A historian's job isn't to determine what events in history are "right" or which ones are "wrong" - but the problem that lies with this approach is that historians are "human," and by that fact alone, it is often difficult to separate the human element from the simple recording and "objective" evaluation. Yet, philosophers, of which there are many great examples (such as Socrates, Aristotle, Hegel, Locke, Hobbs, etc.), on the other hand have the ability to look at a wider perspective of events. They often provide us with bits and pieces of wisdom that we, ourselves, can devour and analyze.
For this week's topic, we are going to take the words of such a philosopher and you, the great and awesome members of Lord Gehm's WCH class, are going to do the "devouring" and the "analyzing" of his bit of wisdom. Remember, you don't have to agree (for, as we know, we all have opinions), but we do have to defend our point of view.
This Week's Topic:
"Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right or wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." (Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel) - Analyze this statement.
Many things come to mind when I look at this quote. Its hard to explain all of the problems in the world are because of two rights instead of a right and a wrong. This quote is basically trying to say that conflict is started when two people who think they're right collide. Everyone has the right to an opinion, but its when two opinionated people come together discussing the same topic that hell breaks loose. Life is many things - very complicated, and often shades of gray. It is fine when things are clear and easy to label as right and wrong. For example, The 10 commandments are good rules to follow. They are designed to promote, peace, cooperation, respect, equity. They make sense and are hard to dispute. Other conflicts in life are not so clear. There are conflicts between two, or three or even four sides of an issue. Sometimes there is no obvious right answer or right viewpoint. If people could just learn to open up their ears and be civilized about an arguement, we would live in a more peaceful world. ence, the quote "Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right or wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." is basically trying to say that the reason we have wars, and other conflicts is because we dispute too much about our own opinion, instead of listening to others
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point on the fact that we have to listen to each other before disputing our opinions, but the Ten Commandments are a whole different story. This quote means a conflict between two sides and the Ten Commandments doesn't fall into that context. I believe that the true meaning of this quote is that neither side of the story is wrong, and that each side believes strongly that they are right. However, your comment was precise and spot on when talking about there is no obvious right answer.
DeleteNice job Elijah. I really liked the examples you used to support your opinion, like the Ten Commandments, for example. I also thought that is was clever how you mentioned that life is "often shades of gray". Oh, and I agree with what you said about how people should listen more and be more civilized about arguments. We'd definitely be living in a more peaceful world.
DeleteI confidently agree with your viewpoint, Elijah. You gave me a viewpoint that I didn't think of when I read this quote. You said that if people listened to all sides of an argument, we would, in turn, live in a world I'm sure many people would enjoy, and that is a world with peace. I didn't bring this into perspective before and come to think about it, this is a very intellectual thought and I like the answer. Sometimes we should worry more about our health (dealing with stress, wars, conflicts, organization of a disagreement, and whether or not it would promote world peace) and world around us before thinking about how we look to others. Also, people may even look like idiots if they don't come to a well thought-out conclusion.
DeleteHey Nader I love the constructed criticism but I do believe that the Ten Commandments has some relevance in this quote. I picked it for the reasons above, they promote peace, cooperation, etc. which is what should happen in an argument, even though it never does it still has something to do with the quote and I thought it was a good thing to incorporate. But thanks for commenting.
DeleteI happen to agree with the quote, "Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right or wrong. They are conflicts between two rights," said by Georg Wilheim Fredirch Hegel. I beieve this because when two countries are in conflict, they are fighting for what each thinks is right. Like in the Civil War, the south was for slavery and thought it was right, while the north was against slavery and that that was right. What you can take from this is that one thing might sound wrong to you and the other sounds right, but in reality, each idea that the sides are fighting for, are right in their own minds. In conclusion, I agree with the quote said by Georg Wilheim Fredirch Hegel. Both sides think their own opinions are right, so, like the quote says, "...they are conflicts between two rights."
ReplyDeleteIan, I agree with your opinion. I especially like that you mentioned that the sides are right in their own minds. In cases like this, it's all about people's perspective. Other than that, I don't have much else to say about your statement..But it's definitely (as some would say) "short, sweet, and to the point".
