There's such a huge difference in valuations and cognition that it makes it impossible to impose your truths on people whose understanding of everything stands in stark contrast to yours. — Nagel

The way of we looking our reality will always contrast others. I guess this happens because there is not exist a worldwide assumed truth at all. It depends a lot of with the way of thinking with the other person you are speaking with.
For example: I don’t believe I can find love hanging out with girl because I never had a girlfriend. Nevertheless, the other person has a girlfriend and responds me I am so “pessimistic” because I am not keep trying. We have here two different realities according two different experiences.
So yes the interpretations dependes a lot from a personal/culture experience. I guess the cleverest movement here is stay neutral when you meet someone so different from you instead of impose our thoughts.

I do share the same sentiment; that we should ignore the epistemological problem and simply deal with it, maybe by neutrality or authenticity to oneself.

Interpretation is one contingency that must be accounted for - perspective. It might also be wrapped up in another - priority. In all cases, salience must be accounted for.

It's definitely possible. There are two extremes.

• All positions are equally true and only seemingly different. (sort-of perennialism, universalism, pantheism etc.)
• Or, all positions are equally false, and truth doesn't exist. (Postmodernist, Post-Structuralist, Anti-Foundationalist, Deflationist, historicist, cultural relativist etc. view)

I prefer to hold the view that Premodern philosophers, Greco-Roman, Chinese and Indian -and my least favorite, the medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim philosophers- all held, that there is a truth out there, and the difficulty is discovering, describing, finding, figuring out that truth. That's the difficulty.

But the view that there are only interpretations, is a view many anti-Foundationialists and Postmodernists like Nietzsche, Stirner, Foucault, Derrida, Wittgenstein, Rorty, Stanley Fish and others share.

There are many of those kinds of views in philosophy.

However, if I may be bold, I consider Postmodern philosophy to be the abolition of philosophy. Philosophy traditionally is about, the Real, the True and the Good. Postmodernism rejects the possibility that any of those can be found. Hence, I see it as the antithesis of true philosophy. What Plato called philodoxy, rather than philosophy.

If there is a philosophy, there is a truth, then let's discover what it is. If there isn't, then just as Fish, Rorty, Wittgenstein and Hume say, let's do something else with our time. Philosophy is simply a waste of time if there is no truth or good or reality we're trying to discuss or discover.

I see. I admit to have a curiosity for "true truths", though it seems to me that regardless of whether this is, it makes little if no difference to how one will live their life. If, for example, the truth is that we are all destined for pancakes, those who detest pancakes and have lived detesting them will arguably experience no change in their experience and being. I find wisdom in the works of a Foucault or a Wittgenstein, especially a Nietzsche, which are concerned more on living our present lives than a martyrdom for truth. Philosophy, I think, has evolved from truth finding to problem solving. And where there is life, there are problems. To me, there is some wisdom in turning away from this search in order to chat with my friends, to watch the latest NBA game, to kiss my partner, to learn how to drive, to celebrate my father's birthday, to establish a more efficient system of education, to fight against cultural discrimination, to subdue terrorism, to conquer the world via business ventures, and ultimately to imbue meaning in all this frisky-froskying.

There are billions of people in this Earth and their problems are probably of a greater magnitude and a greater diversity. Because of this and considering the lifespan of a human person, we better do with our relative-truths else we might perish in our search for the true truth. The plant is fine with its sunlight, the lion with its prey, and the person with his truths.

f there is a philosophy, there is a truth, then let's discover what it is. If there isn't, then just as Fish, Rorty, Wittgenstein and Hume say, let's do something else with our time. Philosophy is simply a waste of time if there is no truth or good or reality we're trying to discuss or discover. — Dharmi

There's another approach - the staring point being 'I doubt that there is truth, however, let's look into some of this to see what I find.' This means philosophy is both a waste of time and a solemn responsibility.

Onions grow from onion seed.
Don't put your fingers in the electric socket.
It's worth learning to read.
Don't excrete in the drinking water supply.

There is such a lot to learn in a complicated world, no one ever knows it all, and it's easy to get things wrong. And one of the things folks are getting wrong recently, that is almost as daft and dangerous as putting your fingers in the electric socket, is that truth is unobtainable, or un-communicable, or non-existent, or radically relative and personal. There are Darwin Awards for such philosophies, (which are always granted posthumously).

I do believe that the question you raise is an important one, especially with the inclusion of both the cultural and personal elements. Our cultural background beliefs influence us so much, but it is likely that our individual experiences as well. I am inclined to think that it is more likely that we will challenge the beliefs of our own cultural background if we encounter personal difficulties and, that is because it can be hard work to question the cultural ideas. However, there will be some who cling to particular beliefs, such as religious ones, for comfort or security in the face of difficulties. So, in all kinds of ways the whole perspective of the world is subjective, with cultural and personal experience affecting, but not necessarily determining, the interpretation of our everything.

If you want to live your life chasing your own tail, I won't stop you.

If you want to live your life chasing your own tail, I won't stop you. — Dharmi

I've not met the person yet who isn't chasing their own tail.

Well, at least you're honest. Have to give credit where credit is due.

However, there will be some who cling to particular beliefs, such as religious ones, for comfort or security in the face of difficulties. — Jack Cummins

This, I think, is a relevant statement. People's outlooks in life can greatly change depending on their psychological state, which can be associated very easily with their beliefs. Through my interactions with my Christian peers, I observed how prayers and rituals have this sort of therapeutic effect that allows for them to alleviate their troubles and to better strive for life. To those who've suffered the lost of a loved one, let's say, a father and his daughter who lost her mother; in that kind of situation, thoughts like "your mother is always watching over us," or "we have a powerful spirit protecting us" prove to be very helpful and uplifting. Regardless of the truth of those statements, they seem to have strong therapeutic value to certain peoples and cultures.

Regardless of the truth of those statements, they seem to have strong therapeutic value to certain peoples and cultures. — Nagel

Yes, that's definitely the case. And we even see this with secular humanist rituals where ceremonies and the right words of reassurance bring individuals and communities together to manage and incorporate their grief. People are simple creatures and gestures of comfort, celebration and closure work across just about every category of belief and disbelief.