Is there such a thing as a wrong opinion?

[Satya]

Because most people think their "subjective opinions" are objective reality and behave accordingly. Introspectively questioning one's opinions is rare.

Which means the people who actually question their subjective opinions are the most hesitant people and the ones who never question their subjective opinions are the ones who follow through on them with absolute devotion.

Reality is endlessly frustrating.

 

[Norton]

Which means the people who actually question their subjective opinions are the most hesitant people and the ones who never question their subjective opinions are the ones who follow through on them with absolute devotion.

Reality is endlessly frustrating.

Questioning one's opinion is like subjecting it to a test. That is, one should regularly test an opinion with data (including new data), logic and, yes, feelings. This doesn't imply lack of conviction or inaction. It may be that, when new data come in or faulty logic is discovered, one's opinion changes. In my experience, people rarely subject their opinions to such a process.

 

[Satya]

Questioning one's opinion is like subjecting it to a test. That is, one should regularly test an opinion with data (including new data), logic and, yes, feelings. This doesn't imply lack of conviction or inaction. It may be that, when new data come in or faulty logic is discovered, one's opinion changes. In my experience, people rarely subject their opinions to such a process.

Ah, but the more one questions their own opinions and assumptions the more one realizes how little they actually know. Then one becomes incredibly frustrated with those who don't question their own opinions or assumptions at all, because they tend to be the same people who believe they know everything. One also is stuck with doubt when one realizes that data itself is subject to subjective interpretation and multiple or even completely contradictory conclusions could be reached with the same data. One even has to doubt the credibility of evidence given that it is produced by other fallible humans who could choose to distort it in order to further their own aims. In the end it is a game of probability that one plays in order to obtain the most likely answer given the available evidence.

 

[Nixie]

Ah, but the more one questions their own opinions and assumptions the more one realizes how little they actually know. Then one becomes incredibly frustrated with those who don't question their own opinions or assumptions at all, because they tend to be the same people who believe they know everything. One also is stuck with doubt when one realizes that data itself is subject to subjective interpretation and multiple or even completely contradictory conclusions could be reached with the same data. One even has to doubt the credibility of evidence given that it is produced by other fallible humans who could choose to distort it in order to further their own aims. In the end it is a game of probability that one plays in order to obtain the most likely answer given the available evidence.

Then one becomes aware of the concepts of "faith" and "hope" in that one hopes that others see the uncertainty inherent in our lives and acts accordingly, and has faith, thus giving other's the benefit of the doubt. Then hopefully, one realizes they only truly control themselves, their choices, their actions, and acts accordingly.....

 

[Satya]

Then one becomes aware of the concepts of "faith" and "hope" in that one hopes that others see the uncertainty inherent in our lives and acts accordingly, and has faith, thus giving other's the benefit of the doubt. Then hopefully, one realizes they only truly control themselves, their choices, their actions, and acts accordingly.....

Personal experience has taught me better than to have faith in my fellow human beings. They are too attached to their prejudices and dogmas. They would rather serve the whim of an unsubstantiated idea than seek to understand their fellow human beings.

 

[Norton]

Ah, but the more one questions their own opinions and assumptions the more one realizes how little they actually know...

This is partly why I've been absent the last few months. I'm sixty, and as I've grown older, I have realized more and more how little I know. I've also realized that what I think I know is sometimes wrong at least to some degree. That is, an opinion or idea can be mostly or somewhat true yet be partly in error (and it is often impossible to eliminate that error). Thus, it has been difficult to debate with people who, much younger, think in absolutes. My life experience has taught me that, while one should aspire to be as objective as possible, there is ultimately no such thing as complete objectivity. Certainty is the unattainable ideal, yet the universe is governed by uncertainty. This, in its most "objective" sense, was shown by Werner Heisenberg, Kurt G

 

[Nixie]

Or one could acertain that one was here to give the wisdom of their knowledge to those younger then themselves. To exercise the requisite patience to have the pleasure of seeing them realize the deeper truths about this life--or at least to have the potential for such a thing to happen....


Or one could just realize the deep disappointment one particular INTJ felt when she noticed you weren't around....

