Yes, I should've tried reading the whole thing properly before constructing an elaborate response. I apologise, but I think what came out is also interesting nevertheless.

Nope, it’s a broad term. Being angry that the bus arrived late, being angry that your team lost, being angry at your wife cheating on you, being angry at not being able to remember a song. Jim being angry at his boss. John being angry at his boss. Natasha being angry at her boss. Angry tiger when it can’t get any food. Angry birds. The subtle anger in anonymous Internet forums. Feeling hangry before lunch. Being hangry before dinner. Raging. Punching the wall. Grinding your teeth. A slight roll of eyes. See? Very broad. Its not a spectrum, no human emotion is.

Yes, I think emotions too are regulated by the brain in a logical manner. The clue here is that every brain is different, coming to its current state after years or decades of experience, and every situation is also different. Hence the variety in anger.

I vote for Meditations on first philosophy by Rene Descartes himself.

“We’re conscious beings, why?”

Ok. Let’s see.
Looks like a living thing has the natural tendency to alter its genes such that it’s offsprings can use the environment around them optimally to increase the chances of survival and reproduction, be it matter or energy. Both plants and animals can be observed to use these physical entities, matter like chemicals, water, gases, etc and energy like light, sound, heat, gravity, etc. But while such matter and energy was often used directly, such as in mineral observation and photosynthesis in plants, and metabolism and locomotion in animals, living beings had another way of conducting their lives in the planet, which is something called “sensing”. At first it is believed to have been rather primitive by our standards, some globule of chemicals that could identify a helpful chemical from a useless one, or could slowly swim itself towards some source of heat it sensed, but eventually thanks to evolution, some lineage of beings became equipped with such enormously complex and powerful organs as eyes and ears, supplying their central nervous system with detailed information about their environment. It is believed to have been a sort of automatic process, called instincts and habits. There was no mind in the brain of even the most complex animals like mammals, i.e. they could go to a river and drink some water, but didn’t know that. Eventually Homo Sapiens came along, and they differed from all other mammals in the regard that they could not only do that, but know what exactly they’re doing. Being conscious about it.
Now, why are Homo Sapiens conscious? It’s the same answer to the question why are plants green or why are birds restless? It’s because every living being tends to not only try to make the best use of its environment to survive and reproduce, but each of it tends to as a species try (sometimes successfully) to make its reproduced offsprings even better equipped for survival and further improved reproduction. But not all of them do it the same way. For some species it’s a lager paw while for others it’s a more reddish hue of its flowers. For some primates it was apparently a more advanced brain capable of consciousness, abstract reasoning, planning, language, and much else.

(Little must have nature herself guessed what would eventually happen when she first equipped some great apes with this singular capacity.)

Of course I assume you’re not mistaking what is meant by humanism here, which is the study of human nature, and not the humanist movement in philosophy, which would be a fallacy because it’s very definition would contradict your statements.

I’m unable to decipher what you understood by what I wrote, but I simply meant that there are arguments that exist (I might happen to agree or disagree with them), which say that human nature isn’t “good by nature” as claimed by some (just look at all the human history and prehistory, with its narrative riddled by wars, prisons, brutality, injustice, oppression, and so on ). Then there’s the other argument that human nature is, quite the inverse of this view, actually “bad by nature”, or in other words, people are naturally greedy, selfish and brutish until you teach them not to be by whatever it is, religion, culture, long years of education, arts and literature, philosophy, whipping, burning at the stake, prison, whatever.
I’m not siding with either of these vague, generalising and rather simple arguments.
I’m also not claiming I disagree with the view that 100 people dying in a flood is worse than 100 wilderbeasts dying in a flood. Nor that I agree with that. I’m not God, I don’t agree or disagree with such things. I have no control over them, so I do what I’m supposed to which is to just take things as they are. I might occasionally choose to not only try and see the world as it is, but also how it ought to be, but I mostly just dismiss such fantasies as useless wishful thinking. But if I could somehow save either the 100 people or the 100 wilderbeests (I don’t know what sort of weird fantastical situation I would be in to be making this decision), then I would choose to save the people. Is this because I’m human, cultured, kind, educated, not a savage, conforming to social standards, soft on the inside, habituated, brainwashed, wise, I do not know. I’d just make that choice, oblivious to the (welcome) side effect that it will make me a more genuine human being, for whatever that means. I also understand that many people would do the same, and many wouldn’t, for this reason or that. The latter contradict your point.

I don’t know but i think work on measuring abstract human concepts like how interesting, original, artistic, aesthetic and so forth things are should be useful in the work on developing artificial intelligence. But I also suspect it too will suffer from what psychology and ethics suffer from, which is that are rather vague, and what humanities suffers from, which is that they’re rather generalising and socio-political, or what formal logic suffers from, which is that it’s rather dismissive of plain common sense (which, though sometimes prone to irrationality, is often very useful). Not to mention the direction of research on AI always being on leash of commercial interests, political beliefs, and even culture, technically difficult and technologically bottlenecked as it already is.
But I don’t think there is a better approach to this than plain old Utilitarianism schemed into an object-oriented computer framework, but with lots of room for approximation and error (of judgment?) in the parameters and variables.
But it is perhaps advisable to remember that all of that will always incorporate and be incapsulated by the human side of things, and won’t become a proper sovereign and intelligent entity, simply because computers are invariably built by humans, according to an intelligent design and for a certain purpose, unlike us humans who seem to have come from a sort of accidental freak-whim of nature for reproduction and evolution, nature itself also being a freak-whim of...something (Supernature? Bearded guy is the heavens? Mysterious strings? Nobody knows). People and their minds, quite different things from laptops and their Microsoft Windows.

Anger is a broad term. Being angry means different things for different persons. The stoic idea is not about feeling the emotion of anger, but to quickly control it, and to not react destructively from anger towards the object of the anger, mainly because that rarely solves the problem but can often make it worse by impairing rationality.

“The first sentence gave me a headache so I stopped reading.”

Same haha

Some arguments question the claim that humanism is moral, inherently or otherwise.