JayLeClay on Nostr: Same thing here. What do you mean “different kinds of truth”? To me, that’s a ...
Same thing here. What do you mean “different kinds of truth”? To me, that’s a non sequitur. I’m not familiar with Piaget or genetic epistemology, but describing how “truths can be concordant with reality” is, to me, just a way of describing opinions that are functional/useful to a given set of conditions. What you call “reality” I call “your perception of it.” There’s really no other way to describe it. All we have are our perceptions.
It is only when we *stop* perceiving that we see what is underlying. THAT, and only that, is the Truth that is always-and-everywhere. Everything else is just mind stuff. God, dogma, religion, beliefs, opinions, “truths” (concordant or not), all of these are nothing more than concepts, mental objects, which people take as being 100% true. But it isn’t. Referring back to my initial response to you, consider the “truth” of Hanuman to a devout Hindu. It carries no more truth than Athena or Jesus. This isn’t about consensus. No belief is True.
It is only when we *stop* perceiving that we see what is underlying. THAT, and only that, is the Truth that is always-and-everywhere. Everything else is just mind stuff. God, dogma, religion, beliefs, opinions, “truths” (concordant or not), all of these are nothing more than concepts, mental objects, which people take as being 100% true. But it isn’t. Referring back to my initial response to you, consider the “truth” of Hanuman to a devout Hindu. It carries no more truth than Athena or Jesus. This isn’t about consensus. No belief is True.