How did we assure something is correct or incorrect? Relativism suggest that things there is no absolute correct answer for what we believe. Despite Relativism is widely being used in moral judgement, this idea give me an insight that nothing I perceive is absolutely correct here. This makes most of the view or things I perceive now in vague position. This implied that "definition" for every single thing is very important here. In my point of view, every "definition", is an form, or a sequence of objects that put together in a precise framework which allows the sequence/order of objects function correctly together. Its like a system. Like for example, if we really wanted to define what is "love", then there must be a "framework" exist that support the word "love". For the time being, the best definition of love that come to my knowledge is Theory of Love, which demonstrate 3 basic element in love, which is intimacy, passion and commitment. The elements interact and overlap each other and produce different types of love that we might experience.
So, how far I can assure that what I experience is correct or incorrect? Due to bounded rationality, I can't always have complete experience or memories to support what is correct or incorrect. Somehow, I can't even give a precise definition of for the word "correct" itself. Is being correct means most of the people happy with your being? If no win-win situation is constructed in a situation, where one side harm but majority gain happiness, then I will become the correct side? Damn it. Being in the assurance industry, people give reasonable assurance, where to some degree, the assurance is as promised by the Firm that I work for, is 96% compliance with the approve standards and regulation. The standard itself, will it be subjected to Relativisim? (Or it just me mixing up things, like mixing the moral philosophy thought and standards. Maybe it is none of my business to judge whether the standard is relevant or not.) If it is subjected to relativism, the correctness of the financial statement, which prepared through the approved standard, might be in doubt. Deductive nature of facts might more convincing than normative one. However, Accounting standard is seems like more normative than deductive itself, which makes it so similar to philosophical thought. Well, maybe just don't doubt whether the standard is correct or not in the first place, and just apply it to the accounting practices.
When doing the audit, it is very subtle that the industry is being regulated in such a way that it focus on gathering the evidences and deduce whether the financial statement is correct or not. Then, deductive ways of doing the audit is reasonable as that is the only ways to ensure the financial statement comply with the standard. I can't imagine if there's any normative ways of doing the audit. Well, quantity and quality of the audit evidence is the key to ensure the audit opinion is not wrongly stated. Hence, sufficiency and appropriateness of the evidence is required when performing the audit. Documentation of the audit should have value in such a way that it will be understandable and useful in future. In my opinion, a "definition", or an "information" or a "knowledge" or a "theory" will be useful when it have predictive and futuristic nature. People fear the most is future, thats why those things that have high value is often futuristic in nature. So, audit documentation should have that kind of element.
If practicing judging things to be correct or not, as mentioned in previous paragraph, must gather sufficient appropriate evidence, I will have hard times to do so. It consume time. Besides, due to bounded rationality, I cannot have all ensure all information I have been considered, and also all criteria been covered when ding such a judgement. In story named "Interview with God", I learn that human can carry a good life, not without a good foundation. The foundation here means faith, believe, or religion. Its like a good financial statement is being supported by foundation called Accounting standard. Is that for me to behave correctly, I need to have strong faith and believe, in a religion? Or anything that is intangible? I could describe myself as "slightly agnostic". I not really care whether there is a God or not, but what I care is whether I did things correct or not. Ya, sometimes I know things should be not in that way, but I still do it, so long it won't harm anyone except myself. Will it be correct if this is the case? Hmm. Maybe all I need to do is follow the flow of life, and have faith on the nature, Things will side to me if I do something correct. (Define correct, hahhaha).
Well, writing things down somehow let my brain stop thinking nonsense, and put myself away from depression. For those who spend time to read what I write, thanks for your time because reading my nonsense might be a waste of time for you. hahahhahhahha
