How To Cut Opinions Without Tears
Meditation: On Opinion
First of all, let's get to grip with the Opinion.
What type is it?
Consider their value. Not all opinions are created equal.
Do some opinions contribute more in the way of nutrition than others?
Your opinion sandwich might start the juices flowing but be just plain yuck to someone else :vomit:
So, we all have our opinion(s).
The bigger the opinion, the more we need to cut, chop, peel or slice away before we get cooking.
To produce a meal fit for a Philosopher King.
How to Cut An Opinion Without Tears
1. Stick it in the freezer - "Freeze! Don't make a move". Breathe before a knee-jerk reaction.
2. Soak in cold water. - "Chill, man!"
3. Use a super sharp knife - Less damage, no triggering of gaseous substances.
4. Microwave - The soft option.
5. Keep a piece of dry bread in your mouth - Look like a [s]dick[/s] duck, quack like a duck.
6. Wear goggles or sunglasses :cool:
[ Acknowledgement: https://greatist.com/eat/how-to-cut-an-onion-without-crying#the-science]
OK. Metaphors can only take us so far. But hopefully you get the drift.
The OP is inspired by this Guardian article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/18/dial-down-the-heated-dinner-party-rhetoric-you-dont-need-to-have-an-opinion-on-everything
An excerpt of particular philosophical interest to me is from Marcus Aurelius:
Then, there is the psychological side.
How to deal with the Opinion when you identify with it to the extent it becomes you.
A cutting remark or an attack on your position can cause harm, real or perceived.
Then it can become a 'Vicious Circle' or an ever-increasing cycle of hostility.
Recognise this pattern of behaviour?
Is it necessarily part and parcel of philosophy or philo forums?
How best can we deal with it...?
Method proposed in article:
I would add the use of sharp analytical skills along with the philosophy's 'Principle of Charity'.
To cut without tears.
To attempt to understand first by careful questioning. To dialogue.
We can understand without necessarily accepting an opinion:
We need to take even more care when dealing with extreme views e.g. Climate Change.
The labelling of opposite views can so easily turn to hatred.
The bitterness of ego-fights obstructs what can be done in practical terms with actual problems.
Another Guardian article talks about 'doomers' and 'appeasers'.
Not sure that these labels are particularly helpful.
So, this is a tentative attempt to probe and cut into my own thought processes or 'Opinion'.
No facts were harmed in the making of this post.
I don't think :chin:
Although I might just check up on Marcus Aurelius...again...
First of all, let's get to grip with the Opinion.
What type is it?
Consider their value. Not all opinions are created equal.
Do some opinions contribute more in the way of nutrition than others?
Your opinion sandwich might start the juices flowing but be just plain yuck to someone else :vomit:
So, we all have our opinion(s).
The bigger the opinion, the more we need to cut, chop, peel or slice away before we get cooking.
To produce a meal fit for a Philosopher King.
How to Cut An Opinion Without Tears
1. Stick it in the freezer - "Freeze! Don't make a move". Breathe before a knee-jerk reaction.
2. Soak in cold water. - "Chill, man!"
3. Use a super sharp knife - Less damage, no triggering of gaseous substances.
4. Microwave - The soft option.
5. Keep a piece of dry bread in your mouth - Look like a [s]dick[/s] duck, quack like a duck.
6. Wear goggles or sunglasses :cool:
[ Acknowledgement: https://greatist.com/eat/how-to-cut-an-onion-without-crying#the-science]
OK. Metaphors can only take us so far. But hopefully you get the drift.
The OP is inspired by this Guardian article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/18/dial-down-the-heated-dinner-party-rhetoric-you-dont-need-to-have-an-opinion-on-everything
Guardian:
Brigid Delaney's diary - Philosophy books
How can we shift the bad vibes that seem all around? Be OK with being wrong and dont have an opinion on everything.
How can there be real change in society when people dont listen to each other or have an empathetic approach to other positions?
