What does it mean then, to be "right?"
You live truth in accordance with what you are. You can judge what you perceive and are aware of, which is a complex amalgamation of genetics and environment and socialization and upbringing, and also all of the small and large efforts and acts which make up the trajectory of your life, which accumulate in your character and experience and the governing conditions of your lifestyle.
How you are brought up, and how you are composed necessarily form constraints around how you can maneuver and act, but then how you maneuver and act can steadily transform the conditions within which you live, which in turn changes how you can maneuver and act.
All sorts of people can be right about all sorts of different things, depending on what they are and where they are at and what they want. But this "rightness" has varying magnitudes of depth and duration, and its given premises proceed to certain conclusions with certain consequences.
Warlords may look around at the nihilistic struggle for power in their war-torn homelands and correctly perceive that given their ambitions, their own ruthless perfection of organized violence is the path forward, and then in short order receive bullets in the head for it.
And CEOs may correctly perceive the truth of the coercive laws of competition of capital, and build their empires upon heaps of betrayal and broken bodies, and enjoy breathtaking views from the greatest heights for some time, and perhaps die comfortably in beds as individuals, after which their progeny eventually watch their bequeathments crumble and their names cursed and dragged through the mud, and the conceptual compressing together of those extreme poles forms that truth.
Or you could have an archetypal Diogenes correctly perceiving the nature of human material existence and choosing to live in avoidance of the pursuit of power, in the pursuit of a good life instead, and exist in material poverty for it, perfectly content sleeping in a barrel with the stray dogs, and that too is a truth.
And one can occupy anywhere between these extremes. One could entertain trash opinions but feel quite right, supported by the buoyance of one's equally wrong peers and be given access to their pooled resources and exist with some regard and public respect for it. Before being proven wrong again and again until one's word becomes worthless and one's dignity becomes stripped, but this could take plenty of time too.
And one could be right all along, but remain in quite modest or even impoverished regard and circumstances, and remain in obscurity for some time, or throughout one's lifetime. And to invert all of these scenarios, one could wallow in the mud indefinitely, wrong as wrong can be, or be quite right about the world and the nature of reality and enjoy material success for it.
Sometimes wrongness is the point, as in the case with something like strategic deception. And the truth can be perceived as either a means or an end. It all depends on what one is, where one is at in time and space, and what one wants to be. And then as one's activities proceed in accordance with one's truth, the world changes and those new conditions are confronted by those coming upon one's heels.
You might have noticed that this is an attempted synthesis of a relativist conception of truth and an absolutist one. Yes, truth can twist and turn in time and space in accordance with perception and historical and cultural positioning. But that moving in accordance with a truth takes on a path dependency in accordance with its premises, and that a given truth proceeds to a given set of consequences in time, which can be judged by its fruits.
And that synthesis can be done well, and it can be done badly. And even done well it has certain strengths and weaknesses, and so too do its constituent relativist and absolutist parts. And such an attempted synthesis I'm doing in a particular way to further along a greater analysis, that has its own character, its own strengths and weaknesses, and its life trajectory.