DeleteI partly disagree and agree with you on your opinion. When you stated, "I believe this is because when two countries are in conflict, they are fighting for what each thinks is right.", it came to my attention because this quote was not only based around conflicts between countries, but around any conflicts that occurred in history, including conflicts between certain people, states, provinces, and so on that lead to large devastations. It also caught my attention that you stated this quote was about conflicts between two countries, then directly after started talking about a war within one country, not two. However, I agree with you on your point that when one is the spectator, they often believe one side is right and one side is wrong, but the two sides fighting the battle or disputing about a topic both think they are right.
Deletei was trying to be an example, but i guess it didn't come off like that.
DeleteIan, your post was right on point. My post had basically all the same points. I had the same perspective with the quote. It is certainly true that the quote is trying to say that conflicts do not occur based on what's wrong and right. It is actually all based on two rights, what each side believes is right.
DeleteIan, your post is great! I agree with you fully. I like how you mentioned that everyone has their own opinion and that they are correct in their own way. The Civil War was a great example!
DeleteIan your post was very valid and your points were spot on. I love the example you gave from the civil war. Two rights do cause conflicts and the only solution to it is compromise and negotiation. I liked you post and agree with all of your points and perspective.
DeleteHey Ian I really liked your post, it was very straight forward and you really explained the general meaning of the quote very well. I like how you mentioned the Civil War because thats a really good example of the quotes meaning of two people thinking they are right colliding.
DeleteThat was my opinion about the quote and what I thought the quote meant, by the way.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree on your point that during a conflict both sides think they are right and therefore, there is no wrong. I believe that looking at what both sides have to propose isn't vital in the assumption of who is right or wrong. Like you said, both sides aren't wrong because "they are right in their own minds". Therefore, your explanation and analysis was valid and I completely agree with your points.
Delete"Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right or wrong. They are conflicts between two rights.", said by Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel, is a quote that I actually do agree with. When most people argue, it's usually because both sides think they're right. Take the American Revolution, for example. England believed that they were doing the right thing by taxing the United States because they were protecting their financial interests in them. At the same time, the United States felt that this was wrong of them to do. As a result, the United States wanted to be able to voice their opinions and to represent themselves.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, what this quote reveals is that those who are too opinionated can spark conflicts between themselves and others.
I agree with the side of the quote you are taking. When two sides believe they are both right it causes a problem, but it doesn't always lead to mass destruction. The example of the American Revolution was a good example because there were multiple sides of the argument, each thinking they are right.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with the viewpoint you inhabited on this quote. The American Revolution was a great example to relate to the quote. There are always two or more sides with drastically different viewpoints in arguments. This does not mean there is only one right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and support it facts to back it up. Not only can you relate this to world conflicts, but also problems in a day to day basis.
DeletePaige your example of the American revolution was spot on. Your interpretation of the quote is something I agree with. Two sides that believe that their opinion on event is correct then the two sides enter a conflict. Good Job.
DeleteHey Paige, I have to say that I agree with what you wrote. It simply described the point I made in my post, that both side have the tendency to think they're both right. I also found it quite interesting as to how you compared this quote to the American Revolution, a pivotal time in for our nation. Since history is written by the victor, we are often told that what the British did during this time was 100% wrong. However, you revealed that they were really just seeking justice. That justice being protecting them from the French during the war previous to the American Revolution. In simple terms, this quote showed (quite well) that both sides can have come sense of justice behind their reasoning.
DeleteI see where you are coming from, and you had some good points but I feel different about this quote. Although you had some great explanations, I feel that it didn't persuade me enough to see it the way you saw the quote, but overall you did a good job.
DeletePoint-of-clarification, Paige. The "United States" didn't exist during the American Revolutionary War. We were still British Colonies during the war. It wasn't until we won the war that we became an independent country.
