That they are schizophrenic is your opinion (and most everyone else's). Not the schizophrenic's. And yet it would not be commendable for him to push on absolutely convinced of what he sees. Even if to him, that is what is concordant with reality. — khaled

And that's fine. Again, I view philosophy as being a personal thing, between myself and reality, and no one else. Other views can help by scrutinizing one's ideas, or open up new avenues of thought, but my own judgement should take precedence. Correspondingly, I don't expect nor want people to adopt my views. If the schizophrenic believes they will be happy amidst their "perception of reality", let them.

If I believe A and you believe B, that is because I see A as concordant with reality and you see B as concordant with reality. If one of us is wrong, and we only change our minds when we believe that the opposite view is concordant with reality, neither of us will change our view. — khaled

Yes, and?

Don't these things only matter if one is concerned with convincing others?

But if we had a method for unfailingly knowing what is concordant with reality and what isn't, ... — khaled

In practice it often means to discard those things that one can discern not to be reality, along the Socratic lines of knowing one does not know anything, acknowledging one's ignorance, etc.

If we don't have such a method, then we must decide for ourselves what is concordant and what isn't, ... — khaled

Indeed!

Everyone will think they're doing it and it's those damn *insert group of different belief here* that are the problem! — khaled

I don't see those as a problem. (At least not one that concerns my practice of philosophy)

If individuals wish to remain ignorant, let them. What concern is that of mine?

Other views can help by scrutinizing one's ideas, or open up new avenues of thought, but my own judgement should take precedence. Correspondingly, I don't expect nor want people to adopt my views. If the schizophrenic believes they will be happy amidst their "perception of reality", let them. — Tzeentch

Fair enough. Someone who is not trying to convince or change others does not need anger or annoyance nor do they really need to justify their beliefs further than "Because I think so". I see where you're coming from.

I doubt you will hold this view if the Schizophrenic believes you to be the leader of the operation to assassinate them however.

Don't these things only matter if one is concerned with convincing others? — Tzeentch

Yes. Which I'm sure you occasionally try to do, like on AN threads.

I don't see those as a problem. (At least not one that concerns my practice of philosophy)

If individuals wish to remain ignorant, let them. What concern is that of mine? — Tzeentch

Their ignorance can be a danger to you. It is a problem if left alone long enough. Example: COVID. When I see ignorance, I don't correct it not because I don't think it's a problem, but because I either don't think I'm qualified (not sure they're actually ignorant) or because I can't be bothered (Bartricks).

That's really the only problem I have with your view. We're interconnected, we need to agree on some way of determining when someone's right or wrong further than pure individual judgements. Because ignorance is dangerous. But we can't be too strict or else we'll stagnate.

It's a balancing act. Angry activism has its place, and so does calm argument. Neither is redundant.

I have come to see that every 'opinion' and 'drive' I have in life is due to an underlying feeling of 'anger'/'annoyance' brought about by the unavoidable confliction existence brings with it. We are 'roused' to respond and such arousal is 'anger'/'annoyance' after fear slips into the recesses. — I like sushi

Yeah I get the first part, it's the I-We transition that everyone has questioned from the start. You have recognised this feature in yourself, so presumably you have been able to compare theory to practice in that particular case. You've then generalised from I to We and the analogous empirical checks have proven negative. You seem to be rejecting pathology as the differentiator as you're sticking with generalising from a sample of 1 above by treating I and We interchangeably.

The question is extremely simple, and I feel you're evading it with verbosity. If you're sticking with that generalisation in spite of the evidence, how do you account for the evidence to the contrary? Is it, as it seems, as simple as:

Why don't we recognise this most of the time? It can be subtle. — I like sushi

? 'We' don't recognise it all the time. 'I' (you) recognise it, but 'We' don't, because it's subtle. If not that, what?

I don't think everyone reacted in that way. Like I said it was done on purpose to encourage a certain 'ire' in the reader or to just point out where 'ire' could exist. Some people didn't even bring up it. Those that did accepted that I did it on purpose.

