Maybe you already noticed although our philosophical beliefs may not be the same (no surprise here as no two exact same leaves in this natural world), but most of our derived views regarding many other things are very similar, such as we all agree a good person has to read a lot to gain more experiences of others and digest into one's own system to be really useful, and we all value spiritual stuffs satisfying our 3rd mental eye even by dosing so harms our material eyes. Why? Per my nominalism it's not a myth, we are both describing the same phenomenon using different-while-same-honesty-level metaphors in a more clear way than the drunk, and I truly feel you are serious and honest given you've reached so far. Meta means beyond, transcend higher, so metaphor literally means a form which transcends phenomena. In this sense, as Stoicism pointed out, a good person's definition really depends on her honesty level known as virtue ethics when expressing her views.

The only trouble (also secret) to further prove which philosopher's view is more true or noumenal is hard to be convincing because it's beyond our epistemic realm, so far no scientists can prove or disprove any metaphysical views like scientific experiments. Pre-Renaissance cardinal Nicholas of Cusa mentioned this in his famous book - Learned Ignorance. This is actually the deepest confusion of all deeply thoughtful persons walked on this planet, be it philosophers, scientists, or engineers, that is, how on earth to identify the needle-like true from all the other ocean-like false? This is similar to the famous Turing Conjecture in computer science and computability (recursion) theory, who basically believes there's no difference between human mind and a computer machine functionally, without any soul the computer can achieve as well as a real human for any measurable functionality without true cognitive creativity. Another faction, however, believes there's some innate gnostic difference between mind and machine, implicitly admits there's some untouchable qualia and vital creativity within mind such that however advanced technology becomes, computers still cannot achieve same as human's mind completely, thus there's no real intelligence only p-zombies at best.

Under my metaphoric nominalism I'm more on the Turing side since everything relevant to our mind based on our living experience can only form finite number of metaphors of various clarity degrees, and there're numerous parallel distributed Turing ω-jump like synthetic abstraction and analytic reified verification processes simultaneously going on in human mind as essentially modeled by artificial neural nets of the prevailing connectionism of AI which can account for most of our mental capabilities in any specific context perhaps excluding a few extreme creative areas requiring the occasional transcendental Platonic touch. Most people will regard common math such as number 2 as real, but my view is contrary, number 2 (or any math) should be epistemically comprehended in the same metaphoric realm of human mind, just happen to be the relatively most clear-countably-verifiable-universal metaphor. I don't opine separating the noumena from the phenomena as a serious business, its useful for some purposes, but all these concepts and separations are still man-made fake analogies engineered to explain to a naive and confused child who is actively seeking an authoritative answer from the grown-ups

This world perceived by human mind is nothing but metaphors, that's why we can have several different model theories about the same phenomena, such as the Newtonian Force Laws, Lagrangian/Hamiltonian Least Action Principle, and the later Maxwell/Einstein Field Theory in classical physics and then applied further into QM, so far all these above 3 distinct models are not proved wrong and taught in every physics department around the globe. In the meantime, because our mind is constantly forming-destroying-reforming numerous metaphors as free will, most of these created images/processes/analogies are in more or less confused state. For example, if you've never been visiting a place and people around you are talking extensively about it, still in your mind you'll form some vague images from what you heard. Most of these misconceptions are like avidya in Buddhism metaphoric teachings, huge huge and thick darkness in the form of ignorant confusions is covering human mind and thus all its derived senses...

In conclusion, I have no issue to engage in this essentially fake metaphoric business, because I still require accepted analogy to be rational, so our business should not be wasted on debating which ultimate view is absolute unadulterated truth, we've both tried our best to be honest in our world descriptions, in this sense, we're both right already, like in a dream we've all honestly told others what we really saw... Instead, we should focus on finding ways to falsify or verify numerous proposed seemingly useful metaphors in this current dream, the skill of using the more-clear mathematical metaphoric models to express/describe/predict/solve the less clear metaphoric confusions... I just recognized the whole stuff going around is a big nonreal dream in which I'm playing around with nonreal metaphors inside it like those told by Vasubandhu's Yogachara school thousands of years ago...Using another analogy: I'm confusedly confident, most others confidently confused...