Anger is a negative response, hatred is the intentional cultivation and perpetuation of a negative response or characterization. That's the usual trajectory this takes I think.

I wonder to what extent anger is a response or something more. You may be correct to point to the significances of a response, especially in terms of human action.

However, it does involve the difference between the emotion and the ideas connected with it. In particular, anger can be understood in terms of a physiological response, or in connection with wider aspects of ideals, moral or political. There can be aspects of anger as a negative or positive emotion or as an idea for thinking about how life should be lived, in terms of values.

I wonder to what extent anger is a response or something more. — Jack Cummins

I think the normal - non-pathological - sense of anger is that it is provoked or evoked by something specific. If anger develops into a personality trait then that is something much more complex, probably pathological.

In some ways, anger may be seen as something to be overcome emotionally, or as an idea,or frequency. How does it stand in connection with philosophical ideas and ideals of love and hatred? — Jack Cummins

I believe the affective spectrum of anger includes irritation, annoyance, hostility, disapproval, condemnation, feeling insulted, taking umbrage, resentment, exasperation, impatience, hatred, fury, ire, outrage, contempt, righteous indignation, ‘adaptive' or rational anger, perceiving the other as deliberately thoughtless, rude, careless, negligent, complacent, lazy, self-indulgent, malevolent, dishonest, narcissistic, malicious, culpable, perverse, inconsiderate, intentionally oppressive, anti-social, hypocritical, repressive or unfair, disrespectful, disgraceful, greedy, evil, sinful, criminal, a miscreant. Anger is also implicated in cooly, calmly and rationally determining the other to have deliberately committed a moral transgression, a social injustice or injustice in general, or as committing a moral wrong.

So what do all of these have in common? Anger is a complex multi-step process of assessment. It always begins with a disappointment of expectations , the perception that another has violated or fallen short of our standard of conduct. But this recognition is not enough to produce anger. Anger implies blame, and in blame we believe the other knew better than to do what they did to us in breaking a bond of trust . In other words, in anger we perceive that the other succumbed to some arbitrary , capricious impulse or temptation to deviate from how they knew they should have behaved with us. Thus, built into our angry assessment is the hope that we can sway the wayward other back into the fold, to return them back to where we believe they should have been, to ‘give them a taste of their own medicine’, ‘teach them a lesson’ to coax them to ‘mend their ways’, to repair a lost trust or intimacy. This hope is what gives anger its active quality. But the impulse of anger is not fundamentally aimed at destroying the wayward other , but toward achieving the other’s remorse, apology, repentance.

Hatred leads to formulated values? Anger is something the rises up, and can be overcome upon venting. — Vaskane

It is only reliably overcome by attaining the other’s sincere apology. Venting achieves only temporary relief.

You may be right about common sense of ideas about what constitutes anger. However, pathology in itself is a construct. Here, I am not trying to suggest a necessary going 'beyond good and evil', but more a way in which ideas taken to an extreme can mask so much. For example, in war the idea of an enemy, may evoke so much about ideas of justice, or injustice. A person who Is different, or has different beliefs may be perceived as an oppositional force.

This may be where values come into play, and insistence on one's own set may even lead to a self-righteous sense of anger, to the extent of an argument for the 'common good'. This makes ideas of anger, justice and injustice a controversial area of social ethics.

The concept of hatred as opposed to love is a complex area of human life, ranging from varying perspectives of human nature and motivation and values. Even the concept of love itself is open to question as to what it may entail. Also, how love and hatred as opposites stand as psychological or philosophical ideas stand I'd open to question. Are the ideas a reflection of the complexity of emotions or the emotions a conflict of the nature of ethical values ideals?

