Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol Falling
Objectivity is the goal, logic is the tool. I have never attempted to imply that my opinions represent the sole summit of universal truth, only that they are based on logic, grounded in evidence, and attempt to get at some measure of objectivity. It's for this reason that I have constantly welcomed other perspectives based on objective evidence, so that my arguments can be refined to more accurately reflect the truth. It is not arrogant to dismiss arguments based on subjective feelings, expectations, or conjectures in the face of objective evidence, nor is it arrogant to demand that that evidence be provided in the form of the source material.
|
I don't think you actually understand, like at all, you do not do not dismiss a person's arguement based on your personal logic which is basically an interpretation of a scenario. Fact of the matter is there's is nothing logical about logic, logic is something we see in our everyday lives to be correct that doesn't mean it's always correct, the only reason things seem logical is because that's all we've ever known. For example quantum physics takes a massive crap and everything priorly believed to be logical, it is also believed to be the very founding blocks of our universe. That is why you don't dismiss things based on logic, since logic is based on limited understanding. The only way to dismiss an arguement is to empirically prove it to be incorrect, this is ignoring whether the answer you acquire is completely logical or not.
This is the issues scientists face, we're talking about a story. There's not such thing as an concrete objective interpretation of a story. YOU WILL NEVER COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND A STORY. The only person that would understand all the ins and outs of a story and what every single part of it means is the author. Since you can never completely understand another human you will never be able to completely understand the work of person that can be interpreted in a thousand different ways. There is simply probable scenario's, these things aren't absolute, they're not even remotely near absolute. The author could kill off all character next chapter and start with a new set of characters. The author could do thousands of different things within a story because a story is only limited by a persons imagination. A person's imagination is something you don't completely understand and probably never will.
So you can't dismiss another person's interpretation of a possible outcome of a story like that, because that in itself is not logical. The story itself doesn't have to be logical either and in many case it already isn't. There are no set rules within a story, ultimarely it's all down to the author's imagination, everything else is determined by that.
This is a concept you can't seem to grasp hence the recurring arguments.