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

No, no. This is what you should say - "When we I express an opinion or argument it is because we are I am annoyed/angry with something that causes us me distress.

I don't know which is worse, your reasons for participating in the forum, or your chutzpah for thinking you can speak for the rest of us.

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.

Is there no anger/annoyance in your heart that I spoke for you? — I like sushi

Yes, there was. That doesn't mean that all, most, or many of my posts are for that reason. If you really meant what you wrote, your understanding of philosophy and this forum is shallow and self-centered.

Speak for yourself.

I believe the benefit is to create a feeling of extreme tension, — I like sushi

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

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.

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.

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.

Anger is vulnerability, and when opinions of others make one angry, perhaps it is out of fear they may be right?

After all, if an opinion is expressed that conflicts with one's own and one thinks it to be completely without merit, wouldn't the logical response be to laugh?

Personally I express my views and ideas here to have them scrutinized, and occasionally to help someone.

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 …

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?

After all, if an opinion is expressed that conflicts with one's own and one thinks it to be completely without merit, wouldn't the logical response be to laugh? — Tzeentch

It's a trade-off. You can think you're right about everything like and so be immune to criticism or anger, but at the cost of looking like a moron due to being sure of something very wrong. Bartricks is a good example. Or you can think that every view has merit leading to constant doubt and anger when it comes to deeply held beliefs, but also meaning you will constantly improve your point of view and reach greater understanding.

I'm closer to the latter but sometimes I wonder if it's worth the stress.

I mentioned this before but I'll do so again.

Right - Truth Paradox.

The desire to be right bespeaks a respect and admiration for truth. To be annoyed when you're contradicted/dismissed implies that you don't care about the truth.

Everyone wants to be right and everyone goes off the deep end when they're told they're wrong.

We both value truth and don't value it.

Anger is vulnerability, and when opinions of others make one angry, perhaps it is out of fear they may be right? — Tzeentch

I think that's a very good point For example, people get furious at anti-vax (or pro-vax) opinions, aware as we all are of uncertainties that could affect life and death. They don't generally pay much attention to the idea that the government is run by alien lizards, being fairly secure in the knowledge that it isn't.

This is odd. Surely we express opinions for all sorts of reasons. For fun. For sociality. For getting others' opinions. For challenging oneself. For challenging others. For annoyance. For agreement and elaboration. Etc.

I wasn’t suggesting that anger/annoyance is the way we reply only that something akin to it is the core motivation. — I like sushi

Not for me.

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. — I like sushi

Not clear to me.

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

Surely we express opinions for all sorts of reasons. — StreetlightX

I wondered about that as well. I think the charitable reading is that the OP's question is limited to those opinions that make us angry or upset.

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 :)

Yes. 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?

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

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

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

Or you can think that every view has merit leading to constant doubt and anger when it comes to deeply held beliefs, but also meaning you will constantly improve your point of view and reach greater understanding. — khaled

I agree that doubt and scrutinizing one's own ideas is good for the reasons you listed. I'm not sure if anger is that constructive, though. It seems to often function as a mask to hide one's doubts and inhibit impartial observation.

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?

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

If we express an opinion surely we are looking for conflict? — I like sushi

...except when two people agree, I guess. I mean, two people saying "Hey, I love avocados too just like you!" are not necessarily trying to have a fight about avocadoes.

It's not constructive, it's a side effect. If you want to never be angry you have to be very detached from (not care much about) all your views, which if you are, probably means you're very impressionable which comes with its own problems.

That makes no sense.

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. — I like sushi

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.

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

From the same post:

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

(i.e.there are abhorrent ideas that will always generate anger*)

I think it's generally the mode of discourse that enrages: hypocrisy, bullshitting, etc. — Kenosha Kid

On the first:

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. — I like sushi

It's not uncommon for people even on here to promote ideas that would harm, kill, or constrain the liberties of groups of people that, by definition, the poster could not be counted among. Such ideas are abhorrent, and I believe it's a deficiency of humanity to not feel disgusted by them. Obviously said posters would disagree on both points :)

* Actually there are also _kind_ ideas that will always generate anger too. The same sorts of poster who post abhorrent ideas like the above tend to be enraged by notions like helping others, and enraged by the liberties of others to explore political options. So it goes both ways.

Postmodernism is also a great way to piss people off :rofl:

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'.

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

If folks will just back off from the universalisms a little, it does seem that philosophy is somewhat macho and combative. The language of 'argument' 'strong' or 'weak' or 'knock down' or 'winning' must be familiar to everyone. And if you research sexism in academic philosophy you will find it. Men tend to compete and spar verbally to impress the females and show their dominance {according to tedious evolutionary psychologist man}, and men are in the majority here.

But there are other things one can do with language and philosophy. Discussion can be cooperative as well as combative; teaching and learning can be a mutual and shared activity. Personally, I find myself getting angry quite often, but when I notice it, I tend to stop posting for a while, because I learn little when angry.

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'. — I like sushi

And to repeat, rationalising why you did it doesn't mean you didn't really do it. And you don't _seem_ to be unconcerned on being pulled up on it given your apparent aim was to be pulled up on it.

If you view some ideas as 'abhorrent' then are you absconding from reason by doing so? — I like sushi

No, I think it's perfectly reasonable to find lots of things abhorrent. Ethics is "practical reason", right?

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

If you want to never be angry you have to be very detached from (not care much about) all your views — khaled

I'm not sure if that is true, but I think an attachment to views and ideas is unconstructive. Views and ideas should be dismissed the moment they are found to contradict with reality, and generally that dismissal is much easier if one does not feel any attachment to them.

An attachment only to what one can discern to be true! (though, in practice that will usually translate to dismissing everything one can discern to be untrue). While simultaneously aware of the fact that the truth does not need one's attachment or one's angry defense of it - it needs only to be unleashed.

Probably not. We might admire passion, argument with a hammer, etc. but it's difficult to see an upside to it in and of itself. My view... Anger is a motivator for defending a group against antisocial behaviour (plays for dominance, freeloading, exploitation, harm). It arises in places like this as a hangover from other stuff. I've been in some arguments that have heated, then cooled, and everything was okay in the end, but usually it spells the end of a meaningful discussion, including when I do it.