I was reading literature on different political theories and ideologies. A comparison between liberalism and realism made me reach the conclusion that both have reasonable explanations for their existence, proper benefits and issues. Attempting to be as objective as possible, pretending that I had no knowledge from before, I could not prefer one to another.
You might have seen my post in the Israel - Palestine conflict thread. I was totally unable to give my thoughts on a possible solution. The post ended up being a monologue, an internal debate with both sides evenly matched only able to reach the conclusion that something is morally wrong. Something a five year old would say, though perhaps without the build up and reasoning.
For every argument, there's a counter argument - and then a counter to that. This is the case even if you do not believe or wish it to be true. A sentence from the book reads like this:"Isn't every explanation of how something *is* also a belief of how something *should* be?". When should one stop and decide which side to take? Or should one not take a side? Keep in mind that what I have been trying to explain in this post applies to these above questions.
Maybe it is better being subjective. A subjective person can always have an answer for non-factual questions (right or wrong is another matter). Someone biased can choose not to just be an observer, but an actor. However, at the same time his judgement is not as good. His mind is clouded, and his thoughts can be rushed and reckless. Still, he has a genuine opinion and a goal to accomplish with his discussions.
If an objective individual is the result of reason and intelligence, is someone subjective the exact opposite? Is a biased person someone who has been affected by the issue? Someone whose emotions make sure he cannot remain in the neutral zone, but rather tilt him to a side? Maybe I should expose myself to some kind of trauma then, to start the wheels in the machinery.
Welcome to the conundrums of my confused brain.
None of us are free, one of us is chained.
You might have seen my post in the Israel - Palestine conflict thread. I was totally unable to give my thoughts on a possible solution. The post ended up being a monologue, an internal debate with both sides evenly matched only able to reach the conclusion that something is morally wrong. Something a five year old would say, though perhaps without the build up and reasoning.
For every argument, there's a counter argument - and then a counter to that. This is the case even if you do not believe or wish it to be true. A sentence from the book reads like this:
Maybe it is better being subjective. A subjective person can always have an answer for non-factual questions (right or wrong is another matter). Someone biased can choose not to just be an observer, but an actor. However, at the same time his judgement is not as good. His mind is clouded, and his thoughts can be rushed and reckless. Still, he has a genuine opinion and a goal to accomplish with his discussions.
If an objective individual is the result of reason and intelligence, is someone subjective the exact opposite? Is a biased person someone who has been affected by the issue? Someone whose emotions make sure he cannot remain in the neutral zone, but rather tilt him to a side? Maybe I should expose myself to some kind of trauma then, to start the wheels in the machinery.
Welcome to the conundrums of my confused brain.
None of us are free, one of us is chained.
[This message has been edited by Ornlu (edited 01-19-2009 @ 06:12 PM).]