An excerpt of particular philosophical interest to me is from Marcus Aurelius:
The Guardian:The great Roman Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius said almost 2000 years ago: You always own the option of having no opinion. There is never any need to get worked up or to trouble your soul about things you cant control. These things are not asking to be judged by you. Leave them alone.
Leave them alone!
Then, there is the psychological side.
How to deal with the Opinion when you identify with it to the extent it becomes you.
A cutting remark or an attack on your position can cause harm, real or perceived.
Then it can become a 'Vicious Circle' or an ever-increasing cycle of hostility.
Recognise this pattern of behaviour?
Is it necessarily part and parcel of philosophy or philo forums?
How best can we deal with it...?
The Guardian:The opinion becomes tied to the ego, your opinion becomes you and so an attack on your opinion is an attack on the very fibre of your being. So, vigilant and anxious, you must defend opinion as you would defend yourself. This then creates a binary: people who agree with you are good and people who disagree are bad. By leaving things alone, by not getting worked up, we are not adding to the toxic load of disagreement, hate and fury online, which of course seeps into peoples real life.
Method proposed in article:
The Guardian:But breaking bread with people you disagree with and disagreeing civilly is a crucial step to understanding different points of view and sharpening your own rhetorical skills, convictions and capacity for persuasion when arguing your own corner.
I would add the use of sharp analytical skills along with the philosophy's 'Principle of Charity'.
To cut without tears.
To attempt to understand first by careful questioning. To dialogue.
We can understand without necessarily accepting an opinion:
The Guardian:There is also a time to take a stand. Taking a more conciliatory approach to other views doesnt mean accepting, say, injustice, fascism or climate change denialism.
We need to take even more care when dealing with extreme views e.g. Climate Change.
The labelling of opposite views can so easily turn to hatred.
The bitterness of ego-fights obstructs what can be done in practical terms with actual problems.
Another Guardian article talks about 'doomers' and 'appeasers'.
Not sure that these labels are particularly helpful.
So, this is a tentative attempt to probe and cut into my own thought processes or 'Opinion'.
No facts were harmed in the making of this post.
I don't think :chin:
Although I might just check up on Marcus Aurelius...again...
Comments (42)
Now, an anti-Platonist retort :yum:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2teskVGoxUc
:up: :100:
Perfect. All I've got is the social critic Dirty Harry: "Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody has one."
Clever.
Pretenders Got Brass in Pocket. No doubt.
For sure. Sometimes.
Including cutting as analysis with sharp knife.
As well as those who make cutting remarks. For better or worse.
So it goes.
Thanks for the :flower:
In return, feel the :hearts:
There's no source given in the article and I haven't found one which says to leave opinions alone.
It's not in my Penguin, Martin Hammond translation, nor in the George Long translation.
Book 6, verses 52-3 of The Meditations:
Quoting Internet Classics Archive - The Meditations by Marcus Aurelius
On Opinion.
I returned to the article and BTL comments.
This Guardian Pick worth considering, IMO:
Dave_P
Your thoughts or opinion?
Marcus seems to have talked the talk but not walked the walk.
Why should I have been surprised?
Sounds like a necessary qualification to be a successful Roman Emperor.
According to Hammond's Notes (p171):
Meditations 6.53
'enter into the mind of the speaker: Compare 7.30 ('Stretch your thought to parallel what is being said. Let your mind get inside what is happening and who is doing it') and 8.61 ('Enter into the directing mind of everyone, and let anyone else enter your own').
Hammond suggests that Marcus only advocates the penetration of others' minds all the better to identify their deficiencies.
Also that Marcus just as often dismisses others' thoughts as a distraction.
(Other sections cited as evidence).
Marcus in his meditations seems to have had good intentions.
However, according to Hammond, Marcus had 'great difficulty in reconciling himself to others'.
So, is it even possible to use philosophy's 'principle of charity' to cut into others' opinions without tears?
Yes. By careful examination and questioning.
No need for knee-jerk hostility aimed at belittling so as to enhance ego or sense of superiority.
