I have always found this claim self-defeating. Either the claim is absolutely true, and then there are absolute truths; or, it is just one of many subjective truths, and presumably false according to many subjective webs of belief/truth. In the former case, the truth of the claim implies its own falsity. In the latter case, there appears to be no substantive reason to take the claim seriously.
I am sympathetic to the idea that there is no absolute truth when it comes to many questions about how human society ought to organise itself. Do you mean to restrict your claim to the political realm?
i maybe should have specified that i was referring to political speak/spin/propaganda/ "fake news" etc.
I mean, look at how unreliable witness testimony is.
It's not uncommon for several people to witness the same event, but to all describe it in different, contradictory ways - to come to completely different conclusions, based presumably upon individual thought processes or subconscious bias.
I think lots of people probably assume that eyewitness accounts represent "truth" - but all of the witnesses would probably insist that
their truth account is true.
Filter those accounts through journalists, editors and then on to secondary articles, editorials and whatever, as well as other digital means, and the inherent bias which is inevitable - and the idea of mass media reporting on anything that is 100% true.
I'm not meaning to sounds all postmodern and claim that truth is a constucted (i can see how that comment about "truth" but i just think it's funny when people talk about "truth" when it comes to things like political commentary tv news reports, which often just seems to mean "this article (or op-ed, youtube video, news piece or whatever) is
true because i agree with it".
Which is why so much content involves pandering and confirmation bias.
I was just kind of riffing with jess on the idea that word shit he word "truth" is often a warning sign that you're about to encounter a lot of bullshit.
Believing any one source of information - and trusting it enough to consider it "truth" - musu require a certain suspension of reason and critical analysis, right?
I''m definitely not saying there is no real truth, but simply that in politics there are few absolute truths or absolute certainties in any political discussions - so the word "truth" always jumps out at me, it's so redundant and ridiculous that its presence in political discourse ("truth" or "truther" etc) is always a dead giveaway that it you've encountered a conspiracy theory.
So it's good in that way, but it's also made me kinda jaded about the way people use the word "truth - it's been pretty badly misused in the post-911 conspiracy world, and the trump era, with its constant attacks on freedom of the press (to report
truth fully)