Why, if one says it is yellow and one says it is red, is only one of them right?
After all, the experience really is subjective; theoretically it could be that each one sees it differently, no?

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

I am ignoring the philosophers’ chestnut problem (that maybe not all of us see the same color). So with that set aside, see what Eitan answered.

What did Eitan answer? What does it mean to argue about what the table “really” is? And how are the arguers supposed to know anything about that “really”?

Assuming that you and I mean the same thing when we say yellow, then when one says yellow and the other says red, there is a real disagreement here. True, the disagreement is formulated in our subjective language (colors), but what is being described in that language is a fact in the world itself.

But it is not only formulated subjectively; it is also manifested subjectively. That is, it is possible that this particular wavelength “really” appears both as yellow and as red. (Not connected to the philosophers’ chestnut problem, 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 for butting into the discussion. But what you are saying may be true when we are talking about colors and, for example, there is a color-blind person, or his brain’s signaling causes him to see colors differently. But if a wavelength appears as red, and both people are capable of perceiving that it is red, but you call it yellow, then in that case you are simply mistaken. Unless it is multicolored or something, and then one could argue whether it is more similar to red or yellow — that would be a matter of taste.

There is something to the claim that existential experience is necessarily subjective. As a person who believes in Judaism, for example,
I can claim that Judaism “really” expresses itself, and that its essence is Jewish law and its stringencies, regardless of the historical discussion of what defined a Jew as a Jew throughout the generations. Another person can claim that Judaism “really” expresses itself for him primarily in receiving select individuals from all the nations and bringing them under the wings of the Divine Presence. If he is, for example, the son of righteous converts, meticulously observant of every commandment, major and minor, and inspired by his biographical story he decided to engage in conversion and to bring in people who truly want this under the wings of the Divine Presence — if he claims that in his existential experience Judaism “really” expresses itself mainly, or mostly, in that area, and as long as this is a means of serving the Holy One, blessed be He, and subordinate to that, and does not negate any other commandment, then I would have no argument with him. On the contrary, honor and praise to him for recruiting his personal talents to the service of his Creator. Likewise regarding a woman, for example, whose friend suffered — Heaven forbid — sexual assault in Haredi society, and inspired by that she opened a psychological counseling center for Haredi victims of sexual abuse so that they could continue living there with dignity and also serve their Creator. If she were to claim that in her existential experience, for her, serving God and being Jewish “really” finds expression in this area of assisting victims and returning them to the proper path — again, I would have no factual argument with her.

But there is an issue here. If the level of the discussion stops touching on the sharing of existential experiences in the service of God, and on the question of what emphasis each person places in his service of God, subject to Jewish law and the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the Torah, and moves to the question of what the definition is of an intentional sinner, a heretic, and someone who has left the fold of the Jewish people according to Jewish law throughout the generations — then “really” one person is right and others are wrong. And here the postmodernist comes in and claims that because everyone has a different opinion, presumably no one is ever right and everyone is wrong, or everyone is equally right. That is not true. There are questions in which, factually and logically, there is only one correct conclusion. And even if there is never any way to know who is right, that does not change the fact that objectively there is only one correct opinion. Even though in the example I mentioned there is an objective answer, and it is fairly clear that, for example, someone who married a non-Jewish woman and as a result apostatized left the fold of the Jewish people throughout history in Jewish communities and according to Jewish law, whereas someone who spoke slander out of appetite, neglected Torah study, or did not refine his character traits remained in the category of a kosher Jew. And if someone claims the opposite, he is simply mistaken.