Logical Paradox?

[Fifth_Column_Media]

First, I believe this is my first real thread here, but this seemed like a good community to pose these questions to as you all seem quite open minded. I'm not sure if I'm under the right heading though...

Recently I ran across an interesting article that I was going to syndicate on my online magazine. What the article itself is about is not so important, although I still may syndicate it, but it proposed some interesting thoughts on opinions and how not all opinions are equal briefly, but that was not the focus of the article.

This got me thinking because I have said for quite some time both in the articles I write and in person, that we, as a people, should consider all opinions "valid", and now I wasn't entirely sure what I meant by that anymore. The difficulty comes in with issues of racism, and sexism and prejudice and other "opinions" that actually harm other people. Are these still equal? I mean if I believe its my god given right to kill every other race on the planet, is that opinion any less valid? or not equal to ones of peace?

Here's one conclusion I came to (I'm planning an article for my magazine about this too but I'd like other people's opinions on it first):

Every opinion is valid in that anyone has the right to believe anything they want to believe.

That part I think is really what I mean when I say that every opinion is valid, but then are opinions not equal? Or are they only not equal because of my perspective? By thinking that they are not equal am I judging those individuals and therefore I may be inadvertently disrespecting them?

I think that last question is where I have trouble, mainly because I believe that all human beings deserve the same respect no matter what they're beliefs are.

I'm opening this discussion up to anyone because I'm interested it working this out both for my article and for myself.

Thanks everyone, I hope I shouldn't have posted this under philosophy.

[AndyMartin]

Yeah, but that's just your equally-valid opinion.

Frankly I think it's a philosophical question that doesn't really matter. It doesn't do me any good to get twisted up over somebody's opinion. And proselytizing them to my opinion is not the answer because their opinion comes from their level of conscious development. The only way to elevate their opinion is to help them elevate their consciousness.

How do you do that? Well, that's why the question of validity isn't worth the time. The question of how is hard enough.

But that doesn't mean that it doesn't suck that there are still hurtful opinions in the wild. Hopefully someday the collective will develop beyond that and they will disappear.

[problemsolver]

no i dont think opinions are equal, because ppl are not equal. Some ppl have grown more than others and so have their opinions. I am a different person than I was 20 years ago, and so are my opinions. Unfortunately, there are precious few ppl who realize they don't know it all and that there is room for growth. What can we do about that?

[Future's Origin]

I struggle with this too. It might be easier for me because I rarely seek a belief system that can apply to all situations. I'm not threatened by a paradox or contradiction and I don't think they negate an idea's validity. Allowing everyone freedom of religion and opinion without judgement sounds great in theory. But when you specifically look at certain opinions and cultures, society has to choose between tolerating hate and cultivating freedom and equality. An accepting stance on all belief systems sounds great in theory, but in practice, a line must be drawn to protect people. Opinions are just fine when they stay opinions, but they usually turn into actions. How can a free society deem it valid for someone to restrict another's freedom? How can we promote equality if we tolerate belief systems of inequality? To me, it's not a question of a hateful and peaceful opinion being equal or valid. It is a question of what we as a society are trying to cultivate. If you are trying to cultivate freedom and acceptance, you have to oppose hateful opinions and actions that are contrary to freedom and acceptance. It's a paradox, like many theories are when implemented in society. We live in this paradox because we constantly try to balance personal freedom with the common good.

What do equal and valid mean anyway? Pretty much everything can be considered equal or valid when viewed from the right perspective. Are peaceful and violent opinions equal? Sure they are, they are both opinions. How can their be inequalities in opinions, they are inherently equal in that they serve the same purpose. But are they valid? That really depends on the perspective. It seems you are looking at this from the perspective of what would benefit humanity and move us toward a more free and open society. In that case, the violent hateful opinions of killing every other race are not valid and they are not equal to the peaceful opinions. If you are viewing the matter from the perspective of what should we do to impose our culture on the rest of the world, then the opposite would be true. If you are 100% objective in these matters, everything is equal and valid, but nothing moves toward a greater goal, including yourself.

