BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Yes and for a number of years whenever he heard someone say “knowledge is power” he would reply “France is bacon” and the person would nod approvingly, and he never understood why

I would say the claim that most humans have two eyes, is fairly objective.

Rather ask: Why is there a need for "objectivity" in the first place?

@@hellucination9905 In order to have a baseline on knowledge and agreement to which we can draw conclusions from.

When we study individuals atoms we don't recognize their potential for emerging certain molecules, there is no "Water-ness" in hydrogen or oxygen. Under a certain level of analysis, under certain concepts (i.e. narrative or determined and set context) one can say that indeed there is Water to two hydrogen and one oxygen. This jump is also the jump of physics to chemistry, to biology, to psychology, to sociology, to politics and economics. We wouldn't be able to see the potential politics of physics, even though reductively it could be said that politics originate in physics. And so, Truth, it seems, is not in individual parts, because individual parts hold potential. It is, too, not in grand-narratives, just like seeing Water as the basis of reality and as such don't recognize the identity of the parts, their role, and as such the nature of Water as well. And so, truth resides in-between the thing itself and its connection to lower parts and higher wholes. And so, it is always a matter of context that shapes reality, hence the constructivist nature of truth. Based upon the historical episteme you are living in, your society, your desires and wishes, etc. you biasedly, ignorantly, or pragmatically choose one narrative over another, one context, one concept, one level of analysis over another. This doesn't just shape how you see truth, but also the new questions you pose until a paradigm shift happens and you start "anew". Then, to make matters more convoluted, your society, culture, technology, institutions arts, history, etc. all those that shape what it means to be human are related to this historical creation of truth. And thus, not only do we construct a view of reality, but we go on subsuming such a construction into 'the nature of being a human', and as such get rooted more and more into our conception of truth. We see a sequence of this philosophy unfolding: Kant related truth to transcendental categories of the subject (stage 1 of human truth) -> Hegel regressed even further to a new logic of Being (every presupposition is Being) and so these transcendental truths became one with the Spiritualizing historical, dialectical consciousness (the rational is real and the real is rational. stage 2 of human truth) -> Heidegger focused on the currently embodied, historical, objectified being-in-the-world and its thrownness in the middle of an unfolding past and future with a task of understanding its being (why do I exist? Am I going to die? What is my past and future that explain how I'm becoming?) which leads us to recognize the inherent reality of absence in truth and how privileging presence over it is false (stage 3 of human truth)-> Postmodernism... well, human all too human. Age of ultimate immanence and death of God/meta-narratives. (Posthuman truth).