I am blown away by how precise the thought experiment is. Here is a method of solving the conundrum of subjectivity - simply by looking at our own internal value system with one eye on the unknown.
Language is about communication, rather than universal, absolute truth. Words convey conceptions; they need not reflect reality. Some languages convey conceptions that are not present in other languages. Speakers of a language that does not permit a particular conception would be hard pressed to think the idea not provided for in their language.
While it is true that speakers of any language often disagree about the precise meanings of the words that they use--at least, at the margin--that is often because they disagree about to what the values suggested by those disputed words ought to convey. For example, when people dispute the meaning of the word "person," they are usually not arguing about what the word means, but about what creatures ought to be afforded the protections granted to "persons." There is no underlying true meaning of the word.
My conception is what I conceive. Whether any given idea that I conceive is accurate is relevant. That is the only question of truth. There is no "true meaning" of an inaccurate or incorrect idea.
Moreover, if an idea is accurate, id est, it accurately convey reality, then it is true when conveyed in a way that is so accurate and is untrue, because inaccurate and incorrect, when conveyed in a way that does not accurately reflect reality.
I am blown away by how precise the thought experiment is. Here is a method of solving the conundrum of subjectivity - simply by looking at our own internal value system with one eye on the unknown.
It is simpler in writing than in practice. To implement an idea such as this one, a person would have to focus relentlessly and insistently.
I think it's worth trying!
Language is about communication, rather than universal, absolute truth. Words convey conceptions; they need not reflect reality. Some languages convey conceptions that are not present in other languages. Speakers of a language that does not permit a particular conception would be hard pressed to think the idea not provided for in their language.
While it is true that speakers of any language often disagree about the precise meanings of the words that they use--at least, at the margin--that is often because they disagree about to what the values suggested by those disputed words ought to convey. For example, when people dispute the meaning of the word "person," they are usually not arguing about what the word means, but about what creatures ought to be afforded the protections granted to "persons." There is no underlying true meaning of the word.
We use language as if it's about truth, and this leads us to error. It couldn't be otherwise - what are communicating about, if not truth?
I am putting forth a path to rectify that by mapping the relationship between language and truth.
If any concepts have "true meaning," then the ones we verbalize should.
My conception is what I conceive. Whether any given idea that I conceive is accurate is relevant. That is the only question of truth. There is no "true meaning" of an inaccurate or incorrect idea.
Moreover, if an idea is accurate, id est, it accurately convey reality, then it is true when conveyed in a way that is so accurate and is untrue, because inaccurate and incorrect, when conveyed in a way that does not accurately reflect reality.
I don't understand the question.