I didn't generalise I to WE I put it forward that this is a human feature. If you don't agree you might get somewhere if you outline why rather than simply stating 'I disagree'. I have outlined why I am saying it seems to be true for everyone but it is an 'opinion' based upon looking at common features of human behavior - so it is general as it has to be.

the analogous empirical checks have proven negative. — Kenosha Kid

This is just an example of you not understanding and doubling down on what you think I mean even though I've literally said it doesn't matter if people cast an 'opinion' they care about and do so without anger/annoyance ... that wasn't at all what I was saying and I've stated it and explained it more than once now.

You seem to be rejecting pathology as the differentiator as you're sticking with generalising from a sample of 1 above by treating I and We interchangeably. — Kenosha Kid

This has nothing to do with anything here other than some weird obsession with you believing I am talking for you - kind of a small stench of annoyance here (as was admitted by the other poster on this subject). Why does it annoy you? You are annoying me right now a little (that's okay, I can be patient).

The question is extremely simple, and I feel you're evading it with verbosity. If you're sticking with that generalisation in spite of the evidence, how do you account for the evidence to the contrary? — Kenosha Kid

This question of 'evidence' is redundant as you're putting forward an argument against something I have no quarrel with. Your 'evidence' is that people here don't feel angry/annoyed when they express an opinion (or at least mostly don't feel this). I already said I agree with this, but it has nothing to do with my point at all as I was not talking simply about how people express themselves in the given moment I was also looking at where the 'opinion' comes from and how it arises. I have laid this out already but apparently it is too verbose so maybe your eyes glazed over whilst reading it.

? 'We' don't recognise it all the time. 'I' (you) recognise it, but 'We' don't, because it's subtle. If not that, what? — Kenosha Kid

This doesn't even make sense.

Given that I am putting forward the position there is actually nothing much wrong with saying 'we'. I am saying we do this and I have outlined why and how. If you can counter this with something more substantial than empty opposition we might get something from this.

Do I really need to spoon feed an example? here we go ...

I find myself on a cliff and I feel fear. I carry around a fear of heights but also find myself in a position in the future where something I want for requires me to climb to a height. I feel angry/annoyed at myself for being fearful and this anger/annoyance drives me on to achieve what I need to achieve to reach my goal.

There is a REALLY obvious counter argument to this that I would like to explore with someone other than myself. I am angry/annoyed at myself because I am currently unable to expand on this view.

Maybe this is too subtle for you - I say prodding you ;)

I doubt you will hold this view if the Schizophrenic believes you to be the leader of the operation to assassinate them however. — khaled

The paranoid schizophrenics are out to get me!

Yes. Which I'm sure you occasionally try to do, like on AN threads. — khaled

I post on this forum to test my ideas, not to convince strangers. Whether people like those ideas or find them convincing is of no interest - only their arguments are.

That's really the only problem I have with your view. We're interconnected, ... — khaled

You and I are not connected beyond this conversation. I don't believe in an interconnectedness with people whom I have never met or influenced in any meaningful way.

Allusions to interconnectedness (especially on this forum) sooner or later always seem to turn into impositions of one's opinions on how others should live their lives. Apparently the "interconnectedness" that these people feel never turns into a respect for the views of the people they supposedly feel so connected with, but instead it turns into entitlements - it is a mask hiding a simple desire for power over others. I find such argumentation to come across as incredibly phoney.

Food for thought perhaps; the persons who seem to genuinely feel interconnectedness also seem to have very little desire to inject their opinions into other people's private lives.

PS: A bit of a tangent, but not aimed at you personally.

My minimal conclusion here is that being completely rational beings would make us stagnated and unable to move forward or backwards. The rational mind without an irrational nature is utterly useless. — I like sushi

IOW, reason is a slave to passion (Hume).

If you don't agree you might get somewhere if you outline why rather than simply stating 'I disagree'. — I like sushi

When I create a thread here, it's principally to survey critique. I'm inviting difference of opinion, the benefits of which are: 1) if my thinking is crap, friends here will demonstrate that, saving me from wasting more time on it; 2) if it's solid, I can demonstrate that to myself by defending it (like a thesis defense); 3) if it's kind of there but flawed, discussion will help develop the bits that need developing.

