I would say that probably some of our ideas matter to us more than others, because they are bound up with the way we see truth. — Jack Cummins

If they do, perhaps you're courting the wrong ideals? Then again. People can be crazy. Not every mainstream idea turned out to be right or idealistic.

However, the whole question of the emotional relationship with our personal systems of belief was one which I was thinking about as I lay awake, unable to sleep last night, so I thought I might as well offer it as another one for people to think about. — Jack Cummins

What's honesty, adamance, or even life itself without passion really? Passion is not logic, it can be misguided, even detrimental to the ideals or truths you subscribe to or goals and purposes you wish to fulfill. If a belief is passed down or otherwise ingrained from upbringing, you'd be surprised how many men would rather be wrong, injured, or killed (even metaphorically) then allow the same to happen to a member of their family. It's a sense of honor we all have. Of course, like mentioned, not all beliefs or courses of action are wise.

I would say that probably some of our ideas matter to us more than others, because they are bound up with the way we see truth. However, the whole question of the emotional relationship with our personal systems of belief was one which I was thinking about as I lay awake, unable to sleep last night, so I thought I might as well offer it as another one for people to think about. — Jack Cummins

I don’t think the emotional relationship is correlated with how correct or incorrect your position is. It seems to be its own variable. One that I have found no good reason for increasing. Only thing you get by becoming attached to your ideas is distress when argued against, and I can’t see any advantages that come with it. Maybe some sort of “peace of mind” born out of an irrational confidence in your beliefs but is that really a positive?

It is interesting that you both seem to be coming from opposite angles. Outlander says , 'What's honesty, adamance, or even life itself without passion really?' In contrast, Khaled says, 'I don't think the emotional relationship is correlated with how correct or incorrect your position is.' They are opposing positions on how we think about the arguments we form. I am not sure that it is possible to develop ideas without a mixture of emotion and reasoning. However, I think that it is worth reflecting on how these two elements come into play when we think that we are right and others are wrong.

I am certainly not implying that many of the questions we ask have actual right or wrong answers, but sometimes it is easy to think that they do.

However, the whole question of the emotional relationship with our personal systems of belief was one which I was thinking about as I lay awake, unable to sleep last night, so I thought I might as well offer it as another one for people to think about. — Jack Cummins

I am not sure what you might mean by an emotional relationship with your own thinking, but I believe the key with any thinking is to let it come and let it go each moment realizing the impermanence of all things knowable.

Then you don't have the time to emotionally attach to the deceased.

I agree with your emphasis on 'the impermanence of things knowable'. I think I would be in line with this perspective on many of the big areas of philosophy.

What I do notice though, in the replies have so far is that they all address the problem I arose with the word "you". I was trying to raise a problem which I believe is central to philosophy and all thinkers , not just a personal one.

I have been wondering this afternoon, if perhaps my question is completely ridiculous. It could be that lockdown is sending me crazy in even asking about how important it is to question being right, or even wrong. Perhaps I am overthinking, or have I raised a question which is uncomfortable to even think about?

I have been wondering this afternoon, if perhaps my question is completely ridiculous. It could be that lockdown is sending me crazy in even asking about how important it is to question being right, or even wrong. Perhaps I am overthinking, or have I raised a question which is uncomfortable to even think about? — Jack Cummins

What question isn't ridiculous? The nature of thinking in and of itself is pretty absurd in that reality stares us right in the face yet we refuse to accept it, instead substituting our own version so as to satisfy previous misconceptions.

If this era will be known for anything, over-thinking it will probably be right at the top. Thinking is a tool, but one that only helps point the way. Understanding the limits of the human intellect is much more important then the moment to moment transient nature of what we can know.

And the lockdown is a grotesque experiment in human manipulation (IMO).

What question isn't ridiculous? The nature of thinking in and of itself is pretty absurd in that reality stares us right in the face yet we refuse to accept it, instead substituting our own version so as to satisfy previous misconceptions. — synthesis

Yeah if you ever find a cure for philosophy please let me know.

Yeah if you ever find a cure for philosophy please let me know. — emancipate

The cure for philosophy is acceptance (via seeing things as clearly as is possible). As a matter of fact, it's the cure for pretty much everything.

Imagine the energy and time saved by not always fighting against (every damn thing).

I would say that probably some of our ideas matter to us more than others, because they are bound up with the way we see truth. — Jack Cummins

Do you mean that some of our ideas may be more important because they construct our worldview and our identity within that framework, or something like that? Otherwise maybe you’re talking about how much we value truth?

the lockdown is a grotesque experiment in human manipulation (IMO) — synthesis

Experiments in human manipulation are going on all around us, but I’m curious what you mean with the lockdown.

Experiments in human manipulation are going on all around us, but I’m curious what you mean with the lockdown. — praxis

I believe that when the costs of the lock-downs are fully revealed, it will be seen a policy miscalculation without precedent. Vulnerable populations should have been advised to be extremely careful, but everybody else should have gone about their business.

This was a massive over-reach of government power designed to initially aid the hospital system but turned into a catastrophe as many politicians went for the power-grab thinking they knew better than the collective wisdom of society.

