The positive side of postmodernism

Why is it that if one says it's yellow and one says it's red, then only one is right?
After all, experience is truly subjective, theoretically it could be that everyone sees it differently, right?

Because they are not arguing about what each of them sees, but what the table itself really is
And there is only one answer to that

I ignore the philosophers' chestnut problem (that perhaps we don't all see the same color). From here, see what Ethan answered.

What did Eitan answer? What does it mean to argue about what the table is “in truth”? And how do the arguers know about this truth?

Assuming that you and I are talking about the same thing when we say yellow, then when one says yellow and the other says red, there is a real debate here. Although the debate is couched in our subjective language (colors), what is described in this language is a fact in the world itself.

But it is not only formulated subjectively, it is also expressed subjectively, meaning that it is possible that this particular wavelength appears “really” as both yellow and red. (Regardless of the philosophers' chestnut, but even if it is clear to both of us what red is and what yellow is and we mean the same thing, it is still completely subjective)

Noam. Sorry to interfere in the discussion. But what you say may be true. When it comes to colors and there is a person who is color blind for example. Or his brain transmission causes him to see colors differently. But if a wavelength appears in red. And both people are able to perceive that it is red. But you call it yellow you are simply wrong in this case. Unless it is colored or something and then you can argue whether it is more similar to red or yellow - it is a matter of taste.

There is something in the claim that the existential experience is necessarily subjective. As a person who believes in Judaism for example.
I can argue that Judaism “truly” expresses itself, and its essence is the law and its rigor. Regardless of the historical discussion of what defined a Jew as a Jew throughout the generations. Another person can argue that Judaism “truly” expresses itself for him, mainly, in absorbing special individuals from all nations and bringing them under the wings of the Divine Presence. If, for example, he is a righteous man who observes both light and severe commandments, and inspired by his biographical story, he decided to engage in the field of conversion and bring people who really want it under the wings of the Divine Presence. If he claims that in his existential experience Judaism “truly” expresses itself primarily or mostly in this area, and all the while it is as a means to serve the Holy One, blessed be He, and is subject to it, and does not cancel any other mitzvah. I had no argument with him, and it is an honor and a credit to him that he mobilized his personal talents for the service of his Creator. .Likewise, for example, a woman whose friend suffered .God forbid .sexual assault in Haredi society .And inspired by her, she opened a psychological counseling center for Haredi sexual victims .So that they can continue to live there with dignity .and also worship God .If she claims that in her existential experience .for her .worshiping God .and being a “truly” Jewish.
Expressed in this area of assisting victims and returning them to the right path. Again, I have no factual argument with her. But there is an issue here. If the plane of the discussion stops touching on sharing existential experiences in the service of God. And the question of what emphasis each person places in their service of God. Subject to the law and the commandment of the Torah to take the Kabbalah. And moves on to the question. What is the definition of a convert to anger? An epicurean. And he left the Jewish people according to the law throughout the generations. So "truly" there is one who is right and others who are wrong. And here comes the postmodernist and claims that because everyone has a different opinion. Probably no one is ever right and everyone is wrong or everyone is equally right. This is not true. There are questions in which factually and logically there is only
one correct conclusion. And even if there is no way to ever know who is right. It does not change the fact that objectively. There is only one correct opinion. Although in the example I mentioned there is an answer Objectively. And it is quite clear that, for example, someone who married a foreigner and subsequently perished was expelled from the Jewish people throughout history in Jewish communities and according to Halacha. Whereas someone who spoke slander to appease, violated the Torah, or did not correct his standards remains a kosher Jew. And if someone claims the opposite, he is simply wrong.