↪Joshs If one does not feel the effects of their power from venting, perhaps. Which, one's power tends to be easily felt, in the midst of an apology — Vaskane

I would think venting is only a first step toward dissipating angry thinking. It moves one from a state of active to passive anger without resolving the cause of the anger, so the anger will continue on as seething resentment. Getting the other’s contrition, or forgiving them, takes one further. But even these don’t tell us why the other deviated from our expectations of them. Only discovering that the other’s actions were not deliberately meant, or were justified in our eyes, can our anger be completely eliminated.

Your full consideration of the spectrum of human emotion is very important. It is such an important area of the phenomenology of emotions. Of course, where human emotions come from is also an important question. Emotions, and the instinctual aspects of human life may go back to the instinctual aspects of physiology. This is about lower and higher needs, as suggested by Maslow's in his hierarchy of needs. This an aspect of psychology, but concepts of lower and higher aspects of human nature are unconnected with ethical values, especially in the way psychological.ideaz are seen and evaluated philosophically.

↪Joshs I'm of the opinion it's determinate of the person venting, regarding a strong or weak will. One can be angry at things that can't apologize. — Vaskane

I think , in a sense, when we are angry at things that can’t apologize, we are anthropomorphizing them. We angrily kick the chair that got in our way to punish it, as if it had a personality. We dont really believe this in a later moment of lucidity, where we realize the one our anger was directed at, the one we are trying to punish, isnt really the chair, but our spouse or our boss, orthe gods who put that chair in our way, or maybe even ourselves for being such a spaz. But as long as there is anger, there is a desire to teach a sentient being a lesson.

You may be right about common sense of ideas about what constitutes anger. However, pathology in itself is a construct. Here, I am not trying to suggest a necessary going 'beyond good and evil', but more a way in which ideas taken to an extreme can mask so much. For example, in war the idea of an enemy, may evoke so much about ideas of justice, or injustice. A person who Is different, or has different beliefs may be perceived as an oppositional force.

This may be where values come into play, and insistence on one's own set may even lead to a self-righteous sense of anger, to the extent of an argument for the 'common good'. This makes ideas of anger, justice and injustice a controversial area of social ethics. — Jack Cummins

Hmm. I don't think pathology is entirely a construct Jack. Organic systems have a baseline state of operation known as health. Broadly speaking, this can be extended to the psyche. If any function within a system begins to operate in a way that impairs the function of other functions or of the system as a whole, then that is pathological. However I do know what you mean and agree that it can become or be used as a construct that can itself be harmful.

It sounds to me like you want to focus on "justified" anger, anger towards socially endemic problems. Presumably the role of anger is to motivate action?

I am not wishing to get into unhelpful kits about the nature of 'pathology' but where it seems to me to be most complex is in the construction of ideas of 'mental illness'. I , wonder to what extent it comes down to the organic and defense mechanisms. .

This may come down to philosophical issues underlying psychiatry. How much is physiological, even on a neuropsychological basis? Sometimes, psychology and philosophy are seen as separate and it is likely that the focus is different.


In the real life conundrums of life, including the nature of anger, the differences in the emotions and ideas of anger may be profound

. Part of this may come down to the nature of egoistic concerns and wider ones. This may so much about human needs, including physiological aspects. Nevertheless, the philosophy of how human emotions and underlying values may be significant. Psychology doesn't exist in a vacuum and the physiological and conceptual basis of what matters may be an important area for philosophical consideration

Concepts of pathology may come down both ideas of 'normality' and 'disease'. Going back to ideas of physiology, some such thinking involves the basis of life death, or what Freud regarded as Eros and Thanatos, or the life and death instincts.

The dichotomy here may involve objective aspects of 'illness, including physiological aspects. In spite the this grey area of thinking, the relationship between the physical and mental are intricate. Ideas of pathology and w6hat constitutes 'nomality' may have significance as to.how emotions and relationship to philosophical.ideas and ideals are considered and framed.

In this respect, the movement of antipsychiatry is open to dispute. Thinker from RD Laiing and Thomas Sszas question ideas of pathology. They may have seen some shortcomings, although some of this may be so theoretical as to miss the essentials of emotions, as a starting point for understanding the nature of human values, including its significance for thinking about ethical norms and values.

