I want to ask you all: How do you vigorously defend a position, say, online, when you realize the only reason you end up looking "right" is because your Google search results are better than the person you're arguing with? Doesn't every "argument" just boil down to a clash of skill and form? Is there no actual right and wrong?

Arguments mostly boil down to beliefs rather than facts. Truth is singular; if both sides actually recognized it, there wouldn't be an argument...

Marrakesh said:So, does every single "argument" just boil down to a clash of skill or style? Like, is there really no such thing as right or wrong?

Yup. Right and wrong don't really exist, and honestly, the grass is always greener on the other side...
(figured I'd drop a link too :D how everyone is technically correct) but if two people actually tapped into one truth and became one, they wouldn't be two separate people anymore

Picture two people sitting across from each other, staring at a coin that’s been painted red on one side and blue on the other.
Person A claims, "The coin is red," while Person B insists, "No, it's blue."
Technically, they're both right because they're just looking at the exact same thing from two different angles.
So, what's the one truth? Well, the truth is simply that the coin has blue on one side and red on the other.

If both people are stubborn idiots, they'll spend their entire lives fighting over the color of that coin... when all they really need is a little bit of ability to see things from someone else's perspective!

The real issue is that if neither side can master that skill, you're never going to reach an agreement, and you'll never find the truth!

Oh, come on! If I actually admit that he’s (even partially) right, I lose all my leverage in this argument... so instead, I’m just going to stick to my guns and try to convince him that his eyesight is clearly failing him. 🥳

Jack Harris3 said:Oh, hell no. If I actually admit he’s right, then I’ve lost my leverage to argue, so I’m sticking to my guns—I’d much rather just try to convince him his eyesight is failing instead. 🥳

Man, what a cheap move!! 🙄

Luckily, there’s a perfect counter-move for stuff like this. (It's basically one of those essential conversation skills every guy needs if he wants to actually enjoy life and stay winning.)

It’s what people call the "walk-through-one-door-and-out-the-other" technique, and let me tell you, it drives any woman with even a shred of self-respect absolutely crazy!!🙂

You don't really get women, do you? 🤣
It’s not even about being heard... it’s more about HER getting to vent, so honestly, she doesn't care if there's nothing but empty air inside your head. 😛

I mean, I'm not quite sure what's bothering you about my theory... 😁
I completely agree—and I've said this a thousand times already—that there isn't just one truth out there, but rather as many truths as there are people... 😁
But if I follow that logic, if I just tell everyone they're right because they're coming from their own perspective, then what's the point of even having a conversation?
So, I guess I just have to be stubborn and play the opposition... 😁

MY BAD: totally hit "edit" instead of "quote" by mistake and completely butchered the N&N post - swiftcobra15

N&N: A single perspective never tells the whole story. But just because truth is subjective doesn't mean there isn't some actual truth out there...

swiftcobra15: Doesn't mean there's just one single truth, either. Conversation is really just our way of trying to align our own truths (not just vote them into existence😁), because at the end of the day, humans are social creatures who can't survive without each other.;

Jack Harris3 said:You don't really get women, do you? 🤣
It’s not about whether someone is actually listening; it’s about her getting to vent. She doesn't care if you're just nodding along like a bobblehead. 😛

🤣
sure can 👍

just get off my screen!!☕

swiftcobra15:
....because man is a zoon politikon... we just aren't built to exist without others... 😉

Honestly, I think Aristotle got it wrong. 😁

Jack Harris3 said:You don't really get women, do you? 🤣
It isn't about being heard; they just want to bark. They couldn't care less about what's rattling around in your head. 😛

Jack Harris3, pay attention... it's not about the woman barking, it's the dog.
👋You've swapped the dogs for women.

Not really, but since you’re asking... yeah, those things can be just as bad. ☕

At the center of everything, there’s me—and honestly, staying balanced is the only way I can function without losing my mind. Think of different perspectives on anything as little counterweights—just small adjustments used to keep the scale steady. You tweak the angles, you toss an argument in here or pull one out there, but the goal is always to keep that scale perfectly level. And look, the truth is only actually true if it serves that balance; you can always recalibrate it just by shifting the angle from which you're looking at it.

swiftcobra15 said:Just because everyone agrees doesn't mean there's one truth out there. Talking is really just our attempt to align our own truths—not like we're voting on them or anything😁—because at the end of the day, humans are social animals. We can't survive without each other. ;

Can one single person actually get closer to the truth than everyone else combined? Honestly, I think they can.
If that’s true, it means truth isn't just whatever the majority opinion in the US decides; it's something that can totally clash with what people believe. Truth can be disruptive. Sometimes it's so blunt you can't dodge it, even if everyone wishes they could. To me, it feels like truth exists, even if it's a rare find.

Bringing all those different pieces together into one whole... yeah, that's basically what the concept is all about.

Kyle Garcia4 said:The truth is only valid if it functions within a state of equilibrium, which you can adjust simply by changing the angle from which you choose to view it.

