The General Discussion of Haruhi Suzumiya

[Shirobane]

Originally Posted by CrowKenobi

I'm sure Kyon, Keiichi Morisato, Tenchi Masaki, Makoto Mizuhara, and Rin Tsuchimi are wondering exactly the same thing...

I totally approve!

[Kikaifan]

Originally Posted by panzerfan

He does not see Haruhi as a deity

Yeah, seriously. Between Yuki and Itsuki, I know who I'm going to trust.

[hirone]

It's not the fact that he doesn't see her as God, he's trying not to.

[C.A.]

Originally Posted by Eclipze

But in your case, in just about every other non-Suzumiya Haruhi thread that contains a post which either contains dislike, disinterest or hate for the series/character, you just HAVE to post and say stuff similar to what you said (defence for SHnY). "Oh you are missing out." "Looks like you have not been chosen yet", "You don't like the show because you don't understand it".

I'm sure you probably don't remember all those posts from me, so I'll remind you of some.

In one of them, I said,

'If I don't do it who's going to do it?'.

For some reason, people who watched this show has followed the phrase: 'Only the right ones will get it.' and choose to ignore people even people who are accusing that the show lacks qualities it actually has.

Something else I said,

Originally Posted by C.A.

I haven't finished watching the show, but I think its overrated."

"I read 5 pages of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, I think it doesn't have a plot."
"I read 1 chapter of Lord of the Rings, I think the plot is very silly."
"I don't understand why Superman doesn't want to reveal his identity, I think he is a shallow character."

Those people clearly stated that they didn't finish watching the show and there they are, complaining that the show doesn't have a plot, the characters are one dimensional and such false claims. How did they know that it doesn't have a plot and that characters don't have complex developments, if they haven't even watched pass episode 6?

For some reason people aren't pointing out that they are wrong, maybe they're tired of telling people how wrong they are. But I'm not, I've already past the point of exhaustion, I'm like zombie who will work on until my body structure can't take it anymore and collapses.

My belief is that everyone can actually understand the show, just that they are not allowing themselves, they're not giving themselves a chance. Its the same as passing of a lottery ticket as a tip, stay ignorant about it, but actually that ticket would actually make them a millionaire. Its good that they are happy because they don't know what they've missed, but at the same time they still had a loss.

I'm there to urge them to keep this ticket.

This belief of mine that everyone can understand comes from watching Animal Planet everyday. Why do conservationists carry on with their conservational messages? The damage to the ecosystems of Earth carry on and increases everyday, even though the conservationists have worked so hard. But it will be even worse if they stopped spreading their messages, the world might have been destroyed like 10 years ago.

I cannot let people start up false claims and just let those claims stay there, especially in the suggestions forum. People will pick up those false claims and pass the show. But if I have something to counter those false claims, people will want to see for themselves why this show can create someone like me. Though my method is extreme, I have no other way.

Oh and thinking that Haruhi is a god in the story means that one doesn't understand. As for why, this is too complex for me to explain.

We worship Haruhi as our god, but she isn't a god.

[CrowKenobi]

Originally Posted by C.A.

In one of them, I said, For some reason, people who watched this show has followed the phrase: 'Only the right ones will get it.' and choose to ignore people even people who are accusing that the show lacks qualities it actually has.

It's actually 'Not everyone will get it, but the right ones will.' Using 'only' in your context implies an elitist view that I find somewhat distasteful.

Originally Posted by C.A.

Something else I said,Those people clearly stated that they didn't finish watching the show and there they are, complaining that the show doesn't have a plot, the characters are one dimensional and such false claims. How did they know that it doesn't have a plot and that characters don't have complex developments, if they haven't even watched pass episode 6?

Good point. If they haven't seen all of it, how can we even believe their opinions on it. Especially considering episode 6 is "Lone Isand Syndrome" part 1.

Originally Posted by C.A.

Oh and thinking that Haruhi is a god in the story means that one doesn't understand.

We all know that only Itsuki's faction believes this.

Originally Posted by C.A.

We worship Haruhi as our god, but she isn't a god.

That's a variation of the Abbott and Costello "Who's on First" sketch isn't it?

[C.A.]

Well, all Haruhists think alike, your thoughts are just like mine

EDIT: I like to use because it looks like Haruhi's expression from my avatar.

