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
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
You and I are not connected beyond this conversation. — Tzeentch
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
They do exist — Olivier5
No, it does not make sense. But to define desire as avoidance of fear is equally ridiculous — Olivier5
You keep avoiding the point I am making.
Why focus only on fear, at the exclusion of all other emotions? — Olivier5
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
That is.... exactly what they are used for. — khaled
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? — Tzeentch
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
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 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
You said it yourself; one cannot know if they are fit to impose their opinions on others, one may be unknowingly ignorant. — Tzeentch
a pretense to meddle in other people's lives; it's a desire for power and control over others. — Tzeentch
One would be that your imposition harms me more than it prevents harm from you such as here: — khaled
But if I don't drive I can't get to work, and I can't make money, ... — khaled
... and I can't live. — khaled
If you don't want the risk stay at home, you don't need to impose on me to avoid said risk. — khaled
The covid situation hasn't changed your mind? — khaled
Complete strangers are in fact affecting me. — khaled
I don't understand why you ask me a question if you're going to decide the answer yourself.. — khaled
I frame this 'desire' as 'maximally efficient fear avoidance'. — I like sushi
Rather it is typically trying to sustain life long enough to be able to reproduce. — Olivier5
That idea could be based on an entirely ignorant idea of reality. — Tzeentch
So because you desire things, you gain a right to impose? — Tzeentch
Debatable. I don't drive and somehow I am still alive. — Tzeentch
If you don't want to deal with people who drink and drive, stay at home then! — Tzeentch
In what way? — Tzeentch
I thought the answer I gave was more relevant than the question, but I am still interested in your take on it. — Tzeentch
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
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
It's clearly incorrect in cases where opinions aren't conflicting. — Cheshire
So, do you intend to isolate a particular scenario for discussion? Or not? — Cheshire
From the reader's perspective it is the question being begged. Hence the early opposition.that has nothing to do with what I was saying. — I like sushi
Seems honest. I can respect that.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
If you (anyone) are expressing an opinion you care about I am stating that it is due to 'anger/annoyance'. — I like sushi
But I don't mostly post out of a feeling of anger or annoyance — Janus
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
Would you impose a law to not drink and drive if there wasn’t one and you could? — khaled
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
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
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.What makes one opinion better than the other? — Tzeentch
The public pays for the roads and as a result should claim some right to use them. — Cheshire
A critical mass of drunk drivers would make roads unusable — Cheshire
Really, it's the intoxicated driver imposing their will in other's space. — Cheshire
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.