Let me see if I can sum up our conversation so far. Don't let me put any words in your mouth, if I get anything wrong, please correct me.
Me: It seems to me that if anger is defined as: the desire to hurt someone else in retaliation, then it is not necessary.
Sapientia: That's not a good definition
Me: How are you defining anger?
S: The usual way, Google it. If you had Googled it, you would have seen for yourself.
Me: How do you decide which definition among those Googled, to use?
S: Online dictionaries are useful.... I use the online dictionary definition (notice the shifting from Google to online dictionary....)
S: I just use the first definition that agrees with the way I define anger. — anonymous66
Here's a well reasoned article that expresses the idea that it's not actually anger that is the problem, it's aggression. — anonymous66
There's only one evil, ignorance.
How to Start Using Your Anger in a Helpful Way
Make an effort to become aware of the moment you feel anger. Usually, your heart rate will speed, your face may feel hot, and you will feel a surge of energy. The sooner you notice your anger, the sooner and better you can take control of it, and use it in a healthy way. The key is to know that you’re angry when it’s small instead of after it’s already intense.
Regard your anger as a helpful message from your body, and put energy into figuring out its proper target, and what its message is. It may be saying, “Watch out for this person,” “Speak up,” “Protect yourself,” “This is an unfair situation,” “You are being hurt right now,” or an infinite number of different things. Listen to your anger, and it will inform you.
Learn the skills of assertiveness. The skills are: being aware of your anger and why you’re feeling it (our first two bullet points); managing the anger so that it doesn’t come out excessively; and identifying the right words and tone to express the feeling to its proper target. These are the skills of assertiveness. And you can learn them!
Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this... This is your chance to set things right...It's not so much that you're putting words in my mouth, but that you're taking what I said out of context with your little cut-and-paste job, and I do object to that.
I also object to the misleading implication in your annotated comment. There is no sneaky, dubious shift going on which warrants any criticism. Obviously the purpose of googling it is to bring up definitions from online dictionaries. — Sapientia
My criticism is constructive. — Sapientia
My point? It seems to me that some are of the opinion that there is some obvious, agreed upon definition of anger. If that is the case, then I'd like to know what that definition is, and just what it is about that definition that makes it obvious. — anonymous66
Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this... This is your chance to set things right...
Assume that I'm asking you, "How would you define anger?" How would you respond?
Would your answer be
1. I would use Google
2. I would use an online dictionary
or 3. I would look online and use the definition that agrees with what I already had in mind
Or is there some other way you'd answer the question?
My point? It seems to me that some are of the opinion that there is some obvious, agreed upon definition of anger. If that is the case, then I'd like to know what that definition is, and just what it is about that definition that makes it obvious. — anonymous66
Your criticism is not constructive, it is snotty and condescending. Which would be ok, I guess, if it were helpful and responsive, but it's not. Most of what you have had to say is about why you don't need to define "anger" and why you should never have to define anything and why people are unreasonable for wanting or expecting you to. — T Clark
I went on line. Here are five definitions of “anger” I found on dictionary sites and Wikipedia:
[1] A strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility.
[2] A strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism
[3] The feeling people get when something unfair, painful, or bad happens:
[4] The strong emotion that you feel when you think that someone has behaved in an unfair, cruel, or unacceptable way.
[5]An emotion that involves a strong uncomfortable and emotional response to a perceived provocation, hurt or threat.
These are all pretty consistent, although some have different emphases. One thing they agree on is that anger is an emotion. That's it. It's not an action, an intention, or a desire. It's not about doing harm to someone or getting revenge.
