Wheeler and I have been arguing at some length as to the value and purpose of opinions. He has contended that opinion is simply put, the realm of emotions and to introduce logic and reason moves to the realm of fact. I would counter by saying that simply because a statement is logical does not make it factual. The simple truth is that if good reasoning is based on faulty data, it is merely a misinformed opinion. That said, I would also contend that by making opinion merely the realm of emotionalism cheapens the opinions of those whose statements cannot necessarily be construed as factual, but who make good points and back said statements up with logical sense. For instance, there are those who feel as though the War in Iraq is justified or not justified and give reasons and logical conclusions to that end. Now, there is logic and reason present in arguments for both sides, yet these opinions cannot all be factual or else there would be paradox and defying reality. These opinions might be based upon facts and might be coloured by perspective and/or other factors that cannot be logically accounted for, but the simple fact remains that these opinions are not merely the whims of emotionalism that Wheeler seems intent to relegate them to.
As far as discussions on emotions go, I will continue to contend that emotionalism has no part in the discussion except to muddy the waters. Simply put, you must be able to back up your arguments with logic and reason or you are simply talking in circles. It is one thing to acknowledge emotional factors, but quite another to hail them as the totality of opinions. To say that opinions may have emotional factors is aptly put; to say that they must be without reason cheapens them to whims.
Posted by Vengeful Cynic at January 21, 2004 01:51 AM | TrackBack