The sharpest cut is not always the cleanest...
Care for the love of philosophy. Eros.
Don't be turned away permanently by those who try to harm, including your own critical voice. Try to love again. Look closely at self and others. We can all be angels or devils.
Quoting SEP: Plato on Friendship and Eros
What does that even mean?
To converse elenctically...especially on a philosophy forum?
I know who to ask, but will my friend @Fooloso4 respond?
And others, like @Ciceronianus....
As Hadot and others have noted, what we call The Meditations is an example of Stoic practice; reminding oneself of Stoic maxims and their application to daily life. This leads to the repetition of certain themes and ideas, and doesn't mean that you're obsessed with them.
The opinions of others that are referred to are generally their opinions regarding the Emperor--what they thought of him, what he wanted them to think of him. Whether they think bad of you or good of you, their opinions of you ultimately have nothing to do with how you should live your life (virtuously, of course). You shouldn't act to please others or win their admiration; you shouldn't disturb yourself if they think ill of you. Just be virtuous, regardless of how you're perceived by others.
Hammond should have spent more time playing with his organ. Get it? Tee hee.
Well, no organ received...
....but yeah I did have a moan and a groan :kiss:
Thanks for such a quick and informative post reminding me again of stuff I've read and forgotten.
All good but...
...O me miserum...
Quoting Ciceronianus
I'll do my berry vest :nerd:
Remind me @Ciceronianus - what is to be virtuous?*
I mean I think I'm pretty good and want to be/do good but...so do others from the opposite so-called 'vicious' end of the spectrum, don't they?
What is 'good' for the gander is not always good for the goose...and why, oh why, do we use the word 'goose' with its 'silly person' connotations...
*Again, not to get too academic but in practical ways relating to philo conversations...
Very Socratic of you. From the Stoic perspective (more specifically from the IEP which gives a decent summary, I think:
The Stoics elaborated a detailed taxonomy of virtue, dividing virtue into four main types: wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation. Wisdom is subdivided into good sense, good calculation, quick-wittedness, discretion, and resourcefulness. Justice is subdivided into piety, honesty, equity, and fair dealing. Courage is subdivided into endurance, confidence, high-mindedness, cheerfulness, and industriousness. Moderation is subdivided into good discipline, seemliness, modesty, and self-control. Similarly, the Stoics divide vice into foolishness, injustice, cowardice, intemperance, and the rest. The Stoics further maintained that the virtues are inter-entailing and constitute a unity: to have one is to have them all. They held that the same virtuous mind is wise, just, courageous, and moderate. Thus, the virtuous person is disposed in a certain way with respect to each of the individual virtues. To support their doctrine of the unity of virtue, the Stoics offered an analogy: just as someone is both a poet and an orator and a general but is still one individual, so too the virtues are unified but apply to different spheres of action.
I like the "and the rest."
Thanks for the useful summary of the Stoic perspective.
I later added:
Quoting Amity
So...
I think I need a short translation of the summary :wink:
Quoting Amity
But I suppose I should do my own homework, if I am to be virtuous :halo:
Which translation of Meditations would you recommend?
That of Gregory Hays or Robin Hard. They're more modern translations. Hard's contains correspondence between Marcus and Fronto, his rhetoric teacher, which are interesting.
Thank you I'll take a look.
My copy is no longer to my liking and it's a bit yellowing...
You came to the right place, for I too am an expert on love.
The article compares Socrates' claim in the Symposium with his claim in the Apology, but it is not only the seemingly contradictory claims but the occasions during which he made them that should be considered. Being on trial in a court of law and a contest of speeches about eros are very different occasions requiring different ways of speaking.
This contest mirrors that of the contest between philosophy and poetry. It is the poets who claim to be experts on love. For Socrates to claim to be an expert in the presence of highly regarded poets was both surprising and provocative. In addition, Socrates was not, as it is commonly understood, an erotic man.
