Miles from Nowhere...: Why I can leave out the "I think"

07 July, 2007

Why I can leave out the "I think"

When having political discussions, or in fact any discussion with diverging opinions, people always find it necessary to say "I think" or "in my view" or something of that sort, to make it clear that an opinion is being uttered. But why should this be necessary??

People are always easily offended by absolute sentences like: it is wrong to do x. Of course this tendency does not restrict itself to the ethical or political realm; people may easily be offended by absolute statements about aesthetics like: EMO is a load of shit. The reason why people are more offended when it comes to ethical or political statements is because ethics and politics are far more serious and important to our personal well-being than most other things. Ethical and political statements are almost always value judgements and most people are of the opinion that value judgements can never be absolute. They think this, because they say people are determined by their genes and by the experience they've gained, and of course these two factors can never allow for an absolutely encompassing judgement about any subject.

This brand of moral relativism hasn't been around for such a long time, but relativism/skepticism in an epistemological sense has. It dates back to the Greek philosopher Pyrrho, who denied that it is possible to know the very nature of things. Pyrrhonists were very fond of making this doctrine clear by avoiding stating: "this house is red", and instead saying: "it APPEARS to me that this house is red" or "I THINK that this house is red". In this same way people nowadays avoid absolute statements by always adding "I think" before stating anything.

What I disagree with is the following: if we all think it's impossible to utter the nature of things, then why do we feel the need to make this fact obvious?? If this is the human condition, then all we can do is present our interpretation of the nature of things. Why is it then necessary to state our human condition? Isn't the human condition always the same, regardless of whether we state it or not??

It's obvious that the human condition does not change irrespective of whether it's stated or not. Therefore it is not necesary to state it. Expressing it is merely a formal or an aesthetic act and not one of subtance, meaning that it's perfectly fine to leave out the "I think" when uttering your opinion in a discussion.

The reason why people become angry if the formal "I think" is left out, is because they feel that someone is judging something about which they have no right to make an absolute judgement. However, considering the afore-mentioned, can there ever be something about which a human can make an absolute judgement? Concerning things which stand outside our realm of experience, no, a human can never make an absolute judgement (things which can be conceived independently of whether they exist, can of course be conceived). Of course in matters concerning one's own being, it is possible to make an absolute judgement, since the body, actions or thoughts compose the realm of one's experience.

Another reason why people need to say "I think" is because the idea of this brand of skepticism has only been widely accepted for around 50 years or so. Before it was still believed that it was possible to make absolute judgements. However, since we all believe in skepticism, it has become unnecessary to say"I think".

Anyone who believes in skepticism knows that if I say: you're an asshole, it's the same as saying: I think you're an asshole, or: due to my experience and my beliefs, I think you're an asshole. These sentences all mean the same thing, since there are always underlying
assumptions whenever anything is said or done. So if anyone reading this meets a person who really still believes in absolute (moral) judgements, just have an epistemological discussion with him/her and if that person should still believe in absolute judgements, you can walk away content, knowing that whatever anyone says is his/her opinion and nothing more. So there's really no need to become angry if someone doesn't say "I think".

PS: Of course I say "I think", but I shouldn't need to!!

6 comments:

  1. so... in a nutshell..
    what youre sayin is...

    theres no need to say "i think" before stating an opinion, because all opinions are subjective?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well if you want to be all simple about it...

    ReplyDelete
  3. lol!

    yknow this post reminds me of a discussion i had once about a series of (dare i call them) "paintings", that were on exhibition in the bar i frequent every now and then.
    now, dont get me wrong, i can appreciate art, but these things were basically drawings that a 6 year old girl could do (yknow, the princess, the unicorn, that type of shit), only bigger.
    so i ask the owner of the bar, how come she let this worthless crap be put up on her wall.
    anyway long story short, she got seriously pissed at me because i was saying shit like "that aint art" (and i stand by that)...well, turns out she knew the 'artist' (a woman, of course) personally.
    i reckon she was just defending her friend, and used the whole "you were saying its shit and not saying you didnt like it" thing to attack me.

    uuurgh, humans... make me sick sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yea exactly...that's what i meant by "an aesthetic act"...if you start arguing about whether you said "I think" or not, it's probably about something outside of the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ich denk, dass das "i think" mehr raum für gegenargumente lässt.

    weil ich dadurch dem gegenüber suggeriere, dass ich eine flexible meinung zum thema habe.

    Sidcom

    "only the sith deal in absolutes"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Danke Sidcom, dass du dir die Zeit genommen hast, den Post zu lesen und einen Kommentar zu hinterlassen!
    Ich wuerd sagen, dass es immer Raum fuer Gegenargumente gibt, da unsere Meinung ja limitiert ist und daher nie perfekt sein kann; sie ist also immanent flexibel. Also kann man zu jeder Meinung Gegenargumente finden...denk ich zumindest ;)
    Aber vom Erscheinen in einer Diskussion, also vom Psychologischen her, find ich, ist es sicher besser, diese Flexibilaet zu suggerieren; allerdings nur so lang, wie Leute nicht bedenken, dass jede Meinung limitiert ist.

    ReplyDelete