Our Perspectives Are a Problem — What Ought We Do With Them?

Originally appeared on Medium

Why is it that if you put two people in the same room, there is likely to be an inevitable conflict?

Why do humans understand things differently?

The problem, for the most part, deals with our perspectives; which deals with how we know things and how our accumulated knowledge is not only quite unique to our specific consciousness but is also limited and finite.

There’s a story about Socrates where the oracle at Delphi concluded that he was the wisest person in the world. He couldn’t figure out why. Other people seemed to know so much more than him.

Socrates was very aware of his limited and finite knowledge.

As it goes, none of us are working with all the information.

In fact, we are all working with different information that is unique to the knowledge we have happened to accumulate over time.

The technical name for this is epistemology.

Would it be nice if we all had access to the same information, under the same configurations, with the same meaning so that we could all be on the same page? Instead, we not only see and understand the world differently than every other human being, we often interact with those human beings based on the divergent perspectives that have brought us to the same room with seemingly insurmountable differences.

Does it have to be this way?

Well, so far, no one has figured out the epistemological issue.

But what about the relational chaos that emanates from our inevitably diverse perspectives?

That might be solvable.

If we can understand what is going on behind the scenes of our perspectives, it can help us to have a proper sense of the terrain and keep our different perspectives from devolving into chaos, division, and animosity.

Our culture might benefit from coming to terms with our knowledge and having a proper sense of proportion as to how our perspectives ought to work in the first place.

Come to find out, Socrates was the wisest person in the world because he was honest about how much he didn’t know. His wisdom had little to do with what we knew and more to do with how he knew himself.

Socrates was wise because he understood the nature of his perspective.

What keeps us from having such bountiful wisdom?

Perspectives are Inherently Subjective: A Lesson From Tupperware

Here’s what happens — you have a particular perspective on how Tupperware ought to be stored. It comes from your mathematical, logical algorithms of physics (rationalism) and your tried-and-true experience (empiricism) which has collected a mass of empirical data (logos) that began all the way back with your ancestors in the 1950s who happened to attend Tupper’s original house party selling plastic containers (ethos).

Yet, there may be someone else who has claimed to have a better way to store Tupperware.

Because you place your containers in a cabinet, stacked perfectly according to size and use with the lids in the little drawer above the cabinet. This other person, however, says that it is best to store the containers with their respective lid altogether. Doing so keeps one from amassing unnecessary Tupperware nor do they need to spend time finding the right lid. They just grab the container they need and move on.

Who’s right?

Well, an argument about this would be ridiculous.

Yes, the example is ridiculous on purpose because, in a way, all of our disagreements — where we approach someone who has seen the world differently which has led them to a different perspective (which would be, in fact, everyone) — are ridiculous.

What is the problem, then?

What about this leads to the cacophony of discord amongst human beings?

Perspective & Reality

The problem would be if you approached your perspective on Tupperware as if it wasn’t actually a perspective.

Think about all of the disagreements that come up — from ridiculous issues like Tupperware to actual issues like relational conflict or social maladies.

Often, we argue because we assume that our perspective is reality and theirs, of course, must be wrong or inferior. If our perspective is true, then we must be right. Then, if their perspective does not align with ours, it must be wrong.

The problem is that we have approached our limited, finite, incomplete perspective as if it is objectively true; and why would we be so certain about our perspectives? Because they make so much obvious sense!

To us.

As a result, we filter the world through our perspective like metal detectors without paying attention to the fact that both of those perspectives about Tupperware are incomplete. One may have more data, more experience, more logic, and more contextual sensibility. One may be more complete in comparison to the other.

But they are both, unfortunately, incomplete.

Now, this brings up the issue of relativism. The epistemological issue of limited, subjective perspectives does not imply relativism. It implies unavoidable subjectivism amongst people who are pursuing objective certainty but have not completely grasped every part of that themselves within the phenomenological construct of our finitude and egocentrism.

The issue isn’t that there is no truth.

The issue is that you, in and of yourself, do not contain nor conclude what is true.

The issue is the perspective — that certainty is elusive and your perspective is but a small reflection of reality.

So, what do we do with our perspectives?

The Epistemological Nightmare

One option is to simply agree to disagree.

This is nice because the disagreeing parties aren’t so hell-bent on convincing other people to agree with whatever they think. It’s a compromise.

It also implies that neither party is willing to move. Why would they? They have the right perspective and, if the other person isn’t wise enough to see the error of their ways, then the best course of action is to tolerate their idiocy.

Yet, this also means that both parties, including you, will be foregoing the ability to grow and, as a result, we will all just continue in our small worlds. Our perspectives will stay incomplete.

Because we assumed their completion had already been realized.

What do we do, then, with this epistemological nightmare? How do we keep our strange perspectives from causing problems?

We need to put our perspectives in their proper place.

1 — Recognize the Inherent Nature of Your Perspective

It is finite, it is limited, and you aren’t working with all the information.

Begin by being honest that you don’t have a corner on the market of truth. If you are spouting pure objectivity as you, obviously, just use the facts, then you are not being honest about how perspectives work.

We need to be aware that our thoughts, ideas, and perspectives might just be approximations.

2 — We need to keep exploring.

If the process of knowledge is, at current, incomplete, then the best use of our time might be to keep adding to our perspectives as much as possible.

When we fail to move past our limited, myopic perspective, we guarantee that we will stay where we are. A lack of imagination leads to a lack of growth.

It doesn’t take a sociological expert to realize that, at least in America, acknowledging our limitations and exploring the world are two postures we aren’t very good at.

Needless to say, we have some work to do when it comes to epistemology.