Incidentally, I disagree that one has a "right" to believe whatever they want to believe. We posess no natural rights at all, none whatsoever. When we form civilizations, we grant ourselves and others these rights. They don't actually exist unless we create and enforce them. Should we create the "right" to hate? Do you really feel that all opinions are equal and valid opinions? What about the opinion that leads to female circumcision or genocide? Are you honestly more concerned with judging and disrespecting these people that you are with stopping such atrocities? How do you individually and society in general benefit from these opinions? How are we harmed? Do people who harm others deserve respect and acceptance just because we want to feel good about ourselves for not being judgemental? It would be nice if we could pass out universal respect to all, but unfortunately that often leads to further abuse.

Now I agree that we should be more respectful and tolerant of other customs and perspective that we do not understand and that radically differ from the "norm." As a society, we definitely need to work on this so that taboo belief systems are granted equal rights, provided no one and our social fabric is not harmed. I want to be tolerant, open, and accepting of other people's viewpoints and cultures, but I have no desire to be tolerant of human rights abuse and hate. If it comes down to that choice, the common good should prevail, not an assumed right to a harmful opinion. It's a question of what kind of freedom is more important. Unfortunately, the right to abuse others is an instrinsic value in some cultures. As much as I feel everyone should have the right to believe what they want and practice these beliefs, I do not think this right should extend to harming other people and spreading hate. I do not think these belief systems should be tolerated, encouraged, accepted, or respected. Some opinions are not valid, they are hateful. They threaten real people because they shape actions. Respecting these beliefs and accepting them with open arms is foolish. You will not be given the same courtesy and society will not benefit from it. The only people that will are those who disrespect and abuse others. It may be equal and valid, but is it good for us, as a people?

[Andy]

I've been trying to figure this out also, being firm on my own opinion but also being able to tolerate other ones. Without judgment, there would be nothing but equality, as a "better" opinion or "worse" opinion wouldn't exist. Everyone judges and for opinions I'd say there needs to be some judgment involved if you wish to have any control over the opinions you hold to make your belief system more congruent with how you want to be. But at the same time judging an opinion is not necessarily the same as judging a person. You can judge someone's opinion as "bad" while still realizing that it doesn't define who they are.

However, I was thinking about this issue some time ago and started to realize that everyone's opinion is actually right given their underlying assumptions. If you had those same underlying assumptions, chances are you'd see the opinion as a right one as well. Change those assumptions, and certain opinions don't seem correct anymore. So saying that someone is wrong is really just saying that their opinion isn't valid under your assumptions, when really the person is stating their opinion given their assumptions, not yours. They themselves are not wrong, they're right, but viewing their opinion from another perspective, which happens whenever one person looks at another person's opinion, it could very well be wrong.

I see the main step as viewing a person's opinion separately from them as a person. Opinions are just a byproduct of the assumptions everyone has about reality, perhaps understanding those better could aid in being more accepting and tolerant of others.

[Fifth_Column_Media]

After reading the responses, I think I should rephrase what I said about validity. It was late when I first started this thread and reading it again, I don't really like how I phrased it, especially after reading some of the responses because some things really rang a bell.

Here's a new definition. Every opinion is valid: This means that I should treat individuals where there opinion is a valid one to have and that just because it differs from mine or I disagree with it strongly, does not mean they are not allow to have that opinion. I should try to do this because it promotes mutual respect, makes me feel better about myself as I feel that I'm giving everyone their fair shake, and it may change my actions so that they are less harmful to others.

That sounds confusing but I'm trying to skirt the issue of rights because I agree with what Future's Origin is saying about rights. I also like what Future's Origin said about respect but it certainly raises a whole new set of questions for me. Here's where I'm going with this: we should strive to respect all individuals regardless of their opinions, character etc, but the goal to be objective is impossible from a subjective viewpoint so we can never really achieve this.

So doesn't that mean the effort is futile? What benefit does this act actually give us? Does it make us feel better about ourselves by thinking we're trying not to judge people?

Maybe, but doesn't judgment typically lead to action (whether good or bad) and by trying to recognize when we're being judgmental might we be able to prevent harmful actions coming from judgment? I mean can you actually separate actions from judgment so that hypothetically I can disagree with racism etc, while still not reacting differently to those people in some way? (by differently I mean subconsciously making a negative judgment about them).

