The Philosophy of Anger

http://bostonreview.net/forum/agnes-callard-philosophy-anger

by satchet • 6 years ago

75 75 6 years ago

Yeah... not quite. From the article -

"Anger treats its target as someone capable of recognizing that she has done wrong... "

This is true in some cases, but not all. Had a girlfriend once who used anger to get what she wanted. It was like cash to her - a simple means to an end.

When I pushed back it spiraled into abuse. She became ever more hurtful instead of being conciliatory tory. Blew my mind.

I'm firmly in the camp that seeks to eliminate all anger from my life, and avoid it in others. Like the plague.

heavenlyblue• 6 years ago

I think it’s how you use anger that matters.

I am pretty certain there’s a huge log of people with the kindest faces who gladly closed their eyes on the abuse happening to someone else for a simple example.

adjkant6• 6 years ago

I'm so sorry you went through that. I fully agree about eliminating anger from my personal life.

With that said, an exception to a case doesn't invalidate an entire article or philosophical argument. In this case, I think it mainly narrows the application, if anything. This premise is a side piece at best to the argument, so I would pause before even going that far. Specifically here, I think it is important to distinguish between anger at a person and anger directed at larger injustices.

Philosophers tend to generalize in order to get to conclusions in the same way that macro-economists work at a high level. Without either, neither field would be able to arrive at anything meaningful.

alexpetralia3• 6 years ago

Similarly, I made a conscious effort during university to eradicate (a) drama and (b) anger from my life. It is almost surreal the extent to which I succeeded. When I see people experiencing these emotions, I almost marvel at the novelty of them because I haven't had them in so long. I distinctly remember watching a man one time walking on the sidewalks of NYC screaming into his phone with pure rage - "the angriest man I've ever seen" I recall - and I couldn't help but feel near admiration: He had truly reached some pinnacle of human experience. That said, there are parts of the human condition I feel better for having left behind.

philosopher12344• 6 years ago

This seems delusional. I don’t believe it’s possible to have eradicated the feeling of anger, no matter what you claim. It’s a fundamental feeling. Acting on your anger is a different story, but claiming to have muted the feeling utterly is preposterous.

dmarchand90• 6 years ago

I'm curious if you could elaborate what you mean by abandoning anger. I would imagine if someone at the office started claiming your work at your own you would probably experience something rather analogous to anger.

I know it's a bit nitpicky but I would imagine that what you've done is become excellent at managing anger rather than banishing it entirely. (Which is an impressive accomplishment that you should feel very pleased and proud of nontheless.)

My understanding from modern psychology as well as buddhism that one never really gets really of anger, but rather, can develop excellent control of it. It might also be your life situation is such that people don't really try to take advantage of you or mistreat you very often.

vincentmarle3• 6 years ago

I couldn't help but feel near admiration: He had truly reached some pinnacle of human experience

As someone who has left anger a long time ago as well, I have to say, I do miss it sometimes and I also look with envy to ones who can express their anger. To be angry is to feel alive. But yes, overall you're better off not being angry.

apostacy3• 6 years ago

I was like you for a long time, but in the last few years, I've learned that in small controlled doses, in some circumstances, anger can be beneficial, and you should learn to harness it. Anger is probably our most dangerous emotion. But we are not robots, and no matter how rational we try to be, we still have to interact with people who are not.

I notice that you keep describing people's actions, not their internal emotional state. Seeing how irrational and terrible angry people could be was why I tried eradicating anger. You can still let yourself experience anger without being a monster though. It is possible to be in touch with your anger without being enraged or being bad.

How is anger good? I don't have time to find the sources now, but I read that people in a state of anger are more capable of discerning if they are being deceived or treated unfairly, which I have found to be true. Letting yourself experience anger can enable you to assert yourself.

If you spend most of your time around reasonable people you trust, you should almost never get angry. But unfortunately sometimes you encounter people who deserve your anger.

