Hey, to anyone who’s reading this. I came across a question the other day, which i myself am not quite sure how to answer, so i was wondering if you’d help me out 
So here it is: Should a person’s personal point of view be considered an asset in the puruit of knowledge or an obstacle to overcome?
I will appreciate any responses, and just let your minds flow, length of replies is not a problem for me! thanks!
It really depends on whether a prejudice, or an emotional reaction to something is what you are overcoming. Any reaction to input which you consider as not being the desired reaction is probably not a ‘point of view’, but as described, a hunch.
Knoweldge of such emotional reactions can be seen as useful if they help in understanding other people’s reactions to events, but when that knoweldge becomes engrained as part of your own set of reactions, reactions which may be irrational or undesirable, then they are no longer useful, but a burden.
A person’s point of view, ideally, should be an asset in pursuit of factual knowledge or pursuit of a higher truth. When engaging with the ideas of the opposing view, by sharing what you think, you can actually find what is right in your point of view and what is wrong, and the what is right in the opposing point of view and what is right. By finding areas of agreement, and areas of disagreement, you can actually both not only come to a higher truth, a synthesis of two opposing points of view, but you can also often end up agreeing where you previously disagreed.
I hope that helps. Those themes are really the reason why this website exists. Let us know what you think, seeker.
Sorry to give a grey answer, but I don’t think it’s black and white.
I could see this thread developing into something more suitable for the PolEcon forum.
Hi, seeker.
Perhaps it’s not ones personal points of view that are an asset or an obstacle in the pursuit of knowledge but ones relationship to ones own opinion that matters. For example a man who believes the Earth is flat but also believes that this knowledge is not important to him is perhaps closer to true knowledge than a man who knows the Earth is round and considers this information vital.
Very good point.
Seeker stated:
Depends on how you interpret your words. For instance, I believe that the only thing anyone has is their personal point of view on things. You cannot go outside of that, which puts a slight damper on objectivity. If you see red as black, the only way you will say its black is if society convinces you that the color you are seeing is actually black. But this won’t stop your eyes and brain from interpreting what you see as black, you will still see black, you will only say and imagine you see red. We can’t be certain of any truth in anything except for ourselves. You never know when one is lying or being lied to. Elaborate schemes can be made up to make you think your are 100% sure of what you SEE, or HEAR, or FEEL, when it is not so. The senses are easily fooled as many psychologists and philosophers have found long ago.
In my opinion ones point of view is an asset to the pursuit of knowledge. I do think but am not certain that there is a relevance between the outside world and our personal truth. Which would bring one to think that there is something more to a person than their personal view. I would disagree. Some others might argue that there exists nothing but yourself (solipsism) and everything you experience is really just a figment of your imagination, as much as people hate this view - I believe it to pose quite the challenge for even professional or veteran philosophers in the context of disproving it.
What’s your take?