Of what is opinion comprised?
Opinion is born from one's beliefs.
One's beliefs are derived from the the beliefs, principles, and values of the society and culture with which you have been born, exposed, and conditioned by.
Cultural and societal beliefs originate from ideals which disseminate from a position of deemed 'power' or 'authority', whether it is an individual, a group, doctrine, or a combination.
Beliefs held at a societal level are established by figures of who hold a prominent position in the hierarchy, and are usually guided by the intention of the such authority figures, organisations, institutions, etc.
For us as individuals, our environment and the prominent figures in our lives have a strong influence in the development of one's beliefs.
These factors, generally speaking, alongside our mammalian, human tendencies, will form the foundation of an individual's belief system.
Sprinkle in one's own innate inclinations, and you have the general constituents which make up one's unique belief system.
To put another way, opinion is an individual's unique interpretation of, but certainly not limited to:
- the animal instincts and raw desires which form the foundation of our natural being;
- historical thoughts and ideas, which have been voluntarily (and/or involuntarily) adopted by the collective majority;
- adaptations of historical views which accommodate current-era thinking;
- perceptions from a specific lens by individuals who play a prominent role in your life and upbringing;
- individual expression from a distinct point of view;
- individual and/or group intention(s) of varying origins.
Opinion is "interpretation inception"; an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation, and so on.
From this view, It is clear that it can be near-impossible to completely replicate one's unique belief system with another.
If opinion were a coin, it would have infinite sides and you'd get a different outcome every time it landed.
Perhaps it is evident how one's opinion can differ so much, not between individuals who originated from different cultural backgrounds, but even that of identical twins who shared a roof for many decades.
Further, it brings to light the futility of ascribing an opinion with notions of 'right' and 'wrong', or bullishly attempt to promote a belief with complete 'factuality' or 'objectivity'.
How much of our opinion can we fully take credit for and how much is attributed to the plethora of other influencing-factors that originated externally from ourselves?
However vehemently our belief or opinion on a particular subject matter, there will undoubtedly be another who sits on the opposite end of the spectrum, who too, has the same degree of enthusiasm, and both could easily convince others of their 'absolute truths'.
The real truth of the matter is that there isn't really such thing as 'right' or 'wrong'. Rather, this concept can be more accurately described as: what has been accepted or defined as being correct, through the influence of those who hold power (as mentioned, this can be an individual, a group, an organisation, religion, knowledge, i.e. scientific understanding, etc.) at the period when the particular idea could be widely socialised and understood.
And really, there isn't much that we can say, with definitive certainty, is absolute and true.
Certainly, we can be very confident of many things, but in truth, we can never know anything completely, without even the tiniest amount of doubt.
Even if you point to science, this is simply a detailed understanding at a particular point in time. We cannot be certain that the method in which the discover was made had taken into account every single possibility, because, again, there is no guarantee that we are even aware of every single possibility!
The word 'science' holds a lot of weight and authority, but we tend to forget that throughout history, science has made many claims inaccurately on many occasions. We once believed that the earth was flat, and the 'low-fat' nutritional revolution popularised in the fifties strongly correlated with the emergence and rise of the so-called 'diseases of affluence'.
With all of this in consideration, conflict and disagreement seems like a meaningless exercise which is fruitless and will never have a definitive resolution. From this standpoint, it appears as if it is less about what is 'right' or 'wrong', and more about who can assert their beliefs and ideas over others, to be the victor in the grand societal competition of one-upmanship.
We cling so strongly to our opinions and beliefs, and are wildly offended when others represent views from a perspective which is very different from our own, or exhibit behaviours which we feel are unimaginable acts.
At the end of the day, it isn't about being 'right' or 'wrong', but rather, an acknowledgement of the very real possibility that there could be seven billion different points of view, each painted with their own unique nuances.
Once we acknowledge this, then we should strive towards an acceptance of this fact of life; rather that reacting defensively, rather than defaulting to conflict, rather than satiating the meaningless outcome of getting one-up on your verbal jousting partner, we could simply accept.
We could simply revert to the old adage, endeavouring to 'agree to disagree'.
But then again, it is up to you whether you choose to follow this route. After all, this is simply my own opinion.