[halfjew22]

https://youtu.be/ermZKgG4htU

>But what is most strikingly original about Wittgenstein’s account in the Tractatus is his drawing out of the implications – which are to a degree disturbing – of this conception. One implication is for values. If I think or claim that the car is in the garage, then, built into that claim is the idea that this may be true or false. But when I think that, say, slavery is morally wrong, I think something that could not be otherwise than true (even if others should disagree

I believe the solution to this lies in collective subjectivism with a fancy twist. Underlying every disagreement about such a claim, we have an implicit agreement. If I say slavery is wrong and you say you disagree, then we actually agree about something; the fact that we disagree.

That agreement underlying the disagreement gives rise to new conversational opportunity to approach a new, more fundamental point of agreement.

In this example, we could ask something like the following to our debate partner: “would you like to be owned by me?” Employing Kant’s categorical imperative (or the golden rule or bowever else this idea has been named) to demonstrate to your opponent indeed no, they would not like to be enslaved.

Following that train of logic, we can begin to piece together agreements from the disagreements that we unavoidably come across when using a tool as blunt as language to describe anything close to resembling reality.

At some point, given the good faith participation of both partners in conversation, we will be able to form more agreements, phoenixes rising from the ashes of our disagreements, that will lead to something more closely resembling a “universal truth”, truism, true objective fact, etc.

After all, true is just the word we have for something that cannot be proven false. In the same way that we just pretend money has value and so it does, true doesn’t mean anything beyond the word itself. That doesn’t necessarily make it less useful, it’s just something we need to keep in mind.

On that note, this author does a fascinating job introducing a hypothesis that an alphabet causes a society to lean to value masculine thought processes more highly. Not sure what I think about the hypothesis yet but it’s been a fascinating listen thus far.

http://a.co/49lwAZNb

[0db532a0]

Collective subjectivism does not lead to universal truth even closely. There is no universal truth, but only your personal experience and perception. This is true both for things which you see, and also for morality. In Wittgenstein’s world, your subjective morality is neither true nor false.

[halfjew222]

What would you say of a hypothetical claim that was ideally translated to all languages that everyone, when asked, unforced, agreed that it was an accurate description of their subjective experience?

I'm digging underneath Wittgenstein's ideas of subjective morality a little bit. Humor me here and let me know what you think. I'm truly curious.

[woodandsteel]

Your position assumes something like cartesian dualism, which is itself based on a series of universal claims, and furthermore has been rejected by most philosophers of the last century, including Wittgenstein himself.

[antidesitter]

> There is no universal truth, but only your personal experience and perception.

Is that a universal truth?