OK. I think the issue has grown out of proportion. My fault.

But we don’t come to the opinions we care about by ‘desiring’ we come to desire by way of maximally efficient fear avoidance. — I like sushi

Would you have any evidence for that, or it is just the way it looks like on your end? Why attribute to fear (or anger, in other posts) a sort of privileged place at the top of all emotions?

Do try and broaden your emotional palette. It's not all about fear.

But we don’t come to the opinions we care about by ‘desiring’ we come to desire by way of maximally efficient fear avoidance.
— I like sushi

Would you have any evidence for that, or it is just the way it looks like on your end? Why attribute to fear (or anger, in other posts) a sort of privileged place at the top of all emotions? — Olivier5

I'm not sure I understand your point? There are explicit dangers in the world that we are fearful of because we generally are trying to stay alive. I hope you can agree with that. So 'fear' is the means of warning/recognising dangers (harm/hurt/death). We are not filled with joy when faced with a hungry tiger lunging towards us (the reaction is physiological and out of our control). We seek to 'avoid' extreme danger (mortal danger) more often than not. Yet, we also seek out novelty but also understand that something completely alien to us is an unknown and therefore may or may not pose a mortal threat to us. We do not run headlong into the darkness screaming and flailing our arms around. We move with caution and a degree of 'fear' but we also are impelled to do so because we seek out novelty (intrigue/curiosity/exploration) which are also helpful for more long term survival due to 'learning'.

So why not refer to 'desire' as a seeking out something 'better' but within limitations (which are bound by 'fear'). We would eventually die if we just ran headlong into the future without any 'fear'. I frame this 'desire' as 'maximally efficient fear avoidance'. You seem to be asking why I wouldn't frame this in terms of desire. This is quite simple. Does it make sense to view 'fear' as 'maximally efficient avoidance of desire'? If it does to you then I'd have to call you the negative ninny :)

Do I need to offer evidence for choosing to define 'desire' in terms of 'fear'? I'm not sure what that evidence would look like other than what I've offered already.

An 'opinion' about something we care about is formed - at base - by something that that is at odds with us. This is just necessary by definition. If we are not at odds with something why would we show any care or concern about it? Certainly down the line we can just be curious for curiosities sake (bring in the cat if you must). I am saying regardless of some intrigue further down the line the point remains that 'opinions' we care about necessarily sprout from a root in reaction to 'fear' (dangers - harm/hurt/death) because we're animals trying to stay alive rather than trying to die.

If you can take that in then let's go back to the reaction to 'fear'. Again, I am looking at 'fight or flight'. Flight is the avoidance of this dangerous and perhaps 'novel' experience. Fight is to face it. As I think I noted earlier (?) the physiological associations with 'anger' and 'excitement' are quite similar (I've convinced myself to switch from one to the other quite quickly several times in my life). We are primed and ready to react the overtly novel situation (dangerous or otherwise). For the sake of life preservation 'anger' takes precedence over 'excitement' and 'flight' (avoidance of 'novelty'/'potential death') you could choose to frame as 'desire not to die' if you wanted to. I would argue that a 'desire' not to die is an avoidance of death/fear not a target in and of itself.

Abstracting this to cognitive thought is quite a leap you might not even be bothered getting into. Fair enough. That is how I got to where I got. The minimal conclusion further on from this is that acting irrationally is merely helpful it is our primary mode of being and the reason rationality can come to be. I do not see how this is contrary as it would be harder to swallow that we're primarily rational beings and that irrational behavior arises from our rational behavior.

In term of 'expressing an opinion' the model we've developed to do this is based on reactions to 'fear'. On top of that I am saying that 'anger'/'annoyance' with problems/questions we play with is how we come to do philosophy - to explore knowledge and our existence. If you will The 'desire' to beat down fears and face reality as starkly as we can manage to. Maybe Hobbes would say it isn't 'courageous' as that is just a convenient mask for 'anger'/'annoyance' that sits well with us in the silly childish world of 'civil behavior' and 'good manners'. This isn't about having a 'positive' or 'negative' mindset. It is about looking at how and why things happen in the manner they do an dhow else we can look at them.

