The Logical Breakthroughs We Miss by Being Satisfied to Say ''Its Just a Matter of Perspective''

There's a big breakthrough we are missing by just writing disagreements off as a matter of perspective. A big breakthrough we miss when we simply shake hands and say 'we see it differently, it is all about perspective, I respect your point of view, we can live together in peace.' 

People disagree on matters all the time and there are a lot of debates going on that have been going on for ages. And truly, many of these debates are because people are in different positions/situations, they have different upbringings and different values and all these affects how they see a matter. These different points from which we see matters is what we know as perspective. And rightfully many disagreements are due to perspectives, different people see a thing differently based on the peculiar circumstances they find themselves.

But there's a big breakthrough we are missing by just writing disagreements off as a matter of perspective. A big breakthrough we miss when we simply shake hands and say 'we see it differently, it is all about perspective, I respect your point of view, we can live together in peace.' Yes, statements as peaceful and sweet as that costs us a lot. How?

Let's take a look at these photos, for example:

[All photos from Shutterstock]

Very easily understandable photos. The question is 'What figure is on the ground?' the men try to answer it, they look at the thing on the ground, the same thing but each man sees something different, why? Because of the different points of view and both are rightly giving a representation of what they see, their opponents would see and say the same thing if they were in their positions. So do we just say 'it is all a matter of perspective', shake hands and go?

No! Because the question has still not been answered. The question 'what figure is on the ground?' is still not answered if we let two people who disagree on what it is go without making them understand that what they see is because of where they are and that they would see exactly what their opponents see if they had looked from the position of their opponent and that the only way to have answered what it is that is on the ground is to not look from just one position but to look at it from where they will get the full picture. By going around it and seeing the full picture, only then can they answer the question 'what figure is on the ground?'

Really simple and straight forward, but we miss it all the time we write things off as due to perspectives. We should never accept a ruling or accept that anyone keeps a ruling that is based on just a limited view of the matter, our focus should be on getting everyone to have a complete full look of a matter in order to come to what it really is rather than only say what they see from where they're sitting.

Truly, it is not always so straight forward to go around the matter and have a full view as it is in the pictures above, but as our focus should always be on overcoming whatever obstacle is blocking our view and if we can't overcome it or until we overcome it we should understand that our conclusions are missing some valuable info and hold our conclusions as inconclusive.