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

That is not what I said.

They do exist — Olivier5

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

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.

Democracy is more of an idea than a reality. The reality of a true full democracy would be horrific probably.

Without a doubt the closest country to having an actual ‘democracy’ on Earth is Switzerland. The thought of that system on a global scale fills me with dread not hope. I simply don’t believe a global vote would result in something ‘good’ for humanity’s long term development. Smaller isolated governments concerned with a limited population size would be okay … somewhere along the way we missed that boat though.

Looks like another stage of feudalism and then an eventually power struggle leading with a stable population size followed by centuries of wrangling before we settle on a reasonable body of people to be held within a governed system where each individual has enough of a voice to matter. Decentralised power can only make sense if nations effectively split up and act as a community of peoples rather than as a disassociated body called ‘nation’ where the power is both unregulated, inefficient and short-armed in reach and scope due to the sprawling population.

“Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.”
― Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason

I think you can probably change a few terms in this quote to say something like ‘information’ is ‘empty’ without ‘the physical’ and ‘the physical’ is ‘blind’ without ‘information’.

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.

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.

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.

I kind of agree with the sentiment but it doesn’t seem at all simple.

Someone with a rifle is clearly carrying a rifle whereas someone with a hand gun can conceal it easily enough. There is the imbedded problem of transporting firearms from one place to another without displaying them in any manner. Such nuances make establishing laws like these difficult. For hunting/sports what constitutes ‘public place’.

I think it makes more sense to allow people to bring firearms to protests but NOT to actively carry them during protests unless the police officers around are also armed. That is why I would first suggest police in general to not carry firearms unless they are clearly and visibly distinctive from other officers whom don’t carry firearms.

If such a law can be implemented solely for protests and marches without any need to bring in armed police officers then it could start a steady progression towards something that doesn’t take away rights some wish to protect yet it will reduce the perceived need to carry firearms in other circumstances.

As an aside an interesting trick that reduces the chances of crime is to place cardboard cutouts of police officers in areas of concern. These basically function as a psychological deterrent not because people view the inanimate object as a police simply because it triggers a reminder about what is and isn’t lawful - we’re all just genius apes really so don’t take offence to being so easily manipulated by mere visual prompt.

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.

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

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

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.

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).

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

Good. Bye.

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 think you are having a problem framing what I am saying - not surprising as it is not exactly perfectly expressed to say the least! :)

I thought wrote I wrote above was at least a much better way to express what I meant but obviously not by your response.

I take it this bit of your post is the bit that actually answers my question: if the majority believe they do not offer their opinion out of anger/annoyance, they are simply overlooking the fact, right? — Kenosha Kid

Fact? I am expressing an opinion and one that I am interested about (clearly). Am I angry about the replies? Not particularly. Am I a little annoyed? Yes, because I could've done a better job here and avoided misunderstandings.

What at the core do I care about here? I care about over rationalising, the potential detriment of cantankerous argumentation, the potential of such cantankerousness, and 'emotions' being framed as counterproductive in instances where they may be better viewed as productive.

Maybe working back from my minimal conclusion would make more sense? I summed up by stating that our irrational nature is the reason we're able to progress in any manner. If there is literally no benefit to 'anger'/'annoyance' in argumentation then do we really spend time telling ourselves that it is necessarily a detriment to discourse or could we perhaps question this absolutist position that 'anger'/'annoyance' in philosophical discourse is not actually such a detriment and can help us to understand why positions and arguments are formed and how best to wield such items.

This is what I have done and 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. The age old 'flight or fight' point but viewed on the level of cognition.

Another look would be to answer what interests you? Clearly enough things that we care about and we care about them because they interest us. Why though? Do we care about things that are generally classed as bad or good? A silly question as we care about what is good and what is bad necessarily by how those terms are used. Some things we don't really care about much if at all. Some things that we once never cared about we grow to care about more and more or less and less. How does this variable attitude of caring change? Primarily 'fear' which is followed up by 'anger'/'annoyance' as we attend to the negative experiences more than the positive ones.

I didn't say 'anger' for a start. I framed it, and have remained constant in framing it, as 'anger'/'annoyance'.

If we care about something we are emotionally vested in it. There is a cost and potential loss in caring about something. When met with any form of opposition we will not simply give way if we care about it. The opinion is formed based on a conflict we recognise and feel something towards. If we are all bubbles of joy and happiness about a new 'opinion' expressing it means it is an antidote to something without bubbles of joy - it is a reaction against something. If we oppose something we do so from a fundamentally emotional position and the base of this is 'anger'/'annoyance'.

