Our knowledge has a profound
affect on our reality. If you only have knowledge on one side of an argument
and are not exposed to the other, there is no way you can really have a point
of view in the matter. This knowledge you only get from one side of the
argument would be your own reality because it is the only side you know;
however, if you are exposed to both points of views, you are able to use your
own knowledge of the entire situation to know the true reality.
In the discussion of the Eyon Biddle/Kyle Brooks videos, I do not think that anyone can choose whose side they are
on unless they have viewed both sides of the argument. If someone only saw the
video of Brooks on Fox News, they would most likely view Biddle in a bad light
due to what information was shown and talked about on television. Biddle was
portrayed as a racist, republican hater on the news because the argument was
only given from one point of view on the matter of what happened in that
situation. Biddle’s side in that case was not even presented. If someone only
happened to see the video of Biddle’s lecture, they are only exposed to the
part of the lecture that was recorded and are not aware of the entire context
of the situation that the lecture is happening in or what was said prior to it or
afterwards. One could agree with Biddle’s speech or disagree, but at least they
saw for themselves what was said in the video of the lecture. If someone saw
both videos, they would be able to have a strong sense of reality because they
were exposed to the entire situation, or as much as was recorded. Therefore,
the truth is one’s own perception of reality and they can develop their own
stances on the situation of Biddle/Brooks, since they have full knowledge of
the situation.
You make good points, and even though this is months late, I am curious what side you would consider yourself on, granted you know both sides well enough to make such a decision ;)
ReplyDelete