I'm not speaking for anyone. I'm making an assertion about the nature of reality -- namely, that no human being is capable of being one with the object to be known. Therefore it is not possible for any human being to know an external object in any absolute and complete way, and therefore those subjective experiences are not "truth" (about the object). It is only possible to know one's perceptions (which are subjective) about the external object.
That humans cannot perceive the whole of reality isn't the same as saying they don't perceive reality.
That is the hole postmodernists have never gotten out of.
There's no way to *confirm* (i.e know) external reality. Only an infinite series of positive test results reassures us. That's the best we get.
There is no "us" or "we" either.
So, what is there? I'm not identifying any partisan sides here, if that's what you mean. I'm talking about each and every human.
You weren't talking about them, you were speaking for their experience prescriptively.
I'm not speaking for anyone. I'm making an assertion about the nature of reality -- namely, that no human being is capable of being one with the object to be known. Therefore it is not possible for any human being to know an external object in any absolute and complete way, and therefore those subjective experiences are not "truth" (about the object). It is only possible to know one's perceptions (which are subjective) about the external object.
I know you arent. Glad you agree.
Absent definition, "being one with" is taken to be "knowing". This is an arguable position, but less so than the arbitrary metaphysical approach.
Neither is it necessary to know perfectly, which raises the question : so what?
Humans subjectively apprehend objective reality. What of it?