Can opinions not being different but still existing be right?
If you’re asking if it is NATURAL to have different opinions, yes, it is.
We all think and see things in different ways.
Different perspectives put more light on what is true…real.
I’m not sure what you mean here unless you are asking if two people can share the same opinion and that opinion be correct. I may be wrong in what you mean.
As long as one’s opinion is based in reality and found to be fact - it’s right no matter who shares it.
If’ it’s only a belief, it may or may not be right.
lol I may be totally misunderstanding what you’re saying here.
I welcome your rationale. I mean causality and opinions. If it’s right that two people have different opinions of nations (one supports and the other opposes their existence), is the potential violence and war that takes place also right? Violence and war are in essence the result of differing opinions (or differing world views), therefore it can’t be right that war is wrong yet differing opinions are right when the two are linked.
Life is a road they say…
So I live in California and the major freeway between
Southern California and northern California is highway 5.
Now above Fresno is the central valley and that is flat, flat
and more flat. it is about the most boring freeway I’ve
have ever driven on…Below Fresno is the Grapevine
(and why they call it that, I have no frigging idea)
anyway, the Grapevine goes up a massive hill and
goes up and down in hill country for 40 miles.
The highest point on the Grapevine is 4000 feet
(there is sign telling you so)
So if I am driving on the grapevine and
I say, my opinion, is that Highway 5 is hilly.
You are driving somewhere between Fresno and
Redding California and you say, Hell no,
Highway 5 is the flattest, most boring freeway
on planet earth, and who would be right?
They would both be right depending on
where in the journey they are…
It depends on where on the journey
you are, whether one is right or wrong…
I have heard people say the moon is made of cheese…
and I have heard astronauts say, the moon is made of rocks.
So whose opinion is right? Actually, both are and it
depends on where they are on the journey.
I would trust the astronaut more because they
have been there.
There are many who say GOD exists and
the proof is evident if you only look.
Well, I have looked for over 40 years and I don’t see
god anywhere. But you might say, just look and I say
I did… Ok, so who is right?
We both are, which leaves us…?
It depends where on the journey you are.
Every single person I have met who
claims god exist and they believe in god,
also reached god in the lowest period of their life,
reached god, not from strength but from weakness,
every single person I have ever met who believes in god,
and I have in 57 years met a whole lot of people,
have reached god from their lowest point, not their highest point.
So in my journey of 57 years, I have yet to see any proof of any
kind for god and so my opinion is no god and I am just as right
as any who say, there is a god…The difference is, you have
no evidence for your opinion, I have no evidence for a god
thus meet the main criteria for being an atheist, I have
no evidence…That is all that is necessary to be an atheist,
which is my opinion…and your opinion may be different.
I say, good luck with that, but hay, it ain’t my life, its yours.
So my opinion is different than yours because we are on different
places on the road.
Kropotkin
Is it possible that opinions don’t exist?
K: if that is your opinion, sure why not…
Kropotkin
Is it possible that opinions don’t exist?
[/quote]
K: if that is your opinion, sure why not…
Kropotkin
[/quote]
I believe in the principle of reflection. If something is a duplicate, it should be known as a duplicate. If no opinion is unique, is it fair that people across the world suffer because of the belief that opinions are unique?
What if “war is wrong” is also an opinion?
Then the causes of war (the causes of wrong) also need to be addressed. In practice though I think this can only be solved by the UN stating to the whole world that any homo sapien is identical to the universe, or any city in the world.
I think you’d have to specify the context of “identical”, because as it stands under the normal usage it’s patently false.
Opinions of rights and wrongs are relatively a new phenomenon, since prior to the abolition of slavery, they mattered and were the right of the upper literate class.the printing press changed all that, and rights became literally a common right.
This right is not spelled out , for instance in the Bill of Rights, and the right to publish heretofore was qualified in milestone cases; for instance in Lady Chatterly’s Lover, and Ulysses. Rights were pretty much prevy to legislative and judicial fiat, and in these cases, the rights were pretty much discretionary. All the rights to opinion were before these,verboten and although one may go around with opinions countering what was right and permitted, one put ones’ self in pityful and disreputable situations, alienating himself from the societal mainstream,often with sorry consequences.
Today, opinions exist in a non normative free for all, Trump is a good example of a man running for the highest office, with not a care in the world , whether his so called opinions have any normative base.
However, at the same time, opinions have tarnished in various
and flattened the wffect
Sorry-continued - the effect of these opinions generate, because opinions have become at times mere politically motivated add ons for gains in popularity, a strain of cynicism have accompanied opinions , perceived as other then truthful pronouncements.
The fact that these opinions have also gathered legitimacy shows the concurrent value of shared value as to them, resulting in the question of whether opinion are useful at all, in the scheme of daily life.
Even if it’s false people hearing they’re the universe is still a means to ending war, nations and contradiction: a goal which no political ideology is able to achieve.
There’s another way of looking at this shellytroken. If people become convinced that they are the universe,what do you think might happen with their egos?
Your statement resembles New Age philosophy and it’s a beautiful concept but I don’t personally think that we are there yet or will be there for a long long time though yes many humans are there.
The only thing I intuit which might make us all come together is if there was to be an invasion of the Earth by another species in a far far away galaxy. lol I’m kidding but there just may be some truth to that. Perhaps it is only if we have to fight another galaxy/world that the people of Earth would unite/come together/feel inter-connected enough to fight together. But what do you think would happen weeks or months later - back to normal it would all go. We tend to have short memories.
There’s another way of looking at this shellytroken. If people become convinced that they are the universe,what do you think might happen with their egos?
Your statement resembles New Age philosophy and it’s a beautiful concept but I don’t personally think that we are there yet or will be there for a long long time though yes many humans are there.
The only thing I intuit which might make us all come together is if there was to be an invasion of the Earth by another species in a far far away galaxy. lol I’m kidding but there just may be some truth to that. Perhaps it is only if we have to fight another galaxy/world that the people of Earth would unite/come together/feel inter-connected enough to fight together. But what do you think would happen weeks or months later - back to normal it would all go. We tend to have short memories.
[/quote]
I understand your points. However, relative to actual history I don’t think people would suffer from ego inflation: the “fact” of being told they’re the universe would mean the fact of reflection. Person G knowing they’re the universe might in theory mean ego inflation, but in practice there’d be the knowledge of person G that person Y knows the same, and so there’d be the kind of social dynamic similar to the dynamic that defined the historical conflict between the US and Russia: “mutually assured destruction”.
The key would be awareness of mutual awareness!
I hope you understand that it sounds a little far-fetched. Do you have any evidence for this?
Neither CNN or BBC ever raise the topic of whether all nations should end. Logic dictates why this is so, yet intelligence is also either network raising the topic - logic simultaneously tells me that the world being addressed in such a way would be game-changing, yet to not expect its happening.
That’s not evidence, or a reason to agree with you. If logic tells you something, then it should be accessible to others, don’t you think?
It’s just natural difference - I don’t expect others to agree with me (in my mind I’ve presented evidence). At the very least though I think that the reality of all people being different should be stated - nations and culture require the fallacy of no difference as much as anything else.
Then why are you here? This is a forum, for discussing with other people.