First example. In music there is often a distinction made between harmony and voice leading, and it is often asserted that, in the old(er) view, harmony takes precedence over voice leading, but that, in modern theory, voice leading takes precedence over harmony. Yet anyone with thorough experience in music has observed the impenetrable complexity with which the two interrelate, and has probably also discovered that this complexity exists because harmony and voice leading are not perfectly defined entities; they are merely human constructs, not imposed by nature. Now like most people I do lean toward the modern theory which favors the teaching of voice leading over that of harmony, but I also realize the limitations of so dividing the elements of music, for when an individual has acquired a thorough understanding of both of these elements, often he no longer even sees the distinction between them.
In asserting this I rely on my own experience and reason, and am quite confident that they are correct. As much, therefore, as it may seem to be an individual viewpoint, merely one person’s take on a subject, it is, in my mind, knowledge of a fact.
Second example. Among the many reasons I dislike Bush is that I think that his tax cuts were excessive. Now I am not an economist, and I have never taken an economics course. My only real experience in this respect consists of a few brief hours of interest in which I forced myself to read The Wealth of Nations. (I got through the whole thing, although it was an abridged version; nearly all of Book III was omitted.) Yet combining my own common sense with the opinions of those more educated than I am, I have drawn what is, to me, the most rational viewpoint, that Bush’s financial policies are destructive and we need to elect a candidate who will be more considerate of the budget. If, however, someone disagreed with me on this point, or objected to the actions of my ideal President, I would humbly accept it, for there are many things I do not understand. I therefore call my position an opinion, or a personal viewpoint.
Third example. In this thread I expressed a suspicion I had while acknowledging that I was probably too confused about the subject (evolution) to be trusted on it. When Blake therefore arrived and refuted my argument, and also provided some enlightening comments on how evolution works, I saw that he was correct, and I was nothing but grateful for his remarks. I was able to do this because I saw that my argument had been mere speculation based on ignorance.
The tripartite division that has emerged is nothing new; I learned it, in fact, by reading Aristotle. What I bring to this thread is the tendency of people to distort and misinterpret it. Now I know that the distinctions are not always perfectly clear; it might perhaps be expressed better as a quality that varies within a range, the extremes being the first and third classes, and the median being the second. The problem, rather, lies in a person’s inability to perceive any difference at all among the three classes, and especially to label everything an “opinion.”
For example, in the first example above, many would call my assertions opinion, because it is such a “personal” viewpoint – after all, not many people know it. And in the third example, many people, had they been in my situation, would not have admitted their ignorance but simply expressed their idea as something valid, since it is, after all, merely their opinion; and this we all know far too well from the abundance of people who are completely ignorant about biology but boldly assert their “opinions” about evolution.
What I am disputing is not the definition of the word opinion, of course, but the consequences of such usage. When someone says this or that is their “opinion,” they manage to evade the problem of their own ignorance, or, as is more subtly effective, the fact that the subject in question is more clearly a matter of fact than they would have it seem. I remember reading a customer review on Amazon.com in which the reviewer complained about the other reviewers’ disputes, saying something like, “I wish people on this website would acknowledge that people’s opinions are just that – opinions!” Through the word opinions, he managed to make the logical leap that, because (by one definition of opinion) all personal feelings are opinions, then (by another definition of opinion) the subject of those feelings must be something about which factual knowledge is impossible – i.e., something frivolous and not worth debating, like musical tastes.
I hope you see that what I dispute here is not that whether the subject at hand was frivolous and not worth debating, but his assumption that simply labeling all discussion “opinion” could invalidate it.
I have found that it is best simply to remove all talk of “opinions” from one’s arguments. Before adopting a viewpoint, one must first assess what one knows and doesn’t know, and the odds that each viewpoint is correct, based on that. Then, one can identify a specific sentiment and call it one’s own, and decide whether to act violently on it or express it seldom and with timidity based on one’s confidence in it. Don’t label it all “opinion” and act carelessly on every impulse.
So that’s my half-ranting, totally non-inspirational message for the day.
