How Important Is It To Be Right (Or Even Wrong)?
I raise the question of how important it is to be right in relation to the whole personal, emotional relationship which we have with the ideas which we have. On the social level, we argue our points of view in argument, often trying to defend a position. Lack of ability to defend a position can involve loss of credibility to formulate an argument, or could point to a weakness in the underlying viewpoint itself.
Having put forward an argument, a person may have this subject to scrutiny and criticism. Depending on the strength of the opposition argument a person can adhere to the original position or rethink. This applies to all arguments about ideas, including the philosophy ones, as well as those about religion or politics.
I would say that probably some of our ideas matter to us more than others, because they are bound up with the way we see truth. However, the whole question of the emotional relationship with our personal systems of belief was one which I was thinking about as I lay awake, unable to sleep last night, so I thought I might as well offer it as another one for people to think about.
Having put forward an argument, a person may have this subject to scrutiny and criticism. Depending on the strength of the opposition argument a person can adhere to the original position or rethink. This applies to all arguments about ideas, including the philosophy ones, as well as those about religion or politics.
I would say that probably some of our ideas matter to us more than others, because they are bound up with the way we see truth. However, the whole question of the emotional relationship with our personal systems of belief was one which I was thinking about as I lay awake, unable to sleep last night, so I thought I might as well offer it as another one for people to think about.
Comments (130)
If they do, perhaps you're courting the wrong ideals? Then again. People can be crazy. Not every mainstream idea turned out to be right or idealistic.
Quoting Jack Cummins
What's honesty, adamance, or even life itself without passion really? Passion is not logic, it can be misguided, even detrimental to the ideals or truths you subscribe to or goals and purposes you wish to fulfill. If a belief is passed down or otherwise ingrained from upbringing, you'd be surprised how many men would rather be wrong, injured, or killed (even metaphorically) then allow the same to happen to a member of their family. It's a sense of honor we all have. Of course, like mentioned, not all beliefs or courses of action are wise.
I don’t think the emotional relationship is correlated with how correct or incorrect your position is. It seems to be its own variable. One that I have found no good reason for increasing. Only thing you get by becoming attached to your ideas is distress when argued against, and I can’t see any advantages that come with it. Maybe some sort of “peace of mind” born out of an irrational confidence in your beliefs but is that really a positive?
It is interesting that you both seem to be coming from opposite angles. Outlander says , 'What's honesty, adamance, or even life itself without passion really?' In contrast, Khaled says, 'I don't think the emotional relationship is correlated with how correct or incorrect your position is.' They are opposing positions on how we think about the arguments we form. I am not sure that it is possible to develop ideas without a mixture of emotion and reasoning. However, I think that it is worth reflecting on how these two elements come into play when we think that we are right and others are wrong.
I am certainly not implying that many of the questions we ask have actual right or wrong answers, but sometimes it is easy to think that they do.
I am not sure what you might mean by an emotional relationship with your own thinking, but I believe the key with any thinking is to let it come and let it go each moment realizing the impermanence of all things knowable.
Then you don't have the time to emotionally attach to the deceased.
I agree with your emphasis on 'the impermanence of things knowable'. I think I would be in line with this perspective on many of the big areas of philosophy.
What I do notice though, in the replies have so far is that they all address the problem I arose with the word "you". I was trying to raise a problem which I believe is central to philosophy and all thinkers , not just a personal one.
I have been wondering this afternoon, if perhaps my question is completely ridiculous. It could be that lockdown is sending me crazy in even asking about how important it is to question being right, or even wrong. Perhaps I am overthinking, or have I raised a question which is uncomfortable to even think about?
What question isn't ridiculous? The nature of thinking in and of itself is pretty absurd in that reality stares us right in the face yet we refuse to accept it, instead substituting our own version so as to satisfy previous misconceptions.
If this era will be known for anything, over-thinking it will probably be right at the top. Thinking is a tool, but one that only helps point the way. Understanding the limits of the human intellect is much more important then the moment to moment transient nature of what we can know.
And the lockdown is a grotesque experiment in human manipulation (IMO).
Yeah if you ever find a cure for philosophy please let me know.
The cure for philosophy is acceptance (via seeing things as clearly as is possible). As a matter of fact, it's the cure for pretty much everything.
Imagine the energy and time saved by not always fighting against (every damn thing).
Do you mean that some of our ideas may be more important because they construct our worldview and our identity within that framework, or something like that? Otherwise maybe you’re talking about how much we value truth?
Quoting synthesis
Experiments in human manipulation are going on all around us, but I’m curious what you mean with the lockdown.
I believe that when the costs of the lock-downs are fully revealed, it will be seen a policy miscalculation without precedent. Vulnerable populations should have been advised to be extremely careful, but everybody else should have gone about their business.
This was a massive over-reach of government power designed to initially aid the hospital system but turned into a catastrophe as many politicians went for the power-grab thinking they knew better than the collective wisdom of society.
I guess that I am seeing how our ideas are so important to us subjectively. I am also wondering about how any person becomes defensive in protecting their own viewpoints. I have found one writer who questions the whole nature of criticism of one's viewpoint. Chuck Chakrapani, (2016) in 'The Good Life Handbook: Epictetus' Stoic Classic Enchirdion, says:
'When someone criticises you, they do so because they believe they are right. They can only go by their views, not yours. If their views are wrong, it is they who suffer the consequences.'
I throw the quote for reflection, although still uncertain if the question I have seen will be taken seriously by most members of the forum.
Personally, I am doing all I can to follow restrictions, but it is almost a year of being not allowed to do most of the things I have done through my life. There is also no foreseeable end in sight, so I am spending time contemplating and writing philosophy questions I probably would not have otherwise considered fully at all. I have no idea if other people on this forum are coming from this perspective or not.
I believe argument is valuable for its own sake, that one should subject his opinions to the grindstone of debate in order to form a better understanding of the world. But such a practice is a problem for those who have their identity all bound up with their ideas, so much so that an attack on an idea becomes an assault on the people who value it.
Personally, I believe a reconfiguration of the notion of self is a necessary step to disentangling identity from ideology. Being able to remove pride and self-esteem from the marketplace of ideas seems crucial if one wants to remain in it without fear and stress.
The purpose of fear and stress is to avoid folly.
Quoting NOS4A2
Even if that were easily possible our values are not so easily reconfigured.
Yes, I understand your general take but you mention miscalculation and my interest is your previous claim of manipulation.
