ID:30077
 
People who are close acquaintances of mine for a long time have sometimes noticed that opinions I once felt very strongly about and express in a vehement fashion can wind up changing, often with little external warning.

This comes from one of the cornerstones of my philosophy: all opinions are inherently suspect, if not outright worthless, and should be attacked savagely to expose their flaws (though, as I've said before, I'm trying to cut down on the amount of time I spend doing this.)

Usually, when I express this belief to somebody, they respond with, "Oh, so only your opinions are worth anything. What makes you so special?"... completely overlooking the fact that I claimed no exception for myself.

My idea of a good argument is one where everybody (again, not excepting myself) goes away with their opinions at least slightly modified, because this suggests that everybody learned something.

</BIG LONG PREAMBLE>

The upshot of this is that I'm coming to the conclusion that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with fan[whatevers]. I just got done reading this. It's mostly a legal defense of fan fiction, but I honestly don't give a flying fornication about legality. Something is either right or wrong, regardless of the law... the law should ideally be defined by morality, but morality is not defined by laws.

However, the article makes a very persuasive argument by way of having a big long rambling preamble that goes on for miles and miles before ever coming to any thing which resembles any kind of a point (is there anything better?). It doesn't invoke so many legal principles in this portion, but instead focuses on what human impulses cause fan fiction, and what benefits flow from it.

I read it, and found myself agreeing.

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that 99% of fan fiction is pure and utter crap... but that's more a function of zero barrier to entry. If nobody ever had the idea of writing fan fiction, but everybody who did wrote original fiction (orgfic? Hee hee. I like that term) instead, the same percentage of that would be just as crappy.

So, I'm not going to take up writing fan fiction any time soon. I'm also not going to release my own characters to the public domain or stop (gently) discouraging readers who suggest that they might take a stab at writing them.

Massive control issues aside, there's a big difference between my humble efforts and those of a major multinational corporation: there's no doubt in anybody's mind which is the "real, official" version when a major multinational corporation is involved. As long as I'm just Some Person self-publishing on the internet, it'd be hrd to distinguish my official work from any fan fic that did crop up.

And that's also not to say I agree with everything put forth within the article I linked to. I believe an author can be in the position of possessing the One True Interpretation of his or her work. The fact that everybody who encounters said work will perceive it differently doesn't negate the author's vision, any more than the fact that twenty people will hear the same sound differently negates the ultimate truth of that sound.

The "real version" of my characters exist within my head, and some of them get pretty vocal and/or violent when they find themselves being misinterpreted... but... that's a different subject entirely.
"This comes from one of the cornerstones of my philosophy: all opinions are inherently suspect, if not outright worthless, and should be attacked savagely to expose their flaws."

That's an extremely cynical and vocally bitchy way to live. It also demonstrates that you have way too much time on your hands, and are anti-social. You may have also been depraved of human kindness when you were young. The major flaw in your "philosophy" is, however, that opinions are,however unideal, attached very much so to a human being's feelings and experiences. So even though you often don't intend to, you are inadvertently attacking people not just opinions.

Sorry to be so critical but something about that statement irked me.

I guess it has to do with how so many of the members on this site have to be so outrightly critical it is disgusting.
You do realize your personal philosophy is opinion as well, correct?
Pop, but of course. :P Wherein is it suggested that I don't?

Worldweaver: You are at this moment (or at the moment in which you posted your comment, you were) practicing my philosophy... or attempting to.

But, you happen to be off-base. I'm an extremely optimistic person.

I look at the attitude that "Well, we all have opinions and often the truth is unknowable, so no opinion is better than any other and nobody can really be said to be right or wrong." as cynical.

It is cynical in that it 1) assumes that difficult ideals (finding the truth, instead of settling for opinion) are not worth string for and 2) allows people to protect and enshrine their own beliefs (including their own prejudices) without ever having to question them themselves... or allow others to question them.

In saying that all opinions are inherently suspect, if not outright worthless, I'm being more blunt than most, but this is not a radical idea. "The unexamined life is not worth living.", "Question everything.", and the Buddha's "Do not believe a thing that anybody tells you, even if I tell you, unless it agrees with your own reasoning." Buddhists aren't known for their cynicism.

As for having too much time on my hands... as I've mentioned in past blogs, engaging in my "questioning" behavior eats into my non-existent free time, which is the main reason I'm trying to curtail it.

As for being deprived of human kindness... hmm. Not sure what to say there. I often find myself lamenting that my friends (and many people who aren't my friends) don't have the kind of relationship I have with my parents, and my family at large.

