Is anger often the last stand for those who are wrong?

[GrowingSmaller]

I dont see any issues with "mathematical" style tautologies, for instance well being is in our interests, and therefore good. Its true "by definition" I suppose. But that doesnt make it redundant, after all £20 - £5 is £15, and thats a tautology, but still you wouldnt want to be short-changed as the mini market. This is stuff I believe we can know in advance, a priori.

Then in politcs. We're a bit like Gods playing dice, we have a statistical influence with rules and regulations - not a deductive one. Probably not necessarily, influenceing things not controlling them necessarily. LAws have consequences, but theyre not deductive but inductive.

So thats the two sides of an asymmetry, the ontological ethics relating to the "mathemata" on the one side (of the person - the inner being, in whose interests it is to be well) and the normative ethics on the outside action based side of reality (the outer world we try to give order to)...


ta mathemata in Heidegger:
http://www.ashokkarra.com/2011/10/n...s-modern-science-metaphysics-and-mathematics/

I think that politicians are trying to absolutise their game. I play chess, its the best game! But the question arises - for who?

 

[quatona]

Yeah, sorry, I didn´t mean to derail the thread by evoking a discussion about the epistemological benefits (or lack or limitations thereof) of tautologies (although this may make for an interesting new thread).
So let´s approach this more systematically:
What, for purposes of this discussion, is considered a "good cause" for anger?

 

[Received]

1. I've seen many examples of this, yesterday I was told debates between (US) Republicans and (US) Democrats are likely to be full of anger. In my own experience it is mainly the Republicans who get angry.

2. Wikipedia defines anger as an intense emotional response... to a perceived provocation.

3. Someone with a better basis for what they are saying might be expected to feel less threatened than someone with none.

Anger can be expressed by someone who has been wronged, such as someone whose country has been bombed, but I would suggest the most intense anger without any good cause would be found more often among those who know they are wrong.

4. So why can't a person in the wrong change their mind?

Eh, not impressed with Wikipedia's response. Anger -- and I say this a a therapist who deals with anger -- is a very hard emotion to pin down, probably because it's almost always if not always attended by a deeper softer emotion (hurt, sadness, fear), the anger a secondary emotion to this primary one. Anger is the will-to-harm based in the interpretation that your desire has been thwarted. Best example is to think of how easily angry we are when someone wakes us up in the morning: intense desire to sleep thwarted by knocking at the door, loud wives, etc., followed by a will-to-harm (mean looks, yelling, etc.).

But yeah, anger is definitely a last stand, and probably usually a first stand (just well-hidden) by those who are wrong. It doesn't need to be that way; you can be wrong without any goal or desire being thwarted. If you set up a superficial standard of being right (or worse connect being right with being a certain type of person, e.g., a good person, strong person, etc.) for your desire, of course you're going to be much more angry and angry more often than the person who doesn't have this standard and instead wants to get at the truth, which even someone who is the dialectical opposite of what you believe can help you attain this by his contribution to conversation.

Why people don't change their mind is another deal. They probably don't change because it's one thing to think you're wrong and another to admit it publicly; what will people think?

 

[variant]

Does not follow. Being angry doesn't make someone wrong.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Does not follow. Being angry doesn't make someone wrong.

Maybe it works the other way around, anger causes a person to ignore what is actually going on


As an example many are familiar with, back in the 80s we were told in the US and in the UK that we should ignore wealth distribution, that the rising tide floats all boats. Three decades have passed and all that happened was the rich got a lot richer, and on average the lower 90% stayed about the same, some up some down, but for more work. The 'trickle-down' effect has been disproved but two days ago I heard a fairly poor person who was going to vote Republican that making sure the rich have low taxes is the only way the rest of us will survive financially. And the data show that Republican Presidents spend far more than Democrat ones, not that I'm going to vote according to party, but for the past few decades that has been true, yet many claim the opposite

Plenty of people are in denial. Perhaps anger is instead the first line of defence against having to change their minds.