But how different are Socrates' claims in the Apology and Symposium? As Socrates says in the Symposium, eros is the desire for what one does not possess. Philosophy is erotic in that it is the desire for wisdom. It is Socrates' lack of knowledge, as professed in the Apology, that is the basis of his knowledge of eros, the desire to know.
Knowledge of ignorance is not simply recognizing one does not know. Socrates' "human wisdom" is a matter of the examined life, of how best to live in the absence of knowledge of what is best. The "art of love", ta erôtika, is the art of living. Since we all desire what is good, the art of living cannot simply be the philosophical life.
In the Phaedo Socrates says that philosophy is the practice of death and dying, the separation of body and soul. The joke here being that the only good philosopher is a dead philosopher. More serious is the question of the relationship between life and death, body and soul. I have discussed this here
We are not souls temporarily attached to bodies. We are ensouled bodies. One thing not two. Desire does not cut along the distinction between body and soul. Since we know nothing of death, preparation for death turns from unanswerable questions of death back to life, to how we live, here and now.
Quoting Amity
In the cited article Reeve defines it as "how to ask and answer questions". We may ask, in turn, what is the goal and what is the result of such inquiry? Socrates used it to demonstrate that one does not know what he assumed to know. This may lead to quite different results - anger, shame, resentment, or, as Socrates hoped, the desire to know, to a dissatisfaction with opinions. But this, in turn, can lead to a dissatisfaction with philosophy itself, to misologic, when it fails to provide the answers expected of it.
Philosophy is often treated as the art of argumentation - making arguments that attempt to be least vulnerable to attack, while attacking opposing positions. The limits of argument, however, are not the limits of philosophy. It is here that the "ancient quarrel' between philosophy and poetry is reconfigured. This is why the dialogues often turn from logos to mythos. The promise of dialectic in the Republic, the use of hypothesis to become free of hypothesis is itself hypothetical. The image of transcendence, from opinion to the sight of the Forms, is just that, an image. The mythic philosopher of the Republic who possesses knowledge is no longer a philosopher, that is, one who desires to know. The philosopher, like the poet, is an image maker.
The question is: What is the right place? The Lounge?
Well, we are here now, so let's dance as if we were at a Symposium, talking love.
Quoting Fooloso4
Yes. Different occasions, or places, sometimes require different ways of speaking or writing.
Responding to a serious life-threatening judgement or opinion from a High Court needs clear thought and careful analysis.
Responding to a group of male friends at an informal Symposium, is a lighter affair.
Each taking turn to offer his opinion...and competing for first place...I would like to have been there!
Quoting Fooloso4
So, Socrates is not supposed to know about love because he is a philosopher?
Incredible.
Quoting Fooloso4
Eros, then, is the desire to know the knowledge that one does not have.
If someone asks "What is philosophy?", how surprised would they be if told that it's 'Erotic!'
Great PR, no?
Quoting Fooloso4
How best to live in the absence of knowledge of what is best. That is the question.
The examined life provides the answer?
This reminds me of another thread I started about paying attention.
What we pay attention to is important.
What or whose opinion matters?
So many strong and opposing opinions formed; how do we cut through them with care?
On a philosophy forum, that should be easy, no?
To give serious consideration to different views on e.g. what constitutes philosophy.
Are you certain that 'we all desire what is good'?
I suppose so, if 'what is good' is open to question.
When you say that 'the art of living cannot simply be the philosophical life' do you mean that the philosophical life is narrower than the art of living?
What if philosophy is seen as the art of living?
Quoting Fooloso4
I remember that discussion well :clap:
What made you bring that into this conversation about opinion?
Perhaps, the question and differing opinions as to what philosophy is about?
Not just a body of work but a creative spirit. Both joined and equally important.
Quoting Fooloso4
I agree. And all becomes clear, thank you.
How we live, here and now.
Knowing or learning what is important; to choose who best to converse with, about what and how.
***
Quoting Fooloso4
Misologic. Had to look it up again...
Misology is defined as the hatred of reasoning; the revulsion or distrust of logical debate, argumentation, or the Socratic method.