I would agree that being able to 'remove pride and self esteem from the market place of ideas' is central, although I am not sure that everyone is yet able to achieve this at the current time. Perhaps it an aspiration for us to aim towards, in a climate and spirit of free thinking.
I think it is only a matter of time before one fallen belief leads to a collapse of those that depend on it.
If you totally remove ego from the picture, being wrong is actually much better because when you realize you're wrong that brings you closer to the truth. It can also lead you to being more open minded in other areas. Being right is better for your ego, but you're not really learning anything; you've basically just taken time out of your day to convince someone else that your right and whatever implications come along with that.
In many situations, I am prepared to admit that I am wrong, or uncertain. Does this mean that I am cast into the scrap heap, while those who claim their essential rightness reign, ranked as the true philosophers?
I am glad that I am not alone.
Why would being wrong mean that you're cast into the scrap heap? Who makes that decision? Are serious thinkers not allowed to be wrong?
That is a good question. I probably have fairly low self esteem and many who are considered wrong by many insist that they are right. Philosophy may even be a war of egos, fighting for their right for dominion in the claim of the grasp of truth
Would it be government if there was not a generous helping of each of these?
If you have a theory about how lockdowns are somehow being used as a method of manipulation I’m interested in hearing it.
I've participated in these discussion groups for decades and it never fails to amaze me how attached people are to their own thinking (when deep down inside they know they have no clue).
I have always suggested that we little we can know happens before our intellect kicks-in to "personalize" reality. Once the thinking begins, all hell breaks lose in our minds and we start spouting off all kinds of non-sense.
I guess that I would just wish that we could go beyond this, but people tell me that I am an idealist. I am not wishing to deny the importance role of egoism as expressed by @Gus Lamarch, but I do believe in awareness of the whole way in which we construct the whole pursuit of philosophy. Perhaps it should be seen as an art rather than a sport. In saying this, I am implying that it is about creating vision rather than about a game of winning.
First off, we'll know a lot more about what went down five years hence but everything the government does (or any other institution, for that matter) is to effect some sort of policy. The decision to essentially shut down an entire country is so draconian that nobody would have thought it possible a year ago.
2020 was a complete shit-show for all kinds of reasons (mostly because of political polarization). The lock-down caused massive disruption in all things health and economy related. Tens of millions of people were adversely affected while (as is always the case) the elite prospered. This just doesn't happen by chance.
Things are the way they are because that's the way they are designed. I am not saying the pandemic was any kind of plot, but the reaction to it could have been handled MUCH differently. The handling of the economy could have been MUCH different. Again, there are tens of millions of lives that need to be put back together. There are unbelievable numbers of people with mental and emotional issues and the financial toll has been incalculable.
Funny thing is that nobody in the government lost anything. Most corporations seemed to have weathered the storm OK. The FED threw trillions into the stock market for those that have a presence.
There's a reason why the very few have almost everything. Call it manipulation or whatever you like, the reality is that there is massive corruption in this system and has been for decades.
Your view is very interesting.
The ego is not our friend, instead, it is a taskmaster of unmatched intensity, a force that refuses to give up until we figure out that it is our own self that we constantly fight while projecting such battles on some innocent who happens to be in the line of fire.
Accepting reality (even our perception-altered reality) is a hell of a lot better than trying to play God.
I definitely agree that there is so much projection going on, and people pretending to have the answers to so many political, religious and philosophical questions.
It is a false assumption to refer to the response in the singular. As we all know the previous administration didn't take the lead (I am stipulating that tweeting is not leadership) so things were left to the states. The states handled things very differently from one another. Where I live, we have the 4th lowest infection rate, so the medical part has gone way, way better than average. OTOH, perhaps businesses have done worse than average, though I have seen no data to support this notion.
State and local governments (who rely on income and sales taxes) have taken huge hits, so any idea to the contrary is just wrong.
As to corporations, the airlines, travel/hospitality industries and any brick and mortar retail is either dead or dying.
But we are human (first and foremost) and find it nearly impossible to resist seeking affirmation for our creative ego-driven realities. Everybody's out there saying, "Believe me, because I am right!"
What's the chance that anybody else out there with completely different experiences is going to believe that you are anything but delusional (at best). They simply can't believe that everybody doesn't think as they do.
And then there are the truly evil people in this world who exploit all of this for fun and profit.
We humans have a long, long way to go...
You are absolutely correct, but in general, and for this conversation, the overall winners are governments and corporations, the losers, small business and individuals (just like its been for the past 50 years).
Of course, but we should acknowledge that no one had or has sufficient control for the situation to be handled ideally, or perhaps even halfway well. With total global cooperation the virus could theoretically be eliminated within a month, but that’s a fantasy. If the pandemic were ignored in the interests of avoiding an economic downturn, that too is a fantasy. Many would refuse to work, shop, recreate, etc. in hazardous situations, or would be unable to do so.
Quoting synthesis
I don’t know what you mean by that. It could be argued that Trump lost the election because of the pandemic, for instance.
There are industries that did well during the pandemic, sure.
Absolutely, and I am a listener, so I will probably not survive long in the stampede of egos, asserting that they are right. But, I don't just want to end up as a squashed fly. I want to soar to the unknown, unchartered skies to see all the new panoramic perspectives and angles.
.
As always, your only option is the play the hand you are dealt. The system is very broken for a number of reasons we are all familiar with, so not being able to put partisan politics aside caused many difficulties. From shutting things down to money allocations to the response to the BLM/ANTIFA protests and rioting, there was a dramatic lack of leadership.
If you look at other crises this country has faced over the years, generally speaking, people did the right thing (and even people came together for a bit after 9.11).
Quoting praxis
Nobody in government lost their jobs. They all got paid on-time, every week.
And probably Trump did lose the election because of the pandemic. Politicizing this kind of disaster was truly despicable. The lust for power simply knows no bounds.
I think your in the right place. :)
Enjoyed the conversation, Jack. Good luck and look forward to chatting again soon.
This is not a problem in egoism. Jack, what you - and everyone else that can't be "I" - don't understand is that egoism, if transformed into virtue, and equivalent, in purpose, the individual human ability to reach the heavens is limitless, but only if we embrace with true feeling to ourselves; our own essence; our own; the ego.
