Ahab Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 I've noticed as far back as I can remember that there is a lack of agreement amongst different people, and according to people who write books of history that has always been how it is. People don't always agree with other people. And I'm still in wonder of why.So far I've narrowed the answer to "what is missing?" down to the following possibilities, and if you can think of some other answer please feel free to chime in:1. Each person feels confident that he or she has superior intelligence and wisdom on a specific issue than anyone else who doesn't agree with him/her. So he/she believes that anyone who doesn't agree with him/her is missing or lacking the same degree of intelligence and wisdom that he/she has.2. He/she does not claim to have superior wisdom and intelligence than anyone else but he/she does claim to know while being able to learn from someone else who does have superior wisdom and intelligence and he/she is confident that he/she is in agreement with him/her. So he/she believes that anyone who doesn't agree with him/her also doesn't agree with the one he/she is confident that he/she has learned from, and that difference in education is what is missing.3. It's not so much about wisdom and intelligence but about what different people prefer, so instead of it being about what is ultimately "right" or the most intelligent and right choice it is about people thinking and otherwise doing whatever they like the best. So in this case he/she believes that anyone who doesn't agree with or like whatever he/she likes just doesn't like it (for some reason) and as far as his/her wisdom and intelligence goes that disagreement is okay because he/she believes that other person doesn't have to like it for it to be a good thing.4. Satan just likes to cloud the issues while promoting poor communication amongst others so it is often the case that people just believe they don't agree with someone else on an issue when in reality they do agree l on that issue even though they believe they do not agree. So in this case what is missing is more about better communication between others than a lack of intelligence and wisdom.Anything else? Now my point here is to not only identify the problem of what is missing but also to fix the problem by supplying what is missing or at least helping others to get what is missing, unless that wouldn't be the right thing to do, in which case we would at least understand what is missing.
The Nehor Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Because people are morons and are generally wrong. They don't agree on said wrongness because they tend to be wrong in various different ways. 1
thesometimesaint Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 There are essentially three factors in play here. One is that it is usually the winners that write the history books. Two is that we are overly confident in our mental abilities, when we shouldn't be. Three is that in a democracy my ignorance is a good as your knowledge.
Ahab Posted September 18, 2014 Author Posted September 18, 2014 Because people are morons and are generally wrong.I'm going to guess that you're talking about people who don't agree with you, or do you also think the people who agree with you are morons too?They don't agree on said wrongness because they tend to be wrong in various different ways.Can you think of a way other than what I mentioned? And do you think it would be a good idea for you to try to get other people to agree with you, presumably if you are not a moron?
Ahab Posted September 18, 2014 Author Posted September 18, 2014 There are essentially three factors in play here. One is that it is usually the winners that write the history books. Two is that we are overly confident in our mental abilities, when we shouldn't be. Three is that in a democracy my ignorance is a good as your knowledge.What does your #1 have to do with what is missing regarding what I am talking about? Do you think we could all agree on that point and still not agree with each other?On your #2, do you think we could all agree on a way to know when we shouldn't be so confident, and when we should? If not what would be missing to help us find a way?Your #3 is just silly, as a premise, and if you can't see that then something is missing that would help you to agree with me about that being silly.
Traela Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Cops can't always get people to agree on what happened at a traffic accident; how can you expect history to be any better?
Ahab Posted September 18, 2014 Author Posted September 18, 2014 Cops can't always get people to agree on what happened at a traffic accident; how can you expect history to be any better?Good example but in that case it shouldn't be about cops getting people to agree but seeing how they do agree on what they actually saw as they describe what they saw. As long as they saw the traffic accident, or a certain part of it, and they are all being honest, all of their testimonies should fit together in agreement about the accident. Right? If not, some of the testimony would be false.
thesometimesaint Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 (edited) Good example but in that case it shouldn't be about cops getting people to agree but seeing how they do agree on what they actually saw as they describe what they saw. As long as they saw the traffic accident, or a certain part of it, and they are all being honest, all of their testimonies should fit together in agreement about the accident. Right? If not, some of the testimony would be false. It is ALL bad. We need something more than just seeing it, and depending on peoples honesty.SEE Edited September 18, 2014 by thesometimesaint
katherine the great Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 You're so cynical. How about: Different source material, different perspectives of those recording source material (did the event just happen? is it a recollection of an event? what is their relationship to the event? would they have a motivation to report the even inaccurately?), Paradigm of the person compiling the data, different interpretations of the data. 2
Ahab Posted September 18, 2014 Author Posted September 18, 2014 You're so cynical. How about: Different source material, different perspectives of those recording source material (did the event just happen? is it a recollection of an event? what is their relationship to the event? would they have a motivation to report the even inaccurately?), Paradigm of the person compiling the data, different interpretations of the data.Get down to the basics and there is either truth or error, though. Right? Another example is a group of people with blindfolds on who are each placed in different spots around an elephant while each person describes what they're touching.They may not realize it from what each of them feels while standing in only their own spot but each of them is touching the same elephant and would be able to realize that if they all tried to work together to figure out what it was. And if they didn't reach that consensus then something would be missing which would have helped them to see that they all should be in agreement.