What is more anyone who offers a counter to what we say is breaking the opinion up because it counters, or could counter, their own opinion that they care about.

Why don't we recognise this most of the time? It can be subtle. We make up reasons for our thoughts/actions all the time for various reasons. Often this is precise where we are not happy about having the rug pulled out from under us so we're talking mostly about fear in respect to the reason for denying our irrational and/or questionable opinions.

Maybe think of 'bravery' as being what I am talking about here. But I think the term 'bravery' is merely one of those trick words used to cover up a base emotional feeling - 'anger'/'annoyance'.

Would you agree that the things we care about the most have the greatest potential to make us express anger? If not explain how if you can. If you agree run with that in terms of what I've been trying to say and see if that is of any use.

And? Still not what I said. I would agree with what you say though.

What next? Are you trying to convince us that we _should_? — Kenosha Kid

Read the rest of the opening post and see what the conclusion is and tell me if it is worthy or not.

I never said that. I am saying they cast out opinions they care about because of anger/annoyance (directed either at themselves, others or something in general).

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

Why do you post anything that you care about? To share it? Why? What is the underlying point of sharing something you care about?

I think it is clear enough that you would share something you care about because you expect it will challenge others and because you are looking for conflicting opinions. you might well say that doesn't mean it is posed in 'anger/annoyance' which is NOT what I saying at all.

I am saying that we are at odds with something and believe that our 'opinion'/'view' expressed opens up a path of investigation or even offers a potential solution. Without 'anger'/'annoyance' we wouldn't even recognise a problem. We are not robots operating under some logical method to sustain ourselves in life. We are emotional beings.

Often people put a lot of weight in 'fear' as an orientating force (and I would agree), but it is inhibiting where 'anger'/'annoyance' is not merely inhibiting it is also a drive to act against something.

I think some people express opinions to solely rile people up and some do it because they believe they can teach or educate or help others and some people offer opinions to both educate and irritate/anger simultaneously. (Those aren’t the only reasons, imo, either, just some common ones.) — laura ann

And my point is that underneath it is essentially about 'anger/annoyance'. This my be self directed.

Good point. We could maybe add the suffragette movement to this as a means of helping women gain status.

It is my opinion that dark gray and black cars look the best. If you think light colored cars are better, that really wouldn't matter to me. — Hanover

Then you wouldn't post this as an argument in an OP would you. I am not talking about some mere whimsical 'opinion'.

Funny. I use anger/annoyance to drive me to look further into topics I wouldn't usually go for. I get angry/annoyed with myself often enough.

When it comes to arguing with others I lean towards viewing my position as being wrong and any annoyance I feel as a sign there is something important afoot.

This is why I say expressing an 'opinion' is rooted in this.

The replies you are giving here I would call expressing an opinion and I am sure you have vested emotions in your responses and thoughts. I am also sure they are not concrete and where anything isn't concrete we're open to error and missing certain items.

I also understand that we may choose to tell ourselves there is more benefit in understanding what someone is saying, why they are saying and investigating how they arrived at that point. Somewhere in the differentiation there is a drive that shifts us to dismiss some part of their point or question our own. This is necessarily an unpleasant experience. As with physicists who have followed a theory for decades on end putting all their effort in to and then finding out it was completely the wrong path, we too are not simply joyed by the discovery of error we have to let our beliefs die and this is equivalent to mourning.

I believe there are different stages of mourning (or grief) that might point at what I mean more readily. I am talking about 'opinions' that bear some weight to them not some whimsy - certainly things like 'it is my opinion that chocolate tastes good'.

Let's move on. Is there are benefit to being annoyed/angered by something (in terms of philosophical discourse)?

You'll probably get more helpful advice from people in a similar situation to you. Seek out as many forums as you can more related to this topic and they might be able to point you to some resources available in your area.

Failing that simply sit her down and talk to her when she is in a lucid state and ask her what she wants. For her general health it is known that irregular sleeping patterns are usually a sign of an upcoming episode. Regular exercise, meals and routine could help you all out an awful lot.

Note: If you know of any dietary issues in your immediate family (allergies and such) avoiding these foods could be worth a try too.

Overall focus on the bold text above ^^ Good luck to you and your family. Hope for the best but expect the worst and you'll all get through it somehow :)

Stating others' opinions for them without surveying them at all, even to bolster your argument, is dismissive. It also shows a lack in theory of mind. — Kenosha Kid

To repeat ... this was a conscious choice to make a point about people getting annoyed and being dismissive. That is was a carefully laid trap is also part and parcel of my point about being 'angry'/'annoyed'.

