G
Ginkgo
Guest
I realise the above is applicable to many subjects, but surely you acknowledge that there are some things which are objectively, demonstrably true? And that conversely, some things are objectively, demonstrably untrue?
If I want to prove that Hamlet is better than King Lear, or even that Babe Ruth was a better baseball player than Neifi Perez, maybe I can't do that from a purely objective and inarguable standpoint. But if I say that 2 + 2 = 4, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? If I say that Archduke Ferdinand died in 1914, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? If I say that Ruth hit 714 home runs, isn't that clear cut and objectively true? Aren't many, many things clear cut and objectively true?
Moreover, isn't there a possibility that imprecision or expediency in a description could lead the audience to misunderstand that subject, regardless of whether the topic is objective or subjective?
I think this is very well-said and an important question that deserves a thoughtful response, and a detailed rebuttal if you feel there's something wrong here.
I realise I'm arguing what you call the introvert's perspective here, and that may not be inherently more valuable than what you'd call an extroverted perspective -- but from a purely literal standpoint, from an objective position, isn't Tater right? Isn't "sacrific[ing] precision in order to make the ideas more easily accessible to others" the same as sacrificing the quality of an idea for the quantity of its dissemination?
And isn't there a danger, by emphasising quantity over quality, that a lot of people would learn bad ideas, rather than a few people learning good ones?
Precisely.
Note that this doesn't make either of us right or wrong; on the contrary, it's intended to show that neither of us can ever truly be right or wrong in a purely objective sense!
Typological solipsism. Sad. If this is true, then how could I know it to be true? And if listeners cannot know it to be true then nothing you say about typology or otherwise can be proven in an objective sense. In which case, how is it more appealing or applicable than anything else you could talk about?
I'll hopefully get back to this thread in a day or two, but I need to get some sleep for a long car ride.
Night.