Basically. Opinions/arguments all have some sort of counter, thus if both are recognised, are arguments simply trying to show which side is the most powerful? Or what? I have great difficulty finding a ‘pure’ viewpoint (which is not like basic common sense, i.e. obviously there are some arguments where one view is OBVIOUSLY correct) of which the counter would not be a sufficient explanation or part of.
In short, i’m looking for people’s ideas on how to formulate solid viewpoints, that can be held with confidence. And not simple ones like, the world being spherical and God existing or not. Even though some may argue these are not so simple.
How strong/reliable are our opinions, surely even the most well thought out viewpoints are subject to environmental influence, upbringing etc and thus cannot be ‘pure’ as such?
I think it’s situational. Which is to say, I might answer this question differently at a different time.
Not to be too reliant on the idea of needing to belong to a school of thought is, in my humble opinion, key to authentic expression of an argument or opinion. Not that schools of thought are wrong. But that they aren’t in themselves the point.
What “too reliant” might mean is important, though. Few if any people have their own opinions/arguments. In my opinion, humans, as we think of them, are 99 44/100 pure processors of language. We do not speak for ourselves. We freesociate experience linguistically unaware throughout. We’re part of a larger expression of thought. Either that or solipsism is true.
The solid viewpoint held with confidence is the one expressed in large part thoughtlessly, responding to the moment it is addressing. For the most part, it is not expressed in the formal means we are here employing, but in the many moments in a day when one affects the lives of others by our actions. The fewer the words, the greater the confidence. The confidence of words is an exponentially dubious affectation.
Hello, what follows is a quote that presents someone’s argument. What they conclude, or what we can consider their opinion, is in bold:
“In talking to the public, the best economists don’t need jargon to say what they mean. They understand their material well enough to put it simply and exactly in ordinary language. This has some advantages even for the specialists themselves. For jargon can limit, distort or even poison the thinking of those who use it habitually. It can easily degenerate into fakery and display.”
Leonard Silk
OK, so his opinion is that : the best economists don’t need jargon to say what they mean.
Then, you may ask the question: Why don’t the best economists need jargon to say what they mean?
Because: They understand their material well enough to put it simply and exactly in ordinary language.
Now we have some reasoning to back up the opinion, making it a better argument. But, the argument could still be made stronger by making more clear the nature of jargon, so he says: jargon can limit, distort or even poison the thinking of those who use it habitually. It can easily degenerate into fakery and display.
So, if somebody decided to counter his argument, and say that the best economists do use jargon, they would have to back that up with some reasons. The more reason you have to believe an opinion, the more the opinion moves into the realm of fact, which is where we find those simple things, like the earth being spherical.
Hello, what follows is a quote that presents someone’s argument. What they conclude, or what we can consider their opinion, is in bold:
“In talking to the public, the best economists don’t need jargon to say what they mean. They understand their material well enough to put it simply and exactly in ordinary language. This has some advantages even for the specialists themselves. For jargon can limit, distort or even poison the thinking of those who use it habitually. It can easily degenerate into fakery and display.”
Leonard Silk
OK, so his opinion is that : the best economists don’t need jargon to say what they mean.
Then, you may ask the question: Why don’t the best economists need jargon to say what they mean?
Because: They understand their material well enough to put it simply and exactly in ordinary language.
Now we have some reasoning to back up the opinion, making it a better argument. But, the argument could still be made stronger by making more clear the nature of jargon, so he says: jargon can limit, distort or even poison the thinking of those who use it habitually. It can easily degenerate into fakery and display.
So, if somebody decided to counter his argument, and say that the best economists do use jargon, they would have to back that up with some reasons. The more reason you have to believe an opinion, the more the opinion moves into the realm of fact, which is where we find those simple things, like the earth being spherical.
