[T]ruth can be established only by repelling other claimants to that prestigious title; it's only 'truth within one of many possible alternative contexts. So it is achieved by excluding whatever fails to fit. Just as we say that some faces don't fit(don't suite a certain social context), so some historical data can't be made to fit the rule of evidence, or the linguistic usage, or the interpretative models that the prevailing discipline demands. What, for example, is actually allowed to count s 'evidence'? .....There's no room for everyone at the centre;so some viewpoints, some --interpretations, some versions of the past, must be marginalized. page 84 "What is history for? " Beverley Southgate*1
One of the credits we should give to feminism is it has revealed the fact that what appeared to be the neutral view point turns out to be gender biased.*2
Of course truth should not be confused with the concept of truth nor with the manner in which it is valorized. (page 25 "What's the use of Truth?" Rorty/Engels,)
And truth is more than the matter of subjective and even intersubjective in a sense that the reality independent of an observer is conceivable. And sure there is objective knowledge in a sense that
a view or form of thought is more objective than another if it relies less on the specifics of the individual’s makeup and position in the world, or on the character of the particular type of creature he is. The wider the range of subjective types to which a form of understanding is accessible—the less it depends on specific subjective capacities—the more objective it is. A standpoint that is objective by comparison with the personal view of one individual may be subjective by comparison with a theoretical standpoint still farther out.The View from Nowhere
But it is less than objective in a sense the description*3 of such reality is inevitably associated with a speaker's perspective, and a specific frame of reference,(masculines view point, modern scientific view point, religious view point etc,.)
In this regard, it is interesting to note that even Heart Sutra,which claims to be
the perfect wisdom, is being seen from
a specific view point.
He looked down from on high, He beheld but five heaps, and He saw that in their own-being they were empty.....
But is the heart sutra true? I am inclined to to agree with Nāgārjuna that it is neither truth nor false. Though it gives the insight into the way we see ourselves and the world. It is not always the case that truth matters for life and there are something more important than the truth that influences our perception; the kind of vision that gives the one insight into life does not have to have truth value.
I hesitate to call some propositions to be partially true, because that presuppose the grand narrative by which you can put everything under your dominance in the form of knowledge.But truth makes sense only against a specific context and background. "(page 117 "The eye of spirit" Ken Wilber. )
*2 Related to this is the assertion that experience is always my experience.
Descartes said "I think, therefore I am, Kant said "The -I think- must be able to accompany all my representations" But their observation and analysis on the thought and representation merely shows It thinks, therefore, it exists.. In case of Depersonalization "disorder", the "patient" lose the sense of "I".
The sensation of "I" and "my" is so fundamental to our mode of our speech, institution, etc( Allan Watts "The book" page 12)
But isn't it that their experience reveals some important phase of our experience rather than "disorder"?
Isn't it the case that "I" and "my" are derivative from such primordial experience?
Isn't it just one aspect, one specific perspective of IT?
When somebody experiences the world filled with glory, isn't it the case there is no experiencer and experienced but just IT springs itself primordially as glory and then reflectively divide itself into experience and experienced?
Thouth this does not affect the discussion on the truth above, it is consistent with the view above.
Rorty on truth
It is not the case I agree with Rorty on truth on every point. but I sympathise with him in that I feel the truth qua truth is a boring subject to delve into.