 

[Barnabas]

Yes, so long as they'er stating it as factual information and then that is dependent on the information available.

 

[Norton]

I think the goal of philosophy is not only to answer questions but, ultimately, to ask better questions. So, one should always be questioning one's opinions and assumptions. Progress is never made when assumptions are blindly accepted. Reexamining an assumption and providing a new, more accurate explanation is the stuff of Nobel prizes. Feynman's Nobel Prize is an example.

I would also note that the more complicated a problem, the more likely most people are to have a simplistic "black and white" opinion. Challenging such an opinion is scary for many people and they react strongly and in fear, hardly the stuff of intellectual excellence. Most people hate the ambiguity of uncertainty and, indeed, because they find it uncomfortable, opt for the simplistic, if untrue, answer. Rigorous, hard thinking is hard and learning to enjoy such painful thought is something one must endure with faith in the ultimate, albeit delayed, intellectual gratification unless, of course, one is born to such pleasure. One must learn to live with ambiguity until it resolves toward a better understanding, if such ever happens. Just think of the persistent, yet aging physicists, who will die before string theory (brane theory) is ever resolved (or not), or before the Higgs Boson is experimentally observed (if ever).

Anyway, there is no better example in the US of simplistic thinking than the tea party approach to economics. Or, for that matter the true believers on both sides of the political spectrum. Economics is extremely complex because it is inherently an open, chaotic system for which there is never a complete data set. So, to believe that there is a simple answer to the current economic problems and, thus, to limit the tools in one's economic tool box is to be wrong. Such is the stuff of ideology.

 

[Satya]

I think the goal of philosophy is not only to answer questions but, ultimately, to ask better questions. So, one should always be questioning one's opinions and assumptions. Progress is never made when assumptions are blindly accepted. Reexamining an assumption and providing a new, more accurate explanation is the stuff of Nobel prizes. Feynman's Nobel Prize is an example.

I would also note that the more complicated a problem, the more likely most people are to have a simplistic "black and white" opinion. Challenging such an opinion is scary for many people and they react strongly and in fear, hardly the stuff of intellectual excellence. Most people hate the ambiguity of uncertainty and, indeed, because they find it uncomfortable, opt for the simplistic, if untrue, answer. Rigorous, hard thinking is hard and learning to enjoy such painful thought is something one must endure with faith in the ultimate, albeit delayed, intellectual gratification unless, of course, one is born to such pleasure. One must learn to live with ambiguity until it resolves toward a better understanding, if such ever happens. Just think of the persistent, yet aging physicists, who will die before string theory (brane theory) is ever resolved (or not), or before the Higgs Boson is experimentally observed (if ever).

Anyway, there is no better example in the US of simplistic thinking than the tea party approach to economics. Or, for that matter the true believers on both sides of the political spectrum. Economics is extremely complex because it is inherently an open, chaotic system for which there is never a complete data set. So, to believe that there is a simple answer to the current economic problems and, thus, to limit the tools in one's economic tool box is to be wrong. Such is the stuff of ideology.

Extremely well said. If I could live my life with that degree of mindfulness and critical thought then I could die a happy man.

 

[just me]

Personal experience has taught me better than to have faith in my fellow human beings. They are too attached to their prejudices and dogmas. They would rather serve the whim of an unsubstantiated idea than seek to understand their fellow human beings.

Amazing.

 

[Satya]

Amazing.

Do I dare ask what you find so amazing?

 

[Matariki]

All opinions are equal, but some are more equal than others.

 

[just me]

Do I dare ask what you find so amazing?

Possibly all the different cloaks placed on obvious attacks against religion. Start a thread about opinions, then turn it against morals. Deep down inside there is the constant trying to put down of morality.

You say you have no faith in your fellow humankind. That means everyone on this forum you have no faith in. Then you attack in a subtle manner people's faith and beliefs. Finally, you camoflage it by stating anyone like this does not seek to understand their fellow humankind. You are inherently more prejudiced than the rest of us put together. It always ends up the same thing. I am amazed; you hide it so well to so many here. I can read a thread and actually see where it is heading from the start.

