A voice of reason…

[Skeptic]

Anger accomplishes nothing

Anger, far from accomplishing nothing, is ESSENTIAL for justice and action. Aristotle and Plato already realized that a sense of justice is inherently emotional: it essentially involves anger at those who do wrong.

It is correct to hate and be angry at those who did 9/11. It is correct to hate Hitler and be angry at what he had done. Examples could be multiplied.

To have no use for anger is to have no use for justice. It is the ultimate hubris: to "refuse to give in to anger" means simply that nothing--including the deaths of thousands--is really important enough to actually get emotionally worked up about.

But the same people who do so do become quite emotionally upset and angry if they, or any of their friends or relatives, are unjustly killed or hurt (and quite rightly so, of course).

The whole "I will not give in to anger" thing really means "I will not give in to anger when innocent people I don't personally know are killed--if they didn't know me, they couldn't be important enough for me to feel upset over!"

 

[Jas]

What’s with the personal attacks and hostility here did I insult anyone of you?
I don’t understand this hostility. I’m simply posting my point of view and I get insulted for it. Forgive me for having an opinon that is contray to the majority of people on this forum.

Um, maybe you should take look at some of the other posts in politics, I'm sure I could find some links for you.

And yeah it’s not particually well thought out or written...

Then why post it? In politics, dealing with this subject?

...but I never thought I’d get such hostile reaction or I might put more thought into it. But I just don’t understand all the criticism and insults as I don’t think I’ve written anything that merits it.

Welcome to politics.

(but yeah, when you compare 9/11 to some cartoons, it merits it)

 

[egslim]

Anger accomplishes nothing

Anger, far from accomplishing nothing, is ESSENTIAL for justice and action. Aristotle and Plato already realized that a sense of justice is inherently emotional: it essentially involves anger at those who do wrong.

It is correct to hate and be angry at those who did 9/11. It is correct to hate Hitler and be angry at what he had done. Examples could be multiplied.

To have no use for anger is to have no use for justice. It is the ultimate hubris: to "refuse to give in to anger" means simply that nothing--including the deaths of thousands--is really important enough to actually get emotionally worked up about.

But the same people who do so do become quite emotionally upset and angry if they, or any of their friends or relatives, are unjustly killed or hurt (and quite rightly so, of course).

The whole "I will not give in to anger" thing really means "I will not give in to anger when innocent people I don't personally know are killed--if they didn't know me, they couldn't be important enough for me to feel upset over!"

Well, I'm pretty sure those Muslims storming embassies and shouting "Death to x" were genuinely angry and upset. And needless to say, they did give in to it. So what exactly is the problem if, as you say,

to "refuse to give in to anger" means simply that nothing--including the deaths of thousands--is really important enough to actually get emotionally worked up about.

Aren't all of us saying these Muslims should not give in to their anger (because rationally it's not worth it) and exercise some self-restraint?
We may not agree with their anger, but to them it's a very real emotion.

 

[aerosolben]

Aren't all of us saying these Muslims should not give in to their anger (because rationally it's not worth it) and exercise some self-restraint?
We may not agree with their anger, but to them it's a very real emotion.

Even if the emotion is real, the resulting action is completely unjustified. Tolerance and restraint are also virtues not to be overlooked.

 

[egslim]

Exactly my point. Both tolerance and restraint are based on reason, not emotion.

Also giving in to anger, even if justified, may have serious adverse consequences for oneself.

 

[BPSCG]

Solus -

Welcome to the forum. As you've already discovered, this is a tough crowd, sometimes even a mean one. Nobody here will applaud you because you're young or beautiful or rich. But neither will they curse you for being old, ugly, or poor.

What they will do is poke and prod and look for the weak spot in every post you put up. If you don't have your facts straight, you'll find out in a hurry. If your logic is faulty, you'll get a quick lesson, with some Latin phrases thrown in (tu quoque, ad hominem...). If you make arguments based on anything but facts and reason, we'll slap you around like we was all your daddy.

So why stick around? Because this is the place where you find out how clearly you can write, and how clearly you can think. I flatter myself that I think clearly and write well, but I've been brought up short more than once here because I wrote something in haste, choosing neither my words nor my thoughts carefully. You've already experienced that, and you sound like you've learned from the experience, to which I can only say, "Bravo!" A lot of people have posted here for a while and discovered the weather was too rough, and departed, taking with them their mushy thinking and mushy writing. This can be the place where you hone your thinking and writing to a coruscating edge. If you're not afraid.

Again, welcome.

Did he really say "coruscating"...?

 

[Art Vandelay]

What’s with the personal attacks and hostility here did I insult anyone of you?
I don’t understand this hostility. I’m simply posting my point of view and I get insulted for it. Forgive me for having an opinon that is contray to the majority of people on this forum.

Your original post implied that posters here are immature, irrational, self-centered bigots. And you wonder why your are not warmly received?

Well, I'm pretty sure those Muslims storming embassies and shouting "Death to x" were genuinely angry and upset. And needless to say, they did give in to it. So what exactly is the problem if, as you say,

Well, the original claim was that anger accomplishes nothing. Your post is simply yet another counter example to this claim: Muslim did accomplish something. As for your question, it's rather fallacious reasoning. Simply because we don't think that all anger is bad, does not mean we think all anger is good.

Aren't all of us saying these Muslims should not give in to their anger (because rationally it's not worth it) and exercise some self-restraint?

Muslims are free to be angry. They are not free to express that anger through violence.

