As Plato might say: "opinions" (doxa) are the currency of sophists that, like Monopoly money, doesn't cash out at the supermarket or in philosophy. Aporia are, after all, coins of the realm (agora):

Now, an anti-Platonist retort :yum:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2teskVGoxUc

As Plato might say: "opinions" (doxa) are the currency of sophists that, like Monopoly money, doesn't cash out at the supermarket or in philosophy. Aporia are, after all, coins of the realm (agora): — 180 Proof

:up: :100:

As Plato might say: "opinions" (doxa) are the currency of sophists that, like Monopoly money, doesn't cash out at the supermarket or in philosophy. — 180 Proof

Perfect. All I've got is the social critic Dirty Harry: "Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody has one."

:smirk: Yeah well also "a man's got to know his limitations."

Clever.
Pretenders Got Brass in Pocket. No doubt.

I assume philosophizing is more engaged than just 'politely exchanging opinions'. Anyway, likewise, be well. :flower:

I assume philosophizing is more engaged than just 'politely exchanging opinions'. — 180 Proof

For sure. Sometimes.
Including cutting as analysis with sharp knife.
As well as those who make cutting remarks. For better or worse.
So it goes.

Thanks for the :flower:
In return, feel the :hearts:

:cool:

Although I might just check up on Marcus Aurelius...again... — Amity

There's no source given in the article and I haven't found one which says to leave opinions alone.
It's not in my Penguin, Martin Hammond translation, nor in the George Long translation.
Book 6, verses 52-3 of The Meditations:

It is in our power to have no opinion about a thing, and not to be disturbed in our soul; for things themselves have no natural power to form our judgements.

Accustom thyself to attend carefully to what is said by another, and as much as it is possible, be in the speaker's mind. — Internet Classics Archive - The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

On Opinion.
I returned to the article and BTL comments.
This Guardian Pick worth considering, IMO:

Dave_P

The reason not to have an opinion on everything isn't inability to control it (I have no power to control anything in the world beyond my own actions, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have opinions), rather it's that our knowledge is incomplete, and most things aren't worth having an opinion about. I have no opinion about your team or Chet & Tiffany's latest fragrance, because they don't interest me, not that that's necessarily a safeguard against others' fixations: No, I didn't see the match.... No, really.

The worst is being confronted by people with an "opinion" that isn't their own, it's just lifted from their PM or preferred party, media commenter or online "feed". If you think I really must know your opinion, at least have one rather than regurgitating someone else's and imagining that's good enough: it really isn't. Having no opinion is better than having someone else's: I used to scoff at "don't knows" in polling, but now I respect their honesty and thoughtfulness - most of the the others don't know either, they're just going with their tribe or winging it.

Talking is better than shouting, and I've had productive conversations with people (online and in the real world) on issues where their views are radically opposed to mine - but that takes goodwill on both sides, something that's been in ever shorter supply in the age of Mr Angry. But I don't really need people in my immediate social life with obnoxious views or with whom it's impossible to discuss topics, I want people who aren't out to make the world even worse and who can sustain a civilised and perhaps occasionally interesting exchange.

Your thoughts or opinion?

On cutting opinion without tears, I mentioned the Principle of Charity

Marcus seems to have talked the talk but not walked the walk.
Why should I have been surprised?
Sounds like a necessary qualification to be a successful Roman Emperor.

According to Hammond's Notes (p171):
Meditations 6.53
'enter into the mind of the speaker: Compare 7.30 ('Stretch your thought to parallel what is being said. Let your mind get inside what is happening and who is doing it') and 8.61 ('Enter into the directing mind of everyone, and let anyone else enter your own').

Hammond suggests that Marcus only advocates the penetration of others' minds all the better to identify their deficiencies.
Also that Marcus just as often dismisses others' thoughts as a distraction.
(Other sections cited as evidence).

Marcus in his meditations seems to have had good intentions.
However, according to Hammond, Marcus had 'great difficulty in reconciling himself to others'.

So, is it even possible to use philosophy's 'principle of charity' to cut into others' opinions without tears?

Yes. By careful examination and questioning.
No need for knee-jerk hostility aimed at belittling so as to enhance ego or sense of superiority.
The sharpest cut is not always the cleanest...

Care for the love of philosophy. Eros.
Don't be turned away permanently by those who try to harm, including your own critical voice. Try to love again. Look closely at self and others. We can all be angels or devils.

Plato on Eros and Friendship

Plato’s views on love are a meditation on Socrates and the power his philosophical conversations have to mesmerize, obsess, and educate.

