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'.

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'. — I like sushi

Yes, me too. If I've spent hours, days, weeks on an idea I wish to share on here, it's not whimsy. However I'd still rather it be torn apart than spending yet more time on an unworkable idea. Anger doesn't enter into it, and isn't a metric for sincerity.

Views and ideas should be dismissed the moment they are found to contradict with reality — Tzeentch

People are often mistaken. Changing your mind the second you think it contradicts reality, will lead to changing it too often I think. There is merit in some stubbornness. Too many greats were great precisely because they believed what was irrational for their time to believe, and slowly convinced the rest. Van Gogh believed his paintings were great even when everyone believed otherwise, etc.

It's easy to look back and think "How were we so stupid, that was so irrational", but really, it usually takes an irrationally stubborn person to break the mold. There will be a future time where we look back at this era and think "How were we so stupid, that was so irrational".

Legal slavery would've continued to modern times if people never got angry at it.

The Reason for Expressing Opinions — I like sushi

Entitlement. "I simply have the right to express my opinions, and other must listen to them."

Duty. "I simply must express my opinions, it's what a person is supposed to do."

Compassion and teaching. "Oh, look at those poor sods, how wrong they are. It's high time I tell them how things really are, for their own betterment."

Bewilderment. "I must talk, no matter what, where, to whom."

Boredom. "Meh, I've got nothing better to do, so I'll talk."

Delusions of grandeur. "Look at me, I'm so great, I have such fancy opinions!"

Pugilism. "I'll show those motherfuckers what it means to disagree with my thoughts!!"

Legal slavery would've continued to modern times if people never got angry at it. — khaled

Not necessarily. Slavery is instrumental to a type of argiculture or industry that is aimed at producing a lot of the same thing or completing large projects. Such as massive plantations of cotton or sugar cane, or building pyramids. Where, for geographical, climate, or other environmental reasons such monocultures are impossible or are made impossible (such as by long droughts, floods, or pests), the agriculture and the industry need to downsize and diversify in order to survive at all, but by then, are not conducive to slavery anymore, at least not mass slavery.

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

I responded to your post because I thought you misrepresented my, and most forum member's, motivations for participating. That bothered me. I don't think I have anything of value to contribute beyond that. It is not my intention to dismiss your ideas, although I disagree with them, or yourself.

↪T Clark Yes. ↪I like sushi 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

Is this comment directed at @I like sushi or me.

The Yes bit was to you. The rest was to sushi, in agreement with you. Weirdly, this comment is to baker. Even weirder, it's from khaled.

The rest was to sushi, in agreement with you. — Kenosha Kid

That's the way it seemed to me, but I wasn't sure.

I cannot see how anyone can hold any opinion if there is nothing for it to conflict with. — I like sushi

I can't see how there can be any proposition that cannot be negated. That is, for any proposition A, there is a proposition not A. That would hold true for all propositions, those of opinion, those of fact, those of desire, hope and wish, or any proposition of any kind.

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

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.

Other emotions are available.

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'.

Slavery is instrumental to a type of argiculture or industry that is aimed at producing a lot of the same thing or completing large projects. Such as massive plantations of cotton or sugar cane, or building pyramids. Where, for geographical, climate, or other environmental reasons such monocultures are impossible or are made impossible (such as by long droughts, floods, or pests), the agriculture and the industry need to downsize and diversify in order to survive at all, but by then, are not conducive to slavery anymore, at least not mass slavery. — baker

None of this would mean slavery would be made illegal. It would just start to become an ineffective farming strategy. But would still be used in things like prostitution very widely I would guess. That would be the outcome if people never got angry at slavery and went to war over it.

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

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.)

Personally, I can’t stand conflict. I don’t like how it makes me feel. In fact, I have never once felt better during or after a conflict ended than I did before it began.

Having said that, here in internet land, it’s easy to feel like almost everyone is looking for something to be angry or irritated about b/c it just seems to be the case.