I don't think ideas are really the source of anger, except horrible ideas. I think it's generally the mode of discourse that enrages: hypocrisy, bullshitting, etc. If you're enraged by people not agreeing with you, however strong their counterargument, that seems like a personal problem to me.

I started a thread here ages ago that a couple of good people destroyed in no time at all. I thought that was great. It was clearly an incorrect thesis and I'm glad it didn't take 15 pages to realise that. — Kenosha Kid

You are putting forward a claim that 'we' behave in a certain way. You check this against yourself and it holds up. You check it against others and it does not. I don't need to prove a whole other general theory in order to refute yours: it's sufficient that the data doesn't fit the theory.

So what I'm asking, and what you seem to be avoiding answering, is: how do you account for the discrepancy? Given that most people don't recognise your statements about 'We' as referring to them, and that you still conflate I and We, what is your thinking?

I won't ask you again to explain. You either have an ability to defend your idea or not, and it's looking like not given that, even when you've been described as evading the point with irrelevant verbiage, you evaded the point with irrelevant verbiage.

I won't ask you again to explain. — Kenosha Kid

Good. Bye.

Yes, I guess so. I have focused on anger/annoyance in particular.

Extrapolating from 'fear' as a primary drive there are ways to 'cope' with fear. I am putting forward that 'anger'/'annoyance' is the point from which we build, or directly express, our 'opinions' (items that we care about).

If not 'anger'/'annoyance' what are the other progressive mechanisms at work (progressive as helping us move onward and expand our understanding).

As I keep telling my staff: when you feel angry, ask yourself why. Assuming that you are not mentally imbalanced, paranoid or disturbed, your anger may be telling you a message, that something is awfully wrong. Go to the bottom of it; find what's wrong. Then channel your anger, use it to communicate clearly what you think is wrong.

In short: emotional intelligence is about using your emotions, their energy and wisdom. It's not about suppressing our emotions, nor is it about taking them at face value. It's about unbundling them and understanding them.

So what is your anger telling you about the kind of exchanges that happen here on TPF? What do you expect of them, that you are not actually getting? Try and be specific. Are you just angry at a mere disagreement, eg like a believer faced with incredulity? You seem to be saying so in your OP, but surely you must know that philosophy, like politics or religion, is a domain where disagreements are always a plenty, and where disagreement is to be expected, not agreement.

So why are you angry, really?

You're right, you do post angry. Laters taters.

So what is your anger telling you about the kind of exchanges that happen here on TPF? — Olivier5

What anger?

Are you just angry at a mere disagreement, eg like a believer faced with incredulity? You seem to be saying so in your OP, but surely you must know that philosophy, like politics or religion, is a domain where disagreements are always a plenty, and where disagreement is to be expected, not agreement. — Olivier5

I am not angry I am talking about 'anger'/'annoyance' and saying (but not being heard) that when we (we humans) express an 'opinion' we care about we are doing so as a result of something that has initiated 'anger'/'annoyance'. I am NOT saying (and I want to be clear about this again) that EVERY 'opinion' cast about something we care about is done with anger/annoyance. I am saying that the root from which the opinion sprang is from an instance of 'anger'/'annoyance' (which could be anything internal or external).

I am actively seeking disagreement not psychotherapy. Although one could argue they have some similarities ;)

So why are you angry, really? — Olivier5

I'm not. Again, I am talking about 'anger'/'annoyance' which is not the same as 'being angry'.

I furthered my proposition by stating that 'fear' is the core and that 'anger'/'annoyance' is how we deal with fear in a 'progressive' manner (as in productive rather than curly up in a ball and dying). Something akin to cognitive flight or fight; as an analogy.

The problem the guy had above was to repeat that evidence that someone doesn't feel 'angry'/annoyed' when they express an opinion about something they care about is evidence enough to dismiss that they were led to that point by something other than 'anger'/'annoyance' from which I am saying is the birth place from which we eventually come to express an 'opinion'.

