9 of 64

Write now Article Tools

Opinion is a paradox.

Just the other day, I was driving home respecting the government mandated limit of speed, when a hotshot in an SUV, resembling more of a tank than a car, swerves and zooms in front of me, promptly slamming on the brakes. After screeching to a halt inches from his bumper, I see, through his back window, the face of a very disgruntled businessman. His anger appears to be directed at me, while I am instinctively very unhappy with the fact I almost collided with his luxurious monster of a vehicle. Who is right in his judgment, am I right? Are we both right? Is it possible to be right in this situation?

Every day we let our opinions float off our tongue without thinking about it, but how can we? Almost everything we think and know is based on some sort of formulated, subjective opinion. Imagine a conversation with no opinion: pure raw babble with nothing interesting. Involvement in such an experience would likely be just that- not interesting. The fact we have opinions is not a problem, but how they are used is.

For instance, I find myself thoroughly displeased with the manner at which the man in the SUV has exercised his driving privilege. It's a very natural reaction. In my mind, he almost caused me to crash. The businessman, on the other hand was frustrated that I dared to drive as slow as I was. Perhaps, he was late to work, or was unfortunate enough to fall victim to some other circumstance. What if in the seat beside him, lay his child half- conscious in dire need of medical attention; would I still be angry with him?

Information from the outside world enters our consciousness through our senses and perception. Through this information we can process our thoughts and beliefs. Why does the simple fact that a man is carrying a malady-laden child change whether or not I was angry with the man? The situation remains the same; he still swerved in front of me, and I still almost hit him. If one examines objectively, disregarding the subjective meaning of attachment (to a child), it would appear foolish to change my thoughts based on the mundane detail that organized matter, his child, is present beside him. Yet I do, for I am not objective. It would be ridiculous to say otherwise, yet in other circumstances societal guidelines may find it acceptable to disagree on subjective details. With everyone formulating their own biased projections of what their senses tell them, it's a wonder we can get anything done.

Take politics for example, the elephants and donkeys never seem to get along. If one stated the sky is blue, the other might declare it an effect of pigmented particles through light, each side arguing whole-heartedly in their conviction. In order to classify worldly events we have to attach word descriptions to each event. If, God forbid, someone decides to describe something differently than we have, we find it extremely agitating. This description can be classified as an opinion, in disagreement of differing opinions; the difference lies in the words. All of which attached to the same idea, so really, two sides of an argument center on the same idea, just different ways of describing it.

We see things through our own eyes, so obviously our perceptions will be different and vary from person to person. If we walked to moons in someone else's shoes wouldn't we see things differently? Maybe, maybe not, who knows? But if we could keep that mindset on hand perhaps petty problems and disagreements could be easily avoided. Until then we will remain pigmented particles through light.

Learn more about this author, Joe Falls.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Essays: Reality?
We want to hear your view. Write now!