I can think of many instances where I was taken advantage of, and I regret that I had trained myself to completely suppress anger. And I can think of many more recent times when my anger has given me agency that I would not have otherwise had. The important thing is to treat your sense of anger as a call to action, and when you start to resolve your problem, your anger can quickly fade.

chapium• 6 years ago

After dealing with someone like this longterm, I jettison relationships that even tries these tactics. Be thankful you got out of it.

swozey• 6 years ago

I don't mean to vilify or diagnose but look into borderline personality disorder, it may (or may not) provide you some reasoning. It's a disorder of emotional dysregulation and often the people with it either cut/harm themselves or are physically abusive.

GavinMcG• 6 years ago

That likely was true in that case. Your ex's anger treated you as someone capable of recognizing having done wrong, because if you didn't, you wouldn't be manipulable.

(That's not the same thing as saying you actually did wrong. Just that if you couldn't imagine having done wrong, her anger wouldn't have been effective, and she would have chosen a different manipulation tactic. Or alternatively, your ex's manipulative behavior may be distinct from anger - perhaps she found the appearance of anger to be useful, and so she acted angry.)

This ties into a bigger picture: should we choose to be someone who can be victimized? I was cheated on and lied to, and in examining what I could have done differently, I concluded that yes, I would rather be someone trusting than someone with their defenses fully up.

apatters• 6 years ago

I think the article goes the wrong direction as well, but for different reasons. We should look to the field of modern psychology for answers about our emotions, not philosophy. We understand the brain a lot better now than we did in Aristotle's time.

Anger's neurological function is to motivate action. It originates in the unconscious parts of the brain, and like all emotions it can arise involuntarily. It sounds like your girlfriend was putting her anger to use in a way that it's neurologically well adapted for (though absolutely in an immoral and unhealthy way).

Most individuals possess some degree of ability to consciously regulate their emotions (brain damage reduces this ability, many other factors like genetics or past trauma can too). So after you experience anger you can influence what you do next.

Modern psychology generally recognizes that like most emotions, anger has value but how you process it is key. Rationally examining the roots of your anger can defuse or redirect it and is the principle behind cognitive behavioral therapy and similar modern therapies.

Repression isn't a healthy way of handling anger, it only builds up, becomes internalized, and resurfaces later in ways that are harder to understand. I think it's better to express your anger (there are limitations of course, we don't get a free pass to run around punching people, but venting to a friend is healthy).

In my opinion as someone who buried his anger for 20 years, the key to handling it is to understand where it really comes from, and then harness the energy it generates to act in a way which addresses the root cause. To use the article's example of theft, if you get really angry because someone stole from you, maybe your emotion originates from a history of financial distress. If so then you may be able to change your actions, channel that energy into building financial security, and not experience this distress in the future. Anger in this situation becomes a force for clarity, good and purpose because you acknowledged, channelled and examined it. I think as a society we're in a place where we allow ourselves to be angry all the time, but couch it in superficial righteousness instead doing the uncomfortable processing work and owning our own role in it.

adjkant6• 6 years ago

The meaty claim from the article, sans the argument that gets there:

I believe that, when faced with injustice, we should sometimes get somewhat angry. Such anger is not “pure” and entails submitting oneself to (some degree of) moral corruption, but the alternative, acquiescence, is often even worse. The point I want to emphasize, however, is this: just because the moral corruption of anger is our best option doesn’t mean it is not corruption.
The consequences of acknowledging this point are sobering: victims of injustice are not as innocent as we would like to believe. Either these victims are morally compromised by the vengeful and grudge-bearing character of their anger, or they are morally compromised by acquiescence. Long-term oppression of a group of people amounts to long-term moral damage to that group. When it comes to racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, ableism, classism, religious discrimination, anti-neurodiversity, elitism of any stripe, this argument entails that the oppressors have made the oppressed morally worse people.

