17 ms·

In my book anyone is allowed to have any number of perspectives on any number of things and I consider those perspectives valid as human perspectives. Where I c

In my book anyone is allowed to have any number of perspectives on any number of things and I consider those perspectives valid as human perspectives. Where I consider these perspectives ‘misguided’ or ‘arrogant’ is when the purveyor of these perspectives state their perspectives as fact like the op did in this sub thread. I think having a constructive conversation around a set of varying perspectives is to entertain your own perspective as a possibility (as you might others) without necessarily believing it. This way your perspective is just as valid as everyone else’s and is only held as an opinion after. Why try to advertise ones perspective as anything but a limited cache of experience prone to invalidation based on new information? Please, share the perspectives, have them, nurture them and then tear them down when more accurate information arrives; but don’t disingenuously push them as fact by stating them as unappealable facts.

bilbo0s 8y ago
I guess I just don't get too hung up about what people believe. For instance, if Southerners want to believe the Civil War was about state's rights and preventing Northerners from coming south to turn the family farms into factories, they should be free to have that perspective. (From my perspective it's asinine, but I mean whatever. I'm sure they believe my perspective on slavery to be asinine.) Point is, they aren't obligated to discuss their perspective, or entertain other perspectives if they don't wish to do so. That's what the freedom of thought is about, none of us are obliged to listen to any other of us as a matter of course. If you want to discuss your perspectives on life with other people that's fine. (Actually I think it's admirable even.) There just shouldn't be the expectation that anyone else has to sit down and discuss their perspectives on life with you. Other than that though, I think we're in agreement. Different people can have different perspectives that become subjective realities, but are usually not even close to being objective realities. People have the freedom to discuss, or ignore, other perspectives at their sole discretion. Thereby fulfilling the promise, and conveying to us the benefits, of freedom of thought.

bilbo0s 8y ago

I guess I just don't get too hung up about what people believe. For instance, if Southerners want to believe the Civil War was about state's rights and preventing Northerners from coming south to turn the family farms into factories, they should be free to have that perspective. (From my perspective it's asinine, but I mean whatever. I'm sure they believe my perspective on slavery to be asinine.) Point is, they aren't obligated to discuss their perspective, or entertain other perspectives if they don't wish to do so. That's what the freedom of thought is about, none of us are obliged to listen to any other of us as a matter of course. If you want to discuss your perspectives on life with other people that's fine. (Actually I think it's admirable even.) There just shouldn't be the expectation that anyone else has to sit down and discuss their perspectives on life with you. Other than that though, I think we're in agreement. Different people can have different perspectives that become subjective realities, but are usually not even close to being objective realities. People have the freedom to discuss, or ignore, other perspectives at their sole discretion. Thereby fulfilling the promise, and conveying to us the benefits, of freedom of thought.