People argue much about the truth. Everyone thinks that his opinion is the only right one.
Take any situation where more than one person took part and you will hear as many opinions as were the number of participants.
It's very strange, isn't it, when we have many points of view for the same event? It's strange when people saw the same, but tell different.
The reason is our world views. That's hard decoding system for every event creating personal image. This system consists of a sort of filters made by our personal experience, culture, accidents, impressions, physical and psychological qualities. That's why looking at the same we see different.
Than what is the truth? Who is more right?
To take a good answer, let's use some allegory. Imagine that the objective world is a, for example, cow. And people cannot see the whole cow because of the screen between people and the cow. But screen is not solid, it has small holes through which people can see the parts of the cow. Holes are personal, everyone can use only his hole. And they are looking at the cow through their personal holes.
What are they looking at? At the same -the cow. And what do they see? Different. Ask them:"what is the word (truth)?" And you will hear:
- the world is an eye
- No! You are not right! The world is a leg
- Are you crasy both?! The world is an ass!
They will start to argue. Then will start a wars for the truth. People will be killing others, being sure that their version is the truth.
But if people would stop fighting and try to here each other they could understand other point of view. They could sum every part of that pazzle to a whole objective image. Then they would understand that the world is not an eye or a leg. They would realize that the world is a cow. They would know the truth.
And what do you need for that? Not much. You should learn to hear others. You should appreciate other point of view, other experience.
Your discussion of truth points to understand truth from different angles than single one. But the truth is we are limited to know only what we know regardless of adding anothers person knowelege of truth with ours. If one tells part of truth doesn't make it true. Probably constructing one truth from many incomplete truth might bring us to complete truth, but I always wonder how that complete truth can be acknowledged as a complete picture. Since we all have parts and in the process of contracting it we bring theories and ideas that never exist in the big picture of the truth. So my argument is that through constructing we may not be perfectly find the truth but better understanding of the truth we are searching might be.
Your allegory is often used (although I've usually heard it used with an elephant instead of a cow). And it sums up the situation nicely as long as everyone has an "equal" view through the screen.
However, I think the bigger problem is when people don't have these "equal" views. Suppose one person can only see the eye while another person can see the whole front half of the cow. The second person will have a much more informed view. And, since their view entails everything that the first person sees, they can truthfully say that the first person is wrong that the world is an eye. The first person can agrue all they want that the world is an eye, but they'd be completely wrong.
Unfortunately, this puts the second person (the one who can see half a cow) in an awkward position. Do they argue and try to educate the first person about the "true" nature of the world? If so, then they risk falling into the same trap since - for all they know - there may be a third person who can see the entire front half of the cow along with the entire field that the cow is standing in.
I certainly agree with your premise, especially the last two sentences. But, for whatever reasons (culture, religion, pride, etc.) people sure do seem to have a hard time doing it.