You and I are not connected beyond this conversation. — Tzeentch

Right, which is why there is not much anger or annoyance here. Because it isn't very important to either of us what the other thinks.

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. — Tzeentch

I think that's backwards. The people who are genuinely connected are connected because they agree much more often than not, or agree on the most important things. They don't need to inject opinions because they already agree.

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. — Tzeentch

That is.... exactly what they are used for. Sometimes that is needed. For instance, I would definitely impose on a driver not to drink and drive, especially if I'm in the car. And I think I would be right to do so.

Traffic laws, property laws, obligatory schooling, etc. There are many instances where one is right to impose.

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. — baker

Is it illegal to farm without advanced farming equipment? No. Something being inefficient doesn't make it illegal.

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. — baker

I would think those all fall within the domain of what we're talking about. The main topic isn't so much anger explicitly but simply intense emotion, and whether it has a place.

I doubt disgust/revulsion (same thing), strategizing, or plain disagreement could get someone to shoot someone else however. Have you ever shot someone for not showering?

I can't imagine someone who freely volunteers in a war without being angry at the enemy.

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. — baker

If enough people get angry with their bosses you get the French revolution. I'm sure that had at least a small impact on those at the top.

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? — baker

No. I believe in order to go to a war you need to be angry. And that in order to try to change another's mind you need to be at least mildly annoyed. There is a difference between standing up for yourself and actively trying to change others' behavior. The latter requires some hostility.

Does it make sense to view 'fear' as 'maximally efficient avoidance of desire'? If it does to you then I'd have to call you the negative ninny :) — I like sushi

No, it does not make sense. But to define desire as avoidance of fear is equally ridiculous.

There ARE several different emotions. They do exist, and there is no reason to see one type as trumping the others . So why focus only on fear?

They do exist — Olivier5

That is a different debate. Not everyone would agree that they 'exist' rather that they are created.

No, it does not make sense. But to define desire as avoidance of fear is equally ridiculous — Olivier5

That is not what I said.

You keep avoiding the point I am making.

Why focus only on fear, at the exclusion of all other emotions?

Are you a fearful person? Do you often feel afraid? If not, why the fear fetishism?

You keep avoiding the point I am making.

Why focus only on fear, at the exclusion of all other emotions? — Olivier5

I answered. I said because sustaining life is generally paramount so not dying is the first thing an organism aims for. Primarily avoiding immanent death is the go to.

I think that's backwards. The people who are genuinely connected are connected because they agree much more often than not, or agree on the most important things. They don't need to inject opinions because they already agree. — khaled

I was reacting to the idea that I am supposedly connected to paranoid schizophrenics who are a "danger" to me, which is why I supposedly should care about their opinions.

I don't believe in connections to complete strangers, and as I said, most people who profess as much use it as a pretense to meddle in other people's lives; it's a desire for power and control over others. ("We all breathe the same air, so would you kindly breathe a little less?")

Individuals who seem to genuinely feel connected to strangers or "mankind" out of understanding and compassion do not impose. You said it yourself; one cannot know if they are fit to impose their opinions on others, one may be unknowingly ignorant.

That is.... exactly what they are used for. — khaled

And it is my view that this has nothing to do with connection and everything with individual desire for power.

For instance, I would definitely impose on a driver not to drink and drive, especially if I'm in the car. And I think I would be right to do so. — khaled

If it works that way, why shouldn't I get to impose what I believe is right on everyone I "feel a connection" to?

I'd like you to stop driving altogether, for traffic accidents form a tangible risk to my health, and so does the pollution coming from your car!

The simple answer is, what is "right" is decided simply by whoever has the power to impose (in your example, you wouldn't be imposing anything - the state would).

In other words: might makes right, is the underlying principle of what has been proposed, and it just so happens to coincide with your view, which is why you seem to support it. Would you be as eager for impositions if it didn't?