 

[egslim]

Well, the original claim was that anger accomplishes nothing. Your post is simply yet another counter example to this claim: Muslim did accomplish something. As for your question, it's rather fallacious reasoning. Simply because we don't think that all anger is bad, does not mean we think all anger is good.

Muslims are free to be angry. They are not free to express that anger through violence.

I wasn't responding to the original claim though, but to Sceptics post. With

Anger, far from accomplishing nothing, is ESSENTIAL for justice and action.
[...]
To have no use for anger is to have no use for justice.

Anger may have formed the basis for justice, but fortunately we have progresses beyond that. Nowadays justice is dispenced by a judge and possibly a jury, through reason - not anger.
Basically, my point was to show anger is not as essential or important as Scepic claimed.
And I would love to see an example where restraint of anger in favor of reason is actually a bad thing. Reason can be used to dispence justice, as is demonstrated all the time by our legal system.
Of course I'm kind of cheating, since any such example would have to be supported by arguments of why this is so - thereby demonstrating reason would have arrived at the same conclusion as anger.

I completely agree the statement that anger accomplishes nothing is silly.

 

[BPSCG]

Anger is an emotion and therefore a hindrance to rational thought. It may serve as a spur to action, but when it occupies the mind in contemplation of action, it often leads to ruinous results. How many times have you said or done something in the heat of anger, only to regret it later? The guy who said, "When angry, count to ten" knew what he was talking about.

 

[Lukretius]

What’s with the personal attacks and hostility here did I insult anyone of you?
I don’t understand this hostility. I’m simply posting my point of view and I get insulted for it. Forgive me for having an opinon that is contray to the majority of people on this forum.

Never mind the "hostility" - it's kind'a "the name of the game". Give some bashing back and be ready to accept if somebody has a better argument or a better fact than you, and you'll be fine.

Welcome to the forum.

Oh - and if you don't like heavy beating, you're absolutely right... don't post half worked posts

 

[Art Vandelay]

Anger may have formed the basis for justice, but fortunately we have progresses beyond that. Nowadays justice is dispenced by a judge and possibly a jury, through reason - not anger.

It's dispensed through reason, but it's also dispensed because of anger. Laws against murder are an expression of society's anger towards murderers.

Basically, my point was to show anger is not as essential or important as Scepic claimed.

Laws dispense justice, true. But the laws themselves come from anger.

BTW, I think he's American. It's spelled "Skeptic".

And I would love to see an example where restraint of anger in favor of reason is actually a bad thing.

What about kidnapping for ransom? The rational response for each individual is to pay the ransom. But society would be better off if they were to react with anger, and do everything they can to catch the kidnappers, even if it meant losing their loved one. If everyone did that, then no one would engage in kidnapping for ransom, because they would realize that there's no money in it.

Oh - and if you don't like heavy beating, you're absolutely right... don't post half worked posts

I wouldn't say this is a heavy beating. Relatively speaking, this is mild disapproval.

 

[kittynh]

It's tough here, but hey this wasn't nearly the treatment the El Greco got for daring to post that some of the attendees at The Amazing Meeting were fashion challenged.

I'm totally serious.

Which this being a forum of course is not.

 

[Meadmaker]

Age has brought wisdom ...

More age will bring more wisdom. I would have said the same things you are saying back when I was your age. However, I have lived another of your lifetimes since that time.

 

[egslim]

It's dispensed through reason, but it's also dispensed because of anger. Laws against murder are an expression of society's anger towards murderers.

Anger against murder is one explanation. Another one is to reason that a society needs to condemn murder for it to prosper.

Considering there are many modern "exceptions" to laws against murder - necessary self defense is allowed, mental illnesses are treated instead of sent to prison. Such exceptions follow logically from punishment because of reason, not because of anger.

What about kidnapping for ransom? The rational response for each individual is to pay the ransom. But society would be better off if they were to react with anger, and do everything they can to catch the kidnappers, even if it meant losing their loved one. If everyone did that, then no one would engage in kidnapping for ransom, because they would realize that there's no money in it.

I wouldn't say paying the ransom is rational for the individual, since it doesn't guarantee they will have their loved ones returned. Going after them they will need the rest of society, though.
Also, paying up makes one a prime target for the next attempt.

But we are social animals, so if our society prospers everyone benefits. Therefore it sometimes makes rational sense to sacrifice yourself, if that brings greater benefits to your relatives and loved ones.
Other examples would be people like firefighters, soldiers and policemen, who expose themselves to greater risk so others may benefit.

Basically I'm arguing for reason from a 'selfish gene'-perspective.

 

[rikzilla]

What’s with the personal attacks and hostility here did I insult anyone of you?
I don’t understand this hostility. I’m simply posting my point of view and I get insulted for it. Forgive me for having an opinon that is contray to the majority of people on this forum.

And yeah it’s not particually well thought out or written but I never thought I’d get such hostile reaction or I might put more thought into it. But I just don’t understand all the criticism and insults as I don’t think I’ve written anything that merits it.

Kiddo...I know the rhetorical pool-fight we have going on here looks fun from afar. But take care. The water is deep and sharks regularly pick off those misfortunates who wade in unprepared.

Write your 20 page research paper and come on back with facts and educated opinions.

Facts and evidence may be used as a floatation device....

-z

PS: Never tell a group like this how young you are. We'll figure it out eventually; but the sharks love the young. They're firm yet crunchy...best not to announce yourself to them too loudly.

Welcome to the forum!