(December 14, 2016 at 1:20 am)Mudhammam Wrote: I think I agree, though perhaps I would add: there are better or worse descriptions, and some questions might in principle have no "answer," nor demand one.The trick, at least to me, is to understand that absolute reality and reality-in-context don't have to be the same thing. In the context of mundane life, I can say that there's really and truly a book on my desk. I know that if anyone else comes into my room, they will agree with me that there is in fact a book on my desk. However, in a more universal context, I cannot be sure that the book, the person, and maybe even I, exist objectively. It is the given that things are real that establishes the context for truth and objectivity.
This possibly, as you said, begs a further question, which is whether or not any description can be objectively better or worse, or if that is a fundamentally subjective determination. But given that I think such a route probably tends towards self-defeating conclusions, or at the very least, extremely awkward ones, I would be inclined to defend the objectivity of rational value judgments.
The problem is that metaphysical positions SET the context by which other truths are determined, so when we attempt to establish the truth of a metaphysical position, the truth statement will be either self-dependent, or automatically-defeated, or complete nonsense.