[arias]

I normally come out with all guns blazing (and right, as well) but this sort of discussion has become repetitive and uninteresting.. C.A., do you really want to spend what little time you have left arguing? I mean, defending Haruhi is important to you but your time is better spent doing the little manga strips imo : )

Originally Posted by FatPianoBoy

And keep in mind: a character is not necessarily poorly constructed, overly conventional or shallow simply because you don't like them. A character can be 'good' without being likeable. Shinji from Evangelion would be a good example.

I never really think of Shinji as "good", if anything on the moral scale I would characterize him as "not evil". He never really explicitly performs good actions; moral terms are just not useful in describing Shinji meaningfully. Other personal characteristics like "cowardly" would be a good fit for the boy... of course, he somewhat transforms himself in the last episode of the anime but then again who knows? He falls again to strangle Asuka.. and falls by stopping that even.

Thinking of Shinji makes me feel so damn good I didn't watch EVA again as I planned to recently

[arias]

Originally Posted by C.A.

Well, all Haruhists think alike, your thoughts are just like mine

EDIT: I like to use because it looks like Haruhi's expression from my avatar.

Darn.. the pixels are too small to make a good representation of Haruhi..

[FatPianoBoy]

Originally Posted by arias

I never really think of Shinji as "good", if anything on the moral scale I would characterize him as "not evil". He never really explicitly performs good actions; moral terms are just not useful in describing Shinji meaningfully. Other personal characteristics like "cowardly" would be a good fit for the boy... of course, he somewhat transforms himself in the last episode of the anime but then again who knows? He falls again to strangle Asuka.. and falls by stopping that even.

Thinking of Shinji makes me feel so damn good I didn't watch EVA again as I planned to recently

Actually, I meant 'good' as in a well-thought-out, believable character. I didn't intend to refer to any moral implication. I guess the wording was a bit misleading

[Eclipze]

Originally Posted by C.A.

In one of them, I said, For some reason, people who watched this show has followed the phrase: 'Only the right ones will get it.' and choose to ignore people even people who are accusing that the show lacks qualities it actually has.

Something else I said,Those people clearly stated that they didn't finish watching the show and there they are, complaining that the show doesn't have a plot, the characters are one dimensional and such false claims. How did they know that it doesn't have a plot and that characters don't have complex developments, if they haven't even watched pass episode 6?

For some reason people aren't pointing out that they are wrong, maybe they're tired of telling people how wrong they are. But I'm not, I've already past the point of exhaustion, I'm like zombie who will work on until my body structure can't take it anymore and collapses.

Well, what makes the world interesting? Because each and every person in the world is different and unique. But does that mean that because of that, there is no problems that comes with having so many different indiviuals in the same world? Of course not.

Take, for example, person A. A was raised in the slums, with 'punks' as his friends, and grows up into a criminal. Does that mean that persons B, C, D, who are also to be raised in the slums, and had the same type of friends/company, would also become a criminal? No. They might share some features such as being boorish in behaviour, not knowing table manners, but they are ultimately different.

What is my point? Everyone has their own opinions. Some derive them from existing ones, while some are 'original' in the sense that no consideration of another opinion was taken. This also means that each person's definition of certain words can be different as well.

To A, 'plot' can mean story, while to B, C, D, 'plot' can mean content (Having a well thought-out history, good background info of characters), development in the story (progressing from one arc to another), or literally, a plot of land (lame, I know. ). Its the same for 'one dimensional characters'. Sure, you could go wiki/google on the words, and then copy+paste the definitions here, but it still doesn't change the fact that the way words (or anything else for that matter) are intepreted by people differs from one to another. There can never be two or more opinions that are exactly identical.

Rememeber this: There is no such a thing as a wrong opinion. Hey, I won't disagree with the fact that there ARE trolls who constantly say things such as "XX sucks" "XX is a lousy anime" without much proof to support their arguement. But does that mean that anyone who says the very same lines are trolls, or can be assumed to have no evidence to back up their arguement? No. Thats called generalizing/stereotyping.

Originally Posted by C.A.

My belief is that everyone can actually understand the show, just that they are not allowing themselves, they're not giving themselves a chance. Its the same as passing of a lottery ticket as a tip, stay ignorant about it, but actually that ticket would actually make them a millionaire. Its good that they are happy because they don't know what they've missed, but at the same time they still had a loss.

I'm there to urge them to keep this ticket.