 

[Satya]

Possibly all the different cloaks placed on obvious attacks against religion. Start a thread about opinions, then turn it against morals. Deep down inside there is the constant trying to put down of morality.

I can't "put down" a survival mechanism. Morality exists because it evolved as a means for our species to cooperate with one another in groups. There is nothing inherently good or bad about morality. It simply exists, like language or art. It is a tool of expression.

You say you have no faith in your fellow humankind. That means everyone on this forum you have no faith in. Then you attack in a subtle manner people's faith and beliefs. Finally, you camoflage it by stating anyone like this does not seek to understand their fellow humankind. You are inherently more prejudiced than the rest of us put together. It always ends up the same thing. I am amazed; you hide it so well to so many here. I can read a thread and actually see where it is heading from the start.

That seems like a fairly accurate assessment with one error. I do understand my fellow human beings. In fact, it is my job to understand people. That does not mean I am not human. It does not mean I do not get frustrated as a result of understanding people. The reality is that people are a culmination of their experiences and relationships. Those two factors make a person who they are. If you had been born in Saudi Arabia to a Muslim family then you would be a very different person and have very different beliefs than the ones you hold now. But because of your experiences and the people whom you have had relationships with, you have your own particular way of viewing this world. So how can I hold you accountable for what you believe or what you do? The only time you ever truly exhibit free will is when you question the beliefs and opinions that you accumulated through your experiences and relationships. And believe me, true free will is an act of suffering. I want you to suffer the experience of free will. And that is why I do everything in my power to get people to question the beliefs and opinions they have accumulated over the course of their experiences and relationships. That is the common theme. I want you to question your assumptions.

But here is the interesting thing about ideologies like religion. They are predicated on adhering to them without question. So I want people to suffer free will but religion is inherently bent on denying people their free will by having them conform to principles to which they are suppose to never question.

As such, I am the greatest threat to a religion. I am the "deceiver" since to get people to suffer free will I have to get them to question what they believe without them realizing I am doing it. I have to plant the seeds of doubt.

Why? Because that is my personal morality. Just as you have a moral code that dictates you must condemn homosexual behavior, I have a personal moral code which dictates I must push people outside their comfort zone and get them to experience the free will that is questioning the assumptions, opinions, and beliefs that come from their experiences and relationships.

 

[the]

It doesnt make sense to force someone to suffer free will.

 

[Satya]

It doesnt make sense to force someone to suffer free will.

It makes absolute sense.

I'm not trying to change what a person believes. If they choose to continue to believe whatever they believe then I am personally content with it.

What I am trying to change is the actual person. When an individual for the first time steps outside of their beliefs and opinions and questions them, it is a very life changing moment. They are never the same person after that experience even if they choose to continue to believe in what they believed before.

From that moment on, that person has cast away the illusion of certainty.

 

[just me]

How can a person counsel others when they have absolutely no faith in them whatsoever? How the thought a platform of casting doubt makes one the "biggest threat to a religion" in their own mind is somewhat........vain. Of course it is a fairly accurate assessment. How you understand people gives them no value to their beliefs. People are what they are; sooner or later in life one must admit that. It is your right to question what you will to question, but not your right to make others question their will. Faith is not assumptions. You do not understand what others have gone through to believe in what they believe; you think it is all about life circumstances. You leave out the most important part of all of it: the spiritual experience.


I do not go around condemning homosexual behavior, but you cannot allow in your own mind someone to believe the way they want to believe. It all goes back to the same issue every time. I do not see your actions as a form of personal morality, but maybe you do.

There are people raised in Saudi Arabia by Muslim families that are now Christians, and most likely vice versa.

I understand your thought processes better than you think, but your assessments leave question to your motives.

 

[This]

There are differences between opinions, conditions, and actions.

 

[invisible]

sometimes i think that i would like to try to live my life with the kind of openness, understanding, tolerance, acceptance, and love that would allow all the raw beauty of human faith, truth and longing to roar through me like a river that would wash all of the wrongness and even the idea of it completely out of my being. but that's just a dream.