The Anger Thread
Another issue I've been thinking a lot about lately.
On the one hand, there is the argument that anger is natural, and that we must only regulate it.
On the other hand, some (the Stoics, Buddhists, for instance) argue that anger is always harmful, is not necessary, and can be removed from one's life altogether.
It seems to me that if anger is defined as: the desire to hurt someone else in retaliation, then it is not necessary.
On the one hand, there is the argument that anger is natural, and that we must only regulate it.
On the other hand, some (the Stoics, Buddhists, for instance) argue that anger is always harmful, is not necessary, and can be removed from one's life altogether.
It seems to me that if anger is defined as: the desire to hurt someone else in retaliation, then it is not necessary.
Comments (56)
If it's a need, then it is by definition "necessary." If it's a general desire, then it wouldn't be.
Of course, some desires are automatic. My point is: just because we have the desire to hurt someone else, it doesn't follow that we must follow through.
If you came across a herd of elephants, all dead including the babies, machined gunned by poachers simply for the ivory, the proper emotional response is anger and a desire to see the poachers brought to justice.
Just as one example of something that makes me instantly angry and I make no apologies for it. There are times when anger is the appropriate response.
Justice, sure. I don't see that at odds with my argument that "following through on a desire to harm is not necessary."
It seems to me that you want the behavior stopped and the people responsible held accountable for what they did... You don't believe, "in order for justice to be restored, I must be sure that the people responsible are harmed." do you?
I certainly feel that if you're going to gun down a bunch of endangered animals just for some tusks that you deserve the same in return.
Intellectually, I acknowledge that justice would involve a trial and what not. I think some parks have adopted a shoot poachers on sight policy.
How does it help?
Those people won't be gunning down elephants in the future. It makes me that mad because it's human selfishness gobbling up the planet with no regard.
How about a case where someone's mom died while in the hospital, and they're convinced it was the doctor's fault?
You will no doubt be familiar from your readings of ancient philosophy, about the constant injunction to rise above 'the passions'. I think emotional reactivity, including anger, is the subject of those warnings. That is why the ideal state is 'apatheia', tranquility or equanimity, where 'the sage' is not perturbed by 'the passions'. I don't think it means sheer dumb indifference or not giving a toss, but a state whereby the churning of emotions and feelings no longer drives you.
There is a natural reaction to seeing crimes committed or other acts which provoke anger, and the feeing of anger is unavoidable. But I think what a philosophical discipline comprises is not being driven by that, and by being self-aware enough to recognise and dissociate from the instinctive reaction that will often follow.
I second this. Anger will occur. Getting this feeling of anger in certain situations may be appropriate. However, anger should not guide our actions. In fact, much the idea of established law and legal protocol is avoiding the issues of hasty judgement caused by anger.
Quoting anonymous66
That's funny because anger is the very desire to regulate something that disturbs you.
There's a point to every emotion as long as it's not pointless, it's just the philosophy of the obvious.
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with anger. As with other emotions, it's about excess, deficiency and bad influence.
It is better to be Aristotelian when examining these matters. The problem is not anger per se, it is the habit of wrath. Any emotional response can be proper at a given situation, but the habit of wrath impairs our judgment and prevents the best use of our reason.
To use a Scriptural example, Jesus was angry with the moneylenders at the temple, but he did not have the habit of being angry.
Superior and inferior in what way? I may perceive someone to hold some power over me, and therefore I do not manifest my anger openly to them, but that doesn't necessarily mean I view them as superior to me. I may very well think they are inferior and do not deserve to hold that power that they currently do. Yet that doesn't prevent me from feeling anger towards them.
If you are angry at some bureaucrat, it is because you perceive that you have a right which is not being served (i.e., that you have reason on your side, and that third parties would side with you). If you are afraid of the same bureaucrat, it shows that you perceive yourself to be wrong. At least in the eyes of some third party.
[s]It is the difference between the consciencious objector and the soldier who flees from service. The first is angry, the second is afraid. (Remember that people can and very often do deceive themselves to hide the reasons of their emotions).[/s]
Nah, strike that out. It will probably open an off-topic debate, it is a controversial claim.
How are you defining anger?
