Socratic Seminar: The Right To Your Opinion
From the reading, I started to view opinions in a more sensitive light. That my views are different and should be challenged by others in order for my fallacies be corrected and the "opinion" would instead be a more substantiated preference. But is there a right and wrong opinion? Instead some ideas that are considered opinions are just preferences, and some people cannot make that distinction.
It's the opinions that have no real logic behind these opinions, then no you are not entitled to those rights. But even people who are logical and willing to hear the differences are forgoing their rights, so what is the point of having these so called rights? No person who is having a discussion or heated debate listens to the great point about the actual topic after using the con of "I have the right to my opinion."
For example when Nathan in the novel the Poisonwood Bible, had dinner with Anatole all of the different perspectives presented were all a personal assault of the Father's own religious views. Instead he should have thought about the 23 different versions of the bible and find quotes that were meaningful for the Congolese.
It's the opinions that have no real logic behind these opinions, then no you are not entitled to those rights. But even people who are logical and willing to hear the differences are forgoing their rights, so what is the point of having these so called rights? No person who is having a discussion or heated debate listens to the great point about the actual topic after using the con of "I have the right to my opinion."
For example when Nathan in the novel the Poisonwood Bible, had dinner with Anatole all of the different perspectives presented were all a personal assault of the Father's own religious views. Instead he should have thought about the 23 different versions of the bible and find quotes that were meaningful for the Congolese.
Comments
Post a Comment