If you view some ideas as 'abhorrent' then are you absconding from reason by doing so? Of course I think some ideas are terrible too in life but as an item for philosophical discussion I tend to look at why I feel that way as a point of interest if I can manage it.

Postmodernism has its positive quirks I think :D

Not to interrupt too much but I have remined constant by framing 'anger/annoyance' rather than just plain 'anger,' and when going to an extreme used 'blind fury'.

That makes no sense.

In addition it would be more helpful is I made some distinctions between 'opinion,' 'view' and 'belief'. :(

you are pre-emptively dismissing the opinions of others by replacing them with your own. If you're against dismissing opinions, why not find out what they are, rather than deciding what they are? — Kenosha Kid

I was putting forward an argument.

It is up to me to convince you that you do cast out opinions due to anger/annoyance and if I cannot convince you then my argument needs work in some way.

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. — Kenosha Kid

That is standard. I am looking to rock the boat. If you are convinced you cannot fall out so be it.

I am inviting conflict with what I have put out. I want conflict. I don't see how anyone can be motivated to cast out an opinion without understanding that it is meant to cause conflict. If it doesn't it is going nowhere fast. If no one cares it is frustrating (annoying) as one puts out opinions to test them.

Perhaps I am just being too liberal with the term anger/annoyance for your liking. That is annoying and I can look to correct it.

I don't think ideas are really the source of anger, except horrible ideas. — Kenosha Kid

I think there is a problem here with referring to some ideas as 'horrible'. I don't see ideas as 'horrible' they are just ideas. Some have more use than others. Ideas that have no use are not 'ideas,' but there are certainly people out there who put forward things they call 'ideas' that I don't call 'ideas'.

Either way, I never stated that ideas are the source of anger. I stated that expressing an opinion is due to anger/annoyance. This doesn't have to be external and I'd suggest that is could be more commonly inward anger/annoyance (hence the need to get feedback).

If you're enraged by people not agreeing with you, however strong their counterargument, that seems like a personal problem to me. — Kenosha Kid

When people have strong personal opinions they are blind to reason quite often. We are all prone to this in day-to-day life and it is something we're meant to guard against on forums like this (but there are plenty of instances where this doesn't happen I'm sure you'd agree).

Extending to this extreme I concluded that out rational inclination are due to our irrational nature.

Look at this in the light of the first sentence that has bothered people (as it was meant to):

When we express an opinion or argument it is because we are annoyed/angry with something that causes us distress. We don't 'know' to what degree our view is right but we believe it to be better than other views posed. — I like sushi

The 'something' not necessarily a 'someone'. As the strain increases the so does annoyances and frustrations - be they directed where here or there. When the opinion held matters more and more to us then the price and tension is higher. Necessarily that which matters most to us will, inevitably, hold us in place because of a 'something' we will defend to the death (so to speak):

We don't 'know' to what degree our view is right but we believe it to be better than other views posed.

Given that being logic and rational is something we often hear as being productive in argumentation this begs the question as to why it is that when opposed we feel angered/annoyed rather than intrigued by another's perspective. The more another's belief contradicts our own the stronger the feeling becomes. The more this belief matters to us personally (for our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of those we care for) the more inclined we are to veer away from logic and rationality. — I like sushi

I think I could have written this much better in hindsight (as I knew would be the case). I did to make a delineation between a mere whimsical 'view' and a strong 'view'. Whimsy has it's place, but I wouldn't really call an 'opinion' a 'whimsy'. Throwing out some random thoughts is not he same as casting out an 'opinion' don't you think?

It is conflict of a sorts no matter how you wish to frame it. It may be for fun but someone will be annoyed/angered to some degree if they find it wanting. If we express an opinion surely we are looking for conflict?

What is an opinion for if it doesn't rile against something in some way? I cannot see how anyone can hold any opinion if there is nothing for it to conflict with. — I like sushi

Thanks for trying the charitable perspective though :)

It is not intent simply to be armed. There is a case where someone got involved in a fight walked out to his car, took out his gun and then proceeded to shoot his attacker.

The technical difference here being he was provoked then retreated to his car to get a gun with intent of getting his rifle and shooting the other person. He was not initially armed with a gun and attacked.

