I once got into a heated debate over a matter of opinion. At first I thought, that it wasn't unusual. However, the argument was over whether or not everyone is entitled to have one. My stance was perhaps the obvious choice that yes, absolutely everyone has the right to have an opinion. My opponent, on the other hand, insisted that one should only have an opinion if it is based on knowledge of the subject, continuing that an opinion is a “belief or thought derived on knowledge of a particular subject matter”. My question to this was "according to whom?" I thought, although I didn’t ask aloud. Instead, once we agreed to disagree, it got me thinking. I researched 3 definitions of the word: opinion. The first source defined the word as “a judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty”. Wikipedia defined the word as “a statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective”. In none of the descriptions of this word does it stipulate that an opinion has to have a basis. Of course in hopes of articulating your position intellectually, it may be wise to base your opinion on a fact or reason why you feel the way you do, however, it is not a prerequisite. You can in fact, have an opinion, just for the hell of it. This is the reason why everyone has one, because everyone has emotions (and are entitled to their feelings). And in the grand scheme of things, this is all an opinion really is: a way of feeling. Whether it’s absurd, unjust or irrational (or, just plain stupid). That doesn’t make it wrong. The only way something can be wrong is if it can be proven, in which case, it is no longer an opinion, but an objective issue or a fact. However, all the proof in the world still may not change how someone feels. For example… hypotheses and theories, these require bases of evidence.
I think instead of arguing over whether or not an opinion is valid, a better question to ponder would be if you can have an opinion on a fact. In short here, the answer is still the same, although in this case I would question whether this idea was a true emotion or a false thought. Realistically speaking, if there is factual evidence to support the validity of an issue, then what grounds are there for argument? I’ll give you an example. It is a fact that we need air to breathe. And while science has evidence to prove this is true, an ignorant individual could say that they don’t believe (think or feel) that this is true. However, if they have no valid reason as to why they feel that way, then it’s a frivolous opinion, albeit, it’s still an opinion. Baseless claims are a matter of intellect, in which case, are a waste of time to argue. Likewise, our way of thinking is often based on our feelings, values, upbringing and more. While premature opinions are a nuisance in an intellectual conversation, it is nonetheless a birthright of an individual. What I know to be true is that subjectivity has no right or wrong. After all, you can’t prove feelings. You can only prove facts.
#TheRealBlackCarrieBradshaw