So, why am I so blunt about it? Because I perceive in society a powerful trend against the questioning of opinions and beliefs. If 90% of the population resists the idea of examination, the 10% that is in favor of questioning must be 10 times as strong. The purpose is NOT to belittle people, or be disrespectful... indeed, I believe it is not possible to TRULY respect a belief without questioning it.

"Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it." != respect! You're saying, "Well, your opinion is yours, but there's no way on earth I'm even going to consider it." It's not respect, it's a treaty between people who are afraid of having their bubbles burst.

The fact that so many people assume they're being personally attacked when their opinions are called into question is a perfect example of why the questioning is necessary.

While I believe the world is an awesome place and generally getting better, I also believe that the progress of mankind is impeded by a cultural degeneration that has seen the sacred right to HOLD and EXPRESS opinions mutate into the ridiculous notion that opinions themselves are sacred and protected.

This bizarre idea often leads to the "free speech first strike" rule, where if one person comes into a venue and says "God is yellow.", and somebody else then later says "God is pink.", the person who was there first goes "OH MY YELLOW GOD, HOW DARE YOU SAY MY BELIEF IS WRONG STOP OPRESSING ME!" Obviously, that example is both a simplification and an exagerration, but the phenomenon it describes is very real.

Now, you believe that my philosophy contains flaws. Isn't that valid, under the "All opinions are equally good" philosophy? But look at what you did:

"Sorry to be so critical but something about that statement irked me."

You apologized.

For stating your opinion.

Why?

Because it was about a person? Because it contradicts my previously stated opinion (see the above "first strike" rule)? Maybe you should feel bad about making assumptions about my childhood (with implications towards the persons responsible for rearing me)... but why should you feel bad about stating your opinion?

For that matter, if I had looked at your opinion and gone, "You know what, you're right? You have exposed a flaw in my thinking, and I will abandon my current stance."... would you feel bad? Would you feel like you'd done me a disservice of some kind?

Or would you feel good that you'd made the world a better place?
Nowhere. I'm just making sure you realize your philosophy is just a wee bit really weird. <_<
It's certainly unconventional in the modern world, where we prefer a man who shouts "STAY THE COURSE!" to be in charge of the steering wheel for an entire country, no matter how rocky the terrain becomes.
Savagely attacking the opinions of children(who's opinions are probably a product or replica of their parents') on a game development website is hardly embattling a societal policy of "sacred opinions".

I'm talking about BYOND(you might be talking in general) because that's the medium that we're using and I'm assuming we are discussing.
No, really weird as in it's a bit contradictory.
It's not even a little bit contradictory.
Ah, and didn't see Worldweaver's reply. Anyway:

Savagely attacking the opinions of children(who's opinions are probably a product or replica of their parents') on a game development website is hardly embattling a societal policy of "sacred opinions".

There's nothing special about this venue. There's no reason to do so here, in particular... but there's no reason to particularly not do it here, either.

If somebody has made it their mission to argue with people on BYOND in particular, in hopes of achieving some end (any end, really), I'd say they're misguided.

On the other hand, if somebody followed a general philosophy of contrarianism or devil's advocacy, for any end, I'd wonder why they exempted one particular site or another from that belief.

And yes, children do get their opinions from their parents (and the dominant culture around them.) That's why it's especially important that they be exposed to conflicting views, while they're still young and their thinking is not so rigid. Not necessarily to replace the thoughts their parents have instilled in them... but to make sure when they're forming their own adult world view, they have a whole box of tools at their disposal instead of simply having a hammer (or screwdriver, or whatever.)

Anyways, I'm really curious to know if you would feel bad if your posts here changed somebody's mind (mine, or anybody else's.)... if you wouldn't feel bad about it, then what exactly are you objecting to?
I suppose it's not so much contradictory as it is paradoxial. It makes me think of a self-reference paradox ("All Reillys are liars and I'm a Reilly" sort of thing).
There's nothing special about this venue. There's no reason to do so here, in particular... but there's no reason to particularly not do it here, either.


Uh yes there is, this venue is populated 95% by kids.


On the other hand, if somebody followed a general philosophy of contrarianism or devil's advocacy, for any end, I'd wonder why they exempted one particular site or another from that belief.

Why do people that curse all the time stop cursing around children? It's inappropriate in this venue.



And yes, children do get their opinions from their parents (and the dominant culture around them.) That's why it's especially important that they be exposed to conflicting views, while they're still young and their thinking is not so rigid. Not necessarily to replace the thoughts their parents have instilled in them... but to make sure when they're forming their own adult world view, they have a whole box of tools at their disposal instead of simply having a hammer (or screwdriver, or whatever.)


You do this by creating a enriched learning environment. Not by hammering small children.



