Truth in a sea of subjectivity? It's about questioning your own biases, embracing dialogue, and balancing reason with curiosity. Truth isn't fixed-it’s a journey of constant reflection.

@@reimaginingPlato You seem to have contradicted yourself. You said-“truth and see of subjectivity? (to imply disagreement)”- but then you went onto that truth is not fixed, which means it is subjective. Let’s grant I misunderstood your response. You still have another contradiction because you said “truth is not fixed”- but you assert it as though your statement is “fixed and true”. So which is it? Let’s question your biases, as you suggest. Is there a single fact within your worldview, that is non-contingent?

​@@RedefineLiving, I get your point. A contradiction does appear. I think the wisdom I would lean on is at the very end of my comment, I say, "Truth isn't fixed--it's a journey of constant reflection", meaning that if you approach every certainty with humility and the possibility that you might not have all the information, it leaves room to improve on what is known. Logical truths (all bachelors are unmarried) and Mathematical truths (1+1=2) are two examples that I think you and I can agree on. Let's start with the logical truth. Let's say Sally and Bill get married. Together, their married name is "Bachelor", so Sally Bachelor and Bill Bachelor have Bachelor kids. Therefore, Bill is a married man and a Bachelor, just like his father was when he married Bill's mother. The contingent use of "Bachelor" means that (by definition) it is an unmarried man. Thankfully, we try not to mix up definitions in this way, and I have never met anyone or known of an example of someone using "Bachelor" as a surname. This is why, in the course, we focus on definitions; they function as the contingent starting point for Socratic philosophy. (Think of 'All Swans as White' until they discover a Black Swan). The mathematical example of 1+1=2 (on a Cartesian coordinate system) is something that is a little more controversial and something that I cover in the Horizon Principle and the Duality of the Point (in the course). The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum (which are related to velocity), cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision. For photons (or other quantum particles), the more precisely you know its position, the less precisely you can know its momentum, and vice versa. So, knowing the position of a particle is contingent on not knowing the velocity. The comments are not the best way to get into this discussion; I encourage you to join the Planksip Academy and start the course Re-imagining Plato here; www.planksip.org/plato-re-imagined/. We can get into these conversations in more depth via a Googe Meet.

that made me chuckle, thanks.