You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not denying that there’s a real reality. I’m saying we don’t have direct access to it.

No, you’re just not being consistent with your own claim. You’ve gone as far as to say that the existence of the sun is a subjective matter. Now you’re predicating your claim with “direct access”.

Kant, Husserl, even modern physics all recognize that we only ever experience the world filtered through perception and cognition.

Right, but none of them argue that the biases in perception means we cannot come to a consensus in objectivity.

There’s the thing itself, and then there’s what our brains can make sense of.

And how do you know that the thing itself exist? Couldn’t it just be a hallucination…?

Observation and measurement are still mediated by human perception, interpretation, and context. Science works because we build systems to reduce bias, not because we somehow step outside of subjectivity.

Again, you are falsely defining truth or reality to be a state devoid of any subjectivity. Just because there is subjectivity in perception and observation does not mean we cannot come to a consensus of what an objective truth or reality is.

the left often doesn’t. They treat “truth” as something fixed and self-evident, when in practice it’s always being shaped, reframed, and fought over

Again… Maybe they just believe that “truths” (human construct) like human rights should be self evident and not up for debate.

That’s not the same as saying “nothing is true.” It’s saying that truth has to be communicated and maintained, not just assumed.

That is not consistent with your previous claims, you are moving the goal post.

The moral and ethical part is a separate issue. You can still have values, compassion, and principles while acknowledging that your version of truth is a construct.

You can, but there’s no inherent reason to if it isn’t consistent with your “version of truth”.

Empathy doesn’t require metaphysical certainty. It just requires agreeing that suffering matters.

Empathy doesn’t require metaphysical certainty. It just requires agreeing that suffering matters.

“Suffering matters” is a self evident claim reliant on metaphysical certainty…

left can’t learn from how they weaponize language and perception

Who says they don’t? The left is a pretty big spectrum, most of which is largely absent in North America. I think the problem you’re having is confusing leftist with liberals, as liberals only want to preserve the status quo, and are thus less likely to engage in more manipulative tactics.

It’s to stop being naïve about how people actually process information and form beliefs. Reality might be objective, but politics runs on perception.

Again, I think liberals in this country are walking a tight rope of dispelling the fascist regime without dispelling the suprestructure that allows it to be successful in the first place. It’s hard to call out fascist without also disparaging the capitalistic system that the liberals are trying to preserve.

I’m saying that there are two types of truths. One is what is reality but that we are forced to view it through our sense and mind and consciousness which can never actually grasp the real reality.

This requires some cognitive dissonance to overcome its logical inconsistency.

You cannot claim there to be a “true” reality while also claiming that our perceptive biases are so strong that we cannot accurately experience/describe it.

That filter is what makes it a subjective truth.

This is an unsubstantiated claim that is easily disputed by the concept of empirical content.

This is to my point that the right understand this and succeeded in a lot of areas the left don’t because of this.

Lol, you don’t need to adopt a relative perspective of reality to understand the concept of manipulation and lying.

The left are very rigid and seen to fall on their own truth. I see it in arguments and online. They don’t mold things or play around with events the same way the right does.

I think you have a problem with moral/ethical constructs moreso than a mind/body problem.

think they don’t because of their relationship to what they see as true or not.

I would argue that the perspective of a shared moral or ethical constructual “truth” is what separates the left and the right.

If we deny the idea of a moral or ethical truth what is the point of a leftist government anyways? If we’re all experiencing a personally subjective reality, what is the point of an empathetical society?

I think your individualist perspective is a lot more common on the right than the left.

The way the right have reframed arguments about trans, racism, Jeffery Epstein, immigration, government needs to be better understood by the right. Not just called out but instead adapted.

The method is incompatible with the end goals. The right can lie and create mistrust because chaos and instability is their goal. This is not the same as the left, who are trying to create stability and equity through organization.

how do you know that other observer is not a p zombie or part of the hallucination.

Because p zombies are a poorly constructed philosophical concept, not a tangible reality.

The idea of something physically identical to humans but lacks consciousness is circular reasoning as the engagement of the physical body and the environment is what creates consciousness.

The same applies to hallucinations. Hallucinations require previous knowledge and interaction with emperical content. So even if you hallucinate the sun, that implies the existence of an actual sun you are hallucinating about.

Truths it isn’t something we can deal with. We can only deal with our truths which is subjective, not objective

That’s a self defeating argument. Stating that all truths are subjective implies that the statement itself is subjective.