There are many many ways to view the same thing. You could view the "Last Supper" by Leonardo DaVinci as a beautiful masterpiece representing Christians most celebrated figure (Jesus), or you could see it like a giant work of art defaming Christianity and leading to the holy Grail. You could see the holy grail as a metaphor, somthing that all of us should strive for but fall short of. Or you could see it as the body of Mary Magdalane, the Grail that Jesus drank out of, or just another cup.
If so many things can be viewed in so many different ways, than why are somethings universally accepted and others seen as hypocracy? Is it because of the view points of people or is it just because we want it to be wrong?
What I am trying to say is that if things can be seen different ways, why can't all of the different ways to see something be accepted and not condemned? Why must one way to see a master piece be accepted by the public and another be shunned and thought of as blasphemy?
I am really crappy at making people understand what synapeses are firing off in my brain, so if you still don't understand what I am saying, lock the thread and be done with it.
What I am trying to say is that if things can be seen different ways, why can't all of the different ways to see something be accepted and not condemned? Why must one way to see a master piece be accepted by the public and another be shunned and thought of as blasphemy?
If your speaking of religious views of works of art, it's because it's all subjective and the various religions are all man made based on those subjectivities being treated as absolutes. So you end up with groups of people arguing over what's right and wrong all claiming their way is the only way, with anything not fitting into that mold being condemned. So with a painting you have one group where what is done in it fits there moral "absolute" code and it gets accepted as a work of art. while another group sees it and what is done in it does not fit that moral "absolute" and they condemn it as heresy.
If you mean why we don't accept certain things in a more scientific way it's because of evidence. Science doesn't work on subjectivity.
What I am trying to say is that if things can be seen different ways, why can't all of the different ways to see something be accepted and not condemned?
I get what you are trying to say. Valkery is simply trying to say that there are many ways to view different situations and scenarios. In a perfect world, we would value everyone's opinion on the matter, and although they would differ, it would be up to the personal viewer to formulate their own opinion on the matter and leave it at that.
Unfortunately life isn't that easy, we are a very combative people, and there is always an overwhelming minority that believes their opinion is right and everyone elses is wrong. This is never the same individual entity, although some would claim "the church" to be one such entity. People will use their power to enforce their opinion, sometimes believing that if the entire world sees their views, they would see the error of their former ways.
The less popular and often conflicting version of whatever story you are telling usually gets drowned under so many voices that whoever defends it, is seen as the devil's advocate. This is where the individual comes into play. You can combat other's close-mindedness by approaching everything with an open mind, and formulating your own opinion on the matter, instead of accepting popular opinion.
