JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Service Warning
We are continuing to investigate issues of players encountering BEAVER error codes when attempting to play Destiny. Stand by for updates.

OffTopic

Surf a Flood of random discussion.

9/26/2013 12:36:44 PM
4

How far can opinions be recognized?

I say that opinions can only be recognized as far as some senses are concerned. Taste, smell (does it smell good or bad), color appreciation (do you like the color of blue, for example), sense of humor, and the list goes on. With this list being not all inclusive, I expect you to understand the types of things I consider to be "opinion." Basically, all things that cannot be rationally explained, where it is impossible to find a universal answer. So, in the case of colors, it cannot be explained - it cannot be reasoned - that a certain color must trump another in any terms. What does this leave us with? Well I think it leaves us (yes, I know, it's ironic because i'm saying "I think") with everything else - everything that can be reasoned - being an objective issue. This leads me to understand that with many "controversies," every single "opinion" out there is simply an input given by the user to represent his thoughts on the matter, unless their input is right (if the input is right, it's a Truth). What we consider to be an "opinion" on a matter is simply a result of an incomplete understanding of the circumstances involving the matter (or the "controversy"). The opinion, then, is simply a misguided, and therefore incorrect, understanding of the "controversy." The idea came up because I've read a lot of controversies and sh1t that seemed to be aimlessly debated. Of course we debate to defend what we think to be true, and in doing so we use reason and logic to support our claims. I just think that, theoretically, if one could present a summation of EVERY point to be considered in a "controversy" the reasoning behind one side of the argument would ultimately trump the other(s). This means that in every "controversy" there is a Truth. In the end, the "controversy" was just a term used to describe a situation where an understanding of the circumstances were limited or warped. WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? :D
Add more answer options

Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

  • Edited by Silent: 9/26/2013 10:47:11 PM
    As the entirety of existence is subject to personal observation, there is of course know way of knowing if [I]anything[/I] is objectively true. While making more information about a given controversy known will in theory lead to one logical answer, this falls apart due to extraneous experiences. For instance, a murder trial may have enough information to be an open and shut case, but if past experiences have made a member of the jury biased against one of the parties (race, religion, etc), the logical answer may not be reached. And if you truly want to include all data points, you will need to include theirs as well. No instance or object in the universe is separate from all others, and as you can see, the amount of data needed to reach an [I]objective[/I] truth is [I]at least[/I] all the information in this universe. So what it ultimately boils down to is that with more information, we may get closer to the truth (if it exists), but that's just common sense. In fact, that's the only reason science and inquiry have progressed as far as they have; accepting non-objective truths so that we can "progress" without having to [I]completely[/I] understand something. If we ever do reach absolute truth through science, the methodology we used to get there will look insane.
    Add more answer options

    Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

  • Edited by DemonicChronic: 9/30/2013 8:58:07 PM
    Personally, the only objective truth I have been able to see is existence itself. All physical laws seem to be relatively true due to the axioms that suggest the truth behind them. But what we have yet to object is if these laws remain true in all aspects of reality. That is simply because we have yet to observe and measure all aspects of reality utterly. Even so, everything that exists is experienced through your own individual phenron, which is by nature, subjective itself. All views are the result of one's own specific perception of reality. How then, can one view point trump the other to object anything when they are all rooted in similar subjective phanerons? To prove anything, we must logically rely on axioms to do so, and that in turn means that we must rely on the views of many different people. But all those different people experience reality through different subjective phanerons, so how does one know who has the right idea? Which person knows the truth in its absolute purest form?
    Add more answer options

    Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

    2 Replies
    • >thinking that every question has an objectively correct answer Lol
      Add more answer options

      Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

      3 Replies
      • [quote]Of course we debate to defend what we think to be true, and in doing so we use reason and logic to support our claims. I just think that, theoretically, if one could present a summation of EVERY point to be considered in a "controversy" the reasoning behind one side of the argument would ultimately trump the others.[/quote]i really don't see why you think this at all...
        Add more answer options

        Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post.

        7 Replies
        preload icon
        preload icon
        preload icon
        You are not allowed to view this content.