I think it's easy to over complicate things when it comes to philosophy. There's certainly truths that we can all agree, like say the color blue, or the color red. We use these words because they relate the same experience to a thing which exists objectively outside of our "sensory processor". Although, I think it depends on the depth of the question you want to make. Perhaps human beings can agree that something is red, but if you ask what is red, then that leaves more questions. You could say red is a primary color, but then you could ask what is the process of reflecting light off of the particles that reflect that color red, which make them reflect the color red? It just gets more complicated the more you specific your questions get, and at that point it becomes a matter of magnifying the details with science.
But strangely, although there's things that people can agree on, and truths that we all seem to share because they relate to things outside of our selves, perhaps you could say that no one truly knows anything. We know that there's things with vague words attached to them, which we all can recognize and mutually agree that they exist, but the ultimate nature of reality of these things is something which is unknown.
I thought it was interesting, reading about Bertrand Russell's principia mathmatica, in which he tried to encapsulate all of mathematical knowledge in an absolute, final form. When it turned out that he could not encapsulate all mathematical knowledge, he fell victim to an ancient paradox of looping statements. It's as though he ran into the inescapable truth, that the ultimate nature of reality can't be known, and his failed attempt at encapsulating it is a testament to that unknowable 'in the absolute' nature of reality.
But strangely, although there's things that people can agree on, and truths that we all seem to share because they relate to things outside of our selves, perhaps you could say that no one truly knows anything. We know that there's things with vague words attached to them, which we all can recognize and mutually agree that they exist, but the ultimate nature of reality of these things is something which is unknown.
I thought it was interesting, reading about Bertrand Russell's principia mathmatica, in which he tried to encapsulate all of mathematical knowledge in an absolute, final form. When it turned out that he could not encapsulate all mathematical knowledge, he fell victim to an ancient paradox of looping statements. It's as though he ran into the inescapable truth, that the ultimate nature of reality can't be known, and his failed attempt at encapsulating it is a testament to that unknowable 'in the absolute' nature of reality.
