I agree. But the fact that you do not apprehend everything is not the same as knowing nothing. That whatever the you know about me that is correct, is knowing something that is real.
Is it? I don't see how either one of us could know that with any degree of surety. It's all just subjective opinion, really. What we call "reality" is really just an elaborate opinion we've arrived at based on our own particular experiences and our own particular methods of reasoning. None are more right or wrong than any other. Some are just more functionally effective than others.
I think that you are trying to use the word Truth where I am simply using the word reality. Is this simply a dance around what to call that which is? Or is there actually some conceptual difference?
The problem is that Truth is 'what is', while "reality" is what we think 'is', is. We cannot know Truth (what is) because it is the
whole of it, and we human have no idea what that even means, really. We cannot comprehend the
whole of it. What little of the
whole of it that we can apprehend is itself a mystery to us. But that doesn't stop us from creating our own ideas of the
whole of it even though we know those ideas must logically be quite wrong, and incomplete. But they're all we have, so we make them, and hold onto them as if they were Truth. Those ideas are what we call "reality". And they are all subjective, and all different relative to each of us. There are similarities, because we are all humans, but they are also all similarly wrong, and similarly incomplete, to a degree that is completely unknown and unknowable to us.
There can be some additional subjective fuzz. And probably will be. But the substance of both experiences must be an objective reality. Otherwise you are claiming that everyone has a randomly consistent overlap of imagined subjective experience. Which is, to use your word, absurd.
The problem is that you think "imagined experiences" aren't "real experiences", when in fact, they are all the same experience. Until you grasp this, you will not understand what I'm saying. "Reality" IS IMAGINED. We are imagining it. And we are all imagining it somewhat the same, and somewhat differently. Our experiences become part of our imagined realities
as we experience them. For we humans, there is no "real vs, imagined". Reality IS imagined.
Yes, we are experiencing SOMETHING. But all we'll ever know of what that something is, is what we THINK WE KNOW of it. What we IMAGINE to be true about it. We can all call that something "objective reality" if we want to, but in the end that doesn't mean anything, because we will never know what it is, or what it means beyond what we imagine it to be, and to mean.
Truth, as I use it, is merely a label for what can be demonstrated to be the case using logic backed by evidence.
Logic backed by evidence is mostly just smoke and mirrors. All they really add up to is relative functionality. If something 'works' according to our expectations and biases, we deem it "true". If it doesn't we deem it "false". And then we pretend that we discovered some Truth. Its all quite silly and childish, really, if we think about it. But then what else can we do? We are minds trapped in brains trapped in bodies trapped in time and space. The view from in here is very restricted!