Everyone? Thats stretching it, considering how 90% of the world population is intepreted by most anime fans as idiots, and that "new" anime fans usually come from the very same population (due to the increasing popularity of anime around the world recently). You are assuming that everyone who have watched the show possess enough intellectual thinking ability to understand the show itself, while saying that the reason that some people who didn't enjoy the show was due to the fact that they don't understand it. Er, what?

To you, SHnY is like a lottery ticket, but thats not the case for everyone. It is your opinion. Yet, time after time, you keep pushing that idea down people's throat when SHnY gets a bad comment on some other thread, insisting that you are right. It gets irritating. Some people have indeed "given themselves a chance" (To enjoy/understand the show), but found that the show still wasn't for them. What are you going to say to these people then? In short, aren't you are implying that those people who didn't like SHnY are in denial? Maybe you've hit the spot for some, but to others, thats a downright insult.

Originally Posted by C.A.

This belief of mine that everyone can understand comes from watching Animal Planet everyday. Why do conservationists carry on with their conservational messages? The damage to the ecosystems of Earth carry on and increases everyday, even though the conservationists have worked so hard. But it will be even worse if they stopped spreading their messages, the world might have been destroyed like 10 years ago.

The key-word is bolded. If conservationists didn't carry on their messages, the world might have indeed been destroyed, or it might not have changed at all. We will never know what would happen (assumptions can only go far), but I think its safe to say this: While the messages have some good effects on the actions of people around the world that involves the environment, it can also do further damage as well. Sadly, there are people in the world that can indeed be labelled as 'evil' - people who like making this difficult for others. Seeing the constant pop-ups of conservation messages CAN motivate these indiviuals to do what they are known for. Does this contribute to the damage to the environment? Yes it does, and it only further proves the point that nothing in this world is absolute: There are advantages and drawbacks to any action or decision, though the ratio between the two is not fixed. SHnY isn't perfect, nor is it for everyone. Same for every single thing in the world. When a person says that SHnY is not funny, while you found it funny, does that mean that he is wrong? No, but you can still disagree with the opinion. Apparently, you are not just disagreeing.

Originally Posted by C.A.

I cannot let people start up false claims and just let those claims stay there, especially in the suggestions forum. People will pick up those false claims and pass the show. But if I have something to counter those false claims, people will want to see for themselves why this show can create someone like me. Though my method is extreme, I have no other way.

The way I see it, this would be the main issue here (well, duh). Generally, posters on a forum wouldn't mind the occasional fanboy/fangirl comments/intrusion in a thread. But to see the same person doing the exact same thing in EVERY thread that contains a comment about the show, even though they might be referring to other Haruhis, can be really, really fustrating. It spoils the mood for some posters who are happily chatting about series XX in the series' thread, and in turn create even more haters from people who are passive about it (SHnY).

Sure, persuading others might convert some haters into fans of the show, but continual and extreme presistance in the persuasion posts can actually create more haters. And when this happens, you again try to persuade these haters and in turn, create even more. It is a vicious cycle, and doing it every single time doesn't help at all.

Right now, I'll say that I'm not trying to ask you to just shut up about SHnY, but to reduce the converting attempts. You will still be able to change the minds of the mislead, while keeping your reputation as a poster. Not too much to ask for, is it?

Originally Posted by C.A

Oh and thinking that Haruhi is a god in the story means that one doesn't understand. As for why, this is too complex for me to explain.

We worship Haruhi as our god, but she isn't a god.

As far as I can tell, she created the SHnY world (considering that kyon didn't have much memories of the past, though I could be wrong), was able to get the attention of aliens, time-travellers and espers to please her in fear of what she would do in anger, and is indeed capable of the said fears of the 3 factions (aka destruction, messing up time-space, etc). What she wants, she gets it. Not with the help from a external source (gene, fairy-god-mother), but by herself. She HAS power, and these powers are great enough for her to be called a god, so technically it isn't wrong for people to think of her as a god, is it? Her powers rivals that of the entire family in Kamisama Kazoku (the entire family is made up of gods/goddess except for one angel), which tells alot. Ah yes, I just realized that S.Haruhi should be called goddess instead, my bad.

Originally Posted by Shirobane

Definately some inconsistencies between my definition and yours

Spoiler:

Fujioka Haruhi is a character whom I consider to be under the "Honda Toru effect" in which the majority (if not all) other characters' lives are better than they were after they've met her. I consider that perfect simply because there is no possible way to criticise a personality that is radiantly good. You've also failed to mention that she is very good at academics, a very independant woman, and is simply caring of those around her. Also, if she weren't attractive, would Tamaki and the twins be basically fauning over her at every chance?

