[PUG] Does upbrining determine whether or not your opinions are valid?

[894tt3h9]

Mods: If there's a more appropriate forum to post this in, please move it.

View attachment 9337

I recently posted the above photo on facebook and I received a comment from someone saying "easily said by a spoiled prince who has never had to worry about money or work a day in his life." A few questions come to mind:

Does someone's upbringing determine whether or not their opinions are more or less valid than someone else's?
Do you have to endure suffering in order to understand the scope of the human condition and the way humans live their lives?
Alternatively, do you think one can see things in a more objective, clear manner because they've been able to live without those every day worries?
If you do not have to worry about work or money, does that necessarily mean that you don't also suffer in other ways?

What do you think?

 

[detectivepope]

I don't think it's a question of validity but rather exposure and context. Generally however if you have no struggle you are not effected by the most basic of natures hardships such as the worry if you/others will eat. The idea of vadility is entirely based upon audience, unless you refer to a general idea such as life, this is when one (even myself) finds it difficult to say things as it is based on extremes of experience.

 

[Gaze]

Does someone's upbringing determine whether or not their opinions are more or less valid than someone else's?
- well, I don't think someone's opinions are more or less valid theoretically, but we are informed by our experiences. It's more a matter of whether we want to take seriously what someone says based on their backgrounds. It's a matter of choice. Someone can be well informed, right, etc. but people will dismiss what they say because they assume the person doesn't have the right to speak about something they have no personal experience with.

Do you have to endure suffering in order to understand the scope of the human condition and the way humans live their lives?
- No, you don't but people believe strongly that you can't know or understand someone's suffering unless you've been in their shoes, so even if it isn't true, people are reluctant to accept it. We tend to give more credibility to the person who has suffered through an experience - we see them as more authentic than someone who has never been through that experience.

Alternatively, do you think one can see things in a more objective, clear manner because they've been able to live without those every day worries?
- Sometimes yes, but sometimes no. Objectivity can blind you to the effect of experiences on personal feelings and decision making. Taking an objective approach often ignores the human impact of situations and circumstances on someone's experience. But objectivity can allow you to see things from a perspective which may be dificult to acknowledge when you're seeing it only from your experience.

If you do not have to worry about work or money, does that necessarily mean that you don't also suffer in other ways?
- Of course not, but try telling that to people who've never had material things at all. People are not going to want to hear that people who are more privileged suffer because they don't have those basic needs met which those who are privileged do. Having money does not guarantee someone happiness or a stress free life. Neither does it guarantee an easy life. But it can of course make life much easier or less stressful in many ways, but it can't take away suffering.

 

[Sriracha]

I can understand the point of the Dalai Lama, BUT your friend's point resonates more (at least with me.)

I believe EVERYONE's opinion is valid whether I agree with it or not. The fact remains that the opinion represents a certain percentage of views. I do not think you have to endure suffering in order to understand human condition; however I believe there is more precedence for opinion based on personal experience rather than personal observation.

 

[Gaze]

I think it comes down to fact vs. feeling. We are more likely to support our points with our feelings and ignore the facts if they don't align with what we strongly feel or think. Your friend doesn't understand the suffering and persecution of the monks in that region. If he did, he probably wouldn't have said what he did. But even if the Dalai Lama doesn't suffer doesn't mean that what he says is any less true. It's just that people are less willing to accept it if they think its coming from someone who they believe doesn't understand what "real" suffering is.

 

[barbad0s]

hard to say

since people are talking about monks and how much they'd have had to suffer... monks live very frugally even if they do not face persecution. they also train themselves to find happiness outside of material or physical pleasures: that's why the dalai lama could say such a thing, because he wants to encourage others to do the same.

i'm not saying that it's a choice to worry or suffer the way people do plagued with the human condition. it's not easy to have to live like that... then again, it's also not easy to train yourself to see outside of that scope and find happiness using a different perspective. if that makes sense.

 

[the]

To understand the human condition I think you would need to know suffering, but some people know more suffering than others. The ones who know suffering the least probably cant understand those who suffer the most.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Only my opinions are valid to me.

 

[This]

I think it likely that sometimes someone not in a situation may be able to see that situation better than someone in it. Because they can look at the forest as a whole because they are not amongst the trees. There have been a few times in human history when people have been paid to sit around and think all day. Overall many of the luxuries, technologies, and philosophies we enjoy today came from these individuals.

 

[Barnabas]

I can understand both points of view, my roommate mentioned the other day that a mutual friend of ours shouldn't be sour so often. I pointed out that he is always sour because life has taken every opportunity to crap in his chest. My roommate responds that he should give his trouble to God and just be happy, it's hard for him to understand what it means to give your troubles to God when he's never had to worry about eating for the next week, or where his next paycheck will come from. He's right in what he says, but he doesn't know what he's saying, but he doesn't comprehend what means to give your troubles to God.

 

[subwayrider]

I recently posted the above photo on facebook and I received a comment from someone saying "easily said by a spoiled prince who has never had to worry about money or work a day in his life." A few questions come to mind:

Does someone's upbringing determine whether or not their opinions are more or less valid than someone else's?
Do you have to endure suffering in order to understand the scope of the human condition and the way humans live their lives?
Alternatively, do you think one can see things in a more objective, clear manner because they've been able to live without those every day worries?
If you do not have to worry about work or money, does that necessarily mean that you don't also suffer in other ways?

What do you think?

No. Opinions are opinions, and should be treated as such, no matter who they come from.