I don't mind saying, "I've notice the desire in humankind, to hurt someone else in retaliation, and I don't believe it is ever necessary to follow through on that desire." If people say, "well, I don't think of that desire to hurt another in retaliation, as anger." that's fine by me.
Is called vengefulness.
The usual way. Google it.
Quoting anonymous66
Like I said, that's too specific [i]for a definition[/I] of anger (even if it's an example of a desire which involves feelings of anger). If you'd have simply googled it - although that shouldn't be necessary - then you'd have seen so yourself. If you put "anger meaning" into Google, then you get the following:
I agree with Noblosh that your definition is closer to the meaning of vengefulness.
You do understand that that is not really an answer, right?
You did actually provide your choice (the one you chose from among the many the possible choices from Google), so kudos for that.
Sometimes when I read your posts (in this thread and the pornography thread), I get the sense you're saying (with some frustration), "I just randomly choose a definition from the internet.. isn't that what you do?" Is that really the message you want to convey?
Of course it is. You do understand that your question suggests a failure to make a reasonable assumption: that your interlocutor is using ordinary words in ordinary ways?
Quoting anonymous66
And that shouldn't have been necessary. So no kudos to you for making me do something that you should have done yourself.
Quoting anonymous66
There's nothing random about it. It shouldn't come as a surprise that I am much like everyone else, in that I tend to use words how they're commonly used; and these definitions from online dictionaries [i]are[/I] how they're commonly used.
Dictionaries are useful things. The dictionary definition for anger that I gave happened to more-or-less match what I had in mind, and that it did was no pure coincidence. It also has the advantage of expressing it better than I could have done unassisted.
You, on the other hand, seem to just pluck a definition from your mind in the spur of the moment, without checking a dictionary, risking the consequence that it will be idiosyncratic or faulty in some way, as has been the case with your failed attempt in this discussion.
I had [i]already[/I] made clear what I thought was wrong with your definition: that it was too specific, and need not be about the desire to hurt another in retaliation. (And that struck me as blindingly obvious, after having spent only a very short time considering various situations in which a person can experience anger). So it should have been very easy for you to figure out the meaning of anger. Googling it should have provided sufficient confirmation. Lo and behold! The very first few definitions differ from your own failed attempt, and do not suffer the same fault that I pointed out.
Ironically, my own reactions in this discussion count as counterexamples to your definition. My frustration has not gone unnoticed, yet I do not desire to hurt you in retaliation. I don't want to break your legs, I want to improve your method. My criticism is constructive.
You're evading the question. Why did you choose that definition, and not another?
Quoting Sapientia
Explain to me the process by which you decide which definition to use... do you just use the first one you see? or do you use some other process to make your choice?
Or is it the case that you just look for the definition that you already had in mind? In which case, can you explain why you have that definition in mind, and not some other definition?
You didn't ask me that question, and I've already provided the answer. It was the first definition in the list of results which was close enough to what I had in mind. I could have gone further down the list and picked any of the numerous other definitions which were similar enough in meaning, but that would have been unnecessary and less convenient.
Quoting anonymous66
Again, I think the answers to these questions can be found or surmised from my previous comments and by applying some common sense. I go with the first one I see, unless my intended meaning differs in some important respect. If we're talking about commonly used, well known words, such as "anger", then obviously I already associate that word with a meaning I have in mind, and this meaning naturally conforms with common usage, and therefore roughly matches that which can be found in a dictionary. Subsequently, for sake of precision and clarity, I may seek a dictionary to refine said-meaning.
Alternatively, one could pick a meaning which doesn't conform quite so well with common usage, ignore rightful criticism of it, and stubbornly press on regardless.
It's not something anyone seems to be able to change quickly via any simple or clear-cut method. But some people who used to get angry reach a point where they no longer do.
However, note that not getting angry can be harmful, too. Sometimes anger helps you not be taken advantage of, not be manipulated, etc.
Unless anger is pretty regular or out of control for you or it makes you violent, I'd not worry about it. Sometimes you'll get angry, but it passes. I wouldn't say that anger necessarily involves thoughts of or a drive towards hurting other people, by the way. It's often just more of a heightened frustration--frustration to a point where you want to scream/yell, for example.
Melchett: 'If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.' ;)
Me: It seems to me that if anger is defined as: the desire to hurt someone else in retaliation, then it is not necessary.
