There Is No "True Nature" Of Reality

[Ziran]

5 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

We’re all stuck in our own echo chamber. There’s nothing known outside of human language. Period. 

What I'm trying to say is:  When one inclines their ear to another, and the other chooses to speak, there's an implied social inclusion of shared set of linguistic rules.  Sometimes there's a mismatch.  A tourist visits a foreign country.  Sure.  But here, in this context, distinguishing between objective and subjective truths, there is a procedure which can be followed and has a proven track record of producing **sound** conclusions.  That's the process of "classical logic".  It's not without faults and limits, but for something like this, answering the question:  "Are there any objective truths?" classical logic is ideal.  Because.  The word choice of the question is borrowing from classical logic.  The definition of an objective truth comes from this school of thought.  Therefore. it's unreasonable to exclude other aspects of this school of thought arbitrarily.

[Ziran]

4 hours ago, Hyperion said:

Yes I agree, what you are saying here is relatively (un)true.

🙃

Repeating the same assertion is preaching to yourself.  Enjoy.

[Ziran]

4 hours ago, Hyperion said:

The whole point of this thread is to point out the inherent limitations of language.

By repeating the same assertion and lacking a valid example.

Good work.

[Breakingthewall]

6 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

We’re all stuck in our own echo chamber. There’s nothing known outside of human language. Period. 

You can know everything easily. You are, being is everything. Open yourself to this fact without any barrier and that's it. Nothing else can be known because that's everything.

Not knowing by language, being it without limits 

[Mellowmarsh]

7 hours ago, Ziran said:

What I'm trying to say is:  When one inclines their ear to another, and the other chooses to speak, there's an implied social inclusion of shared set of linguistic rules.  Sometimes there's a mismatch.  A tourist visits a foreign country.  Sure.  But here, in this context, distinguishing between objective and subjective truths, there is a procedure which can be followed and has a proven track record of producing **sound** conclusions.  That's the process of "classical logic".  It's not without faults and limits, but for something like this, answering the question:  "Are there any objective truths?" classical logic is ideal.  Because.  The word choice of the question is borrowing from classical logic.  The definition of an objective truth comes from this school of thought.  Therefore. it's unreasonable to exclude other aspects of this school of thought arbitrarily.

Be that as it may for your personal logical left brained reasoning.
But that’s not the point of this thread topic. 

What I’m trying to say is: All perspectives as to the true nature of reality are relative - therefore cannot be absolutised.

On a level of meta logical reasoning: The absolute = undefinable and cannot be different from all of reality itself.The aggregate of all of reality itself is not isolated from all individual fragmented things, events, and experiences, but are interconnected parts of a single, all-encompassing reality.Therefore, all assertions are relative, and relative assertions about the absolute are absurd. 

Human knowledge/ based on conceptual models of reality, in this artificial conception, is relatively ( un ) true.

Edited 9 hours ago by Mellowmarsh