Suzumiya Haruhi on the other hand is a character with an abrasive personality. In fact, as talented and ambitious as she is, Haruhi simply goes the wrong way in obtaining her goals. Intentional or not, her quests to obtain her goals usually leave a wake of destruction and dismay. This fact is especially emphasized in the second novel as Mikuru is treated terribly throughout. Unlike F.Haruhi, she is a very dependant person even though she seems tough and unlike F.Haruhi, the only people she really cares about are the members of SOS団 only after the first 2 novels.

As much as I pride myself on being a Haruhiist, I do not think she is a god. The "Super Utility Player" or multi-talented people (pretender if you will) do exist in real life also. It is fathomable that someone can be good at a lot of things but not great at anything. It's not like multi-talented people have their own following of acolytes everywhere they go. If anything, benevolence is considered higher stature than heigtened ability.


And for the record, I do like both shows and have nothing against F.Haruhi

Also, how 'bout we all keep it civil in here.

Um...

Spoiler:

The only reason why I did not mention the "qualities" for F.Haruhi is because...thats not the point I am trying to make? You were saying that F.Haruhi was "perfect", and I was simply pointing out the flaws she has. Obviously, a character with flaws cannot be labelled as perfect, isn't it? So yea, she is independent, but isn't the lack of the ability to depend on others a BIG flaw in itself?

Hey, it is even mentioned in the anime itself. Episode 8: (taken from Omni's blog on episode 8)

Spoiler for Random curiosity, OHHC 8:

Haruhi instead gets into a fight with a pair of guys who tried to pick up some of the girls. One of them pushes Haruhi off a cliff and into the water, and Tamaki makes a running dive after her. He brings her back to land and lectures her for being reckless since she’s not a martial arts expert like Honey is. Haruhi apologizes for causing trouble, but she doesn’t understand why Tamaki is so angry since she doesn’t feel that she’s done anything wrong. Tamaki then refuses to talk to her until she admits her mistake.

For a perfect character, having her own life at risk due to her 'good quality' isn't exactly making her look perfect, does it? Plus, you are a little off in saying that she has made life "better" for the people around her. The punks who indirectly hit haruhi in episode 4, the ones in the spoiler, and episode 22's punks. They sure didn't look like their lives have been improved by introducing Haruhi into theirs, although it was short term (They could very well have died if they did enough harm to Haruhi).

I am not saying that S.Haruhi is perfect, but when you compare the 2 Haruhis, I feel that S.Haruhi is ahead in term of being 'perfect' as a character. (obviously it is just my opinion) Oh, and I believe that I am being pretty civil as it is.

[Ratix]

OK I just watched the series, on youtube, and just finished dling them, anyhow...

I sure hope they produce the other parts of the novel into anime in the future seasons... The ending sure is lacking, non conclusive, hope it doesn't go into filler-ish everywhere kinda, gets boring.

Some interesting thoughts...

Spoiler on time travel...

Spoiler:

Since adult mikuru can come back in time to meet Kyon, does that mean the whole Haruhi being god and stuff thing gets resolved sometime soon, like in the few years time? Although thats like tons of time to do all sorts of things. Pretty curious on how the whole thing will sort itself out.

And on the fact that haruhi is...

Spoiler:

"god", people can't time travel back a certain time which is 3 years before when the story started is because, well, haruhi changed the way time flow? Thats why "Time Travel" cannot go before 3 years back unless Haruhi wished for it that is she won't because she doesn't know about it?

And I do not get the data integration thingie <_<.

Spoiler:

Does it by any chance mean the world is just made up of data data matrix etc data data etc?

Oh and about Haruhi...

Spoiler:

Why is it always that 3 years ago did her "Abilities" gets noticed? Weird?

Of course, if the questions are answered in the later novels, then tel me so and don't spoil me. I might ocnsider reading the translation or purchase a chinese translated copy(That is if I can find). Speaking of which, where can I find the chinese translated copy in Singapore? Orchard Kino?