Think of it like this ... we exist. We are at odds with many things around us. Our understanding and capacities are limited. We face problems and we are fearful. We 'cope' with fear by avoiding it or combating it. I am saying 'anger'/annoyance' is certainly a way to combat fear, and I am also putting a bold foot forward and saying it is the only real way.

The floor is yours. What is another way to combat fear? You will know what I mean if you have put some thought into some really dark topics and found things you didn't want to find. Think Jungian Shadow is that helps to get to grips with what I am saying.

Note: Just because I am saying it is the ONLY good way I am not saying I believe it is the only good way. Tell me something else if you can.

As you seem to be one here who didn't grab the wrong end of the stick anything to offer?

When we express an opinion or argument it is because we are annoyed/angry with something that causes us distress. — I like sushi

Do you mean that if I ask your opinion about TPF, you would express it only if you get annoyed or angry? :smile:

I don't care enough about TPF to express a serious opinion about it :)

Apparently no one cares to admit that they are anything but curiously serene about practically any thought they've ever had about anything that matters to them.

Maybe I am one in a million with whom it takes more then passive serenity to get anywhere with any meaning. I doubt it I am that abnormal though :D

Maybe I am one in a million with whom it takes more then passive serenity to get anywhere with any meaning. — I like sushi

He's getting somewhere...

I doubt it I am that abnormal though :D — I like sushi

So close!

You aren't understanding. It can be true that people engage with anger without it always being true, and having to be true.

I am talking about 'anger'/'annoyance' which is not the same as 'being angry'.

I furthered my proposition by stating that 'fear' is the core and that 'anger'/'annoyance' is how we deal with fear in a 'progressive' manner (as in productive rather than curly up in a ball and dying). Something akin to cognitive flight or fight; as an analogy. — I like sushi

Ok, in general terms then, my first reaction is that you have to include positive tropisms, not just negative ones, among the motivating forces for expressing opinions. Emotions like desire or love must account for something too.

As a response to 'fear' how exactly does 'love' (whatever that means in this case) impact? Is 'desire' an emotion?

It is clear enough what 'anger'/'annoyance' is and how this makes us act in opposition to a problem. I don't really see how 'love' or 'desire' is a natural response to 'fear'. I want you to argue the point in more depth if you can as I am sure there is weight to it.

If you're using 'love' then I think it would help to outline how this works in the initial stages where fear has a grip of us.

don't really see how 'love' or 'desire' is a natural response to 'fear'. I want you to argue the point in more depth if you can as I am sure there is weight to it.

If you're using 'love' then I think it would help to outline how this works in the initial stages where fear has a grip of us. — I like sushi

It's not a natural response to fear. It is the polar opposite, conceptually. Think of it in terms of tropisms, a term from botany which means "involuntary orientation by an organism that involves turning nearer or away from some simulation. AKA a positive or negative response to a source of stimulation. Fear is a negative tropism, while desire is positive one.

I like a good discussion, and I learn new things here, but a part of me loves it when someone puts a :100: next to something I've said. Isn't that sad?

Isn't that sad? — RogueAI

:up: :100:

:heart: :100: :flower: :clap: :up: :ok: :fire:

Fear is a negative tropism, while desire is positive one. — Olivier5

More generally, you may be interested in any of the versions of the "wheel of emotions" out there, to broaden your emotional palette. The concept is from psychologist Robert Plutchik.

None of this would mean slavery would be made illegal. It would just start to become an ineffective farming strategy. — khaled

Which could make it illegal.

That would be the outcome if people never got angry at slavery and went to war over it.

I'm not convinced about this anger angle. It could be anger, or it could be disgust, revulsion, righteous indignation, strategizing, or just plain disagreement.

It's also not clear what anger can actually accomplish. Sure, if those at the top get angry at those below, this can accomplish things. But not the other way around. Getting angry with your boss and letting him know it will probably get you fired.