Quoting synthesis
The example given here by Synthesis, blatantly reveals what I call the "Negative-Egoist" - those who do not accept their most intrinsic principles and values in their individuals because they do not want to categorize themselves as egoists - the same ones that instead of transforming themselves in their own motivations and goals, decide, out of resentment, to infer their bitterness - unconscious as well as consciously - on others - -. Lamenting it or not, with God or without, nothing changes the practical truth that the overwhelming majority of all humanity was, and remains being beings consumed by the most dread and evil blight of all:
- Resent that you'll all be redeemed!
Quoting synthesis
This, the Christians called Satan, the Atheists, Nihil, and God, Humanity.
I think that most people are not aware of the role that ego plays in arguing views. I would say that this awareness alongside a mixture of certainty and certainty about areas of belief is important, in order to be free to rise into the skies.
What makes "belief" if not your faith?
Quoting Jack Cummins
What makes "certainty" if not your certitude?
Quoting Jack Cummins
Who in the end will be free to rise in the skies? Certainty? Belief? Concepts? or Yourself?
I suppose it is faith, but I probably don't use the term very often due to religious connotations. I would guess that I want my ideas and myself to fly in some way or another. But, I want to be able to distinguish the two, as if I am leaping from an aeroplane by parachute.
If you're suggesting that those ultimately pulling the strings benefit from a divided nation I tend to agree.
Quoting Jack Cummins
There's a great book about psychedelics by Michael Pollan that I read a couple of years ago. Without going into the specifics, generally speaking psychedelics temporarily suppress the ego. Funny thing is that the experience of egolessness often seems to have the effect of inflating egos in the long run. Apparently it can give a sense of superiority. Spiritual/religious egolessness can be even worse because it tends to devalue reason.
Hey Gus, can you titrate that down to a short sentence of two so I can understand what you are trying to say?
We are storytellers who tell stories that could only have been told by us. Imperfect stories that don't capture the full truth and can't. If we were only ever honest, unimpeded by our egos, the conflict caused by our contradicting narratives would not disappear. There's no greater truth to look for together, no "perfect" story. We can help each other improve the stories we tell, that's it.
"Those who know they are egoist, however, do not accept their nature, eventually destroy the worlds of those who know and accept what they trully are" - This is the story of humanity.
I agree with your assessment of corporations. Governments in the US have taken a huge hit since the Reagan tax cuts of the 80's, so you are wrong there in the long term. I will agree that the governments have done much better than small businesses and lower wage workers during the pandemic that had to shut down completely, but being a smaller loser is not being a winner. You are correct that the elite who didn't have to shut down were essentially neutral, like it didn't happen. Though they have been big winners since the 1980s.
Seems rather cynical to argue that that’s the only motivation behind not being dogmatic with your views.....
Quoting synthesis
I’ve always thought this line of thinking to be exaggerated. Do you not think there are any eternal truths? Is there absolutely nothing which we have gotten right?
At what point can you be sure you got it right and are not just making a mistake?
I was interested in the point you make about stories because I enjoy fiction writing. That is based on the perspective of the narrator, even if it is from the third person omniscient narrator. It is a limited view, with bias. Perhaps, philosophy should be seen as a form of storytelling. I would be happy to see it that way, with competing pictures of truth, but I am not sure that everyone else would be willing to see their views in such a way. Generally, I think that we should not see our own ideas and opinions too concretely. They capture our perception at a given moment, and hopefully are not static, but evolving stories.
Whether people do or do not see it that way is just another part of the story they're telling, about themselves and their lives. A fiction book is a fine example, it only describes the things of interest to the author, with the goal of giving only certain information. Emphasising, characterising and narrativising in a way that depicts even this fictional world in a way which could only have ever been done by the author, with their specific intent, feelings and ideas.
If we are both given a long set of facts about a fictional world, of which we must tell a story, our stories will likely not look remotely the same. We will interpret things differently and construct an entirely different narrative, the reader may get a totally different impression of the world we were asked to describe by reading your book or mine. I can say that your book got it wrong, maybe that makes you feel like your perspective is being tossed aside. There is a problem because in reality, when we are describing important issues, I do not necessarily want others to interpret them differently, take this discussion about covid 19 for example. The stakes are high, people want others to understand a specific point and we can't necessarily accept it when others don't agree.
There are many circumstances where we can't just agree to disagree, to see the differences in our perspectives as the harmless consequence of differences between us, which can never be completely reduced. This conflict can never be resolved, only mediated, with maturity and understanding, that our stories can only ever be different, mirroring the differences that exist between people, their experiences and all the things that helped create the narrative.
I definitely think that all our ideas should be seen as interpretation and not as concrete truths. In particular, the whole emphasis is science is of models. We could say that all thought can be seen as forming models and the models themselves must never be taken as an actual reality.
A simple example of this is news coverage. On a daily basis we watch the television for the latest headlines to try to be aware of what is going on in the world. However, the whole sociological understanding of news has shown how this coverage is biased, usually in the slant of those in power.
Your point that, 'There are many circumstances where we cannot agree just to disagree' has a lot of bearing on many discussions, especially in politics and religion. Sometimes, people try to convince others of their opinions, with such determination to change the views of the opposition. I particularly recall how evangelical Christian students were often in a mission to spread the word to the 'heathen' ones and I did not see many 'conversions' happening in this way.
One aspect which I often notice in philosophy is that people often see the whole process of discussion to be about etching out difference and focus on this. I am not saying that I am not in favour of clarifying difference and distinction because it is part of seeing detail and about being analytical. However, in my own approach, I also like to be aware of common ground of thinking as well because I think that this is a very useful too, rather just seeing discussion as a battle.
People who don't fight for what they believe is right go crazy.
I am certainly not trying to suggest that people should not be saying what they think and fighting for what they believe. I think that expression of emotions and thoughts is a central aspect of human life. I am just saying that sometimes people get locked into certain positions of thought and this can be detrimental to oneself as much as others.
Not being locked into a certain position can also be detrimental to oneself and to others.
Like they say, "If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything."
I am not trying to suggest the idea of becoming a philosophical jellyfish. One thing which I think is true is that to counter any position, it is not just about focusing on the weaknesses of the opposing one. I would say that the quality argument sees the strengths in the other side and works towards refuting these strengths.
Obviously, we are in the process of trying to find our place within the corridors of thought but I would prefer the wider areas rather than be backed into a little narrow cupboard.
Quoting Jack Cummins
"Would" isn't going to get you to those wider areas.
Thanks, glad you like the thread. I am in favour of thinking about thinking.
