My problem with philosophy is the accumulation of polysyllable terms and phrases, often in a catalog or classification of different perspectives. It is not that I disagree with the writer's explanation of parts ot types of truth, and he has given evidence of exemplary sources of information, it is that the examples are short on interesting narrative illustrations, stories that can explain the thoughts in fewer wordy intellectual, philosophical manners of speaking. There is a dearth of good clear examples in most of the writings of philosophers throughout the last centuries. It is as though philosophers can only impress or educate other philosophers in patterns and terminology familiar to their similarly schooled colleagues. Yuval Noah Harari (of Sapiens and Nexus fame) is correct in thinking most people with intelligent minds, curious for truth, require stories or interesting narratives to be seduced into paying conscious attention to understand ideas that are otherwise incomprehensibly abstract. Yanis Varoufakis is a storyteller of great clarity because of his storied narratives about changing economical conditions. It is possible that no one can bring the MAGA horses to water with facts and concepts, but they do like stories (what else are conspiracy theories that catch on?) and there is without doubt widespread misunderstand about economics that requires more straightforward story