Personal and collective morals slant one's truth
Sarah Cheung
Staff Writer
September 2018
Staff Writer
September 2018
Pink is the best color. Global warming is affecting our planet. Violent video games instill aggressive tendencies in young people and should be eradicated. All of these statements are debatable. But to those who believe them, they're true. How can challengers prove they're not? The answer is that they probably can't. Although factual evidence to support one or more of these statements may exist, that doesn't mean that all of it will be interpreted in the same way or even acknowledged by everyone. Perceptions of truth are derived from many different sources. Namely, your background, environment, faith, relationships, and education can factor into how you as an individual develop your sense of what is true and what isn't. But how can we differentiate between personal perceptions and objective facts? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, facts are things of actual existence, make up objective reality, and are attached with evidence. For example, it's pointless to challenge the fact that men and women are biologically different. Anyone with open eyes can prove its obvious factuality and its defense isn't likely to falter anytime soon. |
Yet, someone might argue that aside from their bodily distinctions, the two are interchangeable and that no one is innately "male" or "female." In other words, as some may say, gender is nothing but a social construct. This would fall under the category of a belief. Beliefs are interpretations of facts and how they are relevant in the context of the world, and they can be deemed true or untrue.
Beliefs foster problems in society when different groups and individuals all insist that their understanding of facts is the absolute truth. Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher of the 19th century, claimed that everyone sees the world differently because everyone has their own unique tendencies.
In his book "The Will to Power,” Nietzsche said, "[The world] is interpretable… it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings — ‘Perspectivism.' It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm."
His theory seems probable because a variety of thought is part of human nature. In a positive light, our differences are what define us and enhance the human experience. They determine the values we hold and cause us to gravitate towards particular subgroups in our culture, whether those groups are religious, cultural, or related to a political party.
While I suspect this is predominantly a valuable aspect of human behavior, it undoubtedly has its side effects. These include labeling, stereotypes, assumptions, and general discord among people when each claims their own views to be the most accurate perceptions of reality.
A clash of ideas is inevitable despite the calls for improvement that seem especially prominent today. As suggested before, the benefits of diverse opinions outweigh the countless arguments they spark.
I agree that our society should be better at explaining our beliefs and why we hold them. All people need to learn how to genuinely listen to each other and remain sensitive to others.
What I do believe, however, is that it's impossible to achieve a perfect society that can create solutions for all the disagreements we have. While some people might make this harmonious world a goal, it's not realistic as long as human nature prevails. It could even be detrimental to compare our lives with it because it causes us to see our opponents as a burden.
Therefore, rather than viewing our different beliefs as obstacles to progress, let us re-evaluate where our variance comes from and use it to understand one another better.
Beliefs foster problems in society when different groups and individuals all insist that their understanding of facts is the absolute truth. Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher of the 19th century, claimed that everyone sees the world differently because everyone has their own unique tendencies.
In his book "The Will to Power,” Nietzsche said, "[The world] is interpretable… it has no meaning behind it, but countless meanings — ‘Perspectivism.' It is our needs that interpret the world; our drives and their For and Against. Every drive is a kind of lust to rule; each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm."
His theory seems probable because a variety of thought is part of human nature. In a positive light, our differences are what define us and enhance the human experience. They determine the values we hold and cause us to gravitate towards particular subgroups in our culture, whether those groups are religious, cultural, or related to a political party.
While I suspect this is predominantly a valuable aspect of human behavior, it undoubtedly has its side effects. These include labeling, stereotypes, assumptions, and general discord among people when each claims their own views to be the most accurate perceptions of reality.
A clash of ideas is inevitable despite the calls for improvement that seem especially prominent today. As suggested before, the benefits of diverse opinions outweigh the countless arguments they spark.
I agree that our society should be better at explaining our beliefs and why we hold them. All people need to learn how to genuinely listen to each other and remain sensitive to others.
What I do believe, however, is that it's impossible to achieve a perfect society that can create solutions for all the disagreements we have. While some people might make this harmonious world a goal, it's not realistic as long as human nature prevails. It could even be detrimental to compare our lives with it because it causes us to see our opponents as a burden.
Therefore, rather than viewing our different beliefs as obstacles to progress, let us re-evaluate where our variance comes from and use it to understand one another better.