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

11–20 of 76 posts

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#11

Post by bladegash »

philosopher1234 wrote: post #8
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…

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.

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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#12

Post by AntiImperialis2 »

>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).

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#13

Post by philosopher1234 »

bladegash wrote: post #11
philosopher1234 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#14

Post by maroonblazer »

alexpetralia wrote: post #9
philosopher1234 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, you are entitled to your own opinions. I see another person in this thread already who must be as self-deluded as I am! Perhaps there are more. I believe Buddhist monks are rarely angry. That's where I would start.

I think most Buddhists would say they still get angry but it doesn't consume them. That's one of the takeaways of Buddhism with respect to all emotions, as well as every thought that arises in consciousness.

These things happen to you, but you don't identify with them, you merely recognize them as feelings and thoughts. The result is the glide path from that emotion or thought to homeostasis (where you were prior to the occurence) is much faster than it would be otherwise.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#15

Post by chapium »

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…

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

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#16

Post by AmericanChopper »

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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#17

Post by dmarchand90 »

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'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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#18

Post by bladegash »

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.

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 reactions until the day I die and I know I will never be successful. I have settled upon finding better outlets for my anger and conditioning reactions that are less destructive than, say, lashing out at someone.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#19

Post by megameter »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #5

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.

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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#20

Post by alexpetralia »

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 definitely feel frustrated at times!

I don't really feel "anger" though. I think I know what it feels like: uncontrolled, fuming, yelling, on the verge of physical expression.

It's as if I have trained my subconscious anger is useless effectively enough that it doesn't even really attempt it anymore. It channels into either resignation or frustration or problem-solving instead.

Post reply on HN