In the real life conundrums of life, including the nature of anger, the differences in the emotions and ideas of anger may be profound — Jack Cummins

It just seems all extremely general and of almost unlimited scope. You may become angry because I argued for the legitimation of the concept of pathology, a term which you associate with a specific form of prejudice but which has a neutral-functional definition. In that case, is your anger with me, with pathology, or with something else? People can and do become angry for no apparent reason, because they are under various forms of stress. I'd suggest trying to focus the discussion more.

My distinction between anger and hatred comes from Sartre's Transcendence of the Ego.

edit: Actually I do have one additional general concept to add to the burgeoning mass of generalities. I think that "frustration" may be a not insignificant factor in the dynamics of anger and hatred.

Discussions on the philosophy forum often deteriorate into angry exchanges. In those cases, anger is counter-productive to philosophy.

I will look into Sartre's idea of anger and hatred as it seems particularly relevant. It may be that some people on the forum have looked into this writing and area of thinking.

Nevertheless, on a most basic level of thinking the relationship between ideas and emotions may be significant. Going beyond ethical ideas, even the basics of philosophy can stimulate anger. There may be angry theists and atheists . I am not trying to deflect the issue here, because such ideas can be a basis of war of ideas and literal war.

where human emotions come from is also an important question. Emotions, and the instinctual aspects of human life may go back to the instinctual aspects of physiology. This is about lower and higher needs, as suggested by Maslow's in his hierarchy of needs. — Jack Cummins

Yes, I think the physiological and evolutionary aspects of anger (and emotions in general) won’t tell us the central things we need to understand about anger. Even if we could entirely remove what people think of as the ‘instinctive’ or reflexive physiological responses associated with anger, the essential features of anger would remain , which, as I mentioned above, have to do with a cognitive assessment of blame and culpability. The cool , rational judgement of culpability is just as much a product of anger as is uncontrolled flailing about in rage. To understand the origin of anger is to understand the basis of goal-directed cognition.

Discussions on the philosophy forum often deteriorate into angry exchanges. In those cases, anger is counter-productive to philosophy — Pantagruel

Bitch

Bitch — Joshs

:kiss:

Anger can be legitimate and yet still unhelpful. It can be a source of strength, courage, and motivation, but only if effectively sublimated.

Your point here about anger and philosophy discussions, including philosophy forums, is especially important. It may show aspects of investment and attachments to ideas. It is hard to know how possible it is to go beyond this. What would a philosophy apart from human emotions entail?

The angry philosophers may be criticised but what would if mean to stand aside from the emotional aspects of philosophy. Would the absence of emotion and anger lead to indifference, and a consequent philosophy of ideas of indifference?

Would the absence of emotion and anger lead to indifference, and a consequent philosophy of ideas of indifference? — Jack Cummins

The absence of emotion would lead to the absence of experience. Emotion is not some coloration added to thinking, it is the ground of thinking. Every perceived distinction and differentiation is intrinsically affective in nature.

Anger can often be frustration at our own ability to come up with something better than anger.

What is a philosophical 'bitch'? Is it the absolute of opposition of thought? Also, to what extent do ideas which challenge us, represent 'enemy" thinking, or the biggest challenge? Oppositions of ideas are a stressful, but it is questionable where this lead for personal and interpersonal aspects of thinking.

Anger can be legitimate and yetq still unhelpful. It can be a source of strength, courage, and motivation, but only if effectively sublimated. — Pantagruel

But this description seems to separate anger from the perceived meaning of a situation. In your paragraph above, what would happen if we removed the word anger and attributed legitimacy, strength , courage and motivation to the nature of the situation as it is construed , rather than to some separate device we call anger adding these qualities as some special spice? It is the world that is angering, not our physiology.

