Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Philosophy of Anger

bostonreview.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 76 posts

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#21

Post by swozey »

Spearchucker wrote: post #2

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…

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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#22

Post by kleer001 »

AntiImperialis2 wrote: post #12

> 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…

> 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?

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#23

Post by philosopher1234 »

bladegash wrote: post #18
philosopher1234 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this a little bit more plausible, but still don’t believe it. I don’t think we’re in control of what we feel to the degree that we can redirect our thoughts and entirely or mostly prevent certain feelings. I do believe you can construct defenses that hide your anger from yourself, like GP perhaps has or Buddhist monks, but I believe the anger is still there under the surface.

It’s not so much about conscious control as it is reconditioning your reaction(s) to different stimuli. It’s essentially the premise of cognitive behavioral therapy, which is that your thoughts, lead to feelings, and feelings lead to behaviors. Successful therapy usually includes reworking of thought patterns via neuroplasticity. I do agree with you though, that for me personally, I could try to get rid of angry reac…

Yea I’m with you there. I think the problem of anger is finding healthy strategies for coping with it. I think feeling anger is inevitable and natural, it’s the actions you take to manage it that are worth being mindful about.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#24

Post by BurningFrog »

dmarchand90 wrote: post #17
alexpetralia wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

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 v…

I'm not OP, but I also abandoned anger long ago.

Being human, I of course still get momentary bursts of anger now and then. But I don't hold on to it.

After a few minutes, that impulse has passed, and I get back on even keel.

I also try to remember that when I'm in that anger state, I am stupid and should not do or say anything rash. That usually, but not always works.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#25

Post by adjkant »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #13
bladegash wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it depends on what you mean by “fundamental”. Anger is typically considered a secondary emotion, stemming from primary emotions. While I’m not sure it is possible to get rid of anger as OP suggests, it may not be outside the realm of possibility to create thought patterns that lead your primary emotions to secondary emotions other than anger.

I find this a little bit more plausible, but still don’t believe it. I don’t think we’re in control of what we feel to the degree that we can redirect our thoughts and entirely or mostly prevent certain feelings. I do believe you can construct defenses that hide your anger from yourself, like GP perhaps has or Buddhist monks, but I believe the anger is still there under the surface.

I think you were stuck on the literality of "eradicate" here a bit. If you think anger can be managed, kept from the surface, have defenses constructed against it and the like, is that not more or less an informal meaning of "eradicate" what compared to how society casually sees anger?

There's value in specificity but I think you jumped pretty quickly to "delusional" in response when as you've seen you both share a decent deal of middle ground. The questions that arise to me from reading this exchange:

1. At what point is anger "practically" removed from someone?

2. What methods can achieve that? Which are healthy to the longterm mental state of a human being?

Personally, my greatest tool against anger is understanding + my belief in determinism. You can't be angry with a person for something they did not choose, and understanding how it happened leads to a larger issue or trend that you can then decide if it is worth spending time correcting or not. That understanding transforms anger into macro frustration, which I find is less harmful to others and I can constructively process into problem solving, which I find to be pretty healthy.

Did I literally eradicate my anger? Not even close. Does anyone see or experience anger as we practically recognize it? Nope! So in terms of the actual world we live in, I very much did remove anger from my actions.

My larger point here being that you have to bring practical readings to the table, even in the comments section of a philosophy piece :)

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#26

Post by vincentmarle »

dmarchand90 wrote: post #17
alexpetralia wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

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 v…

> I would imagine if someone at the office started claiming your work at your own you would probably experience something rather analogous to anger.

This is a false premise. If you control your anger you will train yourself enough to not get angry in the first place. After a long time of practicing this you will even forget how to get angry.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#27

Post by vincentmarle »

alexpetralia wrote: post #7
Spearchucker wrote: post #2

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…

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 m…

> 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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#28

Post by adjkant »

kleer001 wrote: post #22
AntiImperialis2 wrote: post #12

> 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…

> 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? Objectivi…

> 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!

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#29

Post by GavinMcG »

Spearchucker wrote: post #2

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…

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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#30

Post by tomcam »

kleer001 wrote: post #22
AntiImperialis2 wrote: post #12

> 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…

> 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? Objectivi…

> 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.

Post reply on HN