DeleteI can honestly say that I do not agree with this quote. A conflict in definition is a strong disagreement between people or groups that often results in argument, it is a difference that prevents agreement. And in many cases conflicts have been a struggle for power, property, etc., causing many wars. So with this definition, this statement does not register with me. Both sides of a conflict will assume that they are right, however we all know what happens when you assume. The wars or arguments of the past have clearly stated what is wrong and right. World War 1, the Bosnian War, slavery, and many more conflicts that weren't in the media much are examples of when people assume they are right. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, right and right, wrong and right, or wrong and wrong, its all about perspective and which side you choose. My opinion is that when physical harm comes as a result from a conflict to even one human being, both sides are wrong.
ReplyDeleteI believe that you are defining this quote literally, and using its meaning as a famous quote: "Two wrongs don't make a right." You have stated that "The wars or arguments of the past have clearly stated what is wrong and right." Although this may stand true in some cases, it is not prevalent in many wars or arguments. Take the American Civil War for example. Most people came up with the conclusion that the South was wrong because they fought a war on slavery. However, if you flip this side of the argument to see why the South fought, you get a whole different meaning. Instead of supposedly fighting to keep slavery, the soldiers from the South were fighting to free themselves from the federal government. All I am trying to say is that conflicts don't have an exact right or wrong answer. I do agree with your point that both sides of the conflict assume they are right and that the outcome of assumption is prevalent.
DeleteTo some extent, I agree with what you're trying to say. Some points that you brought up towards the end are ones that I probably wouldn't have thought of. The other points that you used to back up your opinion were actually pretty good- like the conflicts of the past that you brought up. Great job mentioning the perspective and sides people choose, by the way.
DeleteAside from the praise, my opinion still stands.
I have to agree with Nader on this one, you did have some key points, like when you talked about different wars and such. But, when we define which side is right and which side is wrong, that is our opinion. Both sides think they are correct respectively, but it is up to us to decide who is right and who is wrong. What the quote is trying to say is that conflicts is the battle of two rights, not saying they both have to be right or wrong. But I do see what you mean about slavery. But that is also an example that works with this quote if you think about it. When slaves first came over, both sides thought it was right, but in the future we realize how terrible it is. I have to say I agree and disagree with some of you opinions and statements.
DeleteI viewed the quote in a different perspective as agreeing with it fully. Your post portrayed points that I hadn't thought of when I first read the quote. I liked the facts and relation that supported your decision of not agreeing to the quote yet my viewpoint remains intact. I would have to say this is a matter of opinion since everyone is entitled to their own belief.
DeleteThis quote is saying that conflicts arise between two rights. Each side entitles to their own opinions, thinking that their own opinions are right. For example, I believe that my opinion on this quote is right and you believe that your opinion on this quote is right. Therefore, I do disagree with most parts of your post.
DeleteWow, Hava!! Great post! I didn't think of it that way! Great points! I agree with what you said about conflicts and how everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if they are wrong. Very true!
DeleteI disagree with your explanation. When you explain that one side is wrong and one side is right. We cannot prove if someone is right or wrong because that's their opinion. We as people can either think one side is right or wrong, but that's our own opinion and cannot be proved wrong.
DeleteI agree with Akshay's opinion. The only way to technically define something as "wrong"... Is if it violates the law. However, back in Ancient Greece, there were no laws protecting people form certain harms. So who is to say it is wrong? In the past it was neither wrong nor right, but in current times it would be considered wrong? Also, what if a majority of people choose the wrong side? Does that make it "right"? -THOMAS HINDLE
DeleteHey Hava, I have to say that I disagree with your opinion. Since there is no universal definition of the word right, (one that everyone can agree upon 100%) wars have not always clearly stated what is is wrong or right. While I do agree that your final statement is quite Gandhi like, the rest of the post was quite general. It is true that many conflicts were fought for the same reasons, however they were fought for different reasons, at different times. Once in history battles were over land, while they are now (even a little bit in the past) fought for political freedom. You are right that in the end, no one truly can win a war, (just survive) however whether certain wars were right or wrong, depends on who you ask.