While I actually don't disagree and I think the conclusion (and the piece) has value and is even novel, and am utterly scared of how this can be twisted if it becomes widely discussed.

For me, the correct/helpful implications go as such: when it comes to oppressors and the oppressed, this is a very compelling argument that tone policing revolution from the oppressed is only doing further harm, and that we must see anger (and its resulting symptoms) as a natural and blameless response to said oppression. If you want to help people who are being oppressed, you need to be constructive to a message, not in pursuit of making it perfectly moral and clean when oppression literally becomes an attack on the morals of those being oppressed. I don't think it's hard to imagine how this extends to hot button issues like racial equality and policing in the US today.

What I am scared of is that this will only embolden the crowd that is morally policing revolution and activism today to point and be like "look see, you aren't perfectly moral, fix it so we can stop your oppression!", missing the entire point and putting more ideological, emotional, and literal labor back onto oppressed groups. I only hope others can highlight this distinction if/when this idea gains notoriety.

slx26• 6 years ago

I honestly think that what's novel here is the phrasing and a bad twist involving guilt and innocence. Look: the idea that moral corruption can be contagious is not new at all. We are very inclined to mention it explicitly when talking about stories of children surrounded by moral corruption, specially on troubled childhoods. What's somewhat twisted here to me is the idea that this involves any guilt. And the author says it explicitly: if anger or acquiescense are the only possible responses when being faced with injustice (which I don't totally agree with), how can you put guilt on anyone for not being able to escape the inescapable? It just looks twisted to me, trying to impose moral standards in a situation when you know they are not in reach. The only thing that would be immoral here is trying to pass moral judgement in this situation (under the premises the author gives).

mensetmanusman• 6 years ago

One underlying assumption is that, ideally, humans would behave similarly in regards to anger.

I find this to be false. You need a diversity of responses.

E.g, I am an ecclesiastical stoic that gets angry about twice a decade. My wife is not, and that makes us a great team in various circumstances.

tl;dr you need communities of individuals to approach anger differently.

megameter• 6 years ago

While I like most aspects of Stoicism, I do have a vengeful streak that I don't want to completely abandon. I agree that communities are the way to think about it.

I think I've managed to get more mature and strategic about revenge than "tit-for-tat", because I've noticed that this is usually calculated for by abusers, so I look instead for a combination of getting myself to safety(thus avoiding the self-inflicted trauma) while creating a subtle barrier or danger zone for the other party, a place where they spend more energy than I do to get less results.

o-__-o3• 6 years ago

while creating a subtle barrier or danger zone for the other party, a place where they spend more energy than I do to get less results

I’m interested in some examples of these strategies? I’ve found this works eg in the workplace but not so much with family

AntiImperialis23• 6 years ago

Emotions are how we humans do morality.

First of all, there is no such thing as "morality". It's just a way for elites to control commoners so that they behave in predictable ways.

Emotions are responses that help us learn and survive.

Anger is one such emotion. It helps us destroy enemies. But it can also make us short-sighted and do things that are not good in the long run, so when it happens, we need to take our time before we do something... but that's a different discussion.

There is no "morality" on stealing or anything. What if the thing you're stealing from me today was something I stole from you yesterday? Would it still be "immoral"? What if my great grandfather stole from your great grandfather many years ago and you steal it back today? What if the transactions aren't that simple? What if the stealing happened in a much more complicated structure thoughout many generations in a network of billions of people?

Nothing belongs to nobody. People take whatever they can get away with. There are rules you have to make up and enforce if you're in the business of benefiting from mass compliance. For everyone else, you follow those rules because otherwise the elites will come for you. There's no reason to complicate this (except of course you are among the elites, in which case you have to, to make sure the masses are predictable).

kleer0015• 6 years ago

First of all, there is no such thing as "morality".

There is absolutely a solid sense of morality baked into (at the very least) primate brains.

Give this a read. The science is solid:

https://righteousmind.com/

Or this if you're impatient:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

Nothing belongs to nobody. People take whatever they can get away with.

