/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Bump

>>843
Bumping a thread that asks a relatively mundane question (in a rather unorthodox manner and without a personal stab at the answer to invite debate) after only three days on a board fairly slow is unnecessary. If you felt like moving the thread further to the top left of the cataogue, you could've at least tried to explicate your own thoughts on the subject, be you the OP or not. As is, your post is essentially spam.

In order to avoid my post being the same, allow me to pose some questions to the OP.

>>832
>no one is truly wrong, it's all a matter of perspective
What do you mean by "wrong" or even "truly wrong"? Do you think that every justification for any statement or assessment is inherently subjective and thus there can be no wrong and right aside from subjective judgements, who are in turn only wrong or right based on subjective assessment? Or do you take "perspective" more literally, and mean to say that, while there might be truth and falsehood, the stance towards these factual statements are all of equal value, since they are formed form different angles and thought processes? I'm not entirely sure what triggered your questions, unless you simply asked yourself "is everything relative?" which would be an easier question with less problematic terminology.

As it stands, perspectivism is more of a confession that true objectivity cannot be reached, because there will always be the reliance on a limited perspective, no matter how much we try to overcome this. This is particularly noticable when debating (more correctly; justifying) premises and not arguments. There are naturally those who take this to the extreme of relativism, but not everyone thinks this is a problem, many think we can make do with the objectivity we percieve as such.
Based on your initial question, I doubt this is what you are talking about. Please clarify if I am mistaken.

And by the way, Nietzsche is just one of those philosophers often mentioned in the public domain because his views are fairly flexibly applicable and can be quite divisive. If you are completely new to philosophy, you should look at Platonic dialogues before anything else.

>>845
>What do you mean by "wrong" or even "truly wrong"? Do you think that every justification for any statement or assessment is inherently subjective and thus there can be no wrong and right aside from subjective judgements, who are in turn only wrong or right based on subjective assessment?


Sorry, i'm new to this board, I apologize for my newfaggotry.

Anyway, yes that's what I was getting at. I tend to introspect quite a lot around other people, not in the sense that i'm a 'special snowflake', but I seek to comprehend why certain people side with certain ideas and teachings. I've come to understand that, from their own perspective, no one is 'wrong'. Their life experiences jaded them to the 'truth' they found. As a matter of fact i'm willing to bet their perspective is what lead them to their truth.

Someone raised in an environment with rough conditions and little understanding of their government, will easily point blame at their government. From there on out EVERY issue or conflict he/she faces is a result of governmental malfeasance. That becomes their truth simply due to their perspective.

The government on the other hand recognizes that person as the problem. He points his/her finger at the government and it makes it harder for said government to do his job. In return not progressing the situation. Despite being told the direction they're taking the community isn't working, the government applies more aggressive pressure and decides the man/woman pointing the finger isn't worthy of being heard. Simply because he/she is going to point that finger no matter what.

So the conflict remains a stalemate and both parties remain at an impasse. This, combined with outside perspectives and inputs of others create further tension and issues.

However, though i'm stating both parties are irrationally indifferent, i'm not saying they're both wrong. One could be right and one can be wrong OR they both could be right, depending on YOUR perspective.

>>855
>from their own perspective, no one is 'wrong'
>Their life experiences jaded them to the 'truth' they found.
>As a matter of fact i'm willing to bet their perspective is what lead them to their truth.
I think you may be a little loose with the terminology here. If you mean "outlook" then that's not the same thing as, say, "conviction". But I assume you mean to say that positions that aren't or cannot be further explicated (a premise, if you will) are often a direct result of certain experiences or conditions. And you're probably right with that.


>From there on out EVERY issue or conflict he/she faces is a result of governmental malfeasance. That becomes their truth simply due to their perspective.
I wouldn't call this truth but conviction. Someone might be certain to know of the cause of a problem, but unless they themselves can justify that certainty (be it faultily like through demonstration of incompetence in a different area, or correctly through actual demonstration) then there is no way anyone, including they themselves, can refer to that conviction as "truth". I might be convinced that the moonlanding was a hoax. Even if that stance were somewhat understandable from my perspective, that still makes it nothing more than an assertion. No matter how certain anyone is of anything, unless they can clearly substantiate what they assert to the satisfaction of those not inclined to believe it, it remains just that - and you'd have to be ignorant or dishonest not to be aware of this.
But naturally this hinges on an idea of "truth" that may not be feasable. In which case we arrive at relativism - which would also require any rational mind to be wary of the relativity of their assiertions, thus not making them "truths" per se.

>One could be right and one can be wrong OR they both could be right, depending on YOUR perspective.
Perhaps I'm too analytical here, but contradictory statements cannot both be right. They can both be justifiable when regarding circumstances (like lack of knowledge) certainly, and they can even both be equally justifiable. But that would only mean that they could both be right, not that they could both be right at the same time. Though I'm not sure that's what you meant.

Overall though, you are sadly correct in that most philosophic discussion is founded on fundamental differences in stances that tend to be ingrained and uncritically accepted. A lot of these base convictions are due to upbringing or personal experience and may even be strongly linked to that person's sense of self. Unfortunately, baggage such as this, even for a relativist, brings major problems with it when it comes to fruitful exchange of any kind, especially philosophical.

A coin has two sides. You look at one side, and you see X; look at the other side, and you see Y. The perspective you see the coin with greatly influences your conception of the object.

If you look at both sides, then you can put the two perspectives together in your mind and now you have an XY which is pretty close to the real thing.

This metaphor can be extended to emotions and ideation as well. Two identical people coming at an idea from different emotional states will understand the idea differently.

Changing your perspective can change your view of reality. I've experienced this personally, and the change can be dramatic.

One day I feel shit, and the whole world appears before me as a great pile of dangerous, confusing, annoying shit.

The next day I feel great, and the whole world appears as a land of endless opportunity and goodness - even the 'bad' things can be seen with a certain goodness to them.

For example, two people are fighting. Good or bad?
Bad view: they might hurt eachother. I don't like seeing people hurt eachother.
Good view: they're releasing anger/pressure. That could be helpful for them both. Maybe they're in fight club and this is all therapeutic whether they're consciously aware of that or not.

One's internal composition matters worlds. A tall staircase, when you're feeling energized, is an eager challenge ready to be climbed, like a kid who loves running and jumping around. But that same staircase, when you're exhausted, may appear an unconquerable, depressing obstacle.