Philosophers desire to know the truth, they create arguments based on the truth and ignore this fundamental aspect to any understanding, interpretative relevance. It's understandable that most people ignore it because of most debates about focusing on what the truth actually is and it's rarely easy to come to an agreement. I do not believe that the focus for interpretative relevance should be just on debates or conversations but also as a tool for pragmatic introspection and so I'll also talk about that.

To explain what interpretative relevance is, we need to explore the reality of what it means to understand something and the role of the truth in that process. We take anything, this thing is likely to have many things which can be said about it which are all factually true, interpretatively true or true assessments according to our values. These truths are not necessarily important but become important to people as a result of individuals finding them important.

Imagine an interview for a job, we know many things about the applicant which are definitely true, probably true and might be true. What attributes are we looking for in the applicant? What factors could worsen our views about the applicant? How meaningful is it to our overall assessment of the applicant that they have particular things about them that we've already determined are good or bad. How probable is it that they are something until we take that seriously as a meaningful consideration?

The applicant might be a woman, there are many statistical truths about women, many biases both good and bad that we might have, things about women we know to be true but all of these things are only probabilistically true at best about our applicant. The applicant might also seem trustworthy, that's our interpretation of certain aspects about her but how relevant is it that she might be trustworthy, what does that mean to us? That's interpretative relevance. It's true that our applicant has all of these things about her which are true but which of them is important and which of these truths are we going to use disproportionately to evaluate our applicant?

My goal here is not to talk specifically about something like this, interpretative truths is another thread. Think about a country, an ethnicity, a religion, our opinions about anyone or anything can be characterised not just by our values and what we know to be true but what we're specifically focusing on to draw information from and critique. Self-esteem, the ego and similar personal attitudes are profoundly impacted by interpretative relevance. Even if our values, our interpretations and the truth didn't change, the prioritised truths which have interpretative relevance determine the perspective.

I would like to discuss whether people feel they are factoring in an analysis of interpretative relevance in determining the correct view of something. I personally feel like I struggle to make debates about the interpretative relevance of something, once people have heard I think they're points are valid, they don't see any reason to change anything. I meet many who think that shifting interpretative relevance of things is the same as running away from the truth. What do you think the correct approach to interpretative relevance should be and how important do you think it is that we follow that approach?