What kind of unhinged philosophy are you smoking? Objectivism? Marxism? Freebasing Solipsism?

adjkant6• 6 years ago

What kind of unhinged philosophy are you smoking? Objectivism? Marxism? Freebasing Solipsism?

Not OP but I assumed this was a version of nihilistic error theory that led to the "no such thing as morality" and then from there erases all idea of ownership or rights or anything. From there it's all just a dog eat dog jungle view of all of the world and maybe you sprinkle in some Hobbesian views of the social contract.

I'll pass but there's at least potential consistency in this morbid view of the world!

tomcam• 6 years ago

What kind of unhinged philosophy are you smoking? Objectivism? Marxism? Freebasing Solipsism?

I'm aligned with you in principle but perhaps you could phrase this in a kinder way.

AntiImperialis23• 6 years ago

There is absolutely a solid sense of morality baked into (at the very least) primate brains.

No, there isn't.

Give this a read. The science is solid:

https://righteousmind.com/

"The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion?". Hmm...

So, from your comment, I'm guessing that the answer in the book to the question in the subtitle is that there is some baked in "morality" in us, that evolution gave us? If so, that's extremely misguided.

If there was such a thing, it would be at least somewhat similar across all human tribes and cultures. That's not the case at all. It's vastly different throughout history and across cultures because these things have everything to do with power dynamics and resource distribution.

https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg

And? Monkeys have hierarchies. If they repeated this experiment but swappped the monkeys, it would turn out differently. The experiment is designed and orchestrated to show some sort of "equal pay" nonsense. What is happening is that the monkey on the left is socially higher than the one on the right... and hence it is used to claiming better food for itself first. When it sees the other one gets it, it gets pissed off. When these higher ups get injured, get sick or get old, someone else claims the status. It's all power dynamics and fight over resources. It has nothing to do with "morality".

What kind of unhinged philosophy are you smoking? Objectivism? Marxism? Freebasing Solipsism?

I don't know what your western intellectuals call it but if I were to translate it to English, it would roughly translate to "reality".

claudiawerner2• 6 years ago

What kind of unhinged philosophy are you smoking? Objectivism? Marxism? Freebasing Solipsism?

I'm only somewhat subscribe to one of those philosophies and none of them are treated very charitably by you. Besides that, as much as I disagree with the statement you're replying to, it's not a philosophy, it's an empirical statement. Whether people take whatever they can get away with is irrelevant to whether they should do so.

By the way, none of those philosophies assume GP's argument.

There is absolutely a solid sense of morality baked into (at the very least) primate brains.

Moral anti-realists will tell you this isn't a very convincing argument. The fact that people believe in morality does not mean we have access to the world of moral facts. Moral facts are supposed to motivate us inherently, which is a perculiar quality for a fact to have.

AmericanChopper• 6 years ago

A very poorly thought out article. The author tries their best to assert a false dichotomy that the only two possible responses to an injustice are acquiescence and anger, by attempting to reclassify all non-acquiescent response as just anger by a different name. At very best this is just a contrivance that attempts to remove so much meaning from the words involved in the debate that it ceases to be a debate about anything at all.

The author also seems only interested in the moral corruption of anger in so much as it draws the judgement of others. The other moral corruption brought on by anger, which I would say constitutes a greater harm, is the burden of having to carry it around with you. Living a life burdened with ever increasing levels of anger is most certainly a moral corruption, and one much more likely to harm you than the opinions of others.

yew• 6 years ago

Assuming that I understood that what I was taking was yours, and that I was not acting under some kind of duress [...] my theft indicates that I see the world in value-terms opposed to yours. Your "bad" is my "good." If you are to hold me accountable for this, instead of letting me off the hook, you will make this (accidental, adventitious) opposition a principle and rule for our interactions.
Revenge allows you to turn the principle of my action into a rule for your conduct toward me: you make my bad your good. This is the opposite of trying to undo or reverse my action. You hold me accountable by holding onto my theft, refusing to forget it, turning its one-off opposition between our interests into a rule to which I am now subject. [...] Angry people sometimes describe their vengeance as "teaching someone a lesson," and this is quite literally true: you make my wronging of you into a general principle and then "educate" me by imposing it on me.

