@fast,
Reconstructo,
If everything is simply justified belief, how do you explain intersubjectivity? How do you explain knowledge (or do you not believe knowledge exists)? Isn't it more likely that we indeed have access to the objective, than that the majority of humans believe that the chemical composition of water is H2O by chance?
If we do not have access to the objective, at all, and reality is simply a construct of our minds, what do you think we are living in? Does each person live in their own mind? This is getting mighty metaphysical, don't you think? Maybe even a bit supersiticious (what you seem adamant against), no?
Quote:
The above is NOT LIKE LIFE. The deeper question is: what makes A true?
Of course it is "like life". It corresponds to reality. Why would we say it's true that snow is white, if we did not think it corresponds with reality? Do you think it's true snow is white? And when you look at snow, in real life, do you think it's white?
Quote:
Who decides if "snow" is "white"? That's the crux. The meaning (signified) of "snow" (the signifier) is derived from consensus/persuasion.
Why do you conclude that because
A.) We have intersubjectivity.
it follows that
B.) Our intersubjectivity doesn't correspond with reality.
Quote:
The trueness of A is not a one/zero situation. In real life, including philosophical conversation, there is no perfect certainty.
Why do you conclude that because
A.) Humans cannot be absolutely certain about anything.
it follows that
B.) Humans cannot know truth.
Quote:Persuasion is what makes statements "true."
Persuasion does not make anything true. Things are true, or false, regardless of persuasion.
Quote:
If A is true, then B is true. If B is true, then C is true. If A is true, then C is true.
Do you think you just made "If A is true, then C is true" true with persuasion? Or did you discover it was true with inference and were persuaded by the truth?