There is a popular idea, usually only implied, that in order to stand up for oneself, one needs to get angry. Do you believe this, if yes, why?


(As for the US Civil War, it seems that the abolition of slavery was just a "nominal theme", and that the war was actually about a number of other things.)

I don't care enough about TPF to express a serious opinion about it — I like sushi

But you still have an opinion about it! :smile: Also you cared enough to tell me your opinion about my comment! :smile: (I must not expect to get more after this! :smile:)

Opinions are all philosophers have to share. As well, as people in forums. In fact, as everyone else in any discussion.

they are anything but curiously serene about practically any thought they've ever had about anything — I like sushi

There's a huge distance between being "serene" (which is something very difficult to achieve anyway) and being annoyed, angry and in distress, that you are talking about at the start of your topic.

Maybe you you should give it some slack ... :smile:

I would have to go back and re-read a lot of old discussions, but it seems like you have presented the "tension" argument before. You seem to suppose that a relaxed resting state is abnormal and that we generate tension to enliven ourselves and our social scene. Conflict, intense emotion, tension, etc. make us feel better. — Bitter Crank

War is the father of all and king of all; and some he shows as gods, others as men, some he makes slaves, others free. — Heraclitus

We must know that war is common to all and strife is justice, and that all things come into being through strife necessarily. — Heraclitus

It could be anger, or it could be disgust, revulsion, righteous indignation, strategizing, or just plain disagreement. — baker

In terms of this thread I was categorising ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ as something that encompasses precisely those kinds of attitudes. It is perhaps easier to see what I mean by looking at an extreme example like slavery (in today’s perspective).

The fault in the position I’ve posed lies in showing that a strong emotional feeling towards something we’re at odds with can be met with anything other than the terms you’ve outlined. The other problem would be delineating between what is an ‘opinion we care about’ and a ‘mere opinion that carries no significant weight/concern’.

Fear is a negative tropism, while desire is positive one. — Olivier5

Good :)

In terms cognition and the realm of ‘opinions’ and such ‘fear’ is not something we can avoid. Stimulus can be attractive or repulsive, but we cannot avoid something we don’t know about. A baby will put its hand in a fire and learn to fear fire. Clearly the heat attracts us and the beauty too. We’re curious about the physical appearance of something and stick our hand out to investigate. We do not merely ‘fear’ fire we discover a reason to fear fire. Our immediate reaction is not to ‘desire’ this ‘fear’ though.

To put this concisely. A fear is in place to avoid harm/hurt/death. A desire is not necessarily about avoiding harm/hurt/death. I am sure you can argue against this too so go ahead and assume I can counter either way (even id I cannot!) and proceed …

Looking at the unknown in general we can say something here that touches more on what I think you’re saying. The unknown is laden with intrigue and fear. I am not denying that intrigue guides us too (the need to explore and discover) but I am saying ‘fear’ is a stronger force that needs to be overcome. We fear something because it hurts us or we perceive it as being able to hurt us. The stronger the fear the less likely we are willing to face it. Regardless we are attentive to harm as harm can kill us whereas intrigue and investigation are also helpful they are not to do with an immediate avoidance of harm/hurt they are about overcoming fear though. The strong interest/curiosity in some item that is feared may certainly be a reason to dispute ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ as the primary motivator - this was the only other reason I could come up with myself.

From there I asked what is more likely? This can also be framed as what is the most efficient way to deal with a fear. Efficient would be a way to deal with fear immediately - our reactions.

As a quick aside: to be clear I am thinking of still in terms of human evolution and how the physical world and physical harm translate into psychological harm and a cognitive world. No doubt humans are (as Sapolsky puts it) ‘confused apes’ as we’re neither one thing nor another. We are an ‘in between’ species where our sex distinction is minimal (compared to other apes) and our ‘weltanschuaang’ (world view) is not merely about physical presence and preservation. We are ‘hurt’ thoughts not merely physical abrasion.