Is that what you mean?
Basically, people expect answers or solutions from philosophy. When it fails to deliver certainty, then they see no use for it. Indeed, it is despised as a waste of time. Navel-gazing?
Plato or Socrates used dialogue to question assumptions on which opinions are based?
In a most entertaining play-like fashion. Asking and answering questions in different places and circumstances. Exploring and reflecting...
A bit like here?!
Dancing around the subject and object.
Quoting Fooloso4
This final paragraph is the most relevant, in my opinion.
It highlights the source of my concern.
You describe well the art of argumentation.
The skills required are important to cut carefully without tears. But not all there is...
'The limits of argument...are not the limits of philosophy'.
Thank you, @Fooloso4.
Can we expect a thread on the Symposium? :wink:
No. The examined life is the life of questioning, including questioning our opinions about what is best.
Quoting Amity
Or, perhaps giving serious consideration to different views is what constitutes philosophy, at least in the tradition of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. That is, the tradition of zetetic skepticism.
Quoting Amity
The article you cited on Plato, friendship, and eros. Eros is typically regarded as being about bodily desires, but Plato treats it more broadly to include desires of the soul. To the casual reader it may appear that he makes it about desires that are not of or are separate from the body, but the division of one (a person or individual) into two entities (body and soul) is problematic.
Quoting Amity
Yes, the term appears in the Phaedo. I arises from a love of philosophy that expects too much from it. In this case the failure of philosophy to give answers about death that will alleviate the fear of death. Not only their own death but Socrates death, who was sentenced to death for his life of philosophical inquiry. Not only a waste of time but dangerous.
Quoting Amity
Yes, and @Michael that is why a thread on opinion (onions) does not belong in the Lounge. It is of central philosophical concern.
Thank you for spelling it out in your post and at the end. :sparkle:
You are a shining example of a philosopher. In my opinion :wink:
As are all the participants in this thread, naturally! :nerd:
Opinions, are they then utterly useless? No, not if you wanna know how a person thinks, what a person knows, who s/he breaks bread with, and so on.
[quote=Porky the Pig]Th-th-th-that's all folks.[/quote]
Keeping it real :up:
Quoting Agent Smith
Indeed. Without opinions TPF would be an arid desert.
They are an expression of what we think we think or know and are open to challenge by ourselves and others.
It's how we cut into them that's interesting, don't you think?
It depends on underlying assumptions whether an opinion is seen as useless or helpful, no?
A careful analysis pre, during and post-conversation can be illuminating or...see bolds.
Quoting Fooloso4
You wot, got no Youtube video? :wink:
Good to talk with you. Take care :sparkle:
To give the devil his due, this isn't deliberate and though this is not good, it ain't bad either.
Quoting Amity
I second that! Like this young fellow once asked my views on a certain scenario that involved a beautiful flower dead center in a nest of vipers. The objective: Retrieve the flower without getting killed.
Quoting Amity
Metanoia!
I want some of that. :cool:
Although.
I think I might have had a slurp before... :chin:
Best wishes :pray:
So, did you show how to appreciate the flower in the moment.
Or did you cut the vipers down...
It was rhetorical! He didn't expect an answer. I didn't provide one; too dumb!
Bonam fortunam.
OK. But that was then, what would you say now?
Perhaps take a moment or two, in silence. To consider...
Dan Dennett's Opinion on Rhetorical Questions:
Quoting Philosophy In Seconds - Dennett's Anti-Thinking Tools for Better Thinking
I was/am one of the vipers! :sad:
That is your opinion?
So wrong.
Come on.
Fortes fortuna iuvat :strong:
Tears of Laughter. Heaps good :fire:
Now, we'd better call a halt to all this mania...
Until later :flower:
Until later!
I skipped over this and then became distracted. However, it has stayed in my mind as a puzzle.
It sounded clever and gave a :up: :100: . Thereby giving an opinion without a reason. Should we expect something more substantive? What would Plato say?