1. Socrates and the Art of Love
“The only thing I say I know,” Socrates tells us in the Symposium, “is the art of love (ta erôtika) (177d8–9). Taken literally, it is an incredible claim.

Are we really to believe that the man who affirms when on trial for his life that he knows himself to be wise “in neither a great nor a small way” (Apology 21b4–5) knows the art of love? In fact, the claim is a nontrivial play on words facilitated by the fact that the noun erôs (“love”) and the verb erôtan (“to ask questions”) sound as if they are etymologically connected—a connection explicitly exploited in the Cratylus (398c5-e5).

Socrates knows about the art of love in that—but just insofar as—he knows how to ask questions, how to converse elenctically. — SEP: Plato on Friendship and Eros

What does that even mean?
To converse elenctically...especially on a philosophy forum?

I know who to ask, but will my friend @Fooloso4 respond?
And others, like @Ciceronianus....

Hammond suggests that Marcus only advocates the penetration of others' minds all the better to identify their deficiencies.
Also that Marcus just as often dismisses others' thoughts as a distraction.
(Other sections cited as evidence). — Amity

As Hadot and others have noted, what we call The Meditations is an example of Stoic practice; reminding oneself of Stoic maxims and their application to daily life. This leads to the repetition of certain themes and ideas, and doesn't mean that you're obsessed with them.

The opinions of others that are referred to are generally their opinions regarding the Emperor--what they thought of him, what he wanted them to think of him. Whether they think bad of you or good of you, their opinions of you ultimately have nothing to do with how you should live your life (virtuously, of course). You shouldn't act to please others or win their admiration; you shouldn't disturb yourself if they think ill of you. Just be virtuous, regardless of how you're perceived by others.

Hammond should have spent more time playing with his organ. Get it? Tee hee.

Hammond should have spent more time playing with his organ. Get it? Tee hee. — Ciceronianus

Well, no organ received...
....but yeah I did have a moan and a groan :kiss:

Thanks for such a quick and informative post reminding me again of stuff I've read and forgotten.
All good but...
...O me miserum...

You shouldn't act to please others or win their admiration; you shouldn't disturb yourself if they think ill of you. Just be virtuous, regardless of how you're perceived by others. — Ciceronianus

I'll do my berry vest :nerd:
Remind me @Ciceronianus - what is to be virtuous?*

I mean I think I'm pretty good and want to be/do good but...so do others from the opposite so-called 'vicious' end of the spectrum, don't they?
What is 'good' for the gander is not always good for the goose...and why, oh why, do we use the word 'goose' with its 'silly person' connotations...

*Again, not to get too academic but in practical ways relating to philo conversations...

Remind me Ciceronianus - what is to be virtuous? — Amity

Very Socratic of you. From the Stoic perspective (more specifically from the IEP which gives a decent summary, I think:

The Stoics elaborated a detailed taxonomy of virtue, dividing virtue into four main types: wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation. Wisdom is subdivided into good sense, good calculation, quick-wittedness, discretion, and resourcefulness. Justice is subdivided into piety, honesty, equity, and fair dealing. Courage is subdivided into endurance, confidence, high-mindedness, cheerfulness, and industriousness. Moderation is subdivided into good discipline, seemliness, modesty, and self-control. Similarly, the Stoics divide vice into foolishness, injustice, cowardice, intemperance, and the rest. The Stoics further maintained that the virtues are inter-entailing and constitute a unity: to have one is to have them all. They held that the same virtuous mind is wise, just, courageous, and moderate. Thus, the virtuous person is disposed in a certain way with respect to each of the individual virtues. To support their doctrine of the unity of virtue, the Stoics offered an analogy: just as someone is both a poet and an orator and a general but is still one individual, so too the virtues are unified but apply to different spheres of action.

I like the "and the rest."

Thanks for the useful summary of the Stoic perspective.

I later added:

*Again, not to get too academic but in practical ways relating to philo conversations... — Amity

So...
I think I need a short translation of the summary :wink:

To converse elenctically — Amity

But I suppose I should do my own homework, if I am to be virtuous :halo:

Hammond should have spent more time playing with his organ. Get it? Tee hee. — Ciceronianus

Which translation of Meditations would you recommend?

That of Gregory Hays or Robin Hard. They're more modern translations. Hard's contains correspondence between Marcus and Fronto, his rhetoric teacher, which are interesting.