Anyway enough. Will reply to comment just posted which may help finish off what I wanted to say to you:

But you still have an opinion about it! — Alkis Piskas

I have an ‘opinion’ I care about in terms of caring about how you’re framing ‘opinion’. ;)

There's a huge distance between being "serene" (which is something very difficult to achieve anyway) and being annoyed, angry and in distress, that you are talking about at the start of your topic. — Alkis Piskas

Yes there is. My counter to this is that ‘fear’ has a stronger impact upon our behavior than (as framed above) ‘desire’. Meaning attraction as opposed to repulsion. We repulse from something dangerous to stay alive whereas we are attracted to something else and somewhere else that has less unknowns and therefore less ‘fear’/‘danger’ but still some. Note: talking about cognition here not merely chemical interactions.

An example might help here. Let us say that some evidence comes to light that your opposite sex is superior in every way and that they’ve been repressed due to some random circumstances. The education system is changed and your opposite sex is elevated in status far above you (every member of this sex). If you voice any opposition to this new educational scheme that will effectively turn you into someone with vastly diminished rights and powers would you do so with fear in your heart or not? I would say you would be fearful as it is something that is potentially going to cause you harm/hurt/death. You would clearly care about this too so your opinion would matter to you. Is your initial reaction one of serenity and calm or are you confounded by such news and instantly opposed to it? For myself I would most certainly be instantly opposed to such a thing as it threatens my immediate life. If considered in a broader scope I may bring myself to look at it in a different light and rather than face the fear I may just move into something else beyond ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ and adjust my attitudes.

My point is this. My concern is absolutely embedded in the proposition of harm/hurt/death to me though not in investigation. Even if we’re talking about ‘intrigue’/‘curiosity’/‘exploration’ we are treading on ‘feared’ ground in that it is a journey into the unknown. The higher the cognitive appreciation of how ‘unknown’ said ground is the more ‘fear’ there is present. We will choose the lesser ‘fears’ and tell ourselves they are ‘voyages of discovery’ rather than admit they merely contain just the right amount of fear to make life seem bearable.

The serene logical and emotionally void stance is perhaps worse than the raging, wrathful defiance in opposition to something truly horrific. The serene path is denial, passivity and avoidance, the ‘anger’/‘annoyance’ path is denial and confrontation.

The most intriguing thought I find from this (if it holds up at all!) is that maybe it is our denial and stubborn optimism that allows us to fight the losing fight and somehow (beyond previous knowhow and logic) prevail and persist. The ‘serene’ mind will just unwittingly wither away.

I admit the middle ground is unclear. There is a spectrum. Extremes may act in utterly different ways and adhere to different rules than more fuzzy areas.

Maybe this entire thread is a fearful reaction to ‘wokeism’? I don’t pretend to know where it came from only that ‘fear’ has a habit of defining the paths we walk down and so I am looking at things considered more ‘negatively’ and reframing them as useful ways to understand how and why ‘opinions’ are expressed.

A fear is in place to avoid harm/hurt/death. A desire is not necessarily about avoiding harm/hurt/death — I like sushi

Indeed, a desire is rather an attraction for pleasure, confort or happiness. Think positive!

Of course. I have no choice. We are neurologically biased to believe in what suits our view of the world and are not prone to adjust it (edit: as much as we would evidence that supports our belief) to suit counterfactual evidence - we actively deny it and we’re ‘hard-wired’ this way.

Indeed, a desire is rather an attraction for pleasure, confort or happiness. — Olivier5

But we don’t come to the opinions we care about by ‘desiring’ we come to desire by way of maximally efficient fear avoidance. This is neither a negative nor a positive view of human existence. It is just how things are in terms of how we are driven to live another second rather than die. Living in a constant heightened sense fear would cause both mental (cognitive thought) and physical death prematurely as would locking oneself in a room of ‘comfort’ free from anything likely to over stimulate and cause fear. Although I would admit the body might survive longer but the mental (cognitive thought) part of us would be dead just as quick if not quicker. Thankfully we all seem to live at least long enough to learn to crawl, then walk and eventually talk and question how and why we function the way we function.