What Does this Paragraph Mean?

This_is_Hard

Browsing through an article and found this:

"So long as opinion is strongly rooted in the feelings, it gains rather than loses instability by having a preponderating weight of argument against it. For if it were accepted as a result of argument, the refutation of the argument might shake the solidity of the conviction; but when it rests solely on feeling, worse it fares in argumentative contest, the more persuaded adherents are that their feeling must have some deeper ground, which the arguments do not reach; and while the feeling remains, it is always throwing up fresh intrenchments of argument to repair any breach made in the old."

Without Googling, tell me what you think this means. Reminded me of something that could be on the LSAT.

JDream2025

One thing is for sure, this was authored by a demonic individual. I’m going to bed now. Night.

canihazJD

Sounds like it's talking about emotional investment in a belief, and how refutation can cause even greater investment in that belief.

Auntie2020

Uhmmmm.

So I got that opinion from feelings is more unstable than opinion from argument.
When you have an opinion from argument refuted it can shake your conviction.
When you have an opinion from argument it can't be reached by argument, and you create all kinds of arguments to justify your feelings.

This_is_Hard

@JDream2020 Exactly how I felt when I first read it.

@canihazJD Well summarized!

@Auntie2020 I think you are close, but not quite. There is a comparison between opinions from argument vs opinions from feeling. When people generate opinions from argument, they are more open to changing their opinion in light of new arguments. However, when people generate opinions from feelings, they are more likely to double down on their original feelings by filling any gaps that the opposing argument may have opened. This results in a stronger opinion from feeling.

For reference, context, and a better breakdown; I found this paragraph from an article titled "150 years ago, a philosopher showed why it’s pointless to start arguments on the internet".

Source: https://qz.com/1513176/john-stuart-mills-philosophy-shows-arguing-online-is-futile/

LogicFool-1

Ok so I digested and regurgitated this:

The author is making a distinction between opinions based on feelings, and opinions which... aren't. The result of opinion based on feelings which is pushed out as argument is inherently counterintuitive and counterproductive. The reason being that people who argue based on opinion which is grounded on deep belief (which, we can assume to imply that even the proponents of said opinionated arguments grounded on feelings don't even fully comprehend themselves) lack a true understanding of the foundation of those opinionated feelings based arguments. Yet despite this, the same proponents will often refute and rebuttal with even MORE feelings based opinions, which will further entrench their faith in their opinions due to their passions being validated by argumentative response. What we, as logic sages in the making, can infer is that this situation will never lead to reasonable, logically-sound arguments and the arguments of these proponents will just keep trying to cover it up.

But then again, as a logic sage in the making who has done plenty of humbling curve-breaker reading comp questions, I might be completely wrong.

Thanks for the exercise!