Anyways, I'm really curious to know if you would feel bad if your posts here changed somebody's mind (mine, or anybody else's.)... if you wouldn't feel bad about it,

I'm trying to get you to change your opinion right now aren't I?

then what exactly are you objecting to?

People being assholes. It's so much more common on the internet and it's repulsive. People say things they wouldn't dream of saying in real life.

This is not going to change, I know this. But this site is definitely not the place to be an jerk. People come here to enjoy themselves by creating or playing games and in that kind of environment we don't need aggressive/mean social attitudes.
But it's not even paradoxical... the assumption that it is or must be a paradox derives from the same assumption I mentioned in the post that makes people go, "So only your opinions count?"

There is no paradox in a philosophy that calls itself into question... it only seems like there must be one, becuase of the (seemingly natural) prevailing attitude towards "one's own" (whoever the "one" in question is) opinions, thoughts, and feelings.

The repeated questioning of core beliefs is not an uncommon motif in philosophy, and is in fact the basis of good science and good reporting.

While many people see it as inherently weakening or undermining the belief, I see it as ultimately strengthening any belief system it forms the foundation of (assuming that said belief system doesn't collapse under scrutiny... but that's the whole point of it.)

Consider: The literal meaning of "proof" is test... a theory is "proven" if it has been tested rigorously, "fireproof" and "bulletproof" were originally "fire proofed" and "bullet proofed", and the phrases didn't refer to the property of resisting those things, but the fact that the manufacturer of the item had in fact tested them against fire and bullets.

A philosophy that's repeatedly questioned is therefore a "proven" (in the original sense, not the "solve for X" sense) philosophy, and worth hanging on to.
If we determined your policy was false using your policy of aggressive attacking of opinions that means we should "Live and Let Live" and and there we go in the circle.
Well, it isn't paradoxial considering opinions aren't fact, like one would expect in the "All Reillys are liars and I'm a Reilly" statement. Still, I don't see how considerings one's own opinions are worthless strengthens anyone's belief system.

I'll stick to the sort of "My opinions are right as far as I give a damn" philosophy.
Uh yes there is, this venue is populated 95% by kids.

Why do people that curse all the time stop cursing around children? It's inappropriate in this venue.

The mere fact that you equate challenging the beliefs of young people with cursing in front of them gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling about the fact that I do so... it's a crystal clear illustration of the larger problem.

I'm trying to get you to change your opinion right now aren't I?

Exactly!

The thing you said I shouldn't do!

Do you feel bad about it?

Is it a bad thing? Is what you are doing objectionable? Are you going to stop when I point out that CHILDREN can see what you're doing? If there was a chance I was a tweenybopper, would you be holding back now?

See also: "> >then what exactly are you objecting to?"

...

People being assholes.

Object to people being assholes, then. Are you saying there's no difference between being an asshole and assuming the position of skepticism? Was Socrates an asshole? Hey, nmow that I think about it, he deliberately aimed his "hammering" at the youths of Athens... could be the learned men on the city council were justified in the hemlock cocktail, huh? One less asshole in the world!

It's so much more common on the internet and it's repulsive. People say things they wouldn't dream of saying in real life.

This ain't real life?

Which one of us is imaginary, me... or you?

If I'm imaginary, then you should imagine me saying that you're getting worked up over nothing. If you're imaginary, on the other hand, I might just keep this up because it's an interesting intellectual exercise.

It seems pedantic to question this, when I know what you mean... but the problem of people being bigger jerks than they would otherwise be doesn't spring from the fact that "IT'S JUST THE INTERNET LOL!" The problem is from the perception that "IT'S JUST THE INTERNET LOL!" means anything more than "it's the internet"... that it is, or should be... separate from real life.


This is not going to change, I know this. But this site is definitely not the place to be an jerk. People come here to enjoy themselves by creating or playing games and in that kind of environment we don't need aggressive/mean social attitudes.

Like the sign out front says: "Come for the games, stay for the salad bar." People joined the community for all sorts of reasons, but now that it IS a community, they hang around and do all sorts of things. If somebody's discussing their creation, and I don't like what they're doing, I try to stay out of it... there's an audience for everything; they don't need me approval. I used to feel strongly enough about fan games to voice my disapproval every chance I got... but as the main post mentioned, I'm finding my thinking changed on that score... and even before that, I'd stopped objecting nearly as often.*

On the other hand, if somebody's talking about religion, or science, or Homestar Runner continuity, or the rules for apostrophe use, or whatever, though... the fact that they're doing so on "JUST THE INTERNET LOL" in general, or a BYOND blog in particular... makes no difference on any meaningful level.






