What puzzles me is why you think this is something to be admired rather than something to be avoided.

I don't admire it. I don't avoid it. I just observe it.

Rich

Equality can be interpreted in many ways. One way would be the mathematical identical. But one can also say that one perspective is as valid as another, and therefore no one should take precedence over another.

Wikipedia has a different take:

"Perspectivism is the philosophical view developed by Friedrich Nietzscheideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives which determine any possible judgment of truth or value that we may make; this implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does that all not necessarily propose that all perspectives are equally valid."

So it all depends upon how one interprets the notion of Perspectivism, which of course is the heart of the idea.

Rich

Here is the contradiction though:

I do not believe that *MY* Perspective is Equal to Anything to begin with.

(How could it be?)

If my belief is "true" (which my statement undeniably-proves itself as it stands) then my Perspective must be evaluated by some (undescribed) means of judgment. And then, who is to say that Perspectives, whatever they truly-are, should be taken, accepted, observed, judged, etc. in some definable way? This train-of-thought steps backward from Perspectivism and smashes it apart. And my own "perspective" refutes itself from the ideology. Unless I presuppose some kind of "Equality" (which I do not), then Perspectivism-itself becomes an Impossibility.

:perplexed:

Yes, I know. You are a camera. But, the fact is that when I observe vacuity and confusion, I tend to deplore it. It has no place in philosophy. It is like tolerating slums.

Hi,

But someone can have a different perspective. Someone can believe that their belief is a guesstimate, not necessarily true. I does not have to be judged in any way, just possibly considered and taken for what it is worth. Truth does not have to be a goal, unless one makes it so. Simple observation and learning may be enough for some.

Rich

---------- Post added at 08:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 PM ----------




Rich

Necessarily, you cannot believe anything without believing it is true.

However, you can believe something without believing it is necessarily true.
And, you cannot learn something without learning that it is true, for, if it is false, you have not learned it. So, necessarily, if you believe you have learned something, then necessarily, you believe that it is true. Surely you see that. You keep dodging truth, but without avail. It is there when you least expect it; in the very meaning of what you say. The radical skeptic always trips over his own feet.

Sure. You can discuss, research, observe, ponder it. Do whatever you want. And then you can choose to either maintain your perspective, or change perspective. Perspectives can change. That is the beauty of perspectives.

What we have here is a very brief description of Free Will and Subjectivity - i.e. the ability to observe, change direction, and form a new idea.

Rich

I may believe something knowing full well that I am probably wrong (happens to me throughout the day), and I learn from my mistakes.

Rich

Hi,

But someone can have a different perspective. Someone can believe that their belief is a guesstimate, not necessarily true. I does not have to be judged in any way, just possibly considered and taken for what it is worth. Truth does not have to be a goal, unless one makes it so. Simple observation and learning may be enough for some.

Rich

And how about the perspective of the chap who thinks he is Louis the 16th? You find that all right, since he can discuss, research, observe, or ponder, the glorious court of Versailles (until he is beheaded, of course. But the pleasure of being with Marie Antoinette. Could you beat it?

I said you cannot believe something is true, and believe it is false.

And that is clearly so. In any case, I suppose it is possible to believe something, and believe it is probably false if you are confused, or suffering from multiple personality. Or, of course, if you believe something, but refuse to accept it.

And finally: What is a "perspective" in the first place? ~an opinion? ~something else?

Interesting that you have so much to say about Perspective and yet after all, you ask this. A dictionary is what, 5 seconds away? (Nowhere does it mention 'opinion, bye the way.)
Here, let me help, all definitions are relevent (and the link will provide more);

per⋅spec⋅tive [per-spek-tiv]
-noun
1. a technique of depicting volumes and spatial relationships on a flat surface. Compare aerial perspective, linear perspective.
2. a picture employing this technique, esp. one in which it is prominent: an architect's perspective of a house.
3. a visible scene, esp. one extending to a distance; vista: a perspective on the main axis of an estate.
4. the state of existing in space before the eye: The elevations look all right, but the building's composition is a failure in perspective.
5. the state of one's ideas, the facts known to one, etc., in having a meaningful interrelationship: You have to live here a few years to see local conditions in perspective.
6. the faculty of seeing all the relevant data in a meaningful relationship: Your data is admirably detailed but it lacks perspective.
7. a mental view or prospect: the dismal perspective of terminally ill patients.

I was being rhetorical.

I know full-well what a "perspective" is.

It is just a (philosophical) opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Then you remain clueless.

You might try reading the dictionary. Your definition (that lives inside your head, " nothing more, nothing less") is a very singular, just in your own mind, definition.
Nowhere in any dictionary is your definition reflected. That doesnt discount your 'opinion', but you will have a difficult time communicating with people who are conversant with the language. You'll have to define your particular meaning to be understood.
The definitions everyone else uses (dictionary) is quite adequate. Your definition adds nothing to the mix, and actually reduces it into a moronic oblivion. Occam lances it like a boil!

Hi Rich,

And finally: What is a "perspective" in the first place? ~an opinion? ~something else?

O Freunde nicht diese Tone !

Let's confine the discussion to ascertaining what the philosophical position of perspectivalism actually might entail; with this understanding, criticisms and analysis of the position and not the participants might be more productive.

That is "just" my perspective.
John

Perspectives ≠ Positions.

:perplexed:

perspective
c.1380, "science of optics," from O.Fr. perspective, from M.L. perspectiva ars "science of optics," from fem. of perspectivus "of sight, optical" from L. perspectus, pp. of perspicere "inspect, look through," from per- "through" + specere "look at" (see scope (1)). Sense of "art of drawing objects so as to give appearance of distance or depth" is first found 1598, influenced by It. prospettiva, an artists' term. The fig. meaning "mental outlook over time" is first recorded 1762.

opinion
c.1300, from O.Fr. opinion (12c.), from L. opinionem (nom. opinio) "opinion, conjecture, what one thinks," from stem of opinari "think, judge, suppose, opine," from PIE *op- "to choose." Opinionated "obstinate" is attested from 1601.

I fail to see how these terms are drastically different.