this is total conjecture

i think it's totally possible for something to be fraudulent, regardless of the possibility of objective truth.

my intuition, i guess

Explain.

How can something be proven to be fraudulent without it leading you to believe in an objective truth?

simple. inconsistency

How would you use your intuition to make a point if someone else can't feel what you feel? How would they understand you?

What would consistency imply then?

simple. i try to speak their language

that it isn't fraudulent, at least

How would they understand that language without being able to feel your feelings?

If something isn't fraudulent, it would be true, no?

?? if im speaking their language they understand it bc it's their language

How can they understand something you are arguing not from truth but from intuition (feelings) is my question.

You can use language in all sorts of ways, but how can you evoke a sense of understanding and meaning in a person if you are not utilising your claim of truth to someone else?

idk, i don't think that's necessarily the case. i mean someone can earnestly be following their personal truth, which conflicts with my personal truth. I wouldn't call that fraudulent, but it wouldn't ring true to me either

let me turn this around bc u have me a little confused.

why do i need to utilize a claim of truth to get someone to understand what I feel?

I think you are arguing against personal truth whereas i'm wholeheartedly agreeing that personal truth is never something objective or something to desire or strive towards.

I'm saying objective truth is something that cannot be altered by personal beliefs. Let's say that Trump becomes the next US president, then that would be true, no matter what you hold to be true. I don't see how you would argue against that.

If you don't argue something to be true, then you are saying that you are disagreeing with them based on a feeling.

That feeling would need to be transfered to that person solely without making an argument based on something objective, that exists as something knowable, perceivable as truth.

So you would somehow need to transfer your conviction to them without using the truth.

You said you would use your intuition to argue for or against someone else's point. I would like to know how you would word things using INTUITION in your argument.

I'm definitely not against personal truth. every perspective entails its own set of truths.

it's funny that u use that as an example of objective truth bc I'm certain u could find radical lefties out in portland or some sht who would say trump was never a legitimate president and doesn't deserve that title

idk how, i just do. I don't think it, I feel it

Again:

Trump being a LEGITIMATE president is an IDEA.
We are not arguing for the legitimacy of human ideas.
Even the concept of a president is a theoretical construct, a human construct. I'm not saying that the status of president holds some objective moral truth. I'm saying there are facts and things that exist outside of our human consciousness as truth.

The recording of a conversation is a record of something that happened. Something that truly happened. Not something imagined. The words they used in that conversation would convey a meaning that is PERSONAL to them. We may or may not derive some form of truth from them but that is not the point i'm arguing.

I'm saying some knowledge exists OUTSIDE of the realm of personal conviction. It is THAT which you and i have been using to debate eachother. Even a 3rd person reading our conversation will try to test everything we are saying against this objective mirror glassed truth before coming to their own personal conviction.

You also speak facts but I'm pretty sure many people here wouldn't read all that so I just wanted to contribute to the message somehow.

I do agree with what you wrote, but it sounds a bit too generalized, like there are people in this world that can value their reality and existence, with dreams of a better world.

I think technology and academia is what contributed the most to this point, as organizations started to get in charge of knowledge and information, they also built a certain influence in society and founded their own pillars of authority and authenticity, leading to a world where new truths and approaches are not welcome, because they would undermine these pillars of such organizations.

Technology from its side, provided everyone with an enormous flow of information, and with our attention span lowering, all information is turning shallow, because it gets over-simplified in order to adjust to our 'needs'.

Organizations, in charge of knowledge and information, settled down a standardized version of truth to this reality, with the objective of gatekeeping and limiting our potential as human beings.

I'm saying if you take out the claim to truth in your arguments, then nothing you say holds any objective meaning, and you can no longer convince anyone of anything. You could make them FEEL something, but that wouldn't convince them that it is truth.

Like you said, if you are CONVINCED Trump has never been a legimitate president then you sure as hell can argue that point.
But if you were to just abandon the idea of truth in your arguments, then all people would do is try to feel your side of delusion to experience it for themselves. They wouldn't hold it to any objective light in their heads but they would definitely be able to feel the disillusioned feelings.

Actually now that i think of it, this is very much how movies operate. Movies do have some shadow of truth in them, otherwise they would be unrelatable. But they also inject a whole lot of fiction and delusion. Which does transfer feelings, but it doesn't convince people that the movie happened in real life.

sure, there's a world outside me and you that we share. however, this is already self-apparent and isn't the truth that is chased. also, it's important to remember how we interact with this shared world. Kant calls these "orders of observation". directly seeing and experiencing the world would be a first-order observation, but we don't do this. we perceive the world through our senses and through our minds, and this is called a second-order observation. the second order observation is never a 100% match for the thing-in-itself. and no two second order observations of the same thing are perfect matches either!