The positive contribution of negative emotions to discussions

The Hamas terrorist attack on the Israeli civilian population and the retaliation that the attack has caused have generated emotional debates in public discourse. Discussants are angry, frustrated and sometimes even horrified. These negative emotions in turn contribute to to the perception that these debates are somehow insurmountable. In my paper, I want to explore whether or not negative emotions can actually help navigate insurmountable disputes, and if so, how. The everyday experience of debating suggests that the apparent insurmountability of a dispute rarely leads debaters to reflect on whether they are “missing something.” Instead, it seems that even in a stalemate, debaters continue to present arguments, which often only leads to an escalation of the conflict and a polarization of the involved parties. In my paper, I will suggest that our sense of frustration can be helpful in this regard. To this end, I will use the concept of ‘epistemic emotions’ – i.e. emotions that help us in cognition – and will argue that frustration helps us to recognize that our argument is deeper than it seems when we argue. A practical benefit of such a view of the emotion of frustration in argumentation may be to navigate emotionally charged disputes more constructively.