As far as your first reply Tecoya- I assume you were being sincere, but I do tend to have a problem with my assumptions.
If I offended you or anything, I apoligize.
As far as my nit-pick nature, I tend to only get on people who espouse to know something, and seem to truly be searching for answers, since I am the same way (saying I 'know' things, while also knowing the falibility of that knowledge etc.). I would want others to correct my fallacies for example in a polite way. If I failed at being polite, I apoligize. If you don't want to become more accurate in your scope of knowledge etc, then I also apoligize and I'll just let things I see slide from now on. No one made me boss or teacher here or anything- its just an issue of the golden rule- I'd want to be corrected so I correct.
As far as your claim that there can be no truths KNOWN- that is also, itself a truth.
Thats the problem with any non-objective view-
For you to state that Truth is unknowable (true truth) is to espouse to know something about truth- objectivly and in reality- namely that no one can know a truth.
Your truth, is by your own argument, flawed. Maybe someone can know absolute truth. You MUST grant that if you say no one can know absolute truth because you can't make your claim an absolute truth then. But then you have a contradiction. Argh the world of truths and dares.
You could just say, "there is only one truth, and that is that their are no knowable truths" but that seems a bit 'jumpy' since if there is ONE their may be more.
But when I talk of "Truth" I am speaking of what the mind comprehends as "Truth". Epistemically, thats the only way one can have good discourse, since as long as their is ANYTHING unknown, nothing can be TRUELY known.
But...aren't their SOME truths? 1+1=2? how about x=x? These seem a priori truths don't they? Maybe not~!
And as far as the sarcasm about correcting your grammer, your asking for the wrong person. All my years in 'schoolin' and my grammer is nearly as bad as my spelling.
And I have enjoyed my college courses, but I am well removed from those now-
Honestly though, I have respect for your comments as they seem well thought out. Thats the only reason I even replied to you. You should take my criticisms as admiration, rather than disdain.
But I will do whatever it is you ask- if you think I'm being rude or you just don't like criticism, I wont go against your will.
Now I have a question for you, cause I sure as hell can't figure out an answer!-
Do truths exist if they exist for everyone to percieve? In this case, things like emotion and color don't count cause not everyone percieves them the same. But math, logic (which I suppose is synonomous with math
) and perhaps other things might be truths? If not why?
And then the eternal question- because I can't know at least MOST things, how should I act about my 'subjective truths'- those that I believe and know are true (but know only so far as my perceptions give me the knowledge)- since I might be wrong?