That of Gregory Hays or Robin Hard. They're more modern translations. Hard's contains correspondence between Marcus and Fronto, his rhetoric teacher, which are interesting. — Ciceronianus

Thank you I'll take a look.
My copy is no longer to my liking and it's a bit yellowing...

I know who to ask, but will Fooloso4 respond? — Amity

You came to the right place, for I too am an expert on love.

The article compares Socrates' claim in the Symposium with his claim in the Apology, but it is not only the seemingly contradictory claims but the occasions during which he made them that should be considered. Being on trial in a court of law and a contest of speeches about eros are very different occasions requiring different ways of speaking.

This contest mirrors that of the contest between philosophy and poetry. It is the poets who claim to be experts on love. For Socrates to claim to be an expert in the presence of highly regarded poets was both surprising and provocative. In addition, Socrates was not, as it is commonly understood, an erotic man.

But how different are Socrates' claims in the Apology and Symposium? As Socrates says in the Symposium, eros is the desire for what one does not possess. Philosophy is erotic in that it is the desire for wisdom. It is Socrates' lack of knowledge, as professed in the Apology, that is the basis of his knowledge of eros, the desire to know.

Knowledge of ignorance is not simply recognizing one does not know. Socrates' "human wisdom" is a matter of the examined life, of how best to live in the absence of knowledge of what is best. The "art of love", ta erôtika, is the art of living. Since we all desire what is good, the art of living cannot simply be the philosophical life.

In the Phaedo Socrates says that philosophy is the practice of death and dying, the separation of body and soul. The joke here being that the only good philosopher is a dead philosopher. More serious is the question of the relationship between life and death, body and soul. I have discussed this here

We are not souls temporarily attached to bodies. We are ensouled bodies. One thing not two. Desire does not cut along the distinction between body and soul. Since we know nothing of death, preparation for death turns from unanswerable questions of death back to life, to how we live, here and now.

What does that even mean?
To converse elenctically...especially on a philosophy forum? — Amity

In the cited article Reeve defines it as "how to ask and answer questions". We may ask, in turn, what is the goal and what is the result of such inquiry? Socrates used it to demonstrate that one does not know what he assumed to know. This may lead to quite different results - anger, shame, resentment, or, as Socrates hoped, the desire to know, to a dissatisfaction with opinions. But this, in turn, can lead to a dissatisfaction with philosophy itself, to misologic, when it fails to provide the answers expected of it.

Philosophy is often treated as the art of argumentation - making arguments that attempt to be least vulnerable to attack, while attacking opposing positions. The limits of argument, however, are not the limits of philosophy. It is here that the "ancient quarrel' between philosophy and poetry is reconfigured. This is why the dialogues often turn from logos to mythos. The promise of dialectic in the Republic, the use of hypothesis to become free of hypothesis is itself hypothetical. The image of transcendence, from opinion to the sight of the Forms, is just that, an image. The mythic philosopher of the Republic who possesses knowledge is no longer a philosopher, that is, one who desires to know. The philosopher, like the poet, is an image maker.

You came to the right place, for I too am an expert on love. — Fooloso4

The question is: What is the right place? The Lounge?
Well, we are here now, so let's dance as if we were at a Symposium, talking love.

The article compares Socrates' claim in the Symposium with his claim in the Apology, but it is not only the seemingly contradictory claims but the occasions during which he made them that should be considered. Being on trial in a court of law and a contest of speeches about eros are very different occasions requiring different ways of speaking. — Fooloso4

Yes. Different occasions, or places, sometimes require different ways of speaking or writing.
Responding to a serious life-threatening judgement or opinion from a High Court needs clear thought and careful analysis.
Responding to a group of male friends at an informal Symposium, is a lighter affair.
Each taking turn to offer his opinion...and competing for first place...I would like to have been there!

This contest mirrors that of the contest between philosophy and poetry. It is the poets who claim to be experts on love. For Socrates to claim to be an expert in the presence of highly regarded poets was both surprising and provocative. In addition, Socrates was not, as it is commonly understood, an erotic man. — Fooloso4

So, Socrates is not supposed to know about love because he is a philosopher?
Incredible.

But how different are Socrates' claims in the Apology and Symposium? As Socrates says in the Symposium, eros is the desire for what one does not possess. Philosophy is erotic in that it is the desire for wisdom. It is Socrates' lack of knowledge, as professed in the Apology, that is the basis of his knowledge of eros, the desire to know. — Fooloso4

Eros, then, is the desire to know the knowledge that one does not have.
If someone asks "What is philosophy?", how surprised would they be if told that it's 'Erotic!'
Great PR, no?

