We have all experienced those moments. Regardless of whether or not you happen to be a more accommodating person that prefers to avoid confrontation whenever possible, we have all had those moments. Those moments where the person we’re discussing a topic with absolutely has to be wrong, the sort of situation where “agreeing to disagree” is out of the question. They’re wrong, you’re right, end of discussion.

There are a lot of factors that can play into these moments occurring, whether it is it pure, unadulterated pride, or being extremely passionate about a certain subject. Let it be known that there is nothing nonsensical (in theory) about wanting to feel like you’re the correct one in a conversation where a disagreement has arisen. The reason I said in theory is because conceptually, it makes sense to want to avoid the feeling of being bested, lest our egos be damaged. However, it is important to understand that not every debate is going to have a person who is definitively right, and someone who is definitively wrong.

Why is that? Because of the concept of subjectivity, which Dictionary.com defines as “relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.” If you happen to be thinking that would be an accurate way to define an opinion, you would be correct. People often frame their opinions pertaining to specific subjects as objective truth, refusing to take into the account the subjective nature of a substantial number of things in life. An objective truth is primarily considered to be something that can be proven with observable data.

Take a moment to apply that information to the numerous opinions that you hold and probably tend to think of as written in stone, irrespective of how many people agree or disagree with them. An objective truth would be the existence of gravity, or the earth being round. Those two examples are objective truths, or facts, because they are definitively provable (or have already been proven) by widely trusted methods, and backed by observable, significant, and longstanding data. An objective truth is impenetrable by a subjective opinion. If a subjective opinion is a bullet, an objective truth is bulletproof glass.

That having been stated, it would be negligent not to acknowledge that periodically there are situations where something that was previously believed to be a fact, ends up being proven false by newly emerged, conflicting data that is deemed more accurate. Given that premise, it would make sense to ask what truly is the distinction between an objective truth and a subjective opinion if there have been instances where supposed truths have in actuality been incorrect? The distinction is this: Objective truths, prior to being replaced by more accurate information, had a foundation of legitimately obtained, hard data. The process that lead to the establishment of the originally defined objective truth is often times a similar, or even the very same process that leads to the discovery of the updated version of the truth.

Juxtaposing that, matters of a subjective nature are subjective because there is no definitive method by which you could determine all-encompassing, universally accepted objective truths about them. Where is all of this ultimately going? The point is that instead of lamenting the existence of subjectivity because it means that someone we disagree with does not have to be blatantly wrong so that we can be right, the reality of the subjective should be celebrated.

The subjective brings on personal interpretation; one of the things that make’s up a person’s unique identity. People’s varying opinions regarding film, art and music, provide the basis for intellectually stimulating conversation that otherwise may not have been had if all things in life fell under the umbrella of non-debatable objectivity. A Postmodernist perspective might suggest that the idea of objective/absolute truth in any capacity is a fallacy…but that is not a rabbit-hole I will be venturing down (at least in this article).

I am not suggesting that you begin to question everything that you have ever thought to be true, but the next time that you enter into a discussion with someone about something you disagree on, keep in the mind the contextual specifics of the matter you are debating. Once you come to terms with the idea that neither you nor the other person has to be definitively wrong(depending on what you’re discussing), it will become easier to simply appreciate hearing another person’s point of view. Some of the most interesting conversations are the ones where there is no singular, inarguably true statement to be made.