[Vexx]

The only thing I'll dispute in all the happy mud flinging is that as a debate trainer and tutor with some background in logic and linguistics .... the idea that there is no such thing as a wrong opinion does a huge disservice to those opinions carefully grounded in fact, research, and analysis. It is relativism of the *wrong* kind.
None of this is quite as black and white as one might like and we can argue over the boundary points but opinions have less value if they are not supported.

In the arts, tastes can differ considerably - but people experienced in the *mechanics* and theory of a particular art can tell whether something is well-executed or not, regardless of the "message".

"All opinions are equal" is what leads to absolute cranks and morons getting the same "air time" as people who have actually studied the subject in question. It is misleading and wastes everyone's time.

[arias]

Originally Posted by Vexx

The only thing I'll dispute in all the happy mud flinging is that as a debate trainer and tutor with some background in logic and linguistics .... the idea that there is no such thing as a wrong opinion does a huge disservice to those opinions carefully grounded in fact, research, and analysis. It is relativism of the *wrong* kind.

[...]

In the arts, tastes can differ considerably - but people experienced in the *mechanics* and theory of a particular art can tell whether something is well-executed or not, regardless of the "message".

"All opinions are equal" is what leads to absolute cranks and morons getting the same "air time" as people who have actually studied the subject in question. It is misleading and wastes everyone's time.

I, of course, disagree.. I'd say that logic & linguistics do not provide adequate philosophical coverage of relativism, so if anything, you should cede your opinion to my more informed one, no? ; )

In psychology there is this paper called "Unskilled and Unaware of it" (http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf) which is one of the many landmark papers for cognitive psychology. Basically, the findings are that newbies often vastly overestimate their performance while experts are more accurate in their assessment. They tested this for items like logic, math and grammar.. things like these seem to suggest some objective mode of skill assessment. But this is a deep mistake.

This is because items like logic, math and grammar all have some underlying form of structure that competence is assessed on. In short, they are somewhat well-defined games with rules and such. Note that in most fields the most masterful experts engage in meta-debate about the rules of the games, which is my exact point. At this level of meta-argument, these experts can't refer to the rules of the game itself to verify or back-up their argumentation. Instead, what they often do is seek to produce a version of the game that is more sound or more complete. I will need to pull arguments from Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for this but it'll get very complicated...

Now, my point is that opinions aren't well defined games at all. There is no consensus that an opinion must be well justified to be a "good" opinion or else it's a "bad" opinion. In fact, that isn't the way we describe opinions at all. You don't say that Mary has a bad opinion of politics when you're criticising the lack of substance in the said opinion; this refers to the affect of the content instead. It seems that we do, however, distinguish "well-argued" opinions and "scarce" or "empty" opinions... but I don't see how we can make the leap from this to what makes a "good" or "bad" opinion. That's just a mistake.

Of course I like reasoning behind an opinion. But that's because it gives me a story and a theory that I can represent in my mind to experience.. opinions that carry little or inconsistent reasoning don't offer the same. Still, my view on opinions are that they are existential.. in the sense that they are affirmative markers imprinted onto the world by the person stating them. I don't believe that "all opinions are equal", only because I think that's a senseless statement. It's like saying "all squares are sweet". It doesn't make sense to me..

Now, if you impress your existential opinion that there are good opinions and bad opinions, that's fine with me as well. I operate on the lower level system that sustains various branches like yours and mine, so I don't mind : B

[Vexx]

I'm not seeing where we actually disagreed much after reading your post although I drew my assessment of opinions from debate technique and you draw yours from philosophical relativism and/or existentialism. Godel's Theorem of Incompleteness concerns some innate inabilities of any system of axioms and proofs but that doesn't appear to be an issue here. I'm more familiar with Godel's theorem as used in mathematics and physics anyway, not in debate or philosophy.

I'm defining "good" as a well argued well supported opinion (whether I agree with the conclusion is irrelevant). You're using "good" in its "moral value" meaning.... so under that use yes it would be a leap. I wasn't planning on providing a complete resume on my background in relativism but was assessing the situation as I would in a debate debriefing.

If our friends here could argue their position cogently with specific examples and some understanding of human behavior, character definition, and storytelling mechanics --- their position would be much stronger than it is.

[arias]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'm defining "good" as a well argued well supported opinion (whether I agree with the conclusion is irrelevant). You're using "good" in its "moral value" meaning.... so under that use yes it would be a leap. I wasn't planning on providing a complete resume on my background in relativism but was assessing the situation as I would in a debate debriefing.

