It seems to me you're searching for an intellectual certainty that cannot be had. For me, it's all about intellectual commitment. I commit myself to the notion of a truth beyond us (contra the sophists and the PoMo's) because I think the logic of our situation and our discourses themselves demands such a commitment. I do not commit myself on the basis that I think I have discovered any proof that there is a truth beyond human discourse, because such proof is not possible. — John

Are you denying that anyone anywhere has ever created a narrative? If not intellectual certainties, then aren't we left with narratives? Or would you rather use a "non POMO" word for what we create because we don't have intellectual certainty?

It seems to me that we both agree that there are objective truths, it's just that I don't have an issue with calling the contradictory explanations we create "narratives". How do you describe the vastly different ways people try to explain things like free will and morality, and living the best life, etc? What non-POMO associated word would you use?

The issue is whether human narratives reflect a reality beyond the merely human, and if so, which ones. But we can't know for sure, and that's where faith and personal commitment come into play. If you keep examining all the contradictory narratives and comparing them with one another looking for 'proofs of authenticity' you will become confused, and stuck in a paralysis of non-commitment. You have to follow your heart, your intuitions, as well as your head; otherwise everything becomes relativised in mediocrity; or at best it is only cleverness that distinguishes one story from another. Well, that's the way I see it anyway.

I've been thinking about it... perhaps I'll rewrite my OP this way..

(title of thread:) HYPOTHESES

I'm assuming we all accept that there is an objective reality, and objective truths are reality.

However, I've had some conversations recently about Freud and Jung and even the Stoics and the Epicureans, and it's fascinating that they each look at the world in such different ways.

The ancient Stoics were convinced that the world was such that moral excellence (virtue) was a reward in and of itself, and necessary and sufficient for Eudaimonia (human flourishing). They saw moral good as the only good and moral evil as the only evil.

Epicurus was convinced that pleasure was the only good and pain the only evil. He and his followers believed that Eudaimonia was a more or less continuous experience of pleasure, and also, freedom from pain and distress.

I don't know much about Freud and Jung except that they each had an idea of how the world worked, and they disagreed.

What do you think? Is it the case that we are each aware of how little we can be sure of, and about which we can say, "this is the Truth"? Are we each merely creating our own hypotheses and then conducting experiments with our lives, to see how closely our hypotheses align with what is the case? Are we each willing to acknowledge that it is only a hypothesis, and that we may need to change, as new information becomes available?

Are we each willing to acknowledge that it is only a hypothesis, and that we may need to change, as new information becomes available? — anonymous66

I am, but I only became aware of that because I pegged something else as infallible: the content of my experience. Interpretations can change... iow: how my experience testifies or relates to what is and isn't.. that is always in flux.

Is it the case that we are each aware of how little we can be sure of, and about which we can say, "this is the Truth"? Are we each merely creating our own hypotheses and then conducting experiments with our lives, to see how closely our hypotheses align with what is the case? — anonymous66

I don't accept an objective world in the way you assume; not as an ontology. But I'm with the earlier-in-the-thread notion - I commit myself to a given narrative. To commit means that at most times other than these moments of quiet reflection, I put my heart and soul into it. To do otherwise would be to act inauthentically, as old Sartre would have it.