Knowledge of ignorance is not simply recognizing one does not know. Socrates' "human wisdom" is a matter of the examined life, of how best to live in the absence of knowledge of what is best. The "art of love", ta erôtika, is the art of living. Since we all desire what is good, the art of living cannot simply be the philosophical life. — Fooloso4

How best to live in the absence of knowledge of what is best. That is the question.
The examined life provides the answer?
This reminds me of another thread I started about paying attention.
What we pay attention to is important.
What or whose opinion matters?
So many strong and opposing opinions formed; how do we cut through them with care?
On a philosophy forum, that should be easy, no?
To give serious consideration to different views on e.g. what constitutes philosophy.

Are you certain that 'we all desire what is good'?
I suppose so, if 'what is good' is open to question.

When you say that 'the art of living cannot simply be the philosophical life' do you mean that the philosophical life is narrower than the art of living?
What if philosophy is seen as the art of living?

In the Phaedo Socrates says that philosophy is the practice of death and dying, the separation of body and soul. The joke here being that the only good philosopher is a dead philosopher. More serious is the question of the relationship between life and death, body and soul. I have discussed this here — Fooloso4

I remember that discussion well :clap:
What made you bring that into this conversation about opinion?
Perhaps, the question and differing opinions as to what philosophy is about?
Not just a body of work but a creative spirit. Both joined and equally important.

We are not souls temporarily attached to bodies. We are ensouled bodies. One thing not two. Desire does not cut along the distinction between body and soul. Since we know nothing of death, preparation for death turns from unanswerable questions of death back to life, to how we live, here and now. — Fooloso4

I agree. And all becomes clear, thank you.
How we live, here and now.
Knowing or learning what is important; to choose who best to converse with, about what and how.

***

What does that even mean?
To converse elenctically...especially on a philosophy forum?
— Amity

In the cited article Reeve defines it as "how to ask and answer questions". We may ask, in turn, what is the goal and what is the result of such inquiry? Socrates used it to demonstrate that one does not know what he assumed to know. This may lead to quite different results - anger, shame, resentment, or, as Socrates hoped, the desire to know, to a dissatisfaction with opinions. But this, in turn, can lead to a dissatisfaction with philosophy itself, to misologic, when it fails to provide the answers expected of it. — Fooloso4

Misologic. Had to look it up again...

Misology is defined as the hatred of reasoning; the revulsion or distrust of logical debate, argumentation, or the Socratic method.

Is that what you mean?
Basically, people expect answers or solutions from philosophy. When it fails to deliver certainty, then they see no use for it. Indeed, it is despised as a waste of time. Navel-gazing?

Plato or Socrates used dialogue to question assumptions on which opinions are based?
In a most entertaining play-like fashion. Asking and answering questions in different places and circumstances. Exploring and reflecting...
A bit like here?!
Dancing around the subject and object.

Philosophy is often treated as the art of argumentation - making arguments that attempt to be least vulnerable to attack, while attacking opposing positions. The limits of argument, however, are not the limits of philosophy. It is here that the "ancient quarrel' between philosophy and poetry is reconfigured. This is why the dialogues often turn from logos to mythos. The promise of dialectic in the Republic, the use of hypothesis to become free of hypothesis is itself hypothetical. The image of transcendence, from opinion to the sight of the Forms, is just that, an image. The mythic philosopher of the Republic who possesses knowledge is no longer a philosopher, that is, one who desires to know. The philosopher, like the poet, is an image maker. — Fooloso4

This final paragraph is the most relevant, in my opinion.
It highlights the source of my concern.

You describe well the art of argumentation.
The skills required are important to cut carefully without tears. But not all there is...

'The limits of argument...are not the limits of philosophy'.

Thank you, @Fooloso4.
Can we expect a thread on the Symposium? :wink:

How best to live in the absence of knowledge of what is best. That is the question.
The examined life provides the answer? — Amity

No. The examined life is the life of questioning, including questioning our opinions about what is best.

To give serious consideration to different views on e.g. what constitutes philosophy. — Amity

Or, perhaps giving serious consideration to different views is what constitutes philosophy, at least in the tradition of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. That is, the tradition of zetetic skepticism.

What made you bring that into this conversation about opinion? — Amity

The article you cited on Plato, friendship, and eros. Eros is typically regarded as being about bodily desires, but Plato treats it more broadly to include desires of the soul. To the casual reader it may appear that he makes it about desires that are not of or are separate from the body, but the division of one (a person or individual) into two entities (body and soul) is problematic.