 

[buzuxi02]

That's ridiculous. It's alot more common for a person who is right to get angry if everyone else thinks he is wrong.

There are also certain things unique to each individual through whatever life experiences that can "get under ones skin". It's called "pushing ones buttons". To one person it maybe all about nothing, to another who has more of an emotional investment a big deal. Completely irrelevant of right or wrong.

 

[Received]

Maybe it works the other way around, anger causes a person to ignore what is actually going on


As an example many are familiar with, back in the 80s we were told in the US and in the UK that we should ignore wealth distribution, that the rising tide floats all boats. Three decades have passed and all that happened was the rich got a lot richer, and on average the lower 90% stayed about the same, some up some down, but for more work. The 'trickle-down' effect has been disproved but two days ago I heard a fairly poor person who was going to vote Republican that making sure the rich have low taxes is the only way the rest of us will survive financially. And the data show that Republican Presidents spend far more than Democrat ones, not that I'm going to vote according to party, but for the past few decades that has been true, yet many claim the opposite

Plenty of people are in denial. Perhaps anger is instead the first line of defence against having to change their minds.

Anger can be a very narcissistic emotion, because it's caught up in responding to underlying hurt they feel rather than what's going on out there. But according to Buddhist Matthieu Ricard, you can "use" the energy of anger to propel you to do noble things, but this takes a lot of discipline in not getting absorbed by the anger.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Anger can be a very narcissistic emotion, because it's caught up in responding to underlying hurt they feel rather than what's going on out there. But according to Buddhist Matthieu Ricard, you can "use" the energy of anger to propel you to do noble things, but this takes a lot of discipline in not getting absorbed by the anger.

Thank you, if I ever get angry I will remember that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Some people get angry because they are correct but get frustrated by all the people not getting it.

 

[razzelflabben]

1. I've seen many examples of this, yesterday I was told debates between (US) Republicans and (US) Democrats are likely to be full of anger. In my own experience it is mainly the Republicans who get angry.

2. Wikipedia defines anger as an intense emotional response... to a perceived provocation.

3. Someone with a better basis for what they are saying might be expected to feel less threatened than someone with none.

Anger can be expressed by someone who has been wronged, such as someone whose country has been bombed, but I would suggest the most intense anger without any good cause would be found more often among those who know they are wrong.

4. So why can't a person in the wrong change their mind?

as I read this post, I wondered why you think that republicans get more angry then democrats when I see the opposite of this. Thus I might conclude that it is a matter of perspective, both of the anger and the one who is angry...for example, if someone is angry or sounding angry, maybe it is not because they are wrong, but because they perceive themselves to be out numbered, without answers, etc. Just a thought for what it's worth....that being said however, you are right, many people seem to get angry when they are feeling conviction and too proud to change their opinions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

1. I've seen many examples of this, yesterday I was told debates between (US) Republicans and (US) Democrats are likely to be full of anger. In my own experience it is mainly the Republicans who get angry.

2. Wikipedia defines anger as an intense emotional response... to a perceived provocation.

3. Someone with a better basis for what they are saying might be expected to feel less threatened than someone with none.

Anger can be expressed by someone who has been wronged, such as someone whose country has been bombed, but I would suggest the most intense anger without any good cause would be found more often among those who know they are wrong.

4. So why can't a person in the wrong change their mind?

There are better ways to bash Republicans.

 

[Albion]

as I read this post, I wondered why you think that republicans get more angry then democrats when I see the opposite of this.

Me, too....especially considering that it's the Democrats who use the most accusatory and defamatory speech on their opponents. The OP didn't really make sense, leading me to wonder if it wasn't more of a statement than a genuine question.

 

[Job8]

1. I've seen many examples of this, yesterday I was told debates between (US) Republicans and (US) Democrats are likely to be full of anger. In my own experience it is mainly the Republicans who get angry.

Unless you can provide actual statistics to support this, it's a little careless to lump all people within a specific political party as having a certain attitude. Having said that, Republicans in the establishment (the Washington elite) have chosen to become clones of the Democrats, so why would they get angry with the ones they emulate? If you are referring to those who are from outside the establishment, they have every reason to be angry with the way things have gone in government to the detriment of the country. There is such a thing as righteous anger at the betrayal of the ordinary citizen.