This is an important lesson for those more naturally inclined toward forgiveness (though I would say it's important because it says something about what successful rehabilitation or education more often look like, or at least involve, in real life).

Speaking personally, it's a principle that it took me quite a lot of experience to understand.

Educating me in this way is not easy on you: making my evil your good has psychological costs, among them the fact that you divert yourself away from what would otherwise be good for you. You must remodel your psychological landscape into one devoted to regulating mine. [...] I've colonized your fantasy life.

victorevector• 6 years ago

Anger, like any other emotion, is useful until it's not.

koolhead17• 6 years ago

On Anger by Seneca has great context which makes sense even now.

cortesoft• 6 years ago

I do feel like anger and the vengeance it drives (in particular irrational vengeance that goes beyond restitution) has some evolutionary advantages.

In many ways it is like the doomsday device in dr strangelove... the fact that it is not rational, and will be carried out even if it is not in the continuing best interest of the person enacting revenge, acts as a stronger deterrent than a proportional response.

It changes the game theory to know a person will enact revenge forever.

lovecg• 6 years ago

A phenomenon like road rage can be explained in a similar way: since the interaction in that situation is brief and unlikely to be repeated, it makes sense on some level for the response for the perceived slight to be disproportionately intense (“condensing” the lifetime of revenge in a single outburst).

wintorez• 6 years ago

Seeking revenge, with premeditation and planning is not unique to humans. A lot of animals also hold grudges against others and humans. So there must be some sort of evolutionary advantage that might not be too obvious.

oopsiforgot7• 6 years ago

Game theoretically, seeking lose-lose as revenge is not rational. But credibly precomitting "burning your ships" to revenge is rational.

A gene for anger is a pre commitment.

hliyan2• 6 years ago

I too see anger (and all other emotions we experience) as an evolutionary adaptation. It is more a neurological fact than a metaphysical matter woven into the fabric of reality, in the manner that philosophers tend to discuss it.

In this case, anger is a loss response. Sadness is also a loss response but it looks back in time and works to reduce one's activity level, while anger is forward looking and tends to drive one towards more action. (Unrelated, but fear is also a loss response, but a response to a potential loss).

Anger also generally (but not always) requires that the one experiencing anger recognizes the perceived cause of anger as an agent with free will. We don't feel angry, for example, when we get caught in the rain (unless it is at ourselves for not bringing an umbrella). However, we have seen animals (such as chimpanzees and dogs) on occasion expressing what look like anger at inanimate objects that have hurt them.

Perhaps there are other intelligent species out there with a different evolutionary path that has a larger number of primary emotions. And perhaps there are others who only possess one emotion in place of both anger and sadness. It is a subject worth examining from an evolutionary and neurological angle, rather than philosophical.

sebmellen• 6 years ago

From Marcus Aurelius's Meditations:

In comparing sins (the way people do) Theophrastus says that the ones committed out of desire are worse than the ones committed out of anger: which is good philosophy. The angry man seems to turn his back on reason out of a kind of pain and inner convulsion. But the man motivated by desire, who is mastered by pleasure, seems somehow more self indulgent, less manly in his sins.
Theophrastus is right, and philosophically sound, to say that the sin committed out of pleasure deserves a harsher rebuke than the one committed out of pain. The angry man is more like a victim of wrongdoing, provoked by pain to anger. The other man rushes into wrongdoing on his own, moved to action by desire.

strogonoff3• 6 years ago

Every time I think about anger, I end up concluding it must originate from fear. Frequently that fear is related to one’s status in various social groups and/or perceived lack of control. What fundamental fear is of in specific circumstances IMO determines whether the anger downstream is, to quote the article, “correct”.