*I find it mildly ironic that the phrase which "irks" you so much that you need to compare my behavior to "assholes" who "hammer children" (I wouldn't swear that you're actually referring to me there, but I wouldn't swear tht you're not) was part of my preamble setting up the context for how I'd had my mind changed about something by a persuasive argument couched as a legal brief, and so now there's a whole class of things I'm not going to automatically discredit/disdain/dislike... in other words, my mind has been broadened because I considered that all opinions, my own included, might be wrong, and thus was able to give honest consideration to what somebody else had to say on the subject.

I repeat again: what are you objecting to here? That's not so much an interrogative statement that I'm seeking an answer to... I'm suggesting you ask yourself it.
World: > If we determined your policy was false using your policy of aggressive attacking of opinions that means we should "Live and Let Live" and and there we go in the circle.

No circle. If I ever determine my philosophy is too flawed or lacking in value to continue following it, I will... stop following it. If I continued to follow it in some meta-sense, then the fact that the means which invalidated it would also be perceived as invalid... and then we get the circle. But that would require me to cling to the philosophy in practice while repudiating it outwardly.

This philosophy COULD be paradoxical or lead to an infinite circle, but it would require a considerable degree of hypocrisy...

Pop: > Still, I don't see how considerings one's own opinions are worthless strengthens anyone's belief system.

My memory is notoriously porous. Did we ever have an argument about quantum science? Was that you? I'm not being sarcastic. It's just this will sound weird and out of left-field if that wasn't you... and being on my phone, I don't want to search. :P

Anyway... assuming that was you... it's the same thinking that drives scientific progress, and allows you to say, "Look, this has been tested and tested and it keeps coming back 'true.'"

Science starts with a hypothesis... an assumption... an opinion about how the universe works, and then tests that assumption, and tests it, and tests it. The assumption itself has no value, except in so far as it can be tested and found to be either lacking or strong.

So, why should this principle only apply to "science stuff"?

Obviously, there are limits to how far some opinions can be tested, especially ones like "Chocolate tastes good.", especially as such opinions have an implicit "[to me]" attached to them... so I'm not suggesting that we spend our lives asking everybody around them if they really like chocolate or only think they do... but of course, this can be abused, with people weaseling around with their prejudices by saying things like, "To me, [insert color]-skinned people seem like shiftless, unevolved morons. That's my opinion." and repeating the, "my opinion" part when questioned.

I'll stick to the sort of "My opinions are right as far as I give a damn" philosophy

Yeah, you and most of the world. "I'd rather be wrong and feel right."
Objection: Not to disagreeing with someone but to being an asshole about it or "savagely attacking" someone's opinions.

The thing you said I shouldn't do!

Whoa, whoa! Slow down there, I argue with people all the time, I'm objecting to people being an asshole when they disagree with some one.

This ain't real life?

=p Maybe I should have rephrased that to "When they don't have a wall of anonymity to hide behind."

Like the sign out front says: "Come for the games, stay for the salad bar." People joined the community for all sorts of reasons, but now that it IS a community, they hang around and do all sorts of things. If somebody's discussing their creation, and I don't like what they're doing, I try to stay out of it... there's an audience for everything; they don't need me approval. I used to feel strongly enough about fan games to voice my disapproval every chance I got... but as the main post mentioned, I'm finding my thinking changed on that score... and even before that, I'd stopped objecting nearly as often.*

On the other hand, if somebody's talking about religion, or science, or Homestar Runner continuity, or the rules for apostrophe use, or whatever, though... the fact that they're doing so on "JUST THE INTERNET LOL" in general, or a BYOND blog in particular... makes no difference on any meaningful level.


Again, I'm not objecting to respectful disagreement, I'm objecting to people being assholes.

">then what exactly are you objecting to?

People being assholes. It's so much more common on the internet and it's repulsive. People say things they wouldn't dream of saying in real life."

"I guess it has to do with how so many of the members on this site have to be so outrightly critical it is disgusting."
"People being assholes." != "Savagely attacking opinions." "People being assholes." != "Assuming opinions are worthless."

You cannot debate meaningfully without the assumption that both your opinion and the opinion of the person with whom you're arguing are suspect.

If you enter into a debate with the attitude that your opinion is your opinion and nothing's going to change it, you're far more likely to be wasting time/stirring up trouble than the person who goes in with the thought that opinions are inherently devoid of value until "proven" (using the old meaing, below.)

Look at how many 1,000,000+ post threads there are on the forum that end with people going, "Well, that's my opinion and nothing you can say will change it."... or better, look at how many have that somewhere near the --middle--, or even at the top, but go on to become massive flame wars following said declaration.

Where else can such a conversation go, realistically?
"People being assholes." != "Savagely attacking opinions."

And that is where I disagree. You can sit down and have a logical interesting argument without savagely attacking anything.
Page: 1 2 3