(January 24, 2016 at 12:31 pm)Cato Wrote:(January 24, 2016 at 7:15 am)phil-lndn Wrote: I take a perspective-centric view of reality, which arrives at the conclusion that all stories about reality are true, but only true from a perspective. So all stories are simultaneously true (descriptive of reality) and untrue (they are all simply stories).
How do you assess whether or not the story you are being told is an apporximate description of reality; i.e., actually occurred versus being a complete fabrication?
I can't be certain based on your limited input on the matter, but you're coming across as someone that is wrestling with well documented issues with the accuracy of eye witness testimony and the fact that our sense perception gives an incomplete assessment of reality. I stressed 'incomplete' because I typically encounter people that abuse this fact in order to claim that since our knowledge is incomplete then all claims carry a measure of truth to them which couldn't be farther from the truth. Again, until you explain more precisely what you mean I am speculating.
My perspective-centric view of reality makes "complete fabrication" impossible, because I consider 3 dimensions of meaning in a text:
1/ Subjective
2/ Intersubjective
3/ Objective
Whatever anyone says is always meaningful from 1 or more of these dimensions of meaning. Sometimes the content of one or more of the dimensions lacks meaning, but that does not undermine the fact the text itself is meaningful.
Example: a harry potter book lacks meaningful Objective information (it's not factual reporting, and the cause and effect relationships described in the book are not rational) but it contains Subjective information (we know from the fact of the story's existence that the author had a desire to write the story) and Intersubjective information - the story is a delightful story that provides pleasure for the reader.
