That statement is self defeating. Either the statement is a fact, in which case it renders itself false, or the statement is an opinion and should not be considered true (factually).
@Pyrrhus, you could be right and just think 'relativity' The point being most people think their opinons are fact thus we have arguments that no one wins
I suppose one could take it as a statement and you would most likely be correct. However, Marcus Aurelius was a stoic philosopher as well as a ruler, and it would be "logical" to therefore view this as a thought or proposition, philosophically, instead of simply being a statement to be analyzed, as one would critique grammar or build an argument for or against in critical thinking combatives. Sure, the conclusions may end up being kind of similar, but it's so much more fun with philosophy. But, as for logic itself, I am afraid the propositional stoic logic model isn't the very same as term logic, which was more of Aristotle's flavor. "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact." "Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." The two phrases appear to be separate, but are in fact, unmistakably connected. The first, opinions --coming from whom or what? People. The second, perspective --it's relative to each individual. An opinion can be derived from the perspective of any one being, and therefore cancel each other out (or if you prefer are perfectly equal). Thus, opinions are like perspectives --everybody's got one, and they all pretty much suck. "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact." "Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." This is what makes philosophy, especially, the stoic minds, so fascinating to me. We are left with two words, and the philosophical question itself. What is fact, and what is truth? If everything we see and hear are not qualities of fact nor truth, and we should very well add all of our senses to the equation as well, then what does this idea actually propose? Do not trust your senses? Perhaps. Time to define... What is fact? What is truth? Are there other methods we, as human beings, can acquire input rather than listening to other people or viewing with our eyes? Using none of our physical senses at all? If fact and truth simply exist, as the universe exists, then what part do we play? The truth can be comprised of facts, just as perspectives can be comprised of opinions. But, human intervention defines each of these terms. Of course, the universe is one -hence the naming of "uni" from Latin. But people are considered to be many, not often as "one". What would happen if the perspective were to shift to a single point, instead? I do much prefer the thoughts of Epictetus, but Marcus Aurelius will do.
Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole? Then there are a couple of ways to look at it. 1) need to differentiate between physical reality and that which is beyond what you can touch, taste, feel, see, smell. This takes us down the rabbit hole of the after life, religion, god etc 2) consider physical reality and that which is beyond our physical sense as a spectrum. Like the light spectrum some things you can see but when you get beyond the range of what a human eye can differentiate there is a whole other world. This path starts us with Einstein and moves in similar direction as one but can be discussed differently. Which would you like to engage in? Logic from dictionary.com a particular method of reasoning or argumentation
My dear Mr Uncle Morgan, as a hard solipsist, I take great exception that an illusion, whom I consider that I have no reason to believe that I am part of the set of, has made the absurd absolute truth claim (as a fact) that I too am an illusion. Where is your evidence? ( I am so used to travelling down, up, through, in, and out of rabbit holes at that illusion referred to as SM, that I sometimes wonder that I haven't actually vanished up my own fundament....an event that some of the other illusions (including perhaps your illusory self) here might heartily applaud if they actually existed...except for HK, who has me on ignore, so would miss that illusory event entirely....oh well...his unwitnessed and illusory loss I guess Edit: My post is no criticism of @UncleMorgan. His post is an interesting one...worth teasing out to a logical absurdity. Sometimes an off the cuff funny one liner can have profound philosophical content, perhaps not appreciated by the author and others.
One can be logical, yet be irrational at the same time. Some people's magical thinking can be highly irrational, yet enjoys a logical structure of its own special kind. I would think that it would be ever so much nicer if people were both logical....and rational. That is never a bridge too far for those prepared to expend the effort of constructing that bridge. My advice is...get building!
Case in point: My maternal grandmother, did not understand electricity. She believed the walls were filled with power like water, as long as the bill was paid, and when things were turned on, it flowed like water through a tap to fuel the lamp. No concept of circuits or wires, and could not grasp how it worked. As a result, she would allow NOTHING to be hung with a nail it screw, for fear of hitting that raw power stored up between the wall studs. Everything was taped, glued or suction cupped to the walls. Her theory worked for her, and kept her safe, but bore very little resemblance to reality. Logical, but not rational.
