the need to hurt someone else in retaliation, then it is not necessary. — anonymous66
On the other hand, some (the Stoics, Buddhists, for instance) argue that anger is always harmful, is not necessary, and can be removed from one's life altogether. — anonymous66
If you came across a herd of elephants, all dead including the babies, machined gunned by poachers simply for the ivory, the proper emotional response is anger and a desire to see the poachers brought to justice. — Marchesk
You don't believe, "in order for justice to be restored, I must be sure that the people responsible are harmed." do you? — anonymous66
You will no doubt be familiar from your readings of ancient philosophy, about the constant injunction to rise above 'the passions'. I think emotional reactivity, including anger, is the subject of those warnings. That is why the ideal state is 'apatheia', tranquility or equanimity, where 'the sage' is not perturbed by 'the passions'. I don't think it means sheer dumb indifference or not giving a toss, but a state whereby the churning of emotions and feelings no longer drives you.
There is a natural reaction to seeing crimes committed or other acts which provoke anger, and the feeing of anger is unavoidable. But I think what a philosophical discipline comprises is not being driven by that, and by being self-aware enough to recognise and dissociate from the instinctive reaction that will often follow. — Wayfarer
That's funny because anger is the very desire to regulate something that disturbs you.there is the argument that anger is natural, and that we must only regulate it. It seems to me that if anger is defined as: the desire to hurt someone else in retaliation, then it is not necessary. — anonymous66
Superior and inferior in what way? I may perceive someone to hold some power over me, and therefore I do not manifest my anger openly to them, but that doesn't necessarily mean I view them as superior to me. I may very well think they are inferior and do not deserve to hold that power that they currently do. Yet that doesn't prevent me from feeling anger towards them.When something which you perceive to be inferior to you harms you, or presents you with the prospect of being harmed in the near future, the natural response is anger. (If the agent doing the harming is perceived to be superior to you, you feel fear). — Mariner
In whatever way matters to you, the one displaying the emotional response. It is not "ethically" superior, or "intrinsically" superior, which is how you are interpreting it. A small dog annoys you, a lion makes you afraid. You are superior to both in many ways, but clearly inferior to the lion in the aspect which matters the most in that particular interaction.Superior and inferior in what way? — Agustino
How are you defining anger?There's nothing intrinsically wrong with anger. As with other emotions, it's about excess, deficiency and bad influence.
How are you defining anger? — anonymous66
I don't mind saying, "I've notice the desire in humankind, to hurt someone else in retaliation, and I don't believe it is ever necessary to follow through on that desire." If people say, "well, I don't think of that desire to hurt another in retaliation, as anger." that's fine by me. — anonymous66
The usual way. Google it. — Sapientia
My perspective is that the “problem” normally is found in the aggressive actions that stem from our angry thoughts and feelings, as opposed to being with the angry feelings per se
You Americans are obsessed with managing your anger. I don’t get it. Aggression is what needs to be managed, not feelings of anger.
You do understand that that is not really an answer, right? — anonymous66
You did actually provide your choice (the one you chose from among the many the possible choices from Google), so kudos for that. — anonymous66
Sometimes when I read your posts (in this thread and the pornography thread), I get the sense you're saying (with some frustration), "I just randomly choose a definition from the internet.. isn't that what you do?" Is that really the message you want to convey? — anonymous66
You're evading the question. Why did you choose that definition, and not another?Dictionaries are useful things. The dictionary definition for anger that I gave happened to more-or-less match what I had in mind, and that it did was no pure coincidence. It also has the advantage of expressing it better than I could have done unassisted. — Sapientia
Explain to me the process by which you decide which definition to use... do you just use the first one you see? or do you use some other process to make your choice?Googling it should have provided sufficient confirmation. — Sapientia
You're evading the question. Why did you choose that definition, and not another? — anonymous66
Explain to me the process by which you decide which definition to use... do you just use the first one you see? or do you use some other process to make your choice?
Or is it the case that you just look for the definition that you already had in mind? In which case, can you explain why you have that definition in mind, and not some other definition? — anonymous66
Alternatively, one could pick a meaning which doesn't conform quite so well with common usage, ignore rightful criticism of it, and stubbornly press on regardless. — Sapientia
It was the first definition in the list of results which was close enough to what I had in mind — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.