I guess if we look at this from true subjective reality perspective, then really only matters what I think about my actions, and then doing things purely because they make me feel better about myself is all I can do and other people will view it however they want...and...my brain hurts...lol

I think I've just talked myself into another logical paradox. I'm not actually bothered by this because I try to keep my articles for my magazine more grounded, even the philosophical ones. This is because I believe that although philosophy is great, but n the end, if it doesn't drastically change our actions in the world, then its just talk. Therefore if logical paradoxes exist, I can deal with that as it doesn't necessarily effect my actions.

Still, with this idea, I didn't want to talk myself into something that would lead me to obvious contradictions with things I believe/promote and so I appreciate the discussion.

Thanks for the responses everyone, this is quite an interesting topic, I may have to delay my article to hear more of what you all think. It probably doesn't matter what I say as long as I don't promote anything overtly harmful to others and that discussing this isn't really worthwhile, but its still fun to debate and hear other opinions.

Oh and sorry for the somewhat long and rambling post, I hope it's not too confusing.

[ethereal]

This is a very interesting thread, and also something I've been struggling with. Thankfully, Dr. David Hawkins in his books (power vs. force, etc.) clarified a lot of it up for me:

- The human mind inherently cannot tell truth from falsehood. Thus the saying, "If you tell a lie enough times, it will become truth.", and techniques such as affirmations, and how the majority of the populace is so easy to manipulate via advertising, political slogans, etc. This shows that all humans are inherently innocent, they are at the mercy of their ego/programming, and so we shouldn't judge others.
- Every opinion is valid, in the sense that everybody has free will to believe and express what they choose to. We can also make the point that every opinion is invalid, in that they do not describe Reality but only a (perceived) slice of it.
- Truth is subjective. What is true to one person or at one level of consciousness is not true to another person or level of consciousness.
- Truth depends on context, not just content, i.e. you have to take into account the whole situation and not just isolate the issue at hand. The more context you include, the more truthful your answer becomes. When you include All That Is as context (enlightenment), truth finally becomes near absolute.
- For the first time in human history, there is a way to find out truth/life-supporting/positive from falsehood/destructive/negative, using applied kinesiology/muscle testing (see Power vs. Force). There are even levels of degrees of truth, depending on how it affects the entire universe. Thus, now we can find out "objectively" how truthful everything is, including people's opinions. Coincidentally, since God=All That Is=Love, truth is correlated with love and how it helps life in general. Interesting metric for measuring truth, eh? it gave me an "aha" moment when I understood it.

an additional comment of note:
- Oftentimes, it's not the words themselves that provide the level of truth, it's the intent behind it. It seems like there's some energetic/consciousness imprint with every word you write, and readers of that will tap into that imprint and "get" what you're trying to say. This explains how any idea can be communicated between two people at all -- we think it is because of the language, but the words themselves actually communicate very little (i.e. the study that shows body language/voice tonality accounts for 93% of communication in real life, only 7% is verbal). There is some overarching consciousness connecting everyone (cosmic consciousness) that allows for transmission of ideas/understanding.

Happy to discuss this further

[Fifth_Column_Media]

ethereal, that definitely sounds like an interesting book, I might have to check that out. I'm always open to new ideas, even if I don't understand them at first. Thanks for the comments I have a feeling that we could discuss this for days...lol.

[Michael Chui]

Here's my take.

Begin with the assumption of an absolute truth. That truth and falsehood can exist outside of opinion. Therefore, there exists a real distinction between fact and fiction. Begin, also, with the assumption that human beings are on a search for this truth.

An opinion is an interpretation of reality; in other words, it is a potential fact in the viewpoint of some observant. If the interpretation is sufficiently in line with reality, then we would call it fact.

As observers ourselves, we are incapable of distinguishing fact from opinion (this is shown by either Einstein or Godel; take your pick); in other words, the accuracy of an interpretation with respect to reality is necessarily unknown.

Because it is impossible to be sure of the accuracy of any opinion, every opinion should be given equal consideration, because it is possible that it is closer to reality than one's own opinions.

