The Philosophy of Anger

> I'd be more incredulous than angry

I like your comments. But on one point ...

Decades ago, reading Seneca’s “On Anger” changed my life overnight.

I went from feelings of anger every 3 or 4 weeks to maybe once a year.

And those occasions always concern those dearest to me, of whom I hold such great expectations.

That’s because anger to me is one of disappointment of expectation.

I would never feel ‘incredulous’ if someone stole or claimed credit for my work. I’d more feel “inevitability”. When you work with hundreds of people over time it will happen.

And anger just doesn’t come into it at all. I do t avoid it, I haven’t eradicated it, I don’t control it. I’ve found a way of living where it very rarely arises.

So aligning lived experience with an expectation model means anger isn’t something I avoid, it just doesn’t arise. When it does, it’s because my mind refuses to incorporate into any expectation model that my child will die, or my spouse will cheat. Perhaps in others minds, they can’t incorporate the expectation colleagues will steal work.

It’s interesting that I am perfectly happy with my partner being someone who does get angry. It washes through her like a cleanser. There are many paths to happiness.

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.

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

> 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.

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.)