If our friends here could argue their position cogently with specific examples and some understanding of human behavior, character definition, and storytelling mechanics --- their position would be much stronger than it is.

I didn't use it in the moral sense. What I'm saying is that our natural language use of "good opinion" is referring to the affect of its content rather than its structural weight.

My thrust is that I don't believe there are opinions "better" than others, and I similarly don't believe that "all opinions are equal" because they're not vulnerable to assessment like that.

I would agree that their position would be stronger if they wanted to argue for a case, which is already an implicit game. But that has no bearings on the opinion I'm talking about here.

[Kikaifan]

Um, if I may be so bold, Vexx originally said that there are wrong opinions, not bad ones. Since you seem to be taking this from a linguistic point of view, yes, 'wrong' is as much a value-judgement as 'bad,' as it's commonly used, but...

An opinion in the sense of 'an idea about how things are in the mind' is neutral. We might judge it by how it how the holder acts on it (hate crimes), but that depends on a moral framework we impose. However, when one expresses an opinion (which is what I am under the impression Vexx was talking about), it seems to me they are implicitly challenging the truth of any opinions with which their own is incompatible, and a 'game' has been made in which those opinions which can be arrived at through reason from an assumption commonly-held by both parties in an argument will have a definite advantage.

And those that are argued for but without sound logic or from premises an opponent can seek prior common premises to argue against will be called 'wrong.'

I like apostrophes.

[arias]

Originally Posted by Kikaifan

Um, if I may be so bold, Vexx originally said that there are wrong opinions, not bad ones. Since you seem to be taking this from a linguistic point of view, yes, 'wrong' is as much a value-judgement as 'bad,' as it's commonly used, but...

An opinion in the sense of 'an idea about how things are in the mind' is neutral. We might judge it by how it how the holder acts on it (hate crimes), but that depends on a moral framework we impose. However, when one expresses an opinion (which is what I am under the impression Vexx was talking about), it seems to me they are implicitly challenging the truth of any opinions with which their own is incompatible, and a 'game' has been made in which those opinions which can be arrived at through reason from an assumption commonly-held by both parties in an argument will have a definite advantage.

I'm trying hard to understand your post but it's rather cryptic. I don't understand how you can say I'm taking things from a linguistic point of view.. I don't even think you know what linguistics mean in this case, because discussion using terminology like "natural language" is very different from linguistics.

First, how can an opinion be wrong? My point to Vexx was always that opinions were not vulnerable to such assessments.

A: "I like ice cream."
B: "That's wrong."
A: "..."

Second, what Vexx was talking about was that substantiated opinions were better than non substantiated ones, and that there were different degrees of competence in the actual substantiation. I said sure, but those mean nothing to me in terms of whether opinions are equal or not. See, Vexx is of the mind that some opinions are better than others, while I'm of the mind that opinions qua opinions are simply not vulnerable to that sort of assessment. Full stop.

Third, opinions don't necessarily implicitly challenge truths that are contrary. Certainly if I say "I love ice cream" I am not challenging "I don't love ice cream". I am expressing a truth condition that is verifiable by my own internal states. Of course, there are circles and groups where people express opinions which implicitly try to suppress or discredit the opinion of others; such as those in art circles or music and such. But those have nothing to do with my thesis. You lack clarity in thinking.

And those that are argued for but without sound logic or from premises an opponent can seek prior common premises to argue against will be called 'wrong.'

Now here you are messing things up.

It is true that we will refer unsound arguments or contradictory ones as "wrong", but these criticism are directed directly to the argumentation and not really to the opinion.

A: "I am of the opinion that Mozart is an Australian genius!"
B: "That's a wrong opinion!!"

Sure, the premise is faulty but you don't really mean that the person's opinion qua opinion is wrong.. that is, you can fault the content (premise, argumentation, etc.) of the opinion against a background of consensual logic but you certainly can't fault the possession of an opinion.


In the end, I think you missed the boat. Vexx thinks that opinions can be assessed for which are better or worse, and I think that an opinion qua opinion, is not vulnerable to that sort of assessment. Once we go deeper into the contents of an opinion that draws upon consensual knowledge, then there are rules and a game (which requires consensual participation) is formed and "moves" by each "player" can be verified and assessed.

Like I said, I am interested in the lower-level, meta-approach to this, which is not on that level (as described in the previous para).

[Kikaifan]

Originally Posted by arias

You lack clarity in thinking.