'As Plato might say' - well, Plato said a lot of things at different times and places, using Socrates as his mouthpiece. Philosophical opinions or interpretations of the Dialogues have kept dogma, rhetoric, and philosophy in an eternal, infernal business.
From wiki:
Quoting Wiki - Doxa
It is not only sophists who use or abuse opinions. As to whether they 'cash out' or not, what does that even mean?
Followed by:
'after all' - are they? What did you mean by that?
Are you contrasting apparently value-less opinions with arguably a more valuable 'cutting through opinion without tears'?
Quoting Wiki - Aporia
Socratic questioning or doubt in knowledge or opinion, then = valuable 'coins of the realm' (agora)?
Agora being a "gathering place" or "assembly". In Ancient Greece, the center of the athletic, artistic, business, social, spiritual and political life.
The modern equivalent? The internet, forums, social media...
Even on TPF, we are inundated by opinion. And isn't that how it should be? Stimulating discussion to enhance our understanding of each other and life. Sharing reasons...as well as emotions.
Back to the OP article:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/18/dial-down-the-heated-dinner-party-rhetoric-you-dont-need-to-have-an-opinion-on-everything
Quoting Guardian
All well and good but nowhere is 'silence' mentioned.
The silence between the gaps of royal reportage.
How do we know what we don't know?
The royal or government concealment of e.g. trade deals with Saudis.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/defence-and-security-blog/2014/feb/24/arms-gulf-prince-charles
I watched Ch4 news last night. A segment on the Queen and how her power was used.
https://www.channel4.com/news/how-the-queens-soft-power-projected-britain-around-the-world
She knew it wasn't 'pure'. And it reminded me of KCIII's earlier quote:
as Shakespeare says of the earlier Queen Elizabeth, she was a pattern to all Princes living.
Who else wrote about princes and royals.
Machiavelli in his 16th-century political instruction guide: The Prince.
What are our thoughts when, or if, we observe a minute's silence?
What are the thoughts of the royal 'children' standing vigil in public?
" Thank you, QEII - our very own rich, powerful, manipulative Grannie who served us well".
What about the real thoughts or opinions of a new King when he had a hissy fit about a leaky pen?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/oh-god-i-hate-this-king-charles-expresses-frustration-over-leaking-pen
Quoting Guardian
Is it really about a faulty writing implement?
A pen is a pen is a pen.
How much real change can we expect in a 'new' era?
Is there room for a move away from ancient traditions?
Opinions matter. Slice and dice with care and humour... tears can fall as they will.
That was quite a poria! From Plato to King Charles.
With regard to justified true belief, this is a long standing but, in my opinion, incorrect interpretation of the Theaetetus. The question is: what is knowledge? The first thing to be noted is that one must have knowledge in order to correctly say what knowledge is. The proposed answer, justified true belief, is Theaetetus', not Socrates. It proves to be inadequate. If faces the same problem. What justifies an opinion? After all, the Sophists were skilled at giving justifications for opinions, both true and false. In order to determine if an argument is true, to have the ability to discern a true from a false logos, requires knowledge. But this knowledge is not itself a justified true belief.
Aye, nothing like being transported from Ancient Greece to Modern Britain, huh?!
Quoting Fooloso4
Some opinions are more welcome than others, thanks!
I enjoyed reading another of yours elsewhere:
Theology, then, the study of religious beliefs which I believe KCIII has undertaken.
At one point, given his interest and praise of Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, the Greek Orthodox church, I think he had hoped to change the oath, to 'Defender of Faith'. That hasn't happened. See my bolds.
Why didn't it?
Quoting King Charles vows - churchofscotland
So help me...God!
Looking forward to the Coronation ceremony:
Quoting Wiki - Coronation of British Monarch
[Note my bolds: KCIII is the supreme governor of the Church of England. What does that even mean?]
The media tells us we are all heartbroken.
How many swallow this opinion?
In awesome wonder...
:lol: I never know when to shut up but I'm learning :zip:
Lost for words.
Thank you.
:hearts: :sparkle: