If objective truth is unknowable then what's wrong

Same thing wrong with alternative rock.

>>9924300
what might that be

>>9924316
Its actually a piece of paper

>>9924296
SLAY QUEEN SLAY!

>>9924296
>He thinks that truth is both objective and unknowable

File: breenbergh_jakob_engel_grt.jpg (314KB, 1000x730px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1000x730px

>>9924473
It is, but only by revelation. You don't even have to be Christian or Jewish to believe that; many of the Greeks also believed that real truth was not discoverable except by supernatural insight. I think Plato talks about that more than once.

>>9924488
*is knowable, rather. Fuck, that's what I get posting at 2 AM.

>>9924473
No I think there is subjective truth. I'm not sure if there is or is not objective truth because there is no evidence of it.

ALL truth is objective. If it's true, then it's objective. It's as simple as that.

When the press and previous governmental administrations have held to one meaning of truth, attempting to justify lies under that meaning of truth, by defining truth differently, comes off as just weaseling out of being held to any sort of standard.

One sees Trump supporters, Scott Adams comes to mind, push this idea that "Trump doesn't literally mean what he says, you can't take him literally, you have to understand the figurative truth of what he's saying, you can't take him literally". Which, while probably better than any other defense of Trump bullshitting constantly even for a politician, still is ultimately I believe holding Trump to a lower standard than other politicians, and is encouraging a lowering the standard for truth along the entire political landscape.

If we can't take what people in authority are saying at face value and believe they are literally true, that creates problems for society. It's better to have Bill Clintonesque politicians saying things that are literally true but misleading, like "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", than not to hold politicians to standards of literal truth at all. Trump is toxic when it comes to public trust of politicians, and I didn't even really know that was possible, because the levels of trust were already so low.

It's a legal term.

File: Hey+i+just+found+this+picture+of+you+_60d43fa7a5a1e3ef615aa1daadc6f393.jpg (14KB, 220x285px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 220x285px

>>9924545
>t. fedora

>>9924547
You're ignoring the fact that communication is also non-verbal.
If Trump says some bullshit, but he still appears trust worthy/sincere that's not so tragic.

Politics is not philosophy, it's a popularity contest. Well, at least in America.

>>9924449
I had a giggle

> TO SUPPORT MY ARGUMENT IN THIS DEBATE, I present the following facts

> Okay, to make my case, I present an alternate set (but not necessarily inverse) of facts

> WOW ITS 1984 THEY SURELY PROVIDED A ONE TO ONE MAPPING OF FACTS THAT ARE CONTRADICTORY EVEN THOUGH NO ONE ECEN REMEMBERS OR CARES WHAT "dreamboat" KELLY WAS DEFENDING
> JUST LIKE HITLER
> OR STALIN?
> PUTIN
> THIS ALSO PROVES CLIMATE CHANGE
> DRUMPF ETERNALLY BtFO

>>9924635
>> THIS ALSO PROVES CLIMATE CHANGE
>> DRUMPF ETERNALLY BtFO
... are you seriously suggesting climate change isn't a thing?

>>9924609
>Politics is not philosophy, it's a popularity contest. Well, at least in America.

I've been questioning that for awhile, I believe philosophy and especially political philosophy has a trickle down effect on politics as a whole. It's part of why I got interested in /lit/, I became disillusioned with arguing with normies over politics never really changing anything other than flipping a few votes, and maybe shoving politics in the direction I want slightly, and thought that if I was gonna continue down this path of being political I should be aiming higher. Trying to not discuss the people and events in politics, but seeing if I might become educated enough to possibly contest the ideas underlying politics.

Which I suppose is arrogant, but it's a hobby. I'm particularly concerned with breakdown of the moral justifications behind affirmative action in light of the success of Asians, global decline of the white population, and the rise of white identity politics on the right as a knee jerk reaction.

>>9924645
>I'm particularly concerned with breakdown of the moral justifications behind affirmative action
my man

>>9924645
You could get elected with objective truth and facts, but it's hard in a country as big and diverse as current America, where some groups of people would gain and others lose.
Trump won mostly because there are still enough white people. If you don't want to get racial you could play on the good old commie memes (like Sanders), not sure it would get you far enough though.
But other than that, you're left with vague all-inclusive bullshit like Hillary and she couldn't get energy behind that. Her Russia strategy was an attempt to unify the country from a foreign threat (generally a good tactic), but people could feel it was kinda fake and forced.

>>9924641

Nobody is claiming that it isn't happening.

>>9924641
I hate how you retards own the debate. No one doubts that it's a thing. They doubt the reliability of the fantastical models the climate scientists hustle.

>>9924915
Then why did he equate belief in climate change with disliking Trump, and not the models that, what, scientists "hustle"? Where do you get your models of climate change from, if not scientists, magic 8-balls?

>>9924921
The flaw is in the system. There is a financial incentive in them making scary models. If they projected what's actually happening not sensationalized at all they'd lose funding. Just look at old models, even that first Al Gore movie.

I'd also like to reddit space to add that a lot of the things that result from climate change hysteria is/would be a good thing. Less pollution, less gross fossil fuels, more trees, more bikes.