Then I'll go piece-by-piece.

I don't understand how you can say I'm taking things from a linguistic point of view.. I don't even think you know what linguistics mean in this case, because discussion using terminology like "natural language" is very different from linguistics.

The linguistics major I knows goes on about how words are used in language constantly, not just what phonemes they're constructed from and their etymologies. Your definition seems too limited. But you're right, I know nothing about it myself.

Edit: Here we go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics Wouldn't this be considered the same as what you're talking about?

Second, what Vexx was talking about was that substantiated opinions were better than non substantiated ones, and that there were different degrees of competence in the actual substantiation. I said sure, but those mean nothing to me in terms of whether opinions are equal or not. See, Vexx is of the mind that some opinions are better than others, while I'm of the mind that opinions qua opinions are simply not vulnerable to that sort of assessment. Full stop.

I agreed with you that opinions that are kept to one's self are neutral unless they're judged morally for their consequences in the opinion-holder's behavior, which is another matter.

Third, opinions don't necessarily implicitly challenge truths that are contrary. Certainly if I say "I love ice cream" I am not challenging "I don't love ice cream". I am expressing a truth condition that is verifiable by my own internal states.

Yes they do. A's "I like ice cream" isn't challenging B's "I don't like ice cream" it's challenging B's "A shouldn't like ice cream."

In the end, I think you missed the boat. Vexx thinks that opinions can be assessed for which are better or worse, and I think that an opinion qua opinion, is not vulnerable to that sort of assessment. Once we go deeper into the contents of an opinion that draws upon consensual knowledge, then there are rules and a game (which requires consensual participation) is formed and "moves" by each "player" can be verified and assessed.

Like I said, I am interested in the lower-level, meta-approach to this, which is not on that level (as described in the previous para).

I posted because I felt that in moving to that lower-level interpretation, you were taking Vexx's comments out of context; he was responding to a post about the roles of opinions in an argument when he said that opinions weren't equal.

[SnakeLegend]

i can say how happy i was...
When i went to one Comics Connection (Hougang), a comics selling store, when i ask them:
"Is there any novels for sale here?"
"Yes! Wait..."
*walks off*
"Here, they said its nice."
You know what.
i was so happy...
That Haruhi made it. ALL the way up. I'm so glad <3

[panzerfan]

Originally Posted by Eclipze

As far as I can tell, she created the SHnY world (considering that kyon didn't have much memories of the past, though I could be wrong), was able to get the attention of aliens, time-travellers and espers to please her in fear of what she would do in anger, and is indeed capable of the said fears of the 3 factions (aka destruction, messing up time-space, etc). What she wants, she gets it. Not with the help from a external source (gene, fairy-god-mother), but by herself. She HAS power, and these powers are great enough for her to be called a god, so technically it isn't wrong for people to think of her as a god, is it? Her powers rivals that of the entire family in Kamisama Kazoku (the entire family is made up of gods/goddess except for one angel), which tells alot. Ah yes, I just realized that S.Haruhi should be called goddess instead, my bad.

We actually had a long discussion about this and the closest thing that I can use to describe Suzumiya Haruhi is a tragic Greek style heroine not in a tragedy and a demiurge at the same time. She is a radical that has yet to fully realize her own position, flawed in such a way that her flaws could’ve led to her downfall if not for her ‘cooperation’ with her motley crew.

Originally Posted by arias

I didn't use it in the moral sense. What I'm saying is that our natural language use of "good opinion" is referring to the affect of its content rather than its structural weight.

That sounds an awful lot similar to saying that the utility gain is all that matter in here. Good opinion by that definition is not befitting to strict relativism.

Originally Posted by arias

opinions don't necessarily implicitly challenge truths that are contrary. Certainly if I say "I love ice cream" I am not challenging "I don't love ice cream". I am expressing a truth condition that is verifiable by my own internal states.

What happens is that one will equate opinion as argument. “I love Ice Cream.” == !“I hate Ice Cream.” That would be a binary logic. The truth value of A&&!A evaluates to false, A||!A is true and there is no middle ground. It just so happens that this tends to be the easiest state to implement… and one that most of us would assume this as an argument for sake of convenience.

I am unconvinced as to evaluating opinion based on the validity of the argument. In some sense it is comparing apple to oranges since the criteria for opinion is a set of variables while truth value in argument can be assessed logically.