However, a strong aggregate of opinion is considered trustworthy. Thus, because the majority of observers agree in their opinions, they thus consider those opinions to be factual. If you want to go deep, you'll note that this is, by itself, an opinion as well.

Thus, there are methods by which opinions may be considered more quickly and thus discarded faster. Some of such heuristics are the notions of authority, logic, and conviction. For instance, the opinion of an authority will outweigh the opinion of a stranger. A conclusion derived from a logical process outweighs a claim of self-evidence. And an opinion that agrees with one's own opinions is received with less resistance. These are shortcuts, but this doesn't mean they're wrong. On the contrary, they are frequently right, which is why they remain in use.

In short, the validity of an opinion is an opinion itself. Thus, the validity of a viewpoint is subject to the person ascribing a level of validity to it. Therefore, all opinions are as equal as you choose to believe they are.

Including mine.

[ethereal]

Reminds me of Maharaj and the other non-dualists, who said something to the effect of: all knowledge is ignorance, the only thing you know absolutely for sure is your awareness. Everything else changes and cannot be real.

[Megan]

The fact that all perspectives are relative does not mean that no perspective has any advantage at all.

That all perspectives are relative does not prevent some from still being relatively better than others all the time!

Worldcentric is better than ethnocentric is better than egocentric, because each has more depth than its shallower predecessors.

But forgetting that, and focusing merely on the relativity of perspectives, throws you into aperspectival madness, a dizzifying paralysis of will and judgment.

"It's all relative, so there is no better and worse, and no stance is better than another." Overlooking the fact that that stance itself claims to be better than the alternatives--the standard performative contradiction. ...

The aperspectival space of vision-logic simply means that Spirit is looking at the world through infinitely wondrous perspectives; it does not mean it has gone blind in the process.

This is simply a further decentering, a further transcendence, another spiral in the evolution against egocentrism.
--Ken Wilber, A Brief History of Everything, p. 193

IOW, we have advanced to the stage of vision-logic, in Wilber's evolutionary scheme of progressing from egocentric to worldcentric stances, but have veered off into aperspectival madness--the (self-contradictory) postmodern allergy to assigning relative values to perspectives.

OTOH, I also have an allergy to assigning absolute value to perspectives, a la David Hawkins--big red flags come up around that fellow for me.

Like Wilber, Hawkins gets some things right, IMO, but let's not create another Fundamentalist religion around Hawkins or Wilber, shall we?

Aperspectivals Anonymous

[theknightwhosaysni-NI]

Originally Posted by Fifth_Column_Media

I think that last question is where I have trouble, mainly because I believe that all human beings deserve the same respect no matter what they're beliefs are..

Well, from your point of view (or the point of view of any individual) people have no belief actually. They just have the beliefs that you think they have. When you say "people have some beliefs", it is just a guess of what you think they believe.
I am tempted to say all of their belief are in your mind, but I'd rather say they are all in your consciousness.

Read Steve's last post it is all about that.

[Fifth_Column_Media]

theknightwhosaysni-NI, you have a point there. The only beliefs people have are what I think they have, I can never really know anyone else's beliefs... I guess that means that the only reason I do respect them is for myself... This is also one of the issues I have with subjective reality. Doesn't this make all of my actions and experiences self orientated and even when I think I'm doing something for someone else, I'm actually doing it for myself?

It's not that this is a problem, its just an unsettling thought for me (I'm not sure why) and one I may have to work to accept without having it change my actions.

Michael Chui, I like everything you've stated as that theory does seem to make sense, but I'm slightly hounded by the idea of accepting an absolute truth. Mainly because if we can never really reach it, does it actually exist? It's that old "if a tree falls...etc" question. Wouldn't it be futile to look for truth that we cannot actually find? Then again without that, your theory doesn't seem to work as logically so I guess thats one of those things we have to take on faith. It really does seem like a logical paradox though to assume that there is an absolute that we can never reach. Isn't that one of the problems with objective reality theory? That there is a set reality that we interpret that we can never actually see the true nature of?

I don't know, either way, I like your theory as if I take those first assumptions on faith, it does make a lot of sense. The real question is does making these assumptions change my actions in everyday life? I don't know.

