Perhaps because there are so many different perceptions of the world. You say tomato, I say tomATo. As Heraclitus put it, "The unseen design of things is more harmonious than the seen." If we base the world on percpetion, of course we'll arrive at different conclusions. To know the world has to be on a deeper level. All of the different philosphies are just vectors pointing to this from different directions.
What part of reality? What does this pertain to? Besides, you don't believe in objectivity at all? You don't believe that there are experiences/things in the world that exist regardless of our interpretation of them? (Now I'm getting into muddy water anyway. Go ahead...shoot me in the foot.)
its like Kant said, there is no superior perspective and there is no attainable "objectivity" or superior view of the world. I dont know why i posted that, I could write about 5 pages on philosophy
there is no objectivity. it can only be recognized. We can reason that there is a lot we do not know (subjectively). If we know we do not know certain things, maybe outside the scope of human experience, we can say there does exist objectivity, but even as I say that I'm speaking non-sense becuase I can't present any empirical evidence, right? Like how can we even discuss something that science can't even touch upon.
it is not at least not as you think it is. Why? because in my opinion the "truth" as you say is oposite to false (not true). This "truth" is only relative and being an opposite (that means a double meaning term) that is, being something that exists only in comparison to its opposite, it cannot be what philosophy seeks. But if you talk about what is behind the duality, if you seek the unity, there cannot be false or truth..it just IS. False and truth only exist on moment 2. Philosophy must try, impossible as it is, to go beyond. Like the old testment says (if only as metaphor) WHO ARE YOU? I AM WHAT I AM.