Think about two propositions:
It is wrong to take advantage of someone during negotiations.
It is good business to press the advantage in negotiations.
Being right ultimately boils down to having a fundamental commitment to a position. And in any non-trivial sense, this usually entails the juxtaposition of a whole value-schema on top of a set of facts. However a value-schema, by its very nature, is not susceptible to an absolute determination of right versus wrong.
In my view, being right is critical, in the sense that you commit to all the presuppositions and consequences of an idea.
Yes, I quite like the video as I do even read a bit of fantasy which involves sword fighting.
I am not really against becoming down to a specific view. When I first began reading philosophy, I came more from a fixed view because I was brought up as a Catholic and had not fully questioned this. Having done this I have a fairly open mind and if anything, it is often that when I read certain writing it is simply that I am not convinced fully.
As for developing my own philosophy, I had not done any written philosophical writing in a long time until finding this site in September. I do feel that discussions on this site have got me thinking, so I will wait and see what happens.
Perhaps, I have not found the set of ideas that I am truly aligned towards. I find ideas which I believe are important but not to be point that I would wish to defend them above all else.
I would also say that I do think in terms of systems, and see thinking about building up parts within larger parts. I am also pluralist, but definitely not in favour of sheer relativism. The big difference is that relativism is about seeing truth as being many different views but with equal value. Pluralism involves more of a picture of putting together a picture of truth by drawing upon the composite parts.
I also believe that we are at a strange time in the development of ideas. We can view the expanse of ideas from the panorama of history and geography in a way that few have been able to do in the past, especially with the internet and downloading available to us. This gives us so much reading scope and probably the need for synthesis. I am also open to the discussion of the unknown, in the widest senses possible.
I suppose everybody has their own story. Thanks for sharing.
From what I have read since the 80's (and anecdotally), government employees now far out earn the private sector (plus generous benefits). It used to be just the opposite (you took a government job for the security, not the $).
When I was first in practice, teachers were among the poorest patients I saw, now they are among the wealthiest (of regular working folks). Here in CA, many, many government employees make incredible amounts of money.
Government is much like religion, pay no taxes yet still they never have enough.
After I graduated in 1990 I spent 3 years reading and writing every day for 6-8 hours. I was working on something called "The Art of Self-creation" which was an epistemological-cybernetic study of Self, Self and Other, and Self and Society. The culmination of that work was going to be a theoretical-historical analysis of the concept of "the unknown," its place and role in the structure of thought.
If you mean Absolute Truth, then I would say these do exist but are not intellectually accessible. Intellectually, you can have near-truths (like it is immoral to kill another) but most truths are reasonably personal and change constantly.
All things knowable are in constant flux because what makes up all things knowable are in constant flux...
It sounds like a good idea, so perhaps it might be worth finding your work if you still have it, and preparing it to launch as a book. If you put all that time into it, I am sure that you must have done a lot of work and it is an unusual idea, although that is not to say that nobody has written on the topic since the 1990s.
Of course, the form of an argument is important for credibility. If you saw the political forum I am involved with, that statement would make more sense. Insulting someone is not at all like the debate of which you speak, and it screams some people are just reacting and not actually thinking through anything. However, we might be patient with these people and ask questions that might help them think something through. But some people just don't want to think things through and it is best to avoid them as we would avoid a dog that attacks people. The bottom line is not their technological skill, but their character and how they treat others.
As for those ideas we are passionate about, I don't like discussing religion with Christians and unless religion is being debated, I normally just smile at the Christian comments and keep my mouth shut, however, if people are debating religion, then I am compelled to argue against Christianity. I am compelled to do this because I am passionate about democracy and religion with a God who has favorite people because that religion is not compatible with democracy. This is difficult because historically Christians have promoted democracy, they have also discriminated against people who are different, and opposed science when it goes against what they believe. The sun shines equally on everyone and believing a God has favorite people can be a problem to democracy and world peace.
It is quite funny that you see this thread as being similar to the one I wrote on prejudice because I see them as rather different. I suppose that the similarity is that obviously I am the same person on my various threads. Generally, I think that some people have engaged in both, but I have noticed some different people replying to the different threads.
This is the first forum I have ever used. So, even though I have written many posts and threads, I only joined in last September, so I am relatively new. I can't believe that it is only just over 5 months that I have been using it because it seems like much longer. I think that it is as if time has slowed down with all the lockdown restrictions. I don't know if I would ever join another one. I certainly wouldn't right now as this one is keeping me busy enough. I have sometimes felt recently that I have taken up philosophy as a full time pursuit, but it definitely feels like a worthwhile one for the present time.
I am not a good business person because I give away my service. I love to be needed but don't love taking money for what I do. :lol: I have a pile of money in my kitchen that I must give back to someone who paid me too much for a favor. She knew I would not accept what she gave me so she dropped it in my bag when I was not looking. Something inside me just says I should not accept money for doing a favor. :lol: This goes with my problem with Christianity. I am not Christian but I was strongly influenced by it and I wish I could go for all the money I know I could get but I can't.
Anyway, I am a looser and I can't change this and at the same time be right with me. I blame Bible school for that. :lol: No, in the past women took care of everyone because that is what a good woman did. Once, when I had to support my family I asked for more pay and the woman snapped at me that caregivers put caring for people first. It is terrible for women that people's lives and certainly how they feel, can depend on good givers and yet we pay them very little, not enough to support our families. Teachers and nurses had to get over this barrier when they fought for better working conditions and better pay and we resent them for taking our tax money or what we pay for medical care. But is it right for us to put money first? What does that do to our society?
I am a Democrat and Republicans have a very different point of view. :lol: Republics are best known for being Christians and there is a rumor that Democrats are not Christian. Who is right?
Story of my life.
The flip side of all those benefits is to enable us to remain participants in society and to continue to make a social contribution. Because of what I get, I am secure and can volunteer. Because I am struggling physically I am very thankful for Social Security and I think it is insane to consider ending it. If I had to work a 40 week, I would be on the streets until I figured out a way to end my suffering. As a volunteer, I can work as much or as little as I want.
I do college classes by buying them from the Great Courses company. I could ride the bus free and audit college classes for free, but I can't keep my mouth shut and I know I would be correcting professors. :rofl: I didn't do well in college many years ago, because I clashed with professors and I am so thankful for the Great Courses and self-education. I am so glad I don't need a degree and employment, to make a contribution to society. I wish everyone was into lifelong-learning and enjoying making a social contribution and evening all this out with assuring everyone decent housing and nutrition and those things that increase our value to be contributing human beings.
