@freemo This is the Platonist vs Nominalist controversy. Do categories like "horse" exist in reality? Or are there only individual organisms we arbitrarily categorize as "horse"/"equine"?
In Medieval times, this debate focused on theology: Is God objectively "good", or do we just arbitrarily declare whatever God does as "good"?
In Modern times, Nominalism is getting ridiculous as it dismisses categories like "male", "female", and even "human".
I'm going to agree with the Medievalists, and declare Nominalism a "heresy".
@freemo You can never be 100% certain that what you see is a physical reality. It might be an optical illusion. But if you run around refusing to believe the evidence of your own lyin' eyes, you might be a leftist.
It is quite possible to make a mistake in math too. That doesn't change the underlying (abstract in the case of math) reality. It just means having the humility to admit when you are wrong.
@customdesigned
> This is the Platonist vs Nominalist controversy. Do categories like "horse" exist in reality? Or are there only individual organisms we arbitrarily categorize as "horse"/"equine"?
I can see why you might confuse these two arguments but they are in fact subtly and importantly different.
I am **not** arguing that objective truths dont exist in reality (or that they do for that matter) at all. Only that if they exist you can never be 100% certain of something being an objective truth, therefore even if we accept objective truths as existing, anyone trying to state something is an objective truth is still stating an opinion that it is one of the objective truths that exist, and they could still be wrong about this. So regardless of if objective truths exist or not every utterance is always an opinion.