Ahab Posted September 18, 2014 Author Posted September 18, 2014 It is ALL bad. We need something more than just seeing it, and depending on peoples honesty.SEE I'm going to miss your video on purpose, because I don't like watching videos on my device.Use your words, please.
The Nehor Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 I'm going to guess that you're talking about people who don't agree with you, or do you also think the people who agree with you are morons too?Can you think of a way other than what I mentioned?And do you think it would be a good idea for you to try to get other people to agree with you, presumably if you are not a moron? Yes, most of the people who agree with me are also morons. As to me....yeah....I'm special.
Ahab Posted September 18, 2014 Author Posted September 18, 2014 Yes, most of the people who agree with me are also morons.As to me....yeah....I'm special. So basically you agree with my 4 reasons listed in the OP as 4 of the things that prevent everybody from agreeing with each other, plus the 5th reason as mentioned above that some people are just missing the desire to agree with some people.Can you think of anything else that is missing when people don't agree with other people?
The Nehor Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 So basically you agree with my 4 reasons listed in the OP as 4 of the things that prevent everybody from agreeing with each other, plus the 5th reason as mentioned above that some people are just missing the desire to agree with some people.Can you think of anything else that is missing when people don't agree with other people? Yes, but all four are summed up in my "people are morons" theory. Occam's Razor.
thesometimesaint Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 I'm going to miss your video on purpose, because I don't like watching videos on my device.Use your words, please. Individual human perception is a poor way to establish fact.That is why we use multiple sources including nonhuman sources for evidence.
Ahab Posted September 18, 2014 Author Posted September 18, 2014 Individual human perception is a poor way to establish fact.That is why we use multiple sources including nonhuman sources for evidence.And yet it all boils down to individual human perception, even when one of us combines perceptions from other individuals. And how do we know which perceptions to rely on and combine to build on? There must be some way to agree with others who perceive what is true and good and right, otherwise there would be something which is missing and doesn't even exist, which is not the case. It's just missing from some people's perceptions because they don't see it or seek after it or even try to figure out what it is that is missing from their perceptions.
katherine the great Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Get down to the basics and there is either truth or error, though. Right? Not necessarily. If you are talking about an isolated action of one person then only that person and God know what that person's motivations were and what actually happened. If you are talking about an historical event that included many people's actions, only those individual people and God know what each of their motivations were. You can describe the event, but you have to infer their motivations from other factors. If you would give an example, maybe I could be more useful but your post was very vague. History is always written from someone's point of view. It doesn't happen in real time because then it is a current event--not history. 1
katherine the great Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Yes, but all four are summed up in my "people are morons" theory. Occam's Razor.You're a moron.
Jeanne Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 What a boring world it would be if we all agreed..seriously. But I think basically it has to do with plain old life experiences.
The Nehor Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 You're a moron. Possible, but unlikely. If something like that happened I would notice........wouldn't I?
katherine the great Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 Possible, but unlikely. If something like that happened I would notice........wouldn't I? Most likely.
Ahab Posted September 19, 2014 Author Posted September 19, 2014 Not necessarily. If you are talking about an isolated action of one person then only that person and God know what that person's motivations were and what actually happened. If you are talking about an historical event that included many people's actions, only those individual people and God know what each of their motivations were. You can describe the event, but you have to infer their motivations from other factors. If you would give an example, maybe I could be more useful but your post was very vague. History is always written from someone's point of view. It doesn't happen in real time because then it is a current event--not history.I simply said that according to people who write books of history, there have always been disagreements between people. I can't say I know that from my own experience, referring to the "always" part, but I do know that I have never seen a time as far back as I now remember when all people agreed with each other, and I can also say I've never read any book of history written by anyone who said that there was once a time when all people agreed with each other.I didn't realize you or anyone else would make an issue out of that comment. Are you of the opinion that there was once a time when all people agreed with each other, about everything? You'd be the first person I met who believes that, I think.
Ahab Posted September 19, 2014 Author Posted September 19, 2014 What a boring world it would be if we all agreed..seriously. But I think basically it has to do with plain old life experiences.I realize we all need to learn as we go but it would be really nice if people started out with nothing but truth and then added to their knowledge nothing but truth as they were taught nothing but truth by others, instead of false ideas creeping in by people who taught them things that were false.I'm not talking about preferences like everybody agreeing on what is their favorite color, and I'm not talking about enjoying the use of their imaginations, as long as they know the difference between fiction and non-fiction.
thesometimesaint Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 While there maybe some ultimate reality out there somewhere. Here on this planet we ALL interpret any event through our own filters. The closer we get to that "ultimate reality" the better for us physically and mentally. IE; I have a brother and a sister. We share a common growing up in the same household. But we each remember it slightly differently. What is the "ultimate reality"? Probably an admixture of all three of our experiences, none of which is totally accurate to that "ultimate reality".
Kind Debater Posted September 19, 2014 Posted September 19, 2014 I have had a similar question in the past concerning why two people who are intelligent, etc. and disagree on something that is a matter of fact rather than opinion will often continue to disagree even after discussing it. I agree with thesometimesaint and others that people simply have different perspectives, biases, memories, etc. People are not simply logic machines, even though I and others would sometimes like to see ourselves that way.
Recommended Posts