Hello and question about hell

[Angrboda]

My ILS worker noted how talking of alternate facts was something of a misnomer, because something is a fact or it is not. There are not multiple facts of a specific matter such that there can be alternative ones. It's an alternative opinion, assertion, or belief. Not an alternative fact.

Likewise with truth. The commonly accepted definition of truth is that something is true in so far as it corresponds with a state of affairs in the world. This is the correspondance theory of truth. Under this theory, it is meaningless to say that "it's true for him" because that doesn't fulfill what we mean by truth as in that case, it's possible for their to be multiple such personal truths, and it's a violation of the law of non-contradiction to say with regard to one person's "truth" that it corresponds to a state of affairs in the world, yet according to someone else's personal truth, that state of affairs does not hold, but instead a different one does.

It's possible to have other theories of truth and so theoretically it may be possible to find a meaningful interpretation of the phrase "it's true for him," but I rather doubt that is what people are proposing. Especially given such people are opposed to the idea of the social construction of truth. Rather I suspect people like Huggy are just talking nonsense in an effort to rescue the rationality of a proposition which on its face presents problems for the view that it is a rationally justified belief.

I must also say that one is equally abandoning agnosticism if one attempts to argue that a particular person's experience is veridical. Suggesting that there may be alternate explanations for a person's experience is not the same as asserting a specific explanation of the cause.