3 ms·

Truth is not defined. First author equates truth with details of reality, which is doubtful already. Then jumps to examples like > Is drug prohibition justifia

Truth is not defined. First author equates truth with details of reality, which is doubtful already. Then jumps to examples like > Is drug prohibition justifiable? Was Napoleon an admirable figure? Question of opinion can't be answered with truth. Or if you want any answer to it is truth, because it is truly your opinion. It's a lazy take with a poorly chosen analogy at the root.

mmcdermott 3y ago
Both of those questions are fundamentally questions of morality. This means that there is, or at least can be, an objective answer to the question provided sufficient parameters are specified, not least of which is the system of morality being used. The distinction matters. I may not enjoy a book purely as a matter of taste. I think most of us have had the experience of reading or watching something that we would have agreed was well-crafted while also not remotely enjoying the experience. There is a good deal of pure subjectivity here. I cannot be argued into enjoying something. However it is possible to either change one's system of values or else to be shown that one's evaluation of a subject in the light of those values is missing something.