Anyway, I enjoyed your post OP, “well done”. =)

Changing your mind the second you think it contradicts reality, will lead to changing it too often I think. There is merit in some stubbornness. Too many greats were great precisely because they believed what was irrational for their time to believe, and slowly convinced the rest. — khaled

There's difference between when one finds their ideas in contradiction to reality, and one finds their ideas in contradiction to other people's opinions, of course.

If the latter is the case, by all means stay stubborn. Never yield your points just because a lot of people think differently. Philosophy is between you and reality.

There will be a future time where we look back at this era and think "How were we so stupid, that was so irrational". — khaled

Regardless of the time period, the majority of people has always been ignorant and I don't think that will ever change. There are always small specks of starlight in every time period: the Platos, Buddhas, Lao-Tzes of history, who carry the true torch of human advancement.

Regardless of time period, minds which are so inclined will look at the old sages and realize their wisdom is no less relevant today, and the masses no less ignorant, and that human advancement has taken baby steps, not leaps, over the course of thousands of years.

Never yield your points just because a lot of people think differently. — Tzeentch

Doesn’t seem very healthy either. A schizophrenic may be absolutely convinced of all sorts of plots and demons. But it would be way better for them to yield because people think differently.

Philosophy is between you and reality. — Tzeentch

If we could so easily extract truth out of reality, we would’ve solved philosophy in an afternoon.

The problem is that we don’t access reality. We access perceptions of reality. Our own and others’. Others’ perceptions are often important if not sometimes more important than our own.

Anyways this has deviated from the topic of anger/annoyance into some vague epistemology.

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.

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

It looks like what you've hit upon here is indeed some inadvertent self-insight. On the whole, people don't seem to be posting to generate or manifest anger. What next? Are you trying to convince us that we _should_?

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 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).

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). — I like sushi

On the whole, people don't seem to be posting to generate or manifest anger. — Kenosha Kid

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.

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

You answered it here:

I am saying they cast out opinions they care about because of anger/annoyance — I like sushi

Okay, so do you have an auxiliary theory for explaining why people who cast out opinions they care about because of anger like you say they do don't describe themselves as doing that?

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.

It can be subtle. — I like sushi

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? :rofl:

Doesn’t seem very healthy either. A schizophrenic may be absolutely convinced of all sorts of plots and demons. But it would be way better for them to yield because people think differently. — khaled

A schizophrenic or otherwise delusional person is not healthy to begin with and first needs a psychiatrist, not philosophy.

If we could so easily extract truth out of reality, ... — khaled

I never said it was going to be easy.

Others’ perceptions are often important if not sometimes more important than our own. — khaled

Sometimes, but only to the degree one can find those perceptions to be concordant with reality. Again, it is truth that leads, not the opinions of others.

A schizophrenic or otherwise delusional person is not healthy to begin with and first needs a psychiatrist, not philosophy. — Tzeentch

That they are schizophrenic is your opinion (and most everyone else's). Not the schizophrenic's. And yet it would not be commendable for him to push on absolutely convinced of what he sees. Even if to him, that is what is concordant with reality.

Sometimes, but only to the degree one can find those perceptions to be concordant with reality. — Tzeentch

If I believe A and you believe B, that is because I see A as concordant with reality and you see B as concordant with reality. If one of us is wrong, and we only change our minds when we believe that the opposite view is concordant with reality, neither of us will change our view.

It seems like you're employing the justified true belief definition of knowledge here. Or at least the "true" bit. We should only believe things that are true (concordant with reality) and discard those that aren't. But if we had a method for unfailingly knowing what is concordant with reality and what isn't, we wouldn't need epistemology at all.

If we don't have such a method, then we must decide for ourselves what is concordant and what isn't, so saying that we should only change our minds in concordance with reality adds nothing. Everyone will think they're doing it and it's those damn *insert group of different belief here* that are the problem!

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.