Misology is defined as the hatred of reasoning; the revulsion or distrust of logical debate, argumentation, or the Socratic method.

Is that what you mean?
Basically, people expect answers or solutions from philosophy. When it fails to deliver certainty, then they see no use for it. Indeed, it is despised as a waste of time. Navel-gazing? — Amity

Yes, the term appears in the Phaedo. I arises from a love of philosophy that expects too much from it. In this case the failure of philosophy to give answers about death that will alleviate the fear of death. Not only their own death but Socrates death, who was sentenced to death for his life of philosophical inquiry. Not only a waste of time but dangerous.

Plato or Socrates used dialogue to question assumptions on which opinions are based? — Amity

Yes, and @Michael that is why a thread on opinion (onions) does not belong in the Lounge. It is of central philosophical concern.

Yes, and @Michael that is why a thread on opinion (onions) does not belong in the Lounge. It is of central philosophical concern. — Fooloso4

Thank you for spelling it out in your post and at the end. :sparkle:
You are a shining example of a philosopher. In my opinion :wink:
As are all the participants in this thread, naturally! :nerd:

An opinion, regurgitating the official position, is peculiar to the person, his/her bias causing a distortion of the truth which is, taking this to its logical conclusion in a in for a penny, in for a pound kinda way, objective i.e. of the thing itself. The point is rather simple: keep it real, dispel maya (illusion).

Opinions, are they then utterly useless? No, not if you wanna know how a person thinks, what a person knows, who s/he breaks bread with, and so on.

Th-th-th-that's all folks. — Porky the Pig

Keeping it real :up:

Opinions, are they then utterly useless? No, not if you wanna know how a person thinks, what a person knows, who s/he breaks bread with, and so on. — Agent Smith

Indeed. Without opinions TPF would be an arid desert.
They are an expression of what we think we think or know and are open to challenge by ourselves and others.
It's how we cut into them that's interesting, don't you think?
It depends on underlying assumptions whether an opinion is seen as useless or helpful, no?
A careful analysis pre, during and post-conversation can be illuminating or...see bolds.

What does that even mean?
To converse elenctically...especially on a philosophy forum?
— Amity

In the cited article Reeve defines it as "how to ask and answer questions". We may ask, in turn, what is the goal and what is the result of such inquiry? Socrates used it to demonstrate that one does not know what he assumed to know. This may lead to quite different results - anger, shame, resentment, or, as Socrates hoped, the desire to know, to a dissatisfaction with opinions. But this, in turn, can lead to a dissatisfaction with philosophy itself, to misologic, when it fails to provide the answers expected of it. — Fooloso4

Th-th-th-that's all folks. — Porky the Pig

You wot, got no Youtube video? :wink:

Good to talk with you. Take care :sparkle:

Without opinions TPF would be an arid desert. — Amity

To give the devil his due, this isn't deliberate and though this is not good, it ain't bad either.

It's how we cut into them that's interesting, don't you think? — Amity

I second that! Like this young fellow once asked my views on a certain scenario that involved a beautiful flower dead center in a nest of vipers. The objective: Retrieve the flower without getting killed.

You wot, got no Youtube video? — Amity

Metanoia!

Metanoia! — Agent Smith

I want some of that. :cool:

Although.
I think I might have had a slurp before... :chin:
Best wishes :pray:

Like this young fellow once asked my views on a certain scenario that involved a beautiful flower dead center in a nest of vipers. The objective: Retrieve the flower without getting killed. — Agent Smith

So, did you show how to appreciate the flower in the moment.
Or did you cut the vipers down...

So, did you show how to appreciate the flower in the moment.
Or did you cut the vipers down... — Amity

It was rhetorical! He didn't expect an answer. I didn't provide one; too dumb!

I want some of that. :cool:

Although.
I think I might have had a slurp before... :chin:
Best wishes :pray: — Amity

Bonam fortunam.

It was rhetorical! He didn't expect an answer. I didn't provide one; too dumb! — Agent Smith

OK. But that was then, what would you say now?
Perhaps take a moment or two, in silence. To consider...

Dan Dennett's Opinion on Rhetorical Questions:

5. Rhetorical Questions –> Who could doubt the prominence of this rhetorical device? (Sorry, I’ll stop.) Using rhetorical questions in arguments is extremely common, as it represents the author’s inability or laziness to flesh out the counter-argument in question. Dennett recommends we look for an unobvious answer to it and surprise our interlocutor with it so as to defuse the power of the rhetorical question. — Philosophy In Seconds - Dennett's Anti-Thinking Tools for Better Thinking