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

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#71

Post by o-__-o »

o-__-o wrote: post #44
megameter wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tr…

> 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

I just found an example: addressing conflicts in a group setting vs 1-1. When confronting 1-1 they can manipulate you with anger, however with a neutral third-party they must spend more energy to manipulate multiple parties and anger instantly minimizes their position.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#72

Post by kleer001 »

AntiImperialis2 wrote: post #40
adjkant wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I'm an error theorist myself, no need to tell me! The key modifier there for me was "nihilistic" error theory, aka one that gives up on making sense of a world without an "objective" morality. No intention of calling error theory generally crazy or unhinged. In some ways I feel bad for OP - the view seems quite unhinged when read together, but really I would view it as one misstep/lack of step on the way to inter…

> the view seems quite unhinged when read together, but really I would view it as one misstep/lack of step on the way to interesting truth. Why "unhinged"? I don't know philosophy and English is not my language but I'll try to generalize: Living organisms take resources that they can, specially if there's a net positive gain from it. This happens because those that gain the most net positive tend to reproduce more an…

What we say is how we act.

The way you talk makes you sound like someone who would be an awful pain in the ass to be around. Pedantic and half baked.

While technically correct your analysis is only half formed.

You have much more reading to do.

Start with these books to get a clearer idea of why you're getting a negative response to your honestly held beliefs:

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie

Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! by Richard Feynman

And some extra credit:

Maps of Meaning by Jordan Peterson

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert Sapolsky

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#73

Post by Bancakes »

strogonoff wrote: post #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 subsist…

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.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#74

Post by kleer001 »

AntiImperialis2 wrote: post #31
kleer001 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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 evolut…

> would roughly translate to "reality".

Objective reality includes negotiated sapient constructs like morality, money, ownership, and hierarchies. They're tools. Tools are real.

You might be thinking of Nihilistic Materialism, or something like that which thinks that material objects are the only reality.

Babies also display moral intuitions.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/inde...

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#75

Post by kleer001 »

AntiImperialis2 wrote: post #31
kleer001 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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 evolut…

One last comment because you seem young and confused:

Don't give up on acquiring knowledge. It seems like you think you have all the answers. That's just your low resolution view of the world. And it's sad to see such an obviously motivated and excited child with such an impoverished perspective of the world.

People have been struggling for thousands of years with the very topics you say to have already mastered. This is the ignorance you're getting down voted for.

> If there was such a thing, it would be at least somewhat similar across all human tribes and cultures.

It is. Read the book. Look into his data.

How can you even jump to conclusions without reading the source?

Do you see how it looks like you're trolling?

You might also want to read Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker.

Re: The Philosophy of Anger

#76

Post by kleer001 »

tomcam wrote: post #30
kleer001 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I had a good think about your comment.

Certainly any comment could be phrased in a kind way. That's the thought behind Non Violent Communication from Marshal Rosenberg (may he rest in peace). Which, is great when the stakes are high and good faith abounds. But, online with anonymous users with dubious motives, the method falls apart.

Additionally not everyone subscribes to the "Prevent any and all possible harm." moral philosophy. I certainly don't. Prevent unnecessary bodily suffering, sure. But protect the possible feelings of a bold misguided fellow. Not so much in this context.

Post reply on HN