If someone stole from you a little, the underlying fear could be that it is a trend, your subsistence is directly in danger, and/or that your social status is becoming such that others feel comfortable stealing from you[0]. Payback desire is the desire to reaffirm your status and deter future occurrences.

If you feel angry because of something your spouse has done, there may be a hidden fear of losing control, or losing them. Being angry is probably going to be the least optimal response, and the need for control could be something worth working on.

If someone physically attacked you, what kind of fear lies behind your anger is obvious. (Anecdotally, I get a brief flash of irrational anger if I accidentally and suddenly hit my head, e.g. at some low-hanging feature. I think somehow this triggers the same response as if I was physically attacked. Lasts milliseconds.)

The more confident, relaxed, and non-controlling one is, the less cause there would be for anger.

[0] It doesn’t have to be, depending on circumstances: if you are an affluent tourist with a fat bank account and real estate, and someone snatches your wallet while you are walking down a night market in a developing country you are visiting, you have not much reason to be angry: sure, it’s an inconvenience to call your bank and block credit cards, but objectively you are not in trouble, and you are detached from society in which the theft took place. A local resident could have a radically different response in the same scenario.

ReactiveJelly• 6 years ago

That matches what I've found.

I get the most angry when I can't control something, can't wait it out, can't avoid it. Then I feel cornered. "This isn't my fault, I can't escape it, and it's just going to _keep happening to me like it always does_."

As soon as I think of any way to deal with something, or even if someone else says "Yeah this sucks, let's never do this again" I feel relieved.

Like the time I bought some cheese sauce packets, not realizing they had been cut by a box cutter at the store and were leaking. I was angry until I realized I could just take them back to the store and exchange them.

So the hard part is suppressing my anger until a solution appears. I don't know the trick to that yet.

strogonoff3• 6 years ago

The feeling of being cornered rings like a great way to describe what may be the cause of anger in many circumstances.

Personally, reframing anger as a manifestation of some variation of instinctive fear seems to help me dissolve it. (Fear has none of the perceived ‘righteousness’ of anger, so when I apply it to myself I think “what am I afraid of? I’m better than that”, and when I apply it to someone being angry at me I may almost feel pity for them and better resist escalating the situation by being angry in response.)

Unfortunately, too often I fail to reframe quickly enough and still get hit by the initial anger, but I think it helps nevertheless.

hliyan2• 6 years ago

This is a good insight. I reached a similar one a few years ago, but with regards to hate: i.e., that hate can only arise where there is fear, and fear is there where there is a threat (real or perceived). The quintessential example in my mind: would the Nazis have emerged and acted the way they did, had they seen the German Jews as just a quirky religious minority? Would any immigrant today, be hated if people of the host nation saw them as just just a bunch of people who look different and have quirky customs? Perhaps it is not about the differences, but fear of losing what they think is their way of life as the migrant population increases.

strogonoff3• 6 years ago

Your example regarding immigrants & hate agrees with my observations.

I believe those host nations that (as far as I could tell) harbour no hatred towards immigrants could be separated into two categories: countries where locals tend to feel broadly confident, and countries where locals tend to feel innately superior to non-locals.

In the former countries, immigrants indeed seem to be perceived simply as a bunch of differently-looking people with quirky customs.

In the latter countries, feeling of superiority seems to preclude anger or hate, but contempt seems to be possible in some circumstances (I suspect contempt might be fear in presence of superiority).

rtkaratekid• 6 years ago

Something like fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering?

specialist• 6 years ago

The book When Anger Hurts changed my life. https://www.amazon.com/When-Anger-Hurts-Quieting-Within/dp/1...

Thesis is that anger is the result of a cascade.

Expectations -> Disappointment -> Resentment -> Blame -> Anger

(From memory, will update if needed.)