Is that obvious? — T Clark
You're simply wrong on that one. I've explained how my criticism is constructive, and I can explain why your reply above is not. Criticism doesn't have to be coated in sugar in order to be constructive, as the misleading juxtaposition in your first sentence seems to suggest.. — Sapientia
My criticism identifies a problem, explains why it's a problem, and points to solutions to rectify the problem. No amount of ad hominem will change that. — Sapientia
Let's see. So. Are you saying that criticism that is snotty and condescending can still be constructive? — T Clark
There was no ad hominem attack in my post. I said your criticism is snotty and condescending, not that you are. — T Clark
Right. So you expect me to believe the two can be isolated just like that? It was indirectly a personal accusation, about my attitude, and it focussed on the tone and style, rather than the substance. Playing the man, not the ball. — Sapientia
It is not a matter of what I expect you to believe, it is a matter of the actual meaning of the phrase "ad hominem." What I said was in no way, directly or indirectly, a personal accusation. You may not like what I said, but that's not the same thing. — T Clark
The first way is what she calls the "road of payback". It is mistaken because it includes the belief that the suffering of the wrongdoer somehow restores the important thing that was damaged. She labels this as false and incoherent, but nevertheless points out that it is a very common belief. "But the wrongdoer's suffering does not bring back the person or valued item that was damaged."At the heart of my argument is an analysis of anger, which I present in chapter 2. Concurring with a long philosophical tradition that includes Aristotle, the Greek and Roman Stoics, and Bishop Butler, I argue that anger includes, conceptually, not only the idea of a serious wrong done to someone or something of significance, but also the idea that it would be a good thing if the wrongdoer suffered some bad consequences somehow. Each of these thoughts must be qualified in complex ways, but that's the essence of the analysis. I then argue that anger, so understood, is always normatively problematic in one or the other of two possible ways.
I just came across this article by Martha Nussbaum today... she covers some of the same ground as she does in the book (and in the Atlantic article).The last thing—and this is the crucial one, I think: Aristotle, and every other philosopher known to me who writes about anger, says that part of anger itself is a desire for payback. Without that desire, it’s not really anger—it’s something else.
There’s no emotion we ought to think harder and more clearly about than anger. Anger greets most of us every day – in our personal relationships, in the workplace, on the highway, on airline trips – and, often, in our political lives as well. Anger is both poisonous and popular. Even when people acknowledge its destructive tendencies, they still so often cling to it, seeing it as a strong emotion, connected to self-respect and manliness (or, for women, to the vindication of equality). If you react to insults and wrongs without anger you’ll be seen as spineless and downtrodden. When people wrong you, says conventional wisdom, you should use justified rage to put them in their place, exact a penalty. We could call this football politics, but we’d have to acknowledge right away that athletes, whatever their rhetoric, have to be disciplined people who know how to transcend anger in pursuit of a team goal.
More controversial, perhaps, is [Aristotle's] idea (in which, however, all Western philosophers who write about anger concur) that the angry person wants some type of payback, and that this is a conceptual part of what anger is. In other words, if you don’t want some type of payback, your emotion is something else (grief, perhaps), but not really anger.
Anger may be defined as an impulse, accompanied by pain, to a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight directed without justification towards what concerns oneself or towards what concerns one's friends. If this is a proper definition of anger, it must always be felt towards some particular individual, e.g. Cleon, and not "man" in general. [1378b] It must be felt because the other has done or intended to do something to him or one of his friends. It must always be attended by a certain pleasure -- that which arises from the expectation of revenge. For since nobody aims at what he thinks he cannot attain, the angry man is aiming at what he can attain, and the belief that you will attain your aim is pleasant.
Aristotle's definition differs little from mine; for he says that anger is the desire to repay suffering.
A good place to begin is Aristotle’s definition: not perfect, but useful, and a starting point for a long Western tradition of reflection.
It looks to me like the Buddhist view of anger is very similar to that of the ancient Stoics.Buddhist philosophy tells us that all personal unhappiness and interpersonal conflict lie in the “three poisons”: craving, anger, and delusion. It also provides antidotes of astonishing psychological sophistication--which are now being confirmed by modern neuroscience. With new high-tech devices, scientists can peer inside the brain centers that calm the inner storms of rage and fear. They also can demonstrate that awareness-training strategies such as meditation strengthen emotional stability—and greatly enhance our positive moods.
More controversial, perhaps, is [Aristotle's] idea (in which, however, all Western philosophers who write about anger concur) that the angry person wants some type of payback, and that this is a conceptual part of what anger is. In other words, if you don’t want some type of payback, your emotion is something else (grief, perhaps), but not really anger.
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.