By Umberto Eco, from his book “Inventing the Enemy”
This is an interesting objection against constructivism (or Nietzsche), which claims that there is no such thing as truth or facts, but only interpretations.
In my past blog post, I used the word “agreement” saying that what we think is true might not be really true, rather, it’s what we all “agree” to consider it true.
This idea is, some way, close to constructivist idea in that they both assume there is no absolute truth/facts.
So, suppose you are a constructivist, how can you answer the objection of “interpretation of what” ?
One idea is to say that it doesn’t have to be true or facts to be interpreted. Fictional stories are, of course, not “facts” but we can give a whole range of interpretation to them. (You recall the conversations with your friends after watching Harry Potter, right?)
I am not at all a philosopher, but I do enjoy thinking philosophical problems. Giving deeper thoughts on what we think is normal leads us into the mysterious world of uncertainty, which is thrilling to explore, whether you think “truth” exists or not.