DeleteI do agree with the quote: "Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right or wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." This quote is true because you have to look at it from a different perspective.The quote means that there is no wrong because both sides believe they are right. There is no wrong because no one can admit that they are wrong. This is quite a confusing quote to write about because it can be interpreted in different ways. For example think of two people when they get into a fight. Both sides think they are right and neither side can admit they are wrong. Another example is two nations in battle or conflict in a war. Both of these countries are arguing that their case is valid and what they say is right. Taking this quote and interpreting it from a different perspective will give you the right answer. I agree with this quote because you have to look at both sides of the story.
ReplyDeleteI think your explanation was very clear and correct coming from my view. "Both sides think they are right and neither side can admit they are wrong." is a statement I find to be on point. Coming from my experiences, I know that even if one side of a disagreement is clearly right, the other side just keeps going with the fight just for the simple fact that they don't want to lose and this conflict just keeps taking steps up to higher levels of seriousness. I also strongly agree with you on your point that you should take the quote and look at it from a different view will help in conducting a good answer.
DeleteI really like how you explained the quote in a very non-confusing manner. I also agree how you explain that neither side can be proven wrong since its their opinion. Great job interpreting the quote!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe quote "Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right or wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." said by Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel, is very valid, strong, and even a little hard to get a grip on in my opinion. This quote can be interpreted in multiple ways coming from my perspective. This statement was difficult for me to grasp and understand at first, but after I put some good thought into it, it was all clear to me. First off, in my words, I believe this quote means that conflicts erupt even bigger when two sides that believe they are right do not fall into a conclusion, or settlement. In turn, when two sides do not come to an agreement because each side strongly feels their right, it leads to wars, terrorist attacks, threats, mass destruction, genocide (like the Holocaust), stealing, and many other acts of violence or harm. Conflicts would just simply not make any sense, in other words not exist because two sides would not be fighting over who is correct, or cause a small amount of damage if it was between what's right and wrong.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do agree with the side you are taking of this quote, I disagree with what you said about conflicts. You said, "In turn, when two sides do not come to an agreement because each side strongly feels their right, it leads to wars, terrorist attacks, threats, mass destruction, genocide (like the Holocaust), stealing, and many other acts of violence or harm." Not always does a disagreement lead to conflict. For example, I always get into arguments with my friends, but they don't lead to fights and it doesn't lead us to a stronger friendship. Another example is debates, people can choose different sides of the topic but it doesn't lead to war. There might be examples where violence does come about, but not always on this scale. “First off, in my words, I believe this quote means that conflicts erupt even bigger when two sides that believe they are right do not fall into a conclusion, or settlement.” This I do agree with. If I do get into arguments with my friends I will usually ignore them for a couple of days or they would do the same. When you do things like this it makes conflicts worse. I agree with the side you are taking on this debate.
DeleteI strongly agree with your statements. I happen to like most the statement you said about how these standstills are what lead to the wars, terrorist attacks, and such we see on the news today. I think mostly everybody is saying the same thing, really. I understand what you mean how it is hard to get a grip on. It took me a few read throughs to get the idea of it as well. this quote reminds me of average kids like us too. we don't like to admit when we are wrong either. I should've used that in my spiel. hahahaha.
DeleteBy the way, the Holocaust didn't arise because of what two groups thought was right. Adolph Hitler, basically brainwashed his armies, and taught children to hate Jews. He also blamed every problem Germany had on the Jews. So really that was a one sided affair, even though the Jews knew it was wrong, but could not do anything about it except fight and flee.
DeleteI similarly agreed to you in my post. When a conflict arises, two sides are both entitled to their own opinion and are both correct in different ways. However, one side stands stronger as their persuasiveness is higher in comparison. I also re-read the quote a couple of times to grasp my final opinion. I liked your relations of this quote to conflicts as well.
DeleteYour perspective is something i agree with. your argument is very valid and the points you brought up are true. Something that really caught my eye was you statement about how deadlocks are the reason why there are wars and fights. It is the lack of compromise that leads to these events. I also have to agree with Ian's comment that the Holocaust was caused by Adolf Hitler using his superb speaking skills to manipulate the german population.