How important it is "to be right in relation to ... the ideas we have" depends on how much tolerance one has for ambiguity, ambivalence, and dissonance. I have a very strong preference for consistency. Let me compare thinking to interior decoration: Replacing an incongruous lampshade is a small matter. Taking out walls and raising the ceiling is a very big deal.
I was raised to be a good Protestant and did not have major problems with God until I was in my late 30s. I found I didn't believe, and didn't want to be counted as a believer, and one day announced to myself that I was not a believer. This was a much bigger change than replacing the incongruous lampshade. This was changing the floor plan of my mental house. I wanted to live in a knowable world, and a world run by an unknowable God was causing way too much cognitive dissonance and emotional distress. (It is much easier to remodel ideas than remodel emotions.).
The upshot is that the ideas we have, and may wish to change, are supported by emotion (and/or instigated by emotion). Being right (consistent, clear, consonant, content) is very important. That's why discussions become heated. That's why we toss and turn in our beds trying to solve a conflict. That's why the intellectual merry-go-round keeps spinning.
Humans don't do well with a tangle of conflicting, unresolved questions squirming around in their brains like a can of worms. Either we get the worms straightened out and pinned down or we toss the whole thing out.
I guess I have a high tolerance for ambiguity and that is because I was raised a Catholic and have moved away from what I believed but it did not happen overnight, but over a few years. As a teenager I was extremely religious and even when I started university. It was during that time, based on reading and many factors that I really began exploring and entering into a sort of limbo wilderness. I think I was uncomfortable with the limbo for some time, but grew used to it.
Also, I am used to being in the situation of having to not vocalise my views and feelings at work in mental health care. This has been mainly in working with patients, because one cannot disclose about one's life or views in this work. So, I am used to having to try not to get heated.
So, when you speak of conflicts being like 'a can of worms' , I am probably used to keeping the worms encased in my brain. Perhaps my head will explode like a nuclear weapon one day, just like the title of one of my favourite albums, by The The, 'Mindbomb.'
College often erodes religion, not so much because of what is taught in classes (though that may well have an effect) but more because of the social aspects of college -- especially if one lives on campus where everyone is trying out new roles for themselves.
Leaving home, working in new environments with varied people, establishing new social circles--all that can undermine old pieties (religious and political). Then having to establish a sex life (especially if one is gay, back when) further undermines one's homespun virtues.
Before long one has become a different person than the child our parents sent off.
Yes, it is interesting how much going to university does bring a lot of changes to thinking. I am probably aware that I changed a lot more in relation to those I went to school with who did just left school and got a job. But perhaps that was because I was less conventional deep down than those people in the first place.
It is hard to know how much is about studying and how much is about experimentation in campus life. Initially, I gravitated towards the religious students but after a while I started to realise that I did not fit in with them really. I was studying religious studies as one of my first year options and this involved comparative religion and I started to discover an affinity with Hinduism and Buddhism. This was probably the beginning of my sliding away from Catholic ideas, and I do still have a sympathy with such systems of belief.
But I suppose that an underlying issue is to what effect does life experiences have on our ideas. I think that it was really the whole experience of having 2 friends commit suicide within a couple of years that led me to question absolutely everything. I do wonder if I would have ever really questioned to the extent that I did otherwise. Even though I had read a lot of philosophy, I do think that I might not have really entered into the limbo wasteland if I had not been pushed into emotional discomfort. I would also say that I have also had a fair amount of setbacks since university and this has made me open to speculation a lot.
So, I do think that apart from the whole question of whether university life and its opportunities for experimentation, there is the other one as to how much our life experiences pushes us out of our comfort zones. I would say that for most of my adult life I have felt pushed beyond the threshold of feeling 'comfortable', to the point where, at times, so in many ways I am prepared to explore and experiment with ideas. So, it is not that I don't wish to be right, but that I feel that I have gone beyond the stage of clinging to a specific set of beliefs.
Perhaps the question which I would pose for anyone reading this, is how far their experience has led them to question their systems of belief?
I guess when your explanation can predict outcomes reliably.
How are you so sure of this?
Quoting synthesis
Is this itself a truth? What is personal about knowing getting kicked causes pain, or that when a ball is dropped it falls? Opinions are personal, but facts aren’t.
What you mistakenly call "Dogmatic", in reality is an "Affirmation based on extensive research".
Egoism is the human nature, and it can be studied and proven to exist by language, culture, the individual psyche, and history.
Philosophy cannot be realized when thoughts are based on mere opinions without any research basis - which, ironically, seems to be the rule of the participants in this forum -.
But we are able, at least sometimes, to predict change, and the effect the changes will cause. Weather is a good example. It’s constantly changing, but we are sometimes able to predict accurately whether or not it will snow, for example.
How is anybody sure of anything? And why would you want to be?
Quoting Pinprick
Facts are relative to a specific set of circumstances that can only occur one time, so is it really a fact?
Is it always painful when you get kicked? What does the ball do if you drop it out in deep space?
A long time ago people thought all kinds of crazy things and made it work. The things we believe today will be just as crazy to the folks in the future.
It's always been my impression that what we can know happens before our intellect kicks-in. We just know like a bird or wolf or termite just knows. It is our intellect that mostly distorts this knowing into all kinds of gibberish.
I would bet that we are well down on the list of animals in terms of weather predicting skills, don't you think?
Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Affirmation of research can become dogmatic at which point it’s no longer scientific.
Quoting Gus Lamarch
No doubt. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to overcome it when we can. Why are you treating it as an inevitability.
I do not, in any way, treat egoism as an inevitability, which is why I argue that today's human society, along with its psyche, is shaped in a completely different way from what existed when egoism was used and appreciated by individuals. The individual - negative egoists - choose to become this.
What I treat as inevitability are the consequences of human acts, which, directly or indirectly, will only be used for the exacerbation of the ego of the "self".
If we deny it, we will only see it as something negative, as a pejorative term.
If we accept it, we will only enjoy a future without more nihilistic shadows of "no purpose"; and, indirectly, we will reach the maxim of humanity - Man as its cause, means and ends -.
The starting point for the search for the true sense of the ego must be the following questioning:
"If I own myself, and in this existence, I can only be I, why shouldn't I, above all and everyone, worry only about myself?"