So the trick is update one's expectations, short circuit the cascade before it can even start.

Separately, I learned that we can only replace habits with new habits, vs unlearn habits. Completely out of ideas, I faked being happy. One day I woke up, said to myself "Phenomenal!", and truly meant it. I was shocked that it worked. My whole transformation took about three years. YMMV. (Maybe having a life coach would work faster.)

Bancakes• 6 years ago

I'm having a hard time believing it's underlying fear that motivates anger generally. If some videogame AI craps out or an open source program turns out to be deprecated, I get angry at the supposed laziness and ignorance of devs. "How dare such people exist and hang their feats on a wall?"

Not to mention strength follows anger, you need to be angry to handle a physical situation.

Honestly I think you're trying to fit the cylinder in the square hole.

davesque• 6 years ago

I think anger is in fashion. And, judging from this article, even hatred (anger without end) may be in fashion too. I'll offer a simple explanation.

The author talks about the connection of anger with memories of past wrongdoings. In my personal experience, it's hard to forget past wrongdoings when the person who did wrong seems like they haven't changed or aren't capable of changing. Then, any restitution seems less meaningful because the harm might very well happen again. In that case, I do agree that a grudge is rational. That's because forgiving and/or forgetting actually might expose you to further harm. However, I don't recall the author really mentioning this take on it. I may be mistaken, but it seemed that their argument was that the simple fact that any wrongdoing occurred to begin with is reason enough to hold a grudge and that this could somehow be considered rational. That doesn't make much sense to me.

That being said, I believe Trump is the reason we're seeing such angry cultural trends. In him, we have a person who has posed a constant psychological (or even not just psychological) threat to maybe as much as half the population of the US over the past four years. He is a man who has done real harm to many people. I also believe many people look at him and see someone who feels no remorse about any of his actions and, indeed, may even seem fundamentally incapable of remorse.

It's completely rational to hold a grudge against a person like that and he has been inescapable for almost half a decade. I think he's been acting as a sort of psychological vortex that's driving everyone towards the angry side of the spectrum. I'm sure the effect has even bled outside the political sphere into other parts of society. In my own life, I've often seen the way in which an unpleasant experience or emotion can sit in the back of my mind and color my perception of everything. I'm sure everyone has experienced something similar.

It's been telling to watch the way in which the world has taken on his pathologies. As much as modern society has chosen to de-emphasize the importance of king-like figures, we humans are still psychologically programmed to take queues from people in positions of power. In that sense, we've all unwittingly become members of one big, broken family with an abusive father.

TudorBirlea• 6 years ago

The author confuses Anger (emotion) with the behavioural response to anger. And from there everything goes down the hill. Here are some facts to navigate easier this subject:

//> Anger is a primary emotion; its opposite is Fear.

//> Ager is triggered by "an obstacle to the satisfaction of needs" - not feeling Anger when you encounter an obstacle is problematic, your chances of survival decrease.

//> we experience Anger in many forms, depending on intensity - from mild annoyance to red hot rage

//> the behavioural response to Anger can be productive or not for us: if you hit back the table corner you just hit, there is nothing productive in that

//> the big problem with Anger is the type of behavioural response we use: intrinsic/instinctual - that is usually violent - or intentional - such as setting limits, being firm, withdrawing, etc.

The whole point of justice in society stems from this intentional management of Anger at scale.

Anyway, it's disappointing to see a psychology subject tackled by a philosopher where from the first sentences is clear that they are not familiar with the subject. But that doesn't stop them from talking about it. But I guess knowing something and thinking that you know something feels the same.

zqna• 6 years ago

Anger is a product of evolution, as we signal an intent of physical violance against an object of it, giving some time to recover the harm that has been done, before the confrontation goes out of control. That's all it is.

aristophenes• 6 years ago

This article implies that forgiveness and mercy are immoral. People have the capability to create evil. Seeing as there is some good around, we must be able to create good as well. As moral creatures who can create good and evil, are we not obligated to create as much good as we can, and extinguish evil where we can? Or should we shrug our shoulders and say, it’s not my fault I am bad, there was evil before me, evil was done to me, and I will embrace it myself.

