Is there such a thing as 'A correct point of view'.

[peter]

Quick fire question - not very deep - that just occured to me. Is there such a thing as a 'correct point of view' or are all points of view just that - points of view ie. only 'correct' to the individuals that hold them and thus really neither correct nor incorrect at all.

(Nb. If I hold the view 'Einstien was a man' this is a verifiable fact (or one that can be refuted) [I think ] and thus is not really 'a point of view' at all? ie Is a point of view really only something that can be held about something that is indeterminate and which would make the premise that 'There is no such thing as a correct point of view' easier to defend).

I won't feel ofended if no-one elects to dignify this externalised internal musing with an answer I promise - let's face it, I'll never even know you were here and quietly withdrew behind the curtain before making your dignified exit

[Orlion]

Depends on whether you believe there exists such a thing as objective truth, that is something that is true for everyone despite POV/FOR. I think it depends on what your view is about. Some viewpoints are just going to be plain wrong no matter what, others can hide in that strange void of 'ya can't prove or disprove, nyanya! ) and yet still others reside in the absolutely true or such certainty that it might as well be true, you'd have to dissemble a lot to even begin to call it into question.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Of course there are "correct" points of view, especially when it comes to almost all of science. The Sun, whose technical name is Sol, and other stars in the similar sequence of age, size, and color, are made up primarily of hydrogen and helium.

I suppose you could say that "verifiable facts" are not "points of view" because they are either true or they are not--they are objective in their nature and do not rely on the mindset, cultural/ethnic background, or personal beliefs of the viewer. Most other things are "point of view" situations because those things are subjective, such as "should multiple murderers be sentenced to life without parole or death?" (don't answer--this is just an example).

Some subjective viewpoints are incorrect, either because the premises that go into the foundation of an argument/point of view are incorrect (example: Steven Seagal is a better martial arts action star than Jean-Claude Van Damme when, in reality, they are both pretty poor actors) or the person making the argument engages in some logical fallacy (real Americans couldn't vote for someone like Romney, a clear use of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy). Either condition makes their conclusion, and thus their point of view, incorrect.

For the most part, though, points of view are no more correct nor incorrect from one another. What caused World War II? "Overly punitive conditions set down in the Treaty of Versailles" is just as true as "enough people bought into the ideas of 'national identity' and 'racial purity' that they did something about it".

[wayfriend]

We have the concept of point of view for a reason, don't we? It didn't happen by accident. We notice that different people have different perceptions of the same thing.

Someone looking at the dark side of the moon sees something different than someone looking at the lighted side. Who's correct?

Even in science, we have multiple points of view. Light can be a wave or it can be a particle. Who's correct? In quantum physics, we see that the observer affects what he observes in observing it; it is axiomatic then that two observers perceive two different things when observing one phenomenon. Who's correct?

A person in a dark mood may find silly humor irritating, while a person in a light mood may find it funny. Who's point of view is correct?

Don't write point of view off as an issue of having a greator or lesser access to correct facts. That's just not what it is at all. The ability to manage a reality containing multiple points of view is a requirement of an advanced intellect, and a refusal to admit they exist is the sign of a limited one.

[Vraith]

It definitely...in part but not solely...depends on whether there is absolute, objective truth or not. One step below that, even if there is such truth [or not], are we capable of perceiving it?

I think there are views that are obviously incorrect/false, demonstrably so in some cases. And there are views that are better/more correct/encompassing relative to other views.
Much of my [correct ] thought on this, though with modifications, is connected with: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism

[Avatar]

They're all correct to the person that holds them.

There is no objective truth, but there are objective facts.

Helpful? Not really.

--A

[wayfriend]

“And yet viewing several depictions of even an imaginary city, is enlightening in a way," Leibniz said. "Each painter can view the city from only one standpoint at a time, so he will move about the place, and paint it from a hilltop on one side, then a tower on the other, then from a grand intersection in the middle--all in the same canvas. When we look at the canvas, then, we glimpse in a small way how God understands the universe--for he sees it from every point of view at once. By populating the world with so many different minds, each with its own point of view, God gives us a suggestion of what it means to be omniscient.”

[Vraith]

“And yet viewing several depictions of even an imaginary city, is enlightening in a way," Leibniz said. "Each painter can view the city from only one standpoint at a time, so he will move about the place, and paint it from a hilltop on one side, then a tower on the other, then from a grand intersection in the middle--all in the same canvas. When we look at the canvas, then, we glimpse in a small way how God understands the universe--for he sees it from every point of view at once. By populating the world with so many different minds, each with its own point of view, God gives us a suggestion of what it means to be omniscient.”

there are somewhat related-with-a-twist views scattered about that [roughly] say "god" made the universe, intenionally split him/her/it self up into all those viewpoints to learn things...kinda like infinite painters moving about infinite times/places...but won't really "know" till, unlike humpty-dumpty, time puts him-her-it back together again. [and of course the ones where there was not god...but there will be: created by the universe instead of other way round.