You'll have no answer to that. And that same silence, that is cold as the void, is everything you need to know to see that:
1 > ?
I don't have any evaluation of "important". But to my way of thinking, your question gets at a core human quality, that being the nature of our opinions as they relate to reality.
Ultimately, jumping way ahead, the entire issue is a wash intellectually [not emotionally necessarily] when one comes to embrace, "I could be wrong." That is, when one holds that reality, truth is not knowable, that all that can be had are protoplasmic interpretations of reality and the opinions that are generated from those interpretations, then being right or wrong in one's beliefs is illogical.
I could be wrong.
I don't think that it is always a mistake to claim that one might be or have been wrong. That is not to say that truth is unknowable, but that one's own position has changed. I think that it would indeed be wrong to think that since one has committed to a perspective that it can never be changed. I am not suggesting some kind of watery fickleness, but an ongoing honesty.
In certain instances, it could be bravery to admit to being mistaken and not a sign of weakness. It is not as if the philosopher, or any other thinker, is meant to be infallible. I would say that what is most important is an ongoing commitment to the quest for truth and this might change according to new facts which emerge, or due to a shift in the thinker's perception.To merely hold onto a conviction just for the sake of not admitting to being wrong would be a hollow sham, revealing the ridiculousness of trying to assert that one is right.
I'm stuck with a brain that is nearly completely isolated from the outside world [like a man in solitary confinement], only "hearing" about that world via biochemical neural impulses from sensory nerves and organs. So, what can this little man in solitary "know" about the outside world, being so completely blind to it? That is the fundamental notion behind my opinion that I KNOW NOTHING. That's where this story begins for me, as it finally jelled in the mountains of northern California in July, 2004.
And everybody else's mileage seems to vary which is more than okay, I guess, because it is the only way when all we have are opinions and no irrefutable truths, it seems. My lament is that it is so terribly difficult to grow a story, to mature a story when nobody can get right in and logically challenge the basic assumptions and perceived/conceived evidence.
As yet another stopover in my quest, I was hoping for more. I won't give up yet.
I think that you are new to the forum, so I will try to explain where I am coming from in creating this thread question. My intention was not to suggest that we cannot know anything. Some of the big philosophy questions such as is there a God, life after death are speculation, but that doesn't stop people forming answers which are satisfactory to them. Sometimes people wish to defend their positions at all costs, and probably that is what I was thinking about.
Of course, most individuals do believe that they are right because they have spent time and energy coming to answers, so it is important to defend these. Certainly, I don't think it would be helpful to say that we cannot know at all about the questions of philosophy. Perhaps, a better starting point is to consider what do I know?
Exactly the same in Canada. The people that are deciding to close businesses, and gyms, and stop children's sports, mandating everyone to stay in their homes unless "necessary" to leave are not adversely affected by those decisions. Our chief medical officer is still working, the cheque keeps rolling in, she isn't losing her house anytime soon, she can afford to go skiing on the weekend, and can deem it "necessary for mental health stress release". She likely has a gym at home, and wasn't likely going to the local public venue anyway. Very easy to say "lock it down" when there is minimal down side. Sure she gets criticized sometimes in the news, but all politicians do, and how bad can it be when to silence those voices one need only turn off the T.V?
Ask those who are looking at losing their homes, their businesses, or who have lost a loved one to suicide from the lockdown if it has been worth the cost. Methinks the answer will be very different.
I question not so much my system of belief, as acknowledge that there is a great deal that I do not know, and, taking that into account, recognize that simply because something is new to me, or sounds off, does not, in and of itself make it wrong or inaccurate. Foundationally we were raised to create our own guidelines, under the broad guidance of "don't be an asshole". Definitions were left for us to determine on our own. I have read a number of religious books, all have some inherent value, none a definitive path. At least, none that I could see. Those readings have broadened my view and allowed me to have a more tempered response to new concepts and perspectives. "Ever forward" is one of the house mantras.
I think that in some cases people are so determined to 'know', in order to avoid stepping into the existentialist void of not knowing. Obviously, we seek to build pictures of how reality works, but this may involve deconstruction and time in the wildernes. How many are prepared to travel into this wilderness? I remember once saying to a woman I knew, that I had spent time questioning my way through the Catholic beliefs I has been taught. She replied, 'But that would be too much work.'
This sort of thinking is precisely how the pandemic has become so protracted. A refusal to do it once and do it right because business comes first has killed off many more businesses and people than just accepting the necessary measures to handle the pandemic properly.
Also, asking whether those worst affected by measures of they are in favour of them is rather dishonest. Such measures are statistical, taken for the sake of the whole population in order to minimise, not simply eradicate, harm. Those unfortunate enough to be the worst affected have no right to insist that every person saved by those measures should instead be dead for their sake.
I have noticed that religious people can be strangely disassociated from their religious beliefs. I've known Catholics who, for all practical intents and purposes, believe that the Catholic doctrine is none of their business. That they are just a lowly person in the pew and that the doctrine is not something over which they have any say.
If you want to apportion blame (and emphasize personal responsibility), then the blame lies with the employees who chose to go to work instead of losing their jobs. In the beginning of the pandemic, this is what was happening: if people chose to respect the quarantene, not just a few employers would count that as their vacation time or sick leave, and when those ran out, it was "Go to work or lose your job."
So how does a person come to terms with this?
In fact, I'll start a thread.
Not using policy to condemn the many to die for the sake of the few us not emphasising "personal responsibility": quite the opposite! It is the responsibility of the state to minimise death, suffering and collateral damage. Individual responsibility is much more context-dependent.
For instance, we do not want doctors, nurses, grocers, police officers, government officials and other key workers quitting their jobs to self-isolate full stop, let alone at the risk of their own starvation. Instead, we need to ensure that a) they are trained and aided to work as safely as possible, and b) the duration of the pandemic is as short as possible, since they are risking their lives for our benefit.
Beyond key workers, forcing people to choose between Covid and destitution is cruel and backward imho. That does not mean that everyone should move freely around, killing more people, but that the state should ensure that everyone who can work from home does so (by legislating against unsafe employers and investing in remote learning capabilities), ensure that travel is restricted (esp. international), ensure that vital services in normal times are protected, including their employees (e.g. furlough schemes), and that everyone else can safely isolate (which involves all sorts of things, from benefit payouts where necessary to provision of shelters for domestic abuse survivors).
