This confuses me. Prelinguistic ideas exist without language. They negate Rorty, who assumes these ideas are language dependent. So no problem for Rorty... — Hillary

Negation by contradicting reality is a big problem for Rorty(and anyone else for that matter). I would venture to guess that Rorty denies prelinguistic belief altogether, on pains of coherency alone, but I could be wrong.

Can't creation myths be understood without language? — Hillary

Not according to my understanding of human thought and belief.

Yes, I think all truths are conditional. — Jackson

In objectivity, because of dissimilar axioms.

In subjectivity, because of dissimilar biases.

Plato would say that absolute and relative are two sides of the same coin.

I don't think so: to my understanding, for Plato the world of ideas is the world of absolute things, while what is accessible to our senses is the world of relative, perishable, imperfect, deceitful things. How are they the same coin?

Truths, the way it seems to me, are basically maps (language + logic) and the objective is to get our hands on the best possible one, given the limitations of our tools, for the territory we're interested in. Our linguistic expressions, logically enhanced, must, in this sense, correspond to reality. That's all we can hope for and that's about all that's feasible.