A sentence like many.

[Seeker]

"Life's truth doesn´t reside in the perspective of one being about the world, but rather in the common ground of all the perspectives."


I thank you in advance for your thoughts on this sentence.

[wuliheron]

Bad grammer, poor sentence structure.

[Math Is Hard]

Seeker, why don't you paraphrase this for us. Let us hear your interpretation of the meaning.
Also, who is the source of this quotation?

[Seeker]

If I say my interpretation of the thought it will influence your views on it.

I'm just interested to know your views about it. It´s just a thought.

Thanks.

[Math Is Hard]

I think it is inaccurate. It appears to be saying that if everyone collectively agrees that something is true, then it is true.
There was a time when everyone agreed that the earth was flat, but that didn't make it true.

[Philocrat]

"Life's truth doesn´t reside in the perspective of one being about the world, but rather in the common ground of all the perspectives."


I thank you in advance for your thoughts on this sentence.

Scepticism about the derivation of concrete facts or truths from diverse visual perspectives is widespread. In fact, it is an epistomolgical disease that cuts across several disciplines. The best judge of the production of truth in common visual perspectives is time. But I think it is naive to lump all types of truth verifiable in a public domain in one messy basket. There are many theories or hypotheses making statements of facts that take a very long time to verify and ground their truth contents. Some events and things are enveloped in time scales and dimensions that are beyond the range of the human visual faculties, even when we are armed with microscopic and macroscopic scientifc instruments. Therefore, statements about such events and things are bound to be speculative in scope and in substance. You could be right and you could be wrong.

But there are equally many things and events within the reach of the human visual faculties whose truths are immediate and indubitable. The truths of such things and events, as I have pointed it out elsewhere on this physics forum, are measured by the level of their success in a public domain. The observers contained in different visual perspectives who are experiencing those things and events, despite the possibility of maginal errors, cannot talk and theorise about such experience in a way that COMPLETELY undermines the notions of 'Common Good', Collective Responsibility' and 'Co-existence'. If things were as prophesied by the prophets of doom, then this must/would triger a systematic resolution of all causal relations and intelligibility involved. I have given the Street-crossing example, and similar examples, elsewhere to illustrate this very point.

One thing that I have vowed never to do in my philosophy is to allow myself to derail into 'HARDCORE SKEPTICISM' where, in utter folly, I deny any possibility of knowledge. We may not know very much, let alone everything, but we do know at least something, and it's even more rewarding when we strive to know more.

Think NATURE! May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well!

[Philocrat]

And even more so, when a single individual is responsible for bringing about a given truth in a given discipline, or for correcting an existing error in a commonly held opinion or belief, the truth value of such a belief still needs to stand the test of time in a public damain that is accessible to diverse visual perspectives. The strucutre of the world is such that we stand in natural clarifying relations with one another, hence, Private facts and truths are worthless unless meausred publicly!

[Philocrat]

By the way, I forgot to congratulate you for the name that you picked....seeker. It's a good one. Please continue to seek and you shall know!