DeleteI agree with the quote, "Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right or wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." (Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel). This quote means that there is no wrong because both sides think so strongly they are right. This will only contradict in the field of science and math because there is no right or wrong, but obviously science isn’t a tragedy. For people’s beliefs it is a different concept because one person can believe they are right on there topic, but opposing people think they are right. For example, the Holocaust, we believed that the killing of innocent people was wrong, but if you change your perspective to the side of the Germans they believed that the Jews had to be killed. I agree with this quote because both sides are correct in their point of view, it depends on the side you choose.
ReplyDeleteI agree with almost everything you said except for the statement about the Holocaust, like I said on Rob's post, even though there were different opinions about this difficult subject, it was not a genuine tragedy because of two rights. It was really a one sided affair. Like I said on Rob's, the Holocaust was started with Adolph Hitler, and pretty much everyone in Germany agreed with everything he said, or people were just to scared to admit they didn't. Some people even fled. Anyway, he was the one in power and really no one contested him until we actually found out about the Holocaust, when it was close to its end. Over 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust, not because of a disagreement, but because people were afraid to disagree. I hope that was pretty accurate.
DeleteI agree with both Ian and Abu. Great post Abu! I agree with mostly everything.
DeleteIan, I strongly agree with everything you said. The Holocaust was started by Adolph Hitler. He basically brainwashed everyone into agreeing with him. They lived in fear if they were to contradic Hitler. Now, if people weren't on his side, they were too afraid to speak up. The people knew it was wrong, but stayed silent.
Ian and Kaitlyn Yes, but the Holocaust had disagreeing sides, the Jews, Americans, and Germany. As you said in Rob's post the German's were trained to kill the Jews, that was Germany's point of view. The Jewish and Americans didn't agree with the same beliefs and didn't believe people should be killed. so technically, I believe their are multiple sides in this conflict, with their own beliefs making it relating to the quote.
DeleteAbu, I like they way you interpreted the quote, because it does have multiple meanings to it, but Im agree with Ian on this one. Like Ian stated "it was not a genuine tragedy because of two rights. I get what you are trying to say but I feel like it was in the wrong example. Overall it was still a good blog.
Delete“Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right or wrong. They are conflicts between two rights.” is a quote by Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel. My viewpoint on this quote is that I agree with it fully. It signifies that tragedies that qualify as being frank do not argue with a wrong and right side but rather two correct sides. When there is a controversial conflict in the world, we hear both sides of the argument. They are both supported with their own facts that raise their side to grab the persuasive attention of others. This quote reminded me of the debate that disputed for the United States to take military action against Syria or oppose. Both of the speakers were opinionated with their own viewpoint and sustained it facts that better helped evaluate their argument and encourage people to be for their belief. A few relatable quotes that came to my mind when reading this quote by Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel were “The eternal difference between right and wrong does not fluctuate, it is immutable.” by Patrick Henry and “The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong.” by Carl Jung.
ReplyDeleteShivani, nice post. I like how you said "They are both supported with their own facts that raise their side to grab the persuasive attention of others." This is very true. People are entitled to their opinion and they would do whatever it takes to use facts and information to prove that their opinion is the right one.
DeleteShivani I absolutely loved the way you answered this blog! I like you used different quotes to elaborate on your answer and make a better understanding of it. However, I think you may have contradicted yourself by agreeing with the quote in the beginning, but then adding a quote that stated "The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." I also like how you mentioned the debate on Syria from JSA the other day and how each member stated their own opinion as well as backing it up with facts that went along with their argument.
DeleteThis quote, by Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel, has a deep meaning within itself. What Hegel is trying to portray is that tragedies such as wars occur due to the fact that people persistently believe that their opinion is the right one. People are so headstrong and stubborn with what they believe in. They support their opinions with facts and countless details, making it seem like their opinion is the right one. People are entitled to their own opinions and what they feel is right. There really is no wrong or right when it comes down to opinions, as long as they are backed up with facts. Tragedies take place when conflicts occur with opinions between certain groups of people, who think that their opinion is the right one. For example, the outburst of the civil war took place with the argument of two rights. The South knew that what they believed in was right and the North knew that what they believed in was right. Therefore, tragedies and fighs arise between two rights, not two wrongs.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with how you described what the quote meant. I also liked how you included a comparison of the Civil War as an example of how both sides were very firm on their opinion and that led to a war in our own country.
