User:Margotte02/be bold

In philosophy, the distinction between the concepts of truth and opinions is acknowledged and traditional. However, there are situations where this contradiction is put aside and abolished, and that is when a right opinion (or with other words, a correct one) proves to be imperative. In Plato's Menon[1], Socrates, one of the main initiators of Ancient Philosophy, argues that although truth and opinion are neatly distinct and dissimilar from one and other, opinions can be true. All opinions are not fallacious, and they are not to be neglected, especially when they have the ability to promote action. Indeed, in some domains, it is impossible or difficult to descry a definitive and absolute truth; but sometimes, you need to take a position, and in order to do so, you may be compelled to rely on an opinion. In certain fields, such as morality, politics or ethics, lack of demonstrable truth constrains us to satisfy ourselves of self-driven evaluations which we endeavour to make as correct as possible; Socrates indulges in resorting to what he calls a "right opinion" (p.359-365) when failing to define virtue and underlines its legitimacy in this particular case. "Right opinions", "orthè doxa" in Greek, have pragmatic virtues and allows the same result, does the same favour, as Science does, in fine: from a practical point of view, the rectitude of the action is not compromised but rather identical. In that sense, it has the same value as well-proved scientific truths or knowledge. Therefore, for the question of virtue, if it is impossible to rest upon a scientifical assessment, we can at least discern "right opinions", which can even undertake the name of "true opinions" (p.359). However, "right opinions" cannot claim to have an identical status to knowledge: the relationship between truth and a "right opinion" remains contingent, whereas the relation between Science and truth is necessary. What right opinions lack before being called by the name of truth, is the cause-effect pattern that human reason carries out to establish truthful statements. If the first reason why a "right opinion" is considered legitim is that it enables effective action when science cannot; the second one is that it may be, in fact, a step, a stop-off, before attaining a scientifical truth: from "right opinions", we can reach out for truth, by linking them to meaningful and logical reasons or causes that justify them. This way, "right opinions" are more unconditionally useful and objective. If we follow Plato's and Socrates' ways of thinking, we can affirm that saying truthful things does not necessarily imply primer knowledge and that they are many areas of thought where truth is impossible to be found in an absolute impersonal form. Those cannot be taught, but are individually perceived by a sort of common sense or through the act of anamnesis. Margotte02 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Margot

↑ (1) W. R. M. Lamb, T. E. Page (ed.), A. Post (ed.) W. H. D. Rouse (ed.), and E. Capps (ed.), E. H. Warmington (ed.), Menon, Plato (with an English translation), IV, Harvard University Press, The Loeb Classical Library, England, William Heinemann, 1962, p.359-367 Being bold is important on Wikipedia.