Sapientia: That's not a good definition
Me: How are you defining anger?
S: The usual way, Google it. If you had Googled it, you would have seen for yourself.
Me: How do you decide which definition among those Googled, to use?
S: Online dictionaries are useful.... I use the online dictionary definition (notice the shifting from Google to online dictionary....)
S: I just use the first definition that agrees with the way I define anger.
[hide="Reveal"]Quoting Sapientia[/hide]
He was right regarding Aristotle.
I do think anger is a natural part of our nature as animals, which we learn how to express, learn how to behave, control which becomes part of how we construct our self. Animal aggression may have territorial roots where survival involved establishing a certain space or area of operation, where unfamiliar intruders particularly of the same species are challenged or feared for a variety of reasons.
Wrath, I think is more intensive and more directed than anger, as in the wrath of God, or of the just. It seems more principled in some manner than anger, a direct and reasoned response to some transgression, where the expression of anger become the medium of response.
Also rage seems to be extremely intensive, suggesting irrationality at its apex, as in a blind rage. I think rage is a temporary state that 'normal' persons might experience, but I cannot envision someone being in a 'normal' state of rage.
It's not so much that you're putting words in my mouth, but that you're taking what I said out of context with your little cut-and-paste job, and I do object to that.
I also object to the misleading implication in your annotated comment. There is no sneaky, dubious shift going on which warrants any criticism. Obviously the purpose of googling it is to bring up definitions from online dictionaries. That's obvious, and I wasn't trying to hide that, nor was I moving the goalposts in any way.
I suggest you stop wasting time with this summation and cut straight to the point, if you have one.
Quoting anonymous66
And that's what Americans.. no, everyone should manage! Not anger or aggression, those are reasonable in the right context. But, of course, ignorance can obscure the right context and that's why Socrates is so wise.
5 Ways Anger is Not Like Other Emotions
Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this... This is your chance to set things right...
Assume that I'm asking you, "How would you define anger?" How would you respond?
Would your answer be
1. I would use Google
2. I would use an online dictionary
or 3. I would look online and use the definition that agrees with what I already had in mind
Or is there some other way you'd answer the question?
My point? It seems to me that some are of the opinion that there is some obvious, agreed upon definition of anger. If that is the case, then I'd like to know what that definition is, and just what it is about that definition that makes it obvious.
Your criticism is not constructive, it is snotty and condescending. Which would be ok, I guess, if it were helpful and responsive, but it's not. Most of what you have had to say is about why you don't need to define "anger" and why you should never have to define anything and why people are unreasonable for wanting or expecting you to.
Quoting anonymous66
I went on line. Here are five definitions of “anger” I found on dictionary sites and Wikipedia:
These are all pretty consistent, although some have different emphases. One thing they agree on is that anger is an emotion. That's it. It's not an action, an intention, or a desire. It's not about doing harm to someone or getting revenge.
Is that obvious? I think it is always a good idea to define important terms at the beginning of a discussion. Getting all highfalutin and insulting when asked to do that is discourteous and unreasonable. Unreasonable in the sense that it is not consistent with the application of reason to a question.
Your first, second and third options each form part of my answer. And there is an obvious, widely understood meaning to the word "anger" and many other words like it. That's how language works. How else could you understand a single word that I'm saying? Clarification in such cases is for purposes of precision, not complete ignorance, and I think that you know this and should therefore agree.
You're simply wrong on that one. I've explained how my criticism is constructive, and I can explain why your reply above is not. Criticism doesn't have to be coated in sugar in order to be constructive, as the misleading juxtaposition in your first sentence seems to suggest. My criticism identifies a problem, explains why it's a problem, and points to solutions to rectify the problem. No amount of ad hominem will change that. And for the record, I never actually said those things that you have falsely associated with my comments in this discussion in your paragraph above. You've either misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting me.
Yes. Children learn that anger is an emotion, as well as the key differences between actions and feelings, from a young age.
Let's see. So. Are you saying that criticism that is snotty and condescending can still be constructive?
Quoting Sapientia
There was no ad hominem attack in my post. I said your criticism is snotty and condescending, not that you are.
Yes, and, believe it or not, some people are capable of looking past that kind of thing.
