Live data from Hacker News

The Philosophy of Anger

bostonreview.net

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#51
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don’t think you ever forget how to get angry. It’s like riding a bike, it just may take a few tries. It’s how you handle those few tries that dictates your next steps

One of the most important Stoic teachings is to not get upset about things you can't control.

Once you fully internalize this, it's hard to get angry about trivial things like "someone at the office started claiming your work as your own". Now extend that to everything else in your life you can't control and might get upset about. Everything is trivial once you realize that you only have one life to live.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#52
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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#53

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 chan…

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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#54
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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#55
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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#56
post #4

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…

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).

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#57

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 subsist…

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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#58

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 subsist…

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 som…

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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#59
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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#60

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 subsist…

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.
Post reply on HN