DeleteI believe conflicts arise when no one can admit they are wrong. However, there doesn't have to be a wrong. Both parties have their opinions and strong facts to back up their opinions. Everyone can be right in their own way, and have their own voice. An example could be a war. During war, both countries fight for their beliefs and stick to it. However, both countries could be right...in their own way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement strongly. A little compromising can go a long way!
Kaitlyn, I was definitely agree with you ! I think that there is nothing really wrong in the world but since people disagree with each other's opinions, the conflicts come. I like it when you said "conflicts arise when no one can admit they are wrong. However, there doesn't have to be a wrong." Maybe a little compromising will fix the conflict but since there is a lot of uncertainty and the protection of country's dignity, some political problem can't solve by compromising.
DeleteThis quote by Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel is attempting to explain how conflicts are fought throughout the world. Today many people in the world are opinionated and are very strong with their opinion or views. It's not that one of these sides is wrong, but both sides deeply believe that they are right. Due to strong beliefs this quote demonstrates how wars are started and lead to many tragic deaths because of one's belief. Both sides believe they are right because they can back up their opinion with strong facts or others may not use facts, which would lead to a weak argument. No matter what everyone has the right to their opinion and tragedies don't happen because one person is wrong, they occur because both sides believe that they are right.
ReplyDeleteHey Akshay, I fully agree with the points you made in your post. Wars are (as I stated in my post) involve two sides believing they are both right. Sometimes (as you stated) both sides have valid points to their argument and sometime they do not. This makes it extremely difficult to determine which side is right and which isn't For example, JSA recently had a debate about whether or not America should get involved with the conflict in Syria. Both sides made strong points and each solution had it's own pros and cons. In simple terms, your post showed me that there is usually never a definitive right or wrong, just better than or worse than. Overall, this was a well written post which exposed me to a side of the quote I had not elaborated upon.
DeleteWe live in a complex world. There is no absolute true or false. In my opinion, if there are only "right" and "wrong" things in the world, then then the world will be boring and not a wonderful place any more. I think that this quote can define why we have so many controversial historical figures. When I was younger, every time my Sinology teacher introduced a historic figure to me, I would like to ask him if this man or woman was a good guy or bad guy. However, every time, my teacher said to me sternly, " there is no absolutely right or wrong thing. People will have different ideas, even it is on the same events. All I want to teach you is how to make your own opinion instead of being like a dead parrot." Same like our little "argument" in here. You may agree or disagree with each opinion but we never say others are wrong. So in a word, for most of the time, conflicts are between two rights. I completely agree with Hegel's quote and I love it.
ReplyDeleteI agree when you stated "In my opinion, if there are only "right" and "wrong" things in the world, then then the world will be boring and not a wonderful place any more." Without contrast, the world we live in would be a very bland place. Also, if people didn't disagree, wouldn't that makes us in-unique as humans? A human shows power in his/her opinion. -THOMAS HINDLE
DeleteEvents that have occurred throughout history cannot be classified as wrong or right since everything is based on perspective. Theoretically there is no right or wrong just actions. We as human have taken these action and interpreted them and sorted them into two categories right and wrong. In a conflict both sides can neither be classified as right or wrong due to the fact that there is not measuring tool that tells us when something is right or wrong. We use basic human nature as a standard and everything that is not similar we sort it as "wrong" and everything that goes along with it is "right". This is not an accurate system to classify events since as flawed human beings our beliefs and ideas are intertwined with our decision not matter what there will always be a decision that has been influenced. Some people like philosopher might be able to view events from different perspective, however they will be a little bias with their decisions. I believe that the quote is on the right track but is not completely right. Since it states that "wrong" does not exist, then how can right exist too. So the quote sort of contradicts itself. That is my interpretation of the quote and my opinion on it.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I totally agree with your answer! I like how your whole entry was based on how everyone has a perspective and that there really is no right or wrong. I agree with what you stated in your answer "We use basic human nature as a standard and everything that is not similar we sort it as "wrong" and everything that goes along with it is "right". You are completely right when you said that it is human nature to sort out everything that doesn't seem normal to us in everyday life as wrong, and everything that does is right.
