Sometimes, humans are frustrated because they

[Different and wrong]

Sometimes, humans are frustrated because they do not understand the definition of "different" and "wrong" and argue that their false tone is a different point of view.

The other is the 'difference in perception of objective value'.
For example, some people consider the stones on the table to be discarded, while others consider them to be worth more than 100,000 won. The viewpoints at this time are different.

Wrong means 'error of perception of subjective facts'.
It's a case of looking at a stone on a table and claiming it as 'tofu'. The point of view at this time is wrong. It revealed the ignorance of one's cognitive ability.

However, it is not easy to distinguish the difference between 'different' and 'wrong' only with phenomenal diversity in the degree of understanding of the perception or value of objects. Fundamental identity must be premised on the boundary that distinguishes between 'different' and 'wrong'. Only when fundamental identity is premised can a disagreement on phenomenal diversity be admitted as 'different' rather than 'wrong'.

It is difficult to argue one's argument as a variety of views only with phenomenal diversity without acknowledging differences and errors in essential sources. It is also a hasty conclusion to conclude that the other's argument is incorrect only by phenomenal disagreements other than mine without reflecting on the perception of fundamental identity.

Therefore, the distinction between 'different' and 'wrong' depends on whether or not 'fundamental identity' can be guaranteed, not on 'phenomenal diversity'.


霞田 拜拜

行雲 ;
Sometimes, I see people in the comments of the posting who completely deny the other person's remarks. It is an arrogant type who tries to punish the other person's opinion from the perspective of an omniscient observer without presupposing that it is a private opinion. The definitive language of 'I am right and you are wrong' only reveals that one's perspective is poor and the basic knowledge of dialogue is poor.

流水 ;
If you express your opinion on the premise that you are your own, you can accept it as a reasonable argument to observe things from a different perspective. If it is a reasonable argument, I may reflect on my intolerance of thinking and withdraw my view. However, the self-righteous claim that 'only one's own thoughts are unconditionally correct' is nothing more than verbal violence without even having the logic to objectively prove one's conclusive judgment.

落花 ;
I want to limit my relationship with a rash person who cannot control the light instinct of an omniscient interventionist, even online. When confronted with such life in real life, they are usually weak men who cannot convincingly express their opinions. They are just cowardly small men who hide in the anonymity of a crowd and criticize and mock the object.
<
<