If it works that way, why shouldn't I get to impose what I believe is right on everyone I "feel a connection" to? — Tzeentch

Many reasons. One would be that your imposition harms me more than it prevents harm from you such as here:

I'd like you to stop driving altogether, for traffic accidents form a tangible risk to my health, and so does the pollution coming from your car! — Tzeentch

But if I don't drive I can't get to work, and I can't make money, and I can't live. So sorry, afraid I'll have to drive. If you don't want the risk stay at home, you don't need to impose on me to avoid said risk.

Others could be: It doesn't actually benefit the group (just another way of stating the first one). Or that it is unnecessary to impose as there are other ways of removing the risk Ex: If you don't like the risk of traffic, don't go outside. You don't need to impose on everyone when there is an alternative solution. Or if you don't like chips, don't ask people to stop producing them, you can simply not buy them. Etc.

The simple answer is, what is "right" is decided simply by whoever has the power to impose (in your example, you wouldn't be imposing anything - the state would). — Tzeentch

I don't understand why you ask me a question if you're going to decide the answer yourself... If you want to ask a question, wait for an answer, then ask further questions, I'm happy to do that (it's known as discussion). If you want to ask me a question, answer it for me, then attack the answer you made up, I'm not interested.

I don't believe in connections to complete strangers, and as I said, most people who profess as much use it as a pretense to meddle in other people's lives — Tzeentch

The covid situation hasn't changed your mind? It's a struggle to get any hospital beds now. As someone with an autoimmune disease, it is tangible to my health. Complete strangers are in fact affecting me.

You said it yourself; one cannot know if they are fit to impose their opinions on others, one may be unknowingly ignorant. — Tzeentch

One may also be right. And sometimes you're justified to believe that.

a pretense to meddle in other people's lives; it's a desire for power and control over others. — Tzeentch

Power and control over others isn't necessarily evil, nor is a desire of it. Example: Is forcing a child to go to a school evil? Is wanting your child to listen to you when you know they're about to do something stupid evil? Is forcing a criminal into jail evil?

I know you didn't say it was, but I got that message from your tone.

An organism is not typically trying to "sustain life", period. Rather it is typically trying to sustain life long enough to be able to reproduce.

In order to reproduce, one generally needs to find another organism with whom to mix up one's DNA. One can't do that just by being afraid of dying. One has to want to live, love, fuck and kiss babies...

Fear not.

One would be that your imposition harms me more than it prevents harm from you such as here: — khaled

That idea could be based on an entirely ignorant idea of reality.

But if I don't drive I can't get to work, and I can't make money, ... — khaled

So because you desire things, you gain a right to impose?

... and I can't live. — khaled

Debatable. I don't drive and somehow I am still alive.

If you don't want the risk stay at home, you don't need to impose on me to avoid said risk. — khaled

If you don't want to deal with people who drink and drive, stay at home then!

The covid situation hasn't changed your mind? — khaled

No.

Complete strangers are in fact affecting me. — khaled

In what way?

I don't understand why you ask me a question if you're going to decide the answer yourself.. — khaled

I thought the answer I gave was more relevant than the question, but I am still interested in your take on it.

You cannot reproduce if you're dead. Not dying is paramount. Avoiding death, or causes of death, is paramount. I am not, and have not been, saying that life is merely all about avoiding death above and beyond anything else. I have been saying that anything else life might have to offer only matters if you are not dead.

This is quite simple yet maybe too obvious.

I said

I frame this 'desire' as 'maximally efficient fear avoidance'. — I like sushi

Meaning a balance between too much novelty and too little, between staying within a 'comfortable' boundary and exploring the unknown. Going to one extreme or the other would be suboptimal (as I went on to explain).

To completely avoid any fears is not optimal. We have to 'cope' with them sometimes as we cannot avoid them all.

Let's look at this then it might help:

- If we avoid desires it is due to fear/danger.
- If we avoid fear/danger it is due to desires.

