Amongst family there are frequently disagreements, often over items that to me seem cut and dry-because they are issues in which the other person is factually incorrect.
But could their point of view be valid? Do they perhaps have simply a different way of looking at something?
How do you remain open minded enough to distinguish this?
Amongst family there are frequently disagreements, often over items that to me seem cut and dry-because they are issues in which the other person is factually incorrect.
But could their point of view be valid? Do they perhaps have simply a different way of looking at something?
How do you remain open minded enough to distinguish this?
Dearest EternalSearch,
"How many points of view can be valid?" you asked.
I would say my answer to that query is, as many people as there are on the planet and as many stars as there are in our skies.
I think you hit the nail on the head, as the old saying goes, when you asked: Do they perhaps have simply a different way of looking at something?
I think that is exactly right. Each of us travel a slightly different pathe back to Original Source, and it is from the perspective of where we stand on our journey that determines how we see, what we see. For each individual, their truth is just that.........Their Truth. The best we can do is share (not force) truths with each other, because in doing so we help each other along the way, and as we travel individually and collectively, Truth Grows.
Depending on which theory of reality you believe it can be one, none or many. Philosphy teaches us that there are different forms of "real" and thus points of view. Some come into being because you believe in them and others don't. I believe there are an infinite number of correct points of view, based on where the speaker is standing.
All can be valid if there is really truth behind the message.
Example: A young cousin of mine believes in something I think is fully stupid. While there are logical reasons (I am not sure if logical is the right word or not), he believes as his personal choice, our gov should implement a rule about this "X" issue (what I will call it). When people decide they want to debate on personal belief for national issues that to me is just an example of something not really truthful or valid.
Someone has already gave a good answer to this question previously.
I will only add to that thought.
All points are valid! The wrong ,the right, the injust, the fair, the unkowing, the negative and the positive.
From each we learn ,from each we feed as if it were the fuel to an engine of faith. It is from not excepting or understanding anothers point of view that underminds are ability to seea deeper and more profound meaning of life, in relation to thought and the impact it has on society.
To be open minded is to allow the windsof change to alter the perception of self exsistence, in which helps us understand the greater meaning adn the power that themind has over the body.
To open one eye is the same as opening two, one will percieve the same reality.
To open ones mind in order to understand another is an intergrated reality.
One that complements the oneness of life as a whole.
Many are unaware of this and therefor are ignorant to the emotions of others.
I don't think that quite all points of view are valid. I think that there comes a point when you have to see sense-for instance if one thinks that black is white and the reverse. There are facts about our world that we cannot change through force of will.
Again, it may be perception. After all someone may see the world as black and you may see it as white. Neither is right or wrong for the other - only for themselves. Because that is just the view they have.
Even involving some sort of govt. in our own perceptions will not get it done. The reason so many good bills miss is because the govt. is not thinking good. But the same can be true of the bad. So balance out it does.
So when a person is factually incorrect, you think that they are fine to still argue their incorrect facts as truth-and that their incorrect facts are just as valid?
I'm still struggling with this issue-I think that some facts are just concrete.
When it comes to things such as faith and religious beliefs, yes, I can fully accept that. But someone else said here that the only truth is that e=MC2. Well what if someone even disagrees with that-the most fundamental principles, such as that we are built up of atoms-are these things not truths that cannot be argued?
Linear Mode
