> In a dictionary, all the words are defined by other words.
> Observe that all experience is subjective, anyone can have any set of axioms they like and “voila”, there can be no “objective” truth.
Hmmm,ok. So does this mean it's a critique on how language models the world instead of the world itself?
My axioms doesn't affect yours. Or a rat's, or a cats. Yet we'll all interact. Where does the interaction happen if not in an objective overlap, that which the subjectivity attempts to describe?
The words we use can described by other words, but other words do describe them.
You and I both know what an apple is conceptually. We do however not refer to exactly the same apple. We refer to something that similar enough that we can get away with calling it an apple because we reduce reality to categorize things around us. (our brains are wired to be economical about how we understand the world otherwise we wouldn't be able to think a single thought)
Yet eating the apple will nourish, regardless of how we refer to it.
The cells in our digestive tract do not care if we think the apple poisoned or not. They will respond to the amount of arsenic present in the fruit though. Is that response subjective?
That's one narrative, there are many others (in fact an infinite amount of other perspectives). You are just choosing one way by reducing the reality of the interaction of the apple, the cells, atoms, time, how it gets in your body how that suddenly help you burn energy and run faster which then means your footsteps are a little deeper in the soild you run which kills a few ants which then turn into soil and goes back into the ecosystem.
There isn't an objective perspective on this only reductions into narratives.
This is a great question but you need to think about it a little differently.
Postmodern thinking doesn't come to a conclusion that an objective reality doesn't exist per se.
Don't think about it as a proposition about how the world is.
Postmodernism shows through ex. deconstruction how language isn't as solid a foundation to talk about the world objectively as we might want to believe.
So, in other words, it's a critique of the idea of the absolute and objective frame of references.
It doesn't say that we can't use classical physics just that the second we start to formulate proposition about how the world is we are ultimately using an axiom to do that.
Now, this axiom is useful enough that it might allow us to build spaceships to fly to Mars but it might be that it doesn't allow us to do faster than light travel to reach Alpha Centauri.
Not sure I answered your question satisfactorily if not let me know and I will try again. It's worth spending time on.
I think I'm getting it. It's basically that we use mental modals to go about our business, but these modals will always be limited in scope. True objectivity is, in a sense beyond us.
> Observe that all experience is subjective, anyone can have any set of axioms they like and “voila”, there can be no “objective” truth.
Hmmm,ok. So does this mean it's a critique on how language models the world instead of the world itself?
My axioms doesn't affect yours. Or a rat's, or a cats. Yet we'll all interact. Where does the interaction happen if not in an objective overlap, that which the subjectivity attempts to describe?
The words we use can described by other words, but other words do describe them.