And so we're not allowed to figure out what constitutes truth, and instead have to just take your definition by default? Sorry, but I can't get anything else out of this. Ignoring these landmines only benefits someone trying to sell you something on the basis of deceitful values of the landmine variables.
Your post got me thinking a bit. I see what you mean but I think it’s not the kind of thing the article is talking about. I should point out that I’m assuming conversations here are in the minutes-hours timeframe, not weeks-months timeframes.
My take on this is that it isn’t an issue of whether you can discuss truth or not, but rather if it’s philosophically relevant to the conversation. What I mean by that, and what I think the article means, is that the person isn’t questioning the meaning of truth really but instead avoiding the discussion going really any further by throwing out a catch phrase which is pertinent in a very distant and vague sense, but the person has no real intent to go into it.
It’s sort of seems like a form of “whataboutism” where somebody counters a point by going “Yeah but what about truth?!” It effectively ends the conversation because it’s not a matter of agreeing on the meaning of truth in the context of the discussion, but more of a distraction which can never be fully answered which stalls the original discussion.
Maybe in context those specific definitions do matter and should be stated assumptions, but often I don’t think they are. In addition, it truth or morals can’t be pinned down in centuries of effort, how could they be in these kinds of conversations? I don’t believe they could.
