Well, I now see better the internal consistency of what you are saying, although to be thoroughly consistent, you should only affirm that you do not know, you cannot speak for others.
It is true, it doesn't make much sense to me, since all hinges on one's view of the progressive accumulation of knowledge. You, of course, refer to it as "practical truth". If one can make more or less useful statements about the world, that is because they reflect the way things work to a greater or lesser degree. Thus, the statements are grounded in the objects to which they refer, and are more or less objective. If, on the other hand, no one can make even a conditionally objective statement, then there is a radical disjunction between reality and our minds, since we can in no sense ground our assertions in it. Even supposing what you said about how we might reflect objective truth, but not know it, it would still mean that we could never know what we know, and therefore would be radically cut off........ |