In order to understand the scope of the human condition, you have to live the experience in its entirety. Suffering and despair are as essential as happiness and euphoria, in understanding what we are as people. Do you have to understand suffering and happiness to understand the way people live their lives? No. All that's needed for this one is to observe people living their lives.

The next one is an interesting question. Not having to worry about rent, work-related stress, school-related stress, interpersonal stress, would certainly give you an elevated degree of clarity in your thinking. Your mind would not be bogged down by the worry and preoccupation. Imagine the things you could mull over if you had all the time in the world to just sit and think. At the same time, not having the experience of everyday life could limit you in some ways, seriously skew your perspective. Assuming it doesn't matter whether the subject is disconnected from humanity at large, lack of everyday experience wouldn't be limiting.

Not having to worry about work or money means never having to experience the stress. On the other hand, never knowing need would set such a person apart from humanity at large.

Both perspectives offer unique insight.

 

[Trifoilum]

Determining....
Validity? no.
Strength? yes.
Accessibility? yes.
Truth? no.

It's the same rationale on why in politics sometimes down-to-earthness is extremely played by several politicians.
Sympathy and empathy is also a subtle web that adjusts someone's attitude over words.

The message is there, however.

 

[894tt3h9]

I suppose I'll answer my own thread now...

Does someone's upbringing determine whether or not their opinions are more or less valid than someone else's?


I don't think that one person's opinion can ever be more valid than another person's opinion because opinions are all they are. We all have them and we can formulate them without much experience or knowledge of things. I think the problem comes in when people who have opinions try to present those opinions as fact.

Do you have to endure suffering in order to understand the scope of the human condition and the way humans live their lives?

I think this depends on your definition of suffering. It would seem to me that everyone on the face of this planet endures suffering in one way or another- whether it be physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc. Not a single person is above suffering though I would say that some do suffer more than others. The suffering is more apparent. In that way, I do think that most people can understand the human condition as a whole but they may not objectively be able to see how human beings live their lives. I am not sure that, despite suffering, everyone would be able to pull back and see the forest instead of only the trees.

Alternatively, do you think one can see things in a more objective, clear manner because they've been able to live without those every day worries?

Yes I do. I think that this is another case where you can see the forest beyond the trees. If you do not have to be down in the trenches with the rest of humanity, if you have the option of seeing life from a different perspective because your worries for your own survival are eliminated or non-existent I think it makes it easier to see how everyone else is living in comparison to you. I think most people will compare their lives to others, and if there is a stark contrast it makes it much easier to see obvious patterns in human behaviour. Likewise I think someone on the opposite end of the spectrum - someone who suffers greatly in many areas of their life - can also pull back and see things for how they are. I'd wager that a person who is constantly on the brink of death may look at the every day worries of those around them and see how ridiculous and futile it is, just as someone who has an "easy life" would be able to do the same.

If you do not have to worry about work or money, does that necessarily mean that you don't also suffer in other ways?

I already touched on this above. Long answer short, I think everyone endures suffering on some level even if they are provided for in most ways. We are human, we suffer, we die.

 

[grt$5vb]

I think this is exactly why God is the king of public relations. He made himself more accessible to humans by sending Jesus to experience human temptation, and suffering, thus negating contrarians like your friend, and making the Son of God relatable on a human level.

Do I believe that someone must suffer the same hardships as myself to empathize with me? No, I do not. Do I think people should get in the trenches with the people they are trying to enlighten/save to gain a better understanding of their obstacles, blinders, and plight? Yes I do. I think people respect you more if you attempt to walk a mile in your shoes, and your words will hold more weight with them. Then again, there will always and forever be naysayers.

 

[MemberOfSociety]

I don't think you need to suffer feel empathy for someone else's situation, because I think that we would all cringe at the thought someone having a finger nail pulled out, though likely, very few of us have ever experienced that ourselves.

 

[barbad0s]

I think the problem comes in when people who have opinions try to present those opinions as fact.

yes, people always do this unfortunately :S

I think most people will compare their lives to others, and if there is a stark contrast it makes it much easier to see obvious patterns in human behaviour.

very true

 

[Matt3737]

You might find the wikipedia article on compassion enlightening.

Compassion is a virtue — one in which the emotional capacities of empathy and sympathy (for the suffering of others) are regarded as a part of love itself, and a cornerstone of greater social interconnection and humanism — foundational to the highest principles in philosophy, society, and personhood.

There is an aspect of compassion which regards a quantitative dimension, such that individual's compassion is often given a property of "depth," "vigour," or "passion." More vigorous than empathy, the feeling commonly gives rise to an active desire to alleviate another's suffering. It is often, though not inevitably, the key component in what manifests in the social context as altruism. In ethical terms, the various expressions down the ages of the so-called Golden Rule embody by implication the principle of compassion: Do to others what you would have them do to you.[1]

The English noun compassion, meaning to suffer together with, comes from the Latin. Its prefix com- comes directly from com, an archaic version of the Latin preposition and affix cum (= with); the -passion segment is derived from passus, past participle of the deponent verb patior, patī, passus sum. Compassion is thus related in origin, form and meaning to the English noun patient (= one who suffers), from patiens, present participle of the same patior, and is akin to the Greek verb πάσχειν (= paskhein, to suffer) and to its cognate noun πάθος (= pathos).[2][3]

Ranked a great virtue in numerous philosophies, compassion is considered in all the major religious traditions as among the greatest of virtues.