As for everyone else's responses, we've gotten very deep...lol, and it can be hard to read on the internet, but still very interesting. I'm going to have to reread some comments to make sure I'm not misinterpreting. Still, I appreciate the discussion. This is quite an interesting forum, I'm going to have to post some of my other ideas here as well and get everyone's opinion.

[Michael Chui]

Simply because we cannot see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or doesn't matter. Imagine you're in a supermarket shopping for a particular item. The item has been mistakenly placed behind something else. You walk the aisles, searching and searching, but you never find it. Does it exist? Yes. Does it matter? Yes. Did you find it? No. Could you have?

If you change your frame of reference. (Perhaps I'll look behind the other items, even though I wouldn't expect to see it there. Perhaps it's in another store. Perhaps that's not what I should be looking for.)

Isn't life futile? You will die someday. Isn't it futile to try to preserve the planet, when one day we expect the Sun to grow so large as to dry it out and suck us in? Isn't it futile to dream of exploring the stars when we expect the universe to settle into an eventual heat death? Yet we keep living, dreaming, exploring, expanding.

Any assumption made changes your everyday actions. The question, perhaps more importantly, is whether or not you notice this change.

The existence of an absolute truth is an assumption I make. I feel that it is a necessary assumption, because so much hinges upon it, but it is an assumption nonetheless, not a conclusion. It is not logical.

Logic is an apparatus by which, if you pour truth in, you get truth out. But you must have truth, first; this is known as an assumption, or a self-evident proposition. A given.

[Fifth_Column_Media]

Michael Chui, thats an interesting example, I'm not disagreeing, I wasn't really disagreeing originally, but I do see a few small questions about your argument.

First, it actually IS possible to find the items in the super market situation. What I mean is that we can never be objective and see the actual truth, (at least while we're alive)..or can we? There's one issue, if we can never actually prove something exists by finding it...does it even matter if it exists or not?

Second, is about perspective. If I go to that supermarket and say I don't believe that certain items exist, will I find them? The example I'm thinking of is when someone goes shopping with the knowledge that they'll never find what they're looking for and then magically they don't. This goes back to the idea of subjective reality. If I don't believe something exists, for me and from my perspective does it exist? even if I don't believe in it?

You can apply the same thing to notions of change, if my assumptions change my actions but I don't notice the change because its too small to notice etc, than from my perspective, didn't I not change? And then we go back to the idea of trees falling in the forest again.

Either way, its an interesting debate, and like I said, I'm not disagreeing with you, I hope it didn't come off that way. I think looking at all the different view points like this is important and interesting.

Most of these questions we ask cannot be answered because they depend so much on perspective. I guess it does come down to whatever we think.

Some days these things way on me more than others. Today is I guess a light hearted day as a lot of the philosophical quandaries I was pondering the other day don't seem to have as much weight.

Makes for a heck of a debate though, lol. I appreciate everyone's feedback as its fun to have an intellectual discussion like this.

[Megan]

By Michael, Today 03:55 PM

The existence of an absolute truth is an assumption I make. I feel that it is a necessary assumption, because so much hinges upon it, but it is an assumption nonetheless, not a conclusion. It is not logical.

Yes, I think this is a necessary assumption in order to be able to think well.

Else we end up in the postmodern swamp.

[Fifth_Column_Media]

I just realized I may have restated basically what I was saying previously with new examples. lol. Sorry for that, if it seems like a rehash.

Apparently I had nothing new to say today, lol.

[Fifth_Column_Media]

One last thing before I go. I think you can disregard my first example in my last lengthy reply. After thinking some more, thats really a question of faith, I believe it would be called and so I don't really think its relevant now that I'm looking back at it. eh...maybe, maybe not, I guess thats debatable too.

Still I figure I should say something as I figured that the first response back would have to do with religion and God and so I felt it was important to acknowledge the issue of faith first.

Sorry for the multiple posts today, not only do I have nothing new to say, but apparently I also cannot organize my thoughts very well.

Thanks

[mtrimpe]

Every opinion has a different set of effects.

The different effects may be more or less in line with the desires we aspire to realize.

Therefore all opinions are equally valid, but not equally effective in realizing our desires.

[Megan]

I think we're in the postmodern swamp.