[peter]

I'm struggling to find a point of view that I can say "yes that is correct" rather than "yes I believe that also" to. I don't believe demonstrable facts constitute 'points of view' (is there any such thing as a 'demonstrable fact' without going back to 'I think therefor I am' ). At the simplest level (always the one I like best ) how can anything that is established fact be subject to point of view and how can anything that is not, be so.

eg My boss is in the process of cutting my hours to save wage costs. This is the fact (true as it happens). His point of view is that it's his business - he can do what it pleases him to do in order to maximise his profits. My point of view is that as I have given loyal and reliable service over a long period I have earned the right to some consideration when decissions are made by him that affect my life. Two conflicting points of view both correct or incorrect depending on your standpoint and so neither in effect correct exclusive to the other.

Can anyone give me an example of a correct point of view that is not an (as well as it is possible to be) established fact?

[SerScot]

I think there is objective truth but we, as inherently subjective creatures, are incapable of truely perceiving it.

[Avatar]

Ah, but that is just a point of view.

--A

[Vraith]

I think there is objective truth but we, as inherently subjective creatures, are incapable of truely perceiving it.

Truly perceiving it? Or perceiving it truly?

Either way, I roughly agree, especially if you replace "truly" with "completely."
But, I may have said before, in some ways objective knowledge is wrongly prioritized. The real, best worth and function of objective knowledge is to allow us to increase and explore in joy the subjective/creative process of making meaning and envalue-ing the universe.

[peter]

I have a feeling that to know even one thing as completely objectively true would demand that all things were known as completely objectively true (ie as a scaffold upon which your one example would have to rest. And going back to my original question here are 'correctness' and 'truth' necessarily the same thing. (nb it's a while since I lost track of this thread - I just dipped into the Close and found it)

[Avatar]

Depends on your usage of "correctness" maybe. Off hand I would say no.

Except perhaps in the sense that a fact can be correct, as the opposite of incorrect.

--A

[peter]

Thinking on it you can't easily use the phrase 'a true point of view' - in some way it doesn't make sense. A point of view is what it is - and neither true, false correct or incorrect. I think a fact, which can be true or false, correct or incorrect cannot be, on that basis, a point of view and vica versa. This seems to mentally slot into a nice jigsaw-shaped hole in my brain today so I think I'm going to consider it 'job done'.

[Cozarkian]

Okay, is the use of the word "point of view" rather than "opinion" a Queen's English v. American English thing? I ask because I find it really confusing. When I hear point of view I think of it as the position a person is situated in when making an observation or rendering an opinion.

To illustrate, if I ask individuals to decide whether a dog is scary, their opinion would be "scary" or "not scary," but their point of view would be that of a child, adult, prior dog-bite victim, cat-lover, etc...

Now, with that out of the way, I say yes. Personal preferences (this tastes good, she's pretty, etc...) are never correct or wrong, but opinions about what is morally acceptable behavior can be correct or wrong.

[peter]

Good post - and yes there is a terminology problem here. Of course, to take your example re a dog's scariness, your point of view will depend entierly whether he is about to sink his teeth into your ankle or whether you are watching him over the fence about to sink his teeth into somwone elses ankle!

Your statement about morally based opinions being right or wrong seems ok to me but can I suggest you put it to Cail over in the Tank (just put un your kevlar body armor before you do! )

[Vraith]

Okay, is the use of the word "point of view" rather than "opinion" a Queen's English v. American English thing? I ask because I find it really confusing. When I hear point of view I think of it as the position a person is situated in when making an observation or rendering an opinion.

I don't think it's a Brit vs. American usage difference, though I suppose it could be.
There's feedback/overlap between the two, but they're not the same.
People, say 2, for simplicity, can have, [at least] these options:
Same POV, opposite opinion.
Same POV, same opinion.
Different POV, opposite opinion.
Different POV, same opinion.
[That's ignoring one part of the subjectivity problem...again, for simplicity]
Complicating those, because of the dynamic relationship, Opinion can create, allow, alter, or block POV's, and POV's do the same to Opinion.
[That is partly, but not solely, entangled with subjective problem as well.]

So...I can say dogs are never scary, [though particular dogs in particular circumstances may pose a threat] from ANY POV. It is not a property of dogs. It is only that people are scared.
That may seem silly/semantic...but it isn't.

[Avatar]

...opinions about what is morally acceptable behavior can be correct or wrong.

By whose standards? Who gets to decide which opinion (out of all the many opinions) is the "right" one?

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The only person for whom you can decide that an opinion or point of view is either correct or incorrect is yourself. This also applies to distinctions between "morally acceptable" and "morally reprehensible"--you may decide these things only for yourself and may not dictate them onto other people. Yes, you may instill your values into your children but they are not you; thus, at some point their opinions and values may differ from you own.

Some things are "wrong" no matter what your opinions or morals might be--infringing on someone else's basic rights such as life, the right to own things, the right to live freely as they please, the right not to be attacked, etc. That being said, if person A infringes on the rights of person B then person A has voluntarily surrendered their claim on any basic rights and must subject themselves to whatever punishment is placed upon them (within reason--we wouldn't condone an overly severe punishment for someone who steals wallets).

This type of thinking is probably prone to abuse because someone could say "I feel that one of my fundamental rights is to be given $1 million each year just because I am alive"; the rest of us would recognize this is a very self-centered way of thinking and thus we do not have to recognize that claim.

I suppose I should boil it down and state that some things are definitely "right" and some things are definitely "wrong" regardless of any individual's point of view. These things are typically self-evident: murder is wrong, giving food to someone who is hungry is right, etc. Everything else is opinion and thus neither right nor wrong.