At this simple level I don't see how desires can be met free of charge. What is the cost? I think we can certainly desire something enough to overcome fears and/or ignore fears. This might look like a good argument but I can only repeat that we have to account for where the desire comes from. I respond by saying 'desire' comes due to 'fear'/'danger' and that 'fear'/'danger' does not magically appear once we have formed desires.

Rather it is typically trying to sustain life long enough to be able to reproduce. — Olivier5

One thing come before another. Being alive is necessary for life activities. Being dead doesn't do much. Ergo not being dead means other things can happen so it probably makes reasonable sense that organisms are primarily coded to not instantly die due to environmental pressures. Be they hungry predators or noxious gases.

That idea could be based on an entirely ignorant idea of reality. — Tzeentch

So could the opposite, so I don’t see your point. Very weird critique. Literally any action could be based on an ignorant idea of reality. So we shouldn’t act or what?

You sound like you think any imposition is bad because “we could be wrong”. Is that right? Would you impose a law to not drink and drive if there wasn’t one and you could?

So because you desire things, you gain a right to impose? — Tzeentch

Sometimes. Again, it’s not as simple as “me want X so me take X”.

Debatable. I don't drive and somehow I am still alive. — Tzeentch

You must not need to drive to work.

If you don't want to deal with people who drink and drive, stay at home then! — Tzeentch

There is a difference. The people who drink and drive gain nothing from drinking and driving. They can simply drink after they’ve arrived or take a cab. I can’t help but drive to work (in reality I don’t drive, I’m just going with your example).

In other words, forcing people to not drink while driving harms them much much less than the harm they cause by being allowed to drink and drive.

In what way? — Tzeentch

All the hospital beds are filled with idiots that think masks are the devil, getting treated for tens of thousands of dollars instead of taking a semi free vaccine.

I thought the answer I gave was more relevant than the question, but I am still interested in your take on it. — Tzeentch

That what is right is determined by who’s strong? Dumb.

You cannot reproduce if you're dead. Not dying is paramount. Avoiding death, or causes of death, is paramount. I am not, and have not been, saying that life is merely all about avoiding death above and beyond anything else. I have been saying that anything else life might have to offer only matters if you are not dead.

This is quite simple yet maybe too obvious. — I like sushi

Similarly obvious is the fact that every living creature ultimately dies. Nobody actually avoids death.

Hence reproduction is the only way to 'stay around' a little longer, vicariously through your offspring. Reproduction trumps death.

I see. You just want a pointless argument.

No thanks. bye bye

You see nothing.

In term of 'expressing an opinion' the model we've developed to do this is based on reactions to 'fear'. On top of that I am saying that 'anger'/'annoyance' with problems/questions we play with is how we come to do philosophy - to explore knowledge and our existence. — I like sushi

The things you are putting forward aren't entirely insane. Is there a context in which an opinion is delivered adversarially? Certainly, but can't you also deliver an opinion confirming a shared reality? Do you find yourself in angry agreements? Probably not. So, step one that you flew past (in the context of a philosophy forum) is to establish the context you intend to discuss. If you had started out with " When considering opinions delivered in anger; to pontificate x,y,z. Then, you have your discussion; no one will fight you on supposing a hypothetical for the sake of discussion. But, instead you've announced your particular context of interest as a universal statement. It's clearly incorrect in cases where opinions aren't conflicting.

So, do you intend to isolate a particular scenario for discussion? Or not?

It's clearly incorrect in cases where opinions aren't conflicting. — Cheshire

That has nothing to do with what I was saying.

So, do you intend to isolate a particular scenario for discussion? Or not? — Cheshire

Probably in a new thread. I managed to open up some new thoughts in my head about this but I’ll let them be for a while.

Yeah, I could’ve done a much better job with the original post. I did think about editing but thought it would be messy.

that has nothing to do with what I was saying. — I like sushi

From the reader's perspective it is the question being begged. Hence the early opposition.

Yeah, I could’ve done a much better job with the original post. I did think about editing but thought it would be messy. — I like sushi

Seems honest. I can respect that.

