If man cannot possibly know the entirety of existence or absolute truth, how can man know any truth at all?
When we speak of truth, are we not talking about the various interpretations, perspectives, preferences, and the relative dispositions that comprise all life?
Is truth, really truth at all?
Is not truth just a useful relative interpretation of life through individual perspective lens?
Is there really any consensus in truth beyond fundamental ideologies?
All forms of truth are merely relative forms of interpretation.
One man’s truth, is another man’s lie. Knowledge is the will to power. Truth is the will to power.
All theories are mythic in some sense.
Namely the propositions of a theory can never once and for all correspond to data they seek to capture.
Truths are interpretations. Interpretations are perspectives. Perspectives are fictions.
Are fictions logical, heuristics? Are fictions logical paradigms? How do we know? What is logic?
(Questions on all our minds.)
Assumptions whose utility has invested them with the rank of unquestioned “truths” become embedded in our habits of thought and speech; embedded in our language.
Logic itself is dispensable. Laws of logic are an accretion of grammar and language.
If there are only interpretations, only perspectives; if reason reifies and ossifies as it arrests the untrammeled flux of becoming; if ‘truth’ is ‘error’; if language seduces us into systematically misleading constructions of the world; if all this is so, wouldn’t we be better served by abandoning discursive speech, metaphysical reifications, and logic altogether?
Wouldn’t we be more thoughtfully related to the world when we expirience the flux of things without the constraint of language?
Language is the structure which articulates fictions from non-reality of imagination into reality.