Then and only then you appeal to personal responsibility. There are certainly the blameworthy. I live in Greater Manchester which is the scumbag capital of the UK. We've been in pretty much permanent lockdown since it started because scumbags won't wear masks, socially distance, or limit travel. It's kind of the UK equivalent of the American Midwest, I guess. Yes, those people bear responsibility for the deaths of others because they were given an effective choice.
I would agree that some people don't think see the consequences of their religious beliefs in most senses.They don't seem to make connections between church doctrines and dogmas. Generally, I think these are more the people who view church more as a social convention. They are usually not the ones who are going to agonise or have any sleepless nights over the philosophy questions. But, at some point, something might happen in their lives which really makes them stop and question life and death.
But, equally many people who are not religious don't stop and question beliefs that deeply. I think a lot of people I know think that I am a bit of a nerd for reading philosophy books. There are people who have fixed beliefs, those who don't seem to care much at all, and a whole spectrum in between.
Even though it is slightly off topic from my thread discussion I was interested to know that you are in Manchester. I imagined you in America and, generally, that not many people on the site are in England, so perhaps I am wrong there (ha ha!) I would imagine that you have it a lot worse time of almost indefinite lockdown.
Generally, I agree with what you say about people's attitudes and behaviour. But one thing which I am also thinking is that after all this time of just staying indoors, many people are almost going to need rehabilitation to go back to living the life that they have lived. I go out to the shops but I know many who have almost stopped, especially as so much can be delivered. I wear a mask, of course, but I have knocked items over and tripped over a step because I can't see properly as my glasses steam up so much.
I sometimes think that life in Britain will never go back to the way it was, and I really hope that I am wrong.
Me too. Shopping blind is mad skillz!
Quoting Jack Cummins
I actually hope there are some permanent changes. Remote working for those who can do it is a fantastic opportunity to help tackle climate change, for instance.
I am not sure that the majority of people are going to be able to work from home. I only know a few individuals who are really able to do this, because it is mainly for people whose work is on computers. If only there was such a solution for climate change. As it is many lives have been more or less been put on complete hold, but we will have to wait and see what happens. I try to avoid doom and gloom thinking. I am also hoping that most people will have the vaccine because I am aware of many who plan to refuse it.
I try to keep an open mind about the future because the whole topic of Covid_19 and restrictions is one in which it is easy to get locked into positions of thinking. Sometimes, I go out and feel so negative. I have to kickstart my whole emotional mindset, and keep focused and try to think and approach all the challenges we are up against in the most creative way possible.
True, but I think it's a big enough minority to make a big difference. Around 50% of workers right now are working from home who weren't doing so before. Obviously there's a lot if people unemployed who will go back to jobs they can't do from home, but even so: big improvement.
Yes, but if life carried on as it is now I would question whether there would be any quality of life at all, because just about every outlet available is closed down. I don't know about you but I haven't met any friends for just about a year. I haven't worked since May and can't really look for work.
I do remember at some point replying to you when pubs were open, and I was saying that I was reading a book. So, it might appear that London is better but in order to enter premises I was having to fill in forms of personal details. In some places, i couldn't even buy a cup of coffee because I hadn't got the right app on my phone to scan in. I think that is the kind of social world we are going to be in for a very long time. I am sorry if this sounds negative but this is because the whole lockdown life is making me unable to sleep. It is all just going on and on, but I do hope that we start to see some way out by spring.
Oh sure, I'm not hoping to keep every element of lockdown for posterity. That said, a happy medium between the minimalist drudgery of the now and the extravagant gratification of the last few decades would also be beneficial. I think we're going to have to get used to a more restricted way of life anyway, may as well make a start while we're in the habit.
Yes, I am trying to use it constructively. I have moments when I am too great about it but I do believe that, by the end, we will have learned a lot, especially about ourselves. We are not used to spending so much time by ourselves. It feels like it has lasted for much longer than a year. I definitely feel that I am very different from the way I was before it all started and I am hoping that I am a much better and wiser person. I have certainly reflected enough on philosophy in that time, and I am sure you have, as you post a lot. I am hoping that this is all worthwhile in the long term scheme of everything.
Me too. Well, we are British. ;)
Anyway, in answer to the OP, I think defending your position within reason is productive, so long as you move on from that position when it is untenable, and I will stand by that no matter what.
Being wrong should be embarrassing only when we ought to have known better. "Fact-checking" is an overly common word now because, for some reason, facts are trading low. When it is sufficient for a man you don't know on the internet to say that Hilary Clinton traffics children for sex and drinks the blood of babies for you to not only build a position around that but to become elected to high office, something has gone horribly wrong.
There seems to be a strange attitude now in which the position is completely arbitrary and yet somehow the only thing that matters. There's another, older trend in which, if the facts are counter to your interests, they are illegitimate (a la climate change denial, or holocaust denial, or election result denial). I think this makes productive conversation impossible. There is no synthesis with extremist positions. One side or the other will just get mad (depending on what the extreme position is).
I think having an emotional connection to your beliefs is usually fine, but when that emotional connection is the only reason for defending them, you've glitched.
Yes, you make some good points. Also, some people are so patriotic in defending the British, getting heated as those in many philosophical arguments. I am half Irish but I prefer to see people as people rather than in terms of nationalities.
Of course, it is only natural to get emotional in arguing certain views. I am sure that I have done so on many occasions. I am really opposed to nuclear weapons and against capital punishment and I can remember getting really heated about these topics, especially at school. I used to get into very emotive debates about religion with my father as a teenager.
Also, I have to admit that sometimes even when I read this site I get quite worked up by some posts I read. To some extent, emotion and anger do have a motivating effect in enabling us to fight for certain causes.
Probably, I have just got to the point where I like to listen to viewpoints and avoid arrogance about the views and ideas which I feel passionate about.
I think that's right. Great moments of progress in history (suffrage, civil rights) are not executed by chilled out people. It is perfectly natural to feel anger at injustices and antisocial beliefs and people. I agree with you on nuclear weapons and capital punishment, and totally get how contrary opinion seems upsetting because it is about killing people, which is the height of antisocial behaviour.
On nuclear weapons, I imagine the conflict is usually between their intrinsic horrific nature and the pragmatism of negotiating a world in which other, perhaps less trustworthy, nations have them. Capital punishment appeals most in the west to those seeking retribution for other, perhaps greater injustices (since, as Camus pointed out, the only witnesses usually allowed are family of the victims), which is easy enough to empathise with (who wouldn't feel like they wanted to kill the man who killed their parents?) but seems a very wrong thing to build a principle upon.