Adjusting the truth? 🤔
Oh, I get it now! You just hop from one perspective to another until you stumble upon the version of the "truth" that feels most comfortable—the kind that doesn't challenge anything you already believe...😁
And then you just declare that to be the absolute truth? 😁
Give me a break...
Sure, go ahead, but what have you actually adjusted? The truth itself, or just your own lens? 😁

Jack Harris3 said:Adjust the truth? 🤔
Oh, I get it now! You just hop from corner to corner until you stumble upon the "truth" that feels best—the kind that doesn't challenge a single thing you believe? 😁
And then you just declare it the absolute truth? 😁
Give me a break...
Sure, go ahead, but what are you actually adjusting? The actual truth itself, or just your own lens? 😁

The lens, obviously. 😁
I mean, the only way we can ever grasp the truth is through our own perspective—if we're looking through someone else's lens, we're just swallowing whatever truth is being served to us on a silver platter. It’s always easier to just believe than to actually sharpen your own focus.
Look, it really just comes down to what suits you—what parameters you've set for yourself to navigate life. Are you going for a convenient truth—something close enough to you to make life easy—or are you chasing the truth that actually holds up under scrutiny?
People usually have a Goal, so they end up tweaking their Angle and their Truth to match it. It makes it much easier to find Justification, or a motive for doing Great and Important things.
Otherwise, how else do you explain committing massive evils in the name of massive goals?
Yeah, I guess I do hop around 😁, but it's not because I enjoy the movement—it's just more comfortable than standing still. Then again, my ego isn't big enough to think the world revolves around me, and it wouldn't be wise to ignore reality by playing ostrich.
Though, sometimes I feel like I'm just standing there with my lens, thinking I've got everything figured out and that "everything is clear." But my brain tells me there's a slim chance I'm actually that Great and Wise—it's more likely that feeling balance is just a constant process of recalibration. We have to keep adjusting if we want our firmly-established-in-preparation principles to actually survive within us. That's why I hop around a bit 😁, just making sure everything stays clear and logical to me.
If you know what I mean...........

See, I actually do things the opposite way. If the lens shows me something that throws my perspective off, I just recalibrate my view based on a new little snapshot of the truth. 😁

mistyfox812 said:Is it possible for a single person to be closer to the truth than everyone else combined? I personally believe they can.
If that holds up, it implies that truth isn't just whatever the majority agrees upon; it can actually exist in direct opposition to popular opinion.

The real question is this: HOW do we actually grasp the truth? Or more importantly, WHO knows it?
Unless we have a way to know it—or someone else does—any attempt to measure how far we've strayed from it feels completely illusory.

I would never dream of equating the consensus of the masses with the truth itself. To me, communication is simply our attempt to bridge the massive gap that exists between individual minds.
Sure, people talk about a "higher consciousness" or a "collective spirit," but since we can't prove those things, we're left relying on language—which always feels like an inadequate tool for exchanging our private "truths."

I’m not claiming to know what the absolute truth is. My point is much simpler: it’s essentially out of our reach.😉

Jack Harris3 said:Look, I actually do the exact opposite. If the lens shows me something that messes with my own perspective, I just recalibrate my view based on this new picture of truth. 😁

Heh... it’s really not that simple, though.😁
I feel like I approach things similarly to you😁—but with enough accumulated experience that when something, how should I put this, throws me off balance, my first instinct isn't to assume everything I believed was wrong. Instead, I start questioning if the new data is even accurate. Then, depending on my mood or how much free time I have, I'll put in the work to "verify" it—you know, by looking at the bigger picture. Sometimes I find an angle that totally supports what I already believed, and sometimes it’s a struggle, so I end up adjusting my stance slightly. Some people might call that "personal growth"—but let's not get ahead of ourselves.😁 In any case, we're both just jumping in.

mistyfox812 said:The big question is: HOW can we actually know what's true? Or even better, WHO knows the truth?
Unless we actually know it (or someone else does), there’s no way to measure how far off we are from it. Otherwise, it's all just an illusion.

I'm definitely not saying that what the majority thinks is the same thing as the truth—not at all. I just feel like communication is basically this desperate attempt to bridge the massive gap that exists between every single one of us.
Sure, people love to talk about a "higher consciousness," a "collective mind," or whatever, but you can't prove any of that stuff. So we're stuck with language, which is such a crappy, insufficient tool for trying to trade our individual "truths."

I'm not claiming to know what the "real" truth is, I'm just saying it feels out of reach—to put it super simply: "it doesn't exist" for us.😉

Well, yeah, but that "super simple" part is exactly where the trouble starts. Because if you say truth doesn't exist, then as far as I can see, talking becomes either totally pointless or it's just everyone trying to agree with each other.
If we don't write off talking as pointless—since we're literally doing it right now and trying to be clear—then we're left with the second option: speech is just social alignment. And that would mean the majority is automatically "right," and anyone who doesn't fit in is "wrong," because if there's no truth, there's no "right or wrong," just "aligned or unaligned."
If we reject *that* idea too (which I think both you and I have), then honestly, it feels like there *has* to be some kind of truth out there. I mean, I think there's a standard for truthfulness—whether it's obvious or hidden—that isn't just some social contract or a group agreement, but something universal.

Just because we can't clearly see that standard, or maybe it isn't explicitly laid out, doesn't mean it isn't there.

When I use the word 'standard,' I don't mean like a ruler you can hold in your hand, but more like... 'the true measure.'