I'd like to justify my decision not to participate in public discussions here a little better (for those who are interested).
When it comes to judging the truth of an opinion, I think there are two groups of people:
(1) Some people think that
all opinions are basically equal (e.g. all products or fertilization methods are good, but each in a different context; i.e. we all have our [subjective] truth, but it only applies to us) => this approach is [seemingly]
non-conflicting.
- This position is referred to in philosophy as relativism because it declares that "everything is relative" (subjective) and that "no single [objective] truth exists".
- PS: Note my signature in this context, where I try to prove the falsity of this opinion by simple logical reasoning.
(2) Others think that
some views are contradictory, i.e., mutually exclusive (if one is true, the other cannot be true at the same time) => this attitude inevitably leads to
conflict (to arguments over which view is true and which is false).
- This position is sometimes referred to in philosophy as absolutism (or substantialism) because it asserts that "objective truth exists" (or that there are things substantial and things accidental) and can be known with certainty through logical reasoning.
I belong to the second group => i.e. I believe that some views are contradictory (and thus one of them is necessarily false).
Example:
god exists vs. does not exist => both views cannot be true in principle; if one is true, then the other is automatically false.
Most people today [in my opinion] tend to belong to the first group (= relativism/subjectivism) ... because this philosophy has been mainstream for the last few hundred years.
If these people meet on a social network, they each communicate their [subjective] opinion there and don't address whether one of them is right or wrong (they generally don't think in these categories). They often take individual opinions as pieces of a mosaic. Thanks to this they can [to some extent] respect and enrich each other (each can take what suits them from the opinions of others and incorporate it into their own opinion => so-called
syncretism). In religion, the parable of the
blind men and an elephant is often used to describe this mosaic approach.
The problem arises when a "absolutist" gets into a group of "relativists" and starts to criticize some of the views that appear in this group (i.e. to evaluate the degree of their veracity) and point to their contradictions => A storm breaks out (an opinion shootout), which ends most often with the excommunication of this "troublemaker" (i.e. by his exclusion from the group of peaceful relativists), because the administrators of the forum belong to this group as well, of course [just look in the "Terms and rules"] (so they often do not understand the objections of the absolutist and perceive them as personal attacks on others and an attempt to disrupt the peaceful coexistence of the members of the first group).
I have tried to discuss with members of the first group many times and on many different platforms, and it always ended the same way => with my banishment into exile.
Leaving aside the question of which group is in the right (because that is of course a rhetorical question to which members of both groups have a clear answer), the fact is that trying to fit in with the first group can never succeed for an absolutist (i.e., by principle).
It took me quite a long time to get this straight and realize this.
And this is also why I simply cannot engage in any public discussion on this (or any similar) forum => it always ends the same way: in conflict.
I mention it here only to explain why I prefer private correspondence to public discussion, and moreover only with people of "my blood type" (my group). I don't expect the majority to understand this, but the "kindred minority" hopefully will.
PS: I believe that more people like me have appeared here in the past (and will certainly appear again) and that they have unfortunately met an unfavourable fate (= ban) because of their similar attitude. I don't want to judge now who was more to blame for that - them or the administrators. But if you find the opinions of these people useful (interesting, valuable), then I will be glad if you at least think more deeply about this problem. This is not a problem of some external inadaptability to the rules defined by the members of the first group, but a problem of the deeper philosophical foundations on which both groups base all their other views. And I regret to say that while members of the first group (who can easily adapt to their own rules because they are tailored to them) are respected here, members of the second group have a much harder time.