Carrying a gun (in and of itself) in Rittenhouse's instance is not viewed as intent to cause harm or to act in conflict. Sounds kind of crazy in the situation he was involved in but that is the law.

I am not condoning the law just stating what it is. That is why I suggested an outline for an alternative law regarding protests that would shift away from armed conflicts.

So we're on the cusp of dismissing each other. That is not a pleasant experience.

How do we not dismiss each other's positions/ideas/beliefs OR how do we dismiss each other and move on without loss?

We can call someone a crackpot theorist and ridicule them but that will openly encourage anger/annoyance. Ignoring/dismissing them will also cause anger/annoyance. If anger and annoyance are generally counterproductive to rational discourse and rational thought how can we trust our own opinion? If we can to what degree?

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

Intent to look for conflict based purely on your opinion. That wouldn't stand in any court I know of.

A seventeen year old walking around with a gun in The Netherlands isn't legal is it? I think part of the ire involved is that many think he shouldn't be allowed to walk around with a gun - myself included - yet the law there doesn't disallow it. On top of this, as we all know, the law isn't a simple universal formula.

Such public cases are also a difficult thing to handle. There doesn't appear to be a good legal reason to have accused him with murder in the first place. This is the power of public opinion as there was clearly evidence that he acted in self-defense from the footage instantly available so without a clear cause to accuse someone of murder the chargers were brought forward prematurely - which neither protects the accused's rights nor helps the prosecution as they've had little time to reward anything. He may have been charged and arrested simply for his own personal safety too given the atmosphere at the time and what was happening.

The event was given political priority as it looked to suit different narratives that were and are highly politically charged at a highly politically charged time. These things are difficult.

The big question is will we see a change in the law for youngsters carrying weapons? I am pretty sure Rittenhouse would have taken a different course of action if he'd known exactly what would happen to him. If so are we likely to see him backing laws to prevent people like himself from having their life and other lives turned upside down due to naivety, stupidity, and/or immaturity?

Will there be a law that states carrying firearms during a protest is illegal? This would make some fear the police perhaps so how about during protests having both the citizens and police disarm themselves as standard procedure? Then if any bad element of the protesters cause damage to property then call in clearly marked police who are armed to deal with them and keep 'regular' police unarmed.

That is just off the top of my head and I'm not saying it is ideal by any means but I think something like that is at least a step in the right direction.

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

Not sure I would frame it like that. I was perhaps thinking as simple resistance to items that are our ‘axis mundi’ (the core of our existed experience). Maybe such opposition and strong feelings towards something hit at some underlying hidden aspect of us?

There is some validity to your view. In times of danger and threat we are on high alert, physically primed for action. Your 'tension' in other words. IF someone presents an opinion that cuts across one's most basic and cherished thinking (somebody says, for instance, that we should institute a forced abortion program to cut own the excess population) we might well experience tension, arousal, and would start marshaling arguments against this view. — Bitter Crank

Yes. It is more clear cut in some cases. I did frame this as anger/annoyance rather than plain anger. I am of the belief that we are driven by how we ‘feel’ about something first and foremost and this is where this line of thinking stems from and why I’m looking for argumentation against it.

Most of the time, though, other people's opinions do not rile us up that way. We can deal with others' opinions without tension developing. — Bitter Crank

In which case we ignore them or don’t take them seriously (see reply from T Clark) which then leads to the opening up of anger/annoyance for one party. I would say most of the time someone is riled. If not the discussion/debate/argument quickly dies and can hardly be called such.

At any rate, I think our "go to state" is one of quiet, restful, homeostasis--most of the time. Still, I recognize that sometimes we like to pick a fight, just for its excitement value--or tension. — Bitter Crank

Why do you think this? What are you basing this on?

I wasn’t suggesting that anger/annoyance is the way we reply only that something akin to it is the core motivation. If we agree with what someone says and have nothing more to add we may at most say ‘well done’. If we oppose the view we necessarily find something at fault and we don’t like this, yet such dislike can be an understanding of our own short comings, shorting comings of others, or (more likely) an admixture of both.

Stating the ‘we’ you took offence to. You are arguing against my opinion which was clearly displayed as rhetoric and/or as a hypothetical position to attack.

Anyway, have a appointment …

Your view clearly opposes mine and you feel obliged to comment.

Is there no anger/annoyance in your heart that I spoke for you? If not why comment? What drove you to comment. What is an opinion for if it doesn't rile against something in some way? I cannot see how anyone can hold any opinion if there is nothing for it to conflict with.

This is kind of the position I am putting up for discussion.