DeleteIn addition, the quote states that problems arise from two sides believing that their perspective is more valid than the other. Since I can't classify perspectives as right or wrong then I can only label them as perspectives.
ReplyDeleteAs I read your follow-up, I got the feeling that you were aiming for a "depends on the situation" kind of thing. If this is the case, I agree. Without opinions, there would be no moving forward. -THOMAS HINDLE
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe main question in philosophy... is "Why?" So, even philosophy is unsure about most things. What is right and wrong? What defines something as so? Why? Well, I do NOT agree with Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel's point of view, because of this statement... "They are conflicts between two rights." The first thing that popped into my mind, was the Holocaust. NOTHING about the Holocaust was "right". So, England and America fought Germany for something they were doing "right?" I don't think so. The Holocaust was wrong, and the world knew it. That's why we entered WWII. For a true reason, to end the "wrong-doing" and put justice. I would amend his quote to this... "Genuine tragedies in the world are caused by two different ideas. Whether they are right or wrong... those with the most power will always be victorious." -THOMAS HINDLE
ReplyDeleteGood job Thomas! It is really good that you provide your opinion with a famous history event. I am definitely agree with you. Somehow, i think that maybe God can't even tell what is RIGHT and what is WRONG in history. In general, everything done was on purpose, or in other word, it is based on the law of cause and effect or the science of causality.
DeleteI have to say that after deep thinking into the matter, I feel this quote speaks the truth. After all, when it comes down to it, no nation, or (idealogical belief) would fight believing they're wrong! No matter how pathological, cruel, lust craving, or one sided there point of view ( or side) is, it can still be considered "right" to them. This is because we (as individuals) have our own definition of what is right. While some define right as what is best for them, others define it as what is best for others. For example during The Holocaust, we had Hitler who (in his point of view) was trying to make the world better by "purifying" it's population. This may sound right but as we all know, this "purification" was nothing more than the slaughtering of millions of innocent people. This also proves my second point, that what seems right may not always be. A quote that proves my point quite well would be "Don't judge a book by it's cover".
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I liked the way you worded you're entry Sai. I liked how you said "After all, when it comes down to it, no nation, or (idealogical belief) would fight believing they're wrong!" I completely agree that no country would fight thinking they are wrong. Also, the way you interpreted how Hitler saw the Holocaust through his eyes was another great point, because Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor, not committing a horrible sin. Your quote at the end was also very fitting to the matter!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI remembered when i was in kindergarten, or also later in elementary school, my teacher liked to teach us what is right and what is wrong. Hitler's holocaust is WRONG; Japanese attacked China in WWII is wrong and bloody; Chiang Kai-Shek is bad people; Mao Zedong meant to us like the sun to our world... But later when I grew up, I found there is no absolute right or wrong thing in the world. Same to the conflicts between two opposite opinions. If we try to stand in a different position, we will find actually there is nothing WRONG over all. Sai, I have to say that I was very impressed with your intellectual clarity and "toughness" in your opinion.
DeleteI don't quite agree with this quote yet I don't disagree at the same time. Like every argument, there are two sides of every conflict. "Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right or wrong. They are conflicts between two rights." by Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hegel means that the tragic events that have occurred in our world's history have not been caused by people being correct or incorrect about a situation, it has been about the disagreement between two individuals, countries, etc. When two people feel as though they are right, it can lead to something a lot more complex than two people who believe they are right but one is wrong. Since everyone has an opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion, it can lead to very destructive situations. Two wrongs cannot make a right, but two rights can definitely make a wrong. Now, as I stated before, everyone has their own opinion. Opinions can lead to people taking different sides of an argument or situation. People base their opinions on facts and their own beliefs, and opinions cannot be wrong or right. On that point, events that have occurred in the past cannot be singled out as right or wrong, unless it was a very extreme matter. In closing, that is my understanding of the quote.
ReplyDelete