There are a lot of false dichotomies in the article, especially the idea that it isn’t possible to disincentivize or even punish evil without embodying evil yourself, therefore confusing evil and good. There is too much to write, it seems foolish to even have to explain. Thousands of years of (mostly) successful criminal justice assumed that dispassionate, fair judgment is at least possible.

Most importantly, building on this twisted logic to say that to be wronged makes you immoral (by either unjustly ignoring evil, or through grudge and retaliation becoming evil), is not only hurtful to victims, but justifies a world that forever echoes and amplifies pain and evil. I steal from my enemy because he has done me wrong. I steal from you because my enemy has made me evil. All evil for everyone is justified.

penguintester• 6 years ago

This article implies that forgiveness and mercy are immoral. People have the capability to create evil. Seeing as there is some good around, we must be able to create good as well. As moral creatures who can create good and evil, are we not obligated to create as much good as we can, and extinguish evil where we can? Or should we shrug our shoulders and say, it’s not my fault I am bad, there was evil before me, evil was done to me, and I will embrace it myself.
There are a lot of false dichotomies in the article, especially the idea that it isn’t possible to disincentivize or even punish evil without embodying evil yourself, therefore confusing evil and good. There is too much to write, it seems foolish to even have to explain. Thousands of years of (mostly) successful criminal justice assumed that dispassionate, fair judgment is at least possible.

I don't think he was advocating for evil as the only way to combat evil, in all circumstances but only in some.

And as much as the development of a impartial judicial can regulate certain cases of amoral behavior, there are still many more situations where a compromise of our morals is nesseacary to correct some situation at hand.

Cases that come to mind range from insulting someone for insulting you back, lest they continue in this behaviour after thinking you are an easy target, to allied intervention to Hitler's aggression

Most importantly, building on this twisted logic to say that to be wronged makes you immoral (by either unjustly ignoring evil, or through grudge and retaliation becoming evil), is not only hurtful to victims, but justifies a world that forever echoes and amplifies pain and evil. I steal from my enemy because he has done me wrong. I steal from you because my enemy has made me evil. All evil for everyone is justified.

Again, my interpretation of the authors views is not that the totality of every victim of injustice is themselves an example of moral failure, only in some. I think a strong case for this is in the two examples I gave above, where your retaliatory behaviour will act as deterrence towards the trangressor, barring them from further transgressions. When the aggressor perceives that you are constrained by a set of morals or behaviors that prevent you from retaliating to their aggression, then there is nothing stopping them from infringing on you further. Therefore in this case, I believe you have the responsibility to act in retaliation, and the charge of immorality could be reasonably levied against those who fail to do so.

hairofadog• 6 years ago

I sometimes think about the way U.S. culture elevates the concept of vengeance in movies: They killed or kidnapped his wife and family, and now here’s two hours of kicking them to death. No character development or exploration of loss; just a flashback of a generically pretty family on the beach, and then kicking.

Quite a few of these movies end with the protagonist, after having kicked his way through countless henchmen, deciding that the bad guy “isn’t worth it”, which is to say that after it’s clear that the protagonist has won the fight and could kill the villain if he wanted, masters his emotions and walks away. Sometimes followed up by the villain destroying himself via suicide by police, falling off a cliff, or some other means of dying that isn’t the protagonist’s fault.

These movies strike me as the crystallization of one of our predominant societal ills: the idea that it’s morally good to feel anger, and morally bankrupt to not feel anger. The righteous path is to be angry; where to direct the anger is of secondary concern, and we need not even understand what we’re mad about, and the thing we’re mad about need not even be real.

I’m finding a deeper respect as I age for people who are able to respond to the world with zen-like empathy.

The Philosophy of Anger

Related Stories