Often what you say is not a important as how you say it. Language has different functions, a lot of the time it’s not to convey truth or present solid arguments. It’s rethorical, which is to say you take in account the occasion, the audience, you reputation,… . It is aimed at inspiring action. If you are present of mind and trust you gut feeling, you’ll get a long way. If you want to learn it in a more formal way : humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Silva.htm.
If you want to go the really long way, you can become a philosopher and really try to get to the bottom of it. What you’ll find is that other than the really basic facts, opinions are, in the end, dependent on the values one holds. If the values are not entirely the same, there’s basicly no point in arguing. You could try to make a case for certain values, but i doubt anybody will be listening by then. So if expressing solid opinions is all you want, I wouldn’t bother.
By ‘pure’ viewpoint do you mean objective reality? If so, it is probably impossible for people to perceive objective reality, which is essentially seeing things as they are. It would be universal and everyone would see things the same. So until that happens, every viewpoint fathomable is going to be open to a counter, and as long as it stands up you can call it a solid opinion, fact, theory, justified belief, something you have reason to believe, or whatever. Most people think achieving objectivity is an impossible goal, but still go in that direction. I agree with oughist and diekon that opinions are situational, but the more well-founded they are, the more they move from being situational to being universal.
Well if I am going to express an opinion, which I probably will from time to time, why would I want to express one that isn’t solid?
I’d say a viewpoint and the expression of it can be solid IF the subject matter is well identified and the evaluation about it is based on well defined/confined logical method.
If someone talks about “Truth” without having clear idea of what it actually is, the expression can be seen as the statement of hope/delusion/imagination rather than that of slid viewpoint.
When I read/listen, I do focus on what is the subject matter and if it is well defined/identified. Very often, we find people talking about things they have not much idea. Talking about “God” can be a typical example of this, when the poster/speaker cannot well define/identify it.
Then, there is usually the problem of presumptions and especially the presumption of absoluteness (or subconsciously implied absoluteness/permanence/unlimited/unconditional) within the expression.
When people talk about something or the attribute of something as if it is permanent/unconditional/without-dependency, it’s a sign that the person doesn’t have clear view of what s/he is talking about.
For example. we may often talk about “existence” in philosophy. Very often, the “existence” comes without any perimeter nor limitation/condition attached to it. It means people are often talking as if the existence is permanent one, unlimited one (omnipresent), without any dependency.
Now, most of “existence” we know of is limited in time, location, condition, and thus the view point about the existence with the (subconscious) presumption of absoluteness/permanence isn’t very precise if we are talking about specific matter that has limitations.
The presumption of absoluteness (that go along with the ignorance of conditions and dependencies about the matter) can be found in many many expression and thought. And it makes our expression silly, absurd, illogical to the point it’s meaningless.
Then there is the problem of logical construction/deduction often explained in logic 101 type of material, with commonly observed fallacies/sophistries.
This last part is more or less well known/covered and I think many people are aware, although there are many people who don’t care about and who would use con-man’s tactics to confuse and/or convince others for her/his benefit.
In short, when the viewpoint and the expression is “relative”/“specific” and about well identified matter with valid logical perspective movement, i think it can be pretty solid within the limitation/perimeter inherent in the logic/viewpoint.
EDIT:
I forgot to mention about the"pure viewpoint".
I don’t think we can have “pure” viewpoint that is free of any limitations/conditions/requirements.
As close as we can get might be an awareness that isn’t directed/focused on any specific matter. But it still has the inherent condition/requirement of the awareness. Ultimately, purest view point can be the lack of any view, at all, and it can mean the lack of any awareness. And it’s devoid of meaning, even conditional/relative meanings.
Thanks. I agree with most of what you guys are saying, opinions/arguments being situational.
I wasn’t necessarily talking of ‘objective opinions’, but just ones that cannot be open to as much scrutiny as others… I suppose the idea that the more reasons FOR a particular viewpoint enhance its reliability etc, so increasing strength of viewpoints rather than necessarily having an objectively correct viewpoint, so to speak.