Quoting T Clark
Right. So you expect me to believe the two can be isolated just like that? It was indirectly a personal accusation, about my attitude, and it focussed on the tone and style, rather than the substance. Playing the man, not the ball.
It is not a matter of what I expect you to believe, it is a matter of the actual meaning of the phrase "ad hominem." What I said was in no way, directly or indirectly, a personal accusation. You may not like what I said, but that's not the same thing.
It is[/I] a matter of what you expect me to believe. Presumably, you expect me to believe what you're saying - and what you're saying has implications. You were denying that your [i]ad hominem was an [i]ad hominem[/I] on the basis of a superficial distinction. The words "snotty" and "condescending" are about attitude, and attitude is personal. They have negative connotations. You made a personal accusation - indirectly, and in no unsubtle terms - and instead of owning up to it, you're trying to wriggle out of it.
But whatever. This is off-topic and unproductive, which is where comments of that sort tend to lead. So I should probably refrain from dragging this one out.
I've been reading a lot of the primary texts of Stoicism, and I also started listening to Martha Nussbaum talk about the subject (youtube) and I bought her book Anger and Forgiveness a few weeks ago, and just started reading it. From the introduction:
The first way is what she calls the "road of payback". It is mistaken because it includes the belief that the suffering of the wrongdoer somehow restores the important thing that was damaged. She labels this as false and incoherent, but nevertheless points out that it is a very common belief. "But the wrongdoer's suffering does not bring back the person or valued item that was damaged."
The second way is the "road of status". And this one makes sense to Nussbaum. If the victim sees the injury as a down-ranking of their own status, then payback makes sense in that if a victim is able to humiliate the wrongdoer, then the victim's status becomes relatively higher. "But then there is a different problem; it is normatively problematic to focus exclusively on relative status, and that type of obsessive narrow-mindedness, though common enough, is something we ought to discourage in both self an others."
Edited to add
".... but of course, all these ideas must be unpacked and defended. Anger may still have some limited usefulness as a signal to tell self and/or others that wrongdoing has taken place, as a source of motivations to address it, and as a deterrent to others, discouraging their aggression. Its core ideas however, are profoundly flawed; either incoherent in the first case, or normatively ugly in the second."
She goes on to add,
"Most average people get angry. But often, noting the normative irrationality of anger, particularly in its payback mode, a reasonable person shifts off the terrain of anger toward more productive forward-looking thoughts, asking what can actually be done to increase either personal or social welfare. I explore the course of reflection that leads to this future-directed thinking, which I prefer."
Thanks for the link to the Atlantic article. Here's a quote from that article:
I just came across this article by Martha Nussbaum today... she covers some of the same ground as she does in the book (and in the Atlantic article).
It's interesting that Seneca says that he doesn't define anger in the same way that Aristotle does...
I also just noticed that Nussbaum has this to say in the Aeon article...
Anger is ''natural'', yes, but is it reasonable? That's a question a thinking animal would ask. I say ''thinking animal'' because I've seen dogs not getting angry and I've seen people not thinking.
As far as humans are concerned we always(?) need a reason. Be it getting angry, what to wear or thinking about the universe itself. This also applies to emotions. So, in short, there's a reason for anger.
The OP's question is one I'd expect from a thinking animal (no offence intended). To answer I'd like to give is from a Buddhist perspective since it seems most apt to me.
The Buddhist doctrine of Impermanence inevitably results in a loss of attachment (to not only external objects but also of the self). Everything is subject to death and decay and this realization motivates the Buddhist to value each experience, each moment. From this perspective, any reason for anger fades into the night.
So, it's ''natural'' to feel anger but for the benefit of the thinking animal, there's no real reason to be angry at all.
I recently read Destructive Emotions: A Scientific Dialogue with the Dalai Lama...
From the book:
It looks to me like the Buddhist view of anger is very similar to that of the ancient Stoics.
Aristotle's Challenge on Anger is pretty clear as to how proportionality is fundamental in how he approaches anger. Aristotle's challenge on Anger is that to become Angry is easy. But to be angry at the right person, at the right time, for the right reason, to the right degree, that is not so easy. So before one easily angers, it helps to put your reasons for the anger up to Aristotle's challenge and see if it passes. I have only once been able to satisfy Aristotle's challenge and allowed myself to be genuinely angry and I have yet to be able to or want to forgive that person.