If you (anyone) are expressing an opinion you care about I am stating that it is due to 'anger/annoyance'. — I like sushi

I sometimes get annoyed if people are not providing arguments to support their positions, or are being condescending or seem obviously to be projecting their own motivations onto others, or are putting words into my mouth, etc.. But I don't mostly post out of a feeling of anger or annoyance; I post in order to clarify to myself what I think about things and in the interaction with other minds, hopefully improve my own thinking.

But I don't mostly post out of a feeling of anger or annoyance — Janus

I don't think anyone does. My proposition was not that all 'opinion' is expressed in 'anger'/'annoyance' it was that the root of this 'opinion' can be found in 'anger/'annoyance'.

Anyway, I partially got what I wanted from this thread so I just need to mull over new thoughts I've found and refine how I word my next thread on this topic.

So could the opposite, so I don’t see your point. Very weird critique. Literally any action could be based on an ignorant idea of reality. So we shouldn’t act or what? — khaled

I view the use of force as categorically undesirable and immoral, and if I were ever to feel that the use of force is the only option, I would have to tread extremely carefully.

It rarely is the only option. What makes individuals choose to use force is generally because they find it preferable over the alternatives. (Which is the case with the car/work example).

Would you impose a law to not drink and drive if there wasn’t one and you could? — khaled

No, I have no desire to impose anything on anyone.

Sometimes. Again, it’s not as simple as “me want X so me take X”. — khaled

That what is right is determined by who’s strong? — khaled

It is my suspicion that whatever "sometimes" entails is dictated by governments and by majority opinion of whatever society one happens to live in. So whether you realize it or not, it rests upon the principle of "might makes right", as does everything that is imposed by governments or majorities.

There is a difference. The people who drink and drive gain nothing from drinking and driving. They can simply drink after they’ve arrived or take a cab. I can’t help but drive to work (in reality I don’t drive, I’m just going with your example).

In other words, forcing people to not drink while driving harms them much much less than the harm they cause by being allowed to drink and drive. — khaled

That seems to be your opinion, however the opinion of the person who wishes to drink and drive could be completely contrary. Perhaps they are of the opinion they can drive perfectly fine and have never caused an accident while intoxicated. (And who knows, maybe they are right?)

What makes one opinion better than the other?

What makes one opinion better than the other? — Tzeentch

One opinion takes into account the context of drunk driving. The public pays for the roads and as a result should claim some right to use them. A critical mass of drunk drivers would make roads unusable; in a normal sense. Really, it's the intoxicated driver imposing their will in other's space.

A former law partner once told me that "Reasonable minds can differ." I said "BS. If you disagree with me, your mind is unreasonable." :rofl:

I want to be understood. And if people disagree, it must be because they don't understand. So I try harder, and harder, to make them understand. But some people don't care what I think. I'm beginning to agree with them.

Don't believe everything you think.

The public pays for the roads and as a result should claim some right to use them. — Cheshire

So does the drunk driver.

A critical mass of drunk drivers would make roads unusable — Cheshire

A critical mass of cars would also make the roads unusuable.

Really, it's the intoxicated driver imposing their will in other's space. — Cheshire

I would say that depends on the drunk driver. Some drunk drivers may drive perfectly safe while intoxicated. But maybe you are right. So when someone imposes, that gives another a right to impose as well? After the drunk driver is imposed upon does he then also get a right to impose back? How does this system work?

So when someone imposes, that gives another a right to impose as well? After the drunk driver is imposed upon does he then also get a right to impose back? How does this system work? — Tzeentch

When someone imposes on society, by using roads they don't solely own in a fashion that indicates they feel otherwise; then yes, it gives some agent - reason- to act on the right to limit another's actions. If the drunk driving public wants to gather the political will to provide drunk driving certifications and resulting emergency care; then they are free to act in their interest.

When someone imposes on society, ... — Cheshire

Well, the individual was there before society, so who was the first to impose?

... , it gives some agent - reason- to act on the right to limit another's actions. — Cheshire

What's the source of such a right?