But this description seems to separate anger from the perceived meaning of a situation. In your paragraph above, what would happen if we removed the word anger and attributed legitimacy, strength , courage and motivation to the nature of the situation as it is construed , rather than to some separate device we call anger adding these qualities as some special spice? It is the world that is angering, not our physiology. — Joshs

One can become angry, yet not allow anger to dictate or motivate one's responses. Becoming angry does not entail displaying anger. I guess anger could be viewed as a "motivational challenge".

The idea of anger as 'frustration' may be important as it can involve so much experience of being 'put down'. The emotion of anger may involve so much repression and suppression.

The ideas of the psychoanalytic thinkers, including Freud and Jung may be important here. Freud speaks of the battle between life and death instincts, Eros and Thanatos. Jung speaks of the 'shadow' as a questionable 'inferior' aspects of human nature to be understood. The role of human emotions and how these are understood may be extremely important in this area of thinking, especially in relation to human nature and self-awareness.

In some ways, anger may be seen as something to be overcome emotionally, or as an idea,or frequency. How does it stand in connection with philosophical ideas and ideals of love and hatred? — Jack Cummins

I tend to agree with Spinoza (& e.g. the Epicureans, Stoics, Pyrrhonians), strong emotions tend to bias or block thinking, especially philosophizing, with that to which such emotions are reacting. 'Philosophies of life' usually propose exercises (e.g. meditating, caretaking, suspending judgment, flowing, being indifferent to whatever cannot be controlled, etc) for cultivating habits of equanimity, which IMO grounds courage (i.e. the skill-set for adaptively, or proactively, using – thriving from – loss, failure or uncertainty).

a
Absence of emotion is an interesting area. In particular, the philosophy and spectrum of autism, raises this question. However, if does come down to what the absence of emotion signifies. Is it about being overwhelmed by the conflicts of the dichotomy of emotion.

Also, on a more conceptual basis, what would it mean to go beyond emotions? How much would be a state of emotional or even logical indifference, How do idea of emotional, logical or reasoning aspects of experience differ in understanding aspects of human experiences?

'Philosophies of life' usually propose exercises (e.g. meditating, caretaking, suspending judgment, flowing, being indifferent to whatever cannot be controlled, etc) for cultivating habits of equanimity, which IMO grounds courage (i.e. the skill-set for adaptively, or proactively, using – thriving from – loss, failure or uncertainty). — 180 Proof

:up:

Stoicism should be taught to elementary school students.

As said, it is really just an example of the problem with "reacting" versus "acting." Anger can be one factor in your response, as you say Jack, if it is motivated by injustice, but it should always be tempered with other influences, reason, compassion, sociability. It is a lesson that took me decades to learn intellectually, and a few years more to adopt habitually.

One can become angry, yet not allow anger to dictate or motivate one's responses. Becoming angry does not entail displaying anger. I guess anger could be viewed as a "motivational challenge". — Pantagruel

So the way I would construe anger is as a rapid , multi-step construal of a situation that begins with loss and disappoint, and is immediately followed by assessment of blame. The instigator of my disappointment deliberately did what they did , knowing i would be hurt by it. Alongside this blamefulness assessment is the mobilization for action to get them to change their ways. Given that anger is this complex of assessments , what would it mean to not allow anger to dictate or motivate one’s responses? If anger is preventing us from thinking or doing something else, isnt it because the way we are assessing the situation is preventing us from responding differently ?
1)that it is disappointing and violating
2) that the person responsible for our letdown did what they did deliberately.
3) that we may be able to coax, shame or force them to change their attitude or behavior.

Yes, we could choose not to ‘display’ anger , but that would involve modifying assessment 3, that we have a chance of correcting the other person. It would be a matter of employing the most effective strategy of provoking improvement in the other’s attitude. We could , for instance, decide that physical assault , while possibly effective, may land us in more trouble than it’s worth. But only if we changed assessment 2, that the other was completely culpable, would we be motivated not to display anger at all.