I don't think that's quite true, anymore. I will resile, though, as I have given ample reason to take that seriously ("my truth").
So, what do the theists mean when they say that God or Heaven is real? — Janus
When I've asked, they mean what you go on to posit: it is an empirically real place one's soul ascends to after death (or, God, similar pseudo-physical terms get used). Not all, but that's the most common response I get.
Good luck trying to get everyone to agree on what's plausible. — Janus
I posit that thre is still going to be a 'pregnant middle'. Think of a balloon - pinch opposite sides, and stretch. The top and bottom tapers are those who hold views outside of what
most consider reasonable, rational or indeed 'real'. That middle section (pregnant middle) is most people. I agree that getting everyone to agree is a fools errand. That doesn't mean that we can't at the very least, sort out which sense we mean to use the word in, and then discuss, based on that, whether we are making reasonable assertions. I do, also, agree, it's going to end up with "Yes, that's plausible" or not. This is a problem.
Can you imagine any context other than an authoritarian one, where everyone would agree — Janus
I presume the following was to indicate you want to ask about abstract, esoteric matters rather than "is gasoline running my car". I can. I can imagine a society in which there are
less variant views generally. This is simply a temporal issue. in 2000 B.C it was probably quite easy, without force, to instantiate certain abstract beliefs in others, if you had a streak to do so. By that, I mean you are energized, articulate and willing to engage, no that you want to force yourself on others.
Liberal thought, especially in its modern egalitarian form, places a premium on equal dignity, autonomy, and the right to participate in discourse. — Wayfarer
This seems empirically wrong. As I see, and seems to be playing out, Liberal thought in it's modern, egalitarian form places a premium on equal
outcomes and any disparity in
outcome is automatically considered a result of unequal opportunity (this seems the 'woke' take though, so perhaps you're purposefully trying to shunt that off for discussion purposes. If so, that's good. Sorry I've wasted time).
then those without it may be depicted as less capable or qualified — Wayfarer
Definitely. Epistemic injustice is real, despite my extreme discomfort in ever applying it to a situation's description.
The idea of a “higher” truth here isn’t about exclusion but about cultivation — Wayfarer
You've hit the nail here. I think the problem is that there are dumber, and smarter people. Those dumber people who might actually be precluded from employing the mental techniques required for this type of refinement are going to argue that they aren't dumber, and it's you (whoever, whatever) who has prevented their achieving success. This is patent nonsense, but goes to the issues i'm speaking about I guess: If they think "real" means what they interpret their Lot as, then we can't argue with them. There's no refinement to be had.
Accordingly in a liberal setting, saying that an understandingor insight can be qualitatively better can sound like an assault on equality. — Wayfarer
I see you covered that already.
:sweat:
Liberalism’s strength is inclusiveness and the prevention of abuses of authority. But Its blind spot can be a reluctance to acknowledge that some perspectives are not just different, but genuinely more coherent, integrated, or profound. — Wayfarer
Yes. I think further, though, it lends itself to not just not acknowledging this, but
actively resisting any type of discussion which might describe, in rational terms, why it is true.
The idea that punctuality is racist, as an example. Fucking - no - arrive on time. Bigotry of low expectations seems the order of the day, for this particular mode of activity.