I guess that I am seeing how our ideas are so important to us subjectively. I am also wondering about how any person becomes defensive in protecting their own viewpoints. I have found one writer who questions the whole nature of criticism of one's viewpoint. Chuck Chakrapani, (2016) in 'The Good Life Handbook: Epictetus' Stoic Classic Enchirdion, says:
'When someone criticises you, they do so because they believe they are right. They can only go by their views, not yours. If their views are wrong, it is they who suffer the consequences.'

I throw the quote for reflection, although still uncertain if the question I have seen will be taken seriously by most members of the forum.

Personally, I am doing all I can to follow restrictions, but it is almost a year of being not allowed to do most of the things I have done through my life. There is also no foreseeable end in sight, so I am spending time contemplating and writing philosophy questions I probably would not have otherwise considered fully at all. I have no idea if other people on this forum are coming from this perspective or not.

I believe argument is valuable for its own sake, that one should subject his opinions to the grindstone of debate in order to form a better understanding of the world. But such a practice is a problem for those who have their identity all bound up with their ideas, so much so that an attack on an idea becomes an assault on the people who value it.

Personally, I believe a reconfiguration of the notion of self is a necessary step to disentangling identity from ideology. Being able to remove pride and self-esteem from the marketplace of ideas seems crucial if one wants to remain in it without fear and stress.

Being able to remove pride and self-esteem from the marketplace of ideas seems crucial if one wants to remain in it without fear and stress. — NOS4A2

The purpose of fear and stress is to avoid folly.

I believe a reconfiguration of the notion of self is a necessary step to disentangling identity from ideology. — NOS4A2

Even if that were easily possible our values are not so easily reconfigured.

Yes, I understand your general take but you mention miscalculation and my interest is your previous claim of manipulation.

I would agree that being able to 'remove pride and self esteem from the market place of ideas' is central, although I am not sure that everyone is yet able to achieve this at the current time. Perhaps it an aspiration for us to aim towards, in a climate and spirit of free thinking.

Even if that were easily possible our values are not so easily reconfigured.

I think it is only a matter of time before one fallen belief leads to a collapse of those that depend on it.

I say look reality square in the eye and suffer. Shine your light into the dark corner, and you'll see that small objects cast big shadows. Only a fool would have his way blocked by shadows!

If you totally remove ego from the picture, being wrong is actually much better because when you realize you're wrong that brings you closer to the truth. It can also lead you to being more open minded in other areas. Being right is better for your ego, but you're not really learning anything; you've basically just taken time out of your day to convince someone else that your right and whatever implications come along with that.

In many situations, I am prepared to admit that I am wrong, or uncertain. Does this mean that I am cast into the scrap heap, while those who claim their essential rightness reign, ranked as the true philosophers?

I think we're all in the same boat.

I am glad that I am not alone.

Why would being wrong mean that you're cast into the scrap heap? Who makes that decision? Are serious thinkers not allowed to be wrong?

That is a good question. I probably have fairly low self esteem and many who are considered wrong by many insist that they are right. Philosophy may even be a war of egos, fighting for their right for dominion in the claim of the grasp of truth

Yes, I understand your general take but you mention miscalculation and my interest is your previous claim of manipulation. — praxis

Would it be government if there was not a generous helping of each of these?

If you have a theory about how lockdowns are somehow being used as a method of manipulation I’m interested in hearing it.

You just happen to be more forthcoming in a forum that pits ego against ego.

I've participated in these discussion groups for decades and it never fails to amaze me how attached people are to their own thinking (when deep down inside they know they have no clue).

I have always suggested that we little we can know happens before our intellect kicks-in to "personalize" reality. Once the thinking begins, all hell breaks lose in our minds and we start spouting off all kinds of non-sense.

I guess that I would just wish that we could go beyond this, but people tell me that I am an idealist. I am not wishing to deny the importance role of egoism as expressed by @Gus Lamarch, but I do believe in awareness of the whole way in which we construct the whole pursuit of philosophy. Perhaps it should be seen as an art rather than a sport. In saying this, I am implying that it is about creating vision rather than about a game of winning.

If you have a theory about how lockdowns are somehow being used as a method of manipulation I’m interested in hearing it. — praxis

First off, we'll know a lot more about what went down five years hence but everything the government does (or any other institution, for that matter) is to effect some sort of policy. The decision to essentially shut down an entire country is so draconian that nobody would have thought it possible a year ago.

2020 was a complete shit-show for all kinds of reasons (mostly because of political polarization). The lock-down caused massive disruption in all things health and economy related. Tens of millions of people were adversely affected while (as is always the case) the elite prospered. This just doesn't happen by chance.

Things are the way they are because that's the way they are designed. I am not saying the pandemic was any kind of plot, but the reaction to it could have been handled MUCH differently. The handling of the economy could have been MUCH different. Again, there are tens of millions of lives that need to be put back together. There are unbelievable numbers of people with mental and emotional issues and the financial toll has been incalculable.

Funny thing is that nobody in the government lost anything. Most corporations seemed to have weathered the storm OK. The FED threw trillions into the stock market for those that have a presence.

There's a reason why the very few have almost everything. Call it manipulation or whatever you like, the reality is that there is massive corruption in this system and has been for decades.

Your view is very interesting.