What's puzzling is the anger of people who aren't defending such a point. That's what I can't get my head around: the Magamaniacs and Qanoners and Brexiteers who seem to be looking for reasons to justify an emotion rather than being emotionally invested in a reasonable position. I'm happy to dispassionately discuss immigration policy and the susceptibility of voting systems to fraud, but when Hugo Chavez is conspiring with Jeff Bezos from beyond the grave... I just don't know what's going on there. It's all emotion and no reason.
Does this mean you’re not sure?
Quoting synthesis
The Earth has revolved around the sun many times, not just once.
Quoting synthesis
Due to our knowledge of all the relevant facts, we can predict these outcomes. We can account for why a person may not feel pain if they’re kicked, provided we’re aware of their medical history, pain tolerance, force of the impact, etc. We can do the same for deep space gravity.
Quoting synthesis
I’m pretty sure this is a logical fallacy, but I’m horrible with remembering or knowing they’re formal names. The inaccuracy of previous people’s theories have no bearing on the theories of today.
Quoting synthesis
I’m not understanding what you mean here.
Quoting synthesis
No.
Newton’s laws of physics are still useful for predicting most outcomes. We were just mistaken about it’s scope. It cannot predict accurately at the quantum level, but that’s where quantum theories come in to play.
You are right to say that being 'chilled out' doesn't make for fighting for civil liberties. I have to admit that I have been on matches for certain causes I have believed in. Perhaps all this social distancing is making me get too chilled out. I also think work has made me learn to blunt my emotions a bit.In an earlier post, I said that I often have to avoid expressing too much personal opinion to 0patients, but I think that it was also a case of feeling that I had to be careful what I said to colleagues.
I think that different situations allow for different levels of voicing of opinions. In some cases, anger does seem to arise from the people not expressing an opinion. Also, some people are less able to articulate their views more than others. Personally, I am probably more in the habit of writing than arguing with people. Even at work, if I was angry about something I was usually emailing about something rather than talking about it. I also used to get so stressed by some emails at work. But, life leads to so much emotion, especially anger, and the whole channel for this is an underlying issue.
Take a defense lawyer, for instance. The chances are that any given client is a criminal, and the lawyer's job is to, where possible, protect that client's liberty and, where not, minimise the consequences. The bigger picture is that, if every accused person has the best possible defense, the number of innocent people convicted of crimes can be minimalised. In this case, being emotionally detached creates a greater good.
The idea of being of emotion detachment being a requirement to certain professions is worth reflecting on. My own slant on it is one in which in some ways I was required to do and in other ways, it was had limitations. That is because I was working in the care profession. In some ways, I had to be involved in the implementation of some decisions which people didn't like, such as being expected to administer medication to Sectioned patients against their choice, which meant a certain amount of detachment was needed. However, if one became too detached in this kind of work, the whole notion of compassionate care would get lost altogether.
I think professionalism is also important. In particular, I feel that the way people express views is bound up with this. Personally, I probably adhere more to the guidelines I have been taught than if I had not had that training. I am not saying it is necessarily better, but a whole way of being taught to express ideas. Even when I am writing on this site, it probably comes into play, in how I express my views and in what I include or exclude. However, I would say that some people keep their work and private self entirely separate. I know someone who told me how when at work he put on a professional persona. I am not sure that I could divide myself up so much. Of course, when I am not at work I relax and can be more free in expression, but I am the same person in most situations.
So lock it down! Except for the people that don't eh. That's ok because it would be icky if they lockdown, because that would be an actual lockdown and no one wants to pay the price on that eh.
That is why the lockdown failed and will always fail: Exceptions are made because society is too weak to do it right. therefore, since it will not be done right, there is no purpose doing it at all. Unless the plan is to draw it out unreasonably, then we are on the right path for sure.
I am sure that ideas about lockdowns have been fueled by people who have thought this was right. However, no easy solution has been found to contain the virus, so everyone is still floundering. Even the effectiveness of the various vaccines is not certain at all, so it is a case of working no clear answers and struggling with the unknown.
I am not signing up to administer the vaccine, nor will I take it. I know nothing about it. Certainly not enough to feel comfortable advising anyone on it.
Generally, I agree with you and I was in health care until last May. Obviously measures were needed to curb the pandemic but I think that so much that has taken place has been moral panic of public opinion. I don't think that the scientists or government really know what they are doing and it does seem more guesswork about the vaccines. The whole problem is the new strains, but this is likely to go on and on with potentially hundreds of strains surfacing. My own thoughts on how long this is likely to last, is for many years to come. Would we remain in lockdown conditions? Who knows?
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I do wonder if there is a lot we are not being told behind the news headlines and coverage.
Well no the point of locking down is to minimise people getting sick and dying. That would rather be thwarted by people getting sick and dying due to there being no doctors. As I've just said in my last post on another thread -- which just goes to demonstrate the problem -- extremism is the logic of the dumb.
I definitely believe that something is missing from the narrative we are seeing about Covid_19. Apart from the difference in the way it was all being treated in China, the idea that it began as an accident, escaping in a Chinese laboratory is now believed to be wrong. Also, all these rumours of new variants.
I am not sure what to make of it all but I am inclined to believe that there are big political agendas behind the scenes. It could be about conflict between superpowers or it could be about agendas of the ruling elite, who own and manufacture the news. Perhaps even some of our leaders are not privy to this information and are like puppets. I would like to believe that it is just a virus that needs to be controlled but I do believe that some of the facts don't seem to add up properly.
It is all haphazard. Perhaps the problem is that the leaders are not prepared to admit to making mistakes and insistent on appearing right in public opinion Of course, if the leaders admitted they did not know what they were doing people would lose trust in them. Perhaps the missing narrative is the way in which the government and scientists are so baffled, because this is evident if you read between the lines, because the goalposts keep changing.
It is the first time that I have come across you, so I expect you are new and I am glad to meet you. This thread is about people insisting upon being right and it is just the case that thoughts about the pandemic are intruding us everywhere, all the time. Of course, it is true that the politicians are intent upon being seen as right because they want our votes.
I think that what he is saying is so true and goes to the core of attachment to beliefs and the emotional basis of ideas. So, when people are insisting on being right it should not be viewed as mere arrogance in most instances, but more of the way in which our views are so bound up with our interpretiation and understanding of experiences.