People are falsely stating that Donald Trump is "angry" just because he is not afraid to speak the truth which has been suppressed for years by the media and the politicians. But it is not anger that is motivating him. His slogan makes it clear that he wants to "Make America Great Again" and that is a very positive thing. No wonder he has been leading in the polls for a long time, and both blacks and hispanics support him.

Speaking of anger, every citizen should be angry with how this administration is destroying America and encouraging its enemies. That is fundamentally treason, but no one wants to use that word. There are several high ranking people who should be getting impeached as we speak, and many of them should be behind bars.

 

[razzelflabben]

Me, too....especially considering that it's the Democrats who use the most accusatory and defamatory speech on their opponents. The OP didn't really make sense, leading me to wonder if it wasn't more of a statement than a genuine question.

I think you make another good point here, just because someone is accusatory and defamatory in speech, doesn't mean they are "angry" it means that is the way they are being perceived. I know people who every other word that comes out of their mouth is a cuss word, it is how they speak because of what they have been taught and not a reflection of anger per say....poor behavior absolutely and in my opinion, needing correction, but none the less, not necessarily anger, just poor behavior.

 

[MorkandMindy]

as I read this post, I wondered why you think that republicans get more angry then democrats when I see the opposite of this. Thus I might conclude that it is a matter of perspective, both of the anger and the one who is angry...for example, if someone is angry or sounding angry, maybe it is not because they are wrong, but because they perceive themselves to be out numbered, without answers, etc. Just a thought for what it's worth....that being said however, you are right, many people seem to get angry when they are feeling conviction and too proud to change their opinions.

Fair comment, beliefs that clash with one's own are going to stand out a lot more as being a disagreement.

My point in using political statements is they are well known and appear to be the most familiar source of debate and disagreement. In addition they are complex enough so by selectively ignoring things a person can hold a position very different from other people's and both can believe themselves to be totally right.

My own stance includes an observation that at present both parties have one candidate who doesn't belong to his backers, so both might be about equal in that way. I don't consider a candidate who belongs to his or her backers to be viable whichever party name plate they are carrying.

 

[SkyWriting]

So why can't a person in the wrong change their mind?

Who says they are wrong?

 

[razzelflabben]

Fair comment, beliefs that clash with one's own are going to stand out a lot more as being a disagreement.

My point in using political statements is they are well known and appear to be the most familiar source of debate and disagreement. In addition they are complex enough so by selectively ignoring things a person can hold a position very different from other people's and both can believe themselves to be totally right.

My own stance includes an observation that at present both parties have one candidate who doesn't belong to his backers, so both might be about equal in that way. I don't consider a candidate who belongs to his or her backers to be viable whichever party name plate they are carrying.

Let's add another layer to this whole discussion...sometimes, others read into arguments what is not there. For example, i am not democrat or republican yet, if I say something that sounds to a democrat as something a republican would say, more times than not, I will be viewed as a republican, on a good day, a closet republican and everything I say after that will be viewed through the disgust of a democrat looking at a republican which I will view as hostile and angry.

I guess what I am suggesting is that at the root of the issue is people who don't listen. Listening is a skill that we stopped teaching eons ago and one that our world is desperate to revive. If a person feels they are no being heard, they will often sound angry because they need to be heard and heard without all the projections and colored glasses. At the root of the none listening issue, is the whole emotionally charged nature of the discussions in question.

Bottom line, if we don't want to contribute to the non sense and we want to be above reproach, we ourselves need to guard our words against an emotional response and offer a listening ear no matter the response giving. But then again, in such discussions as this, I purpose to find an answer that I can apply to myself.

 

[MorkandMindy]

To me the interesting part of this thread was to find out that anger is more complex than I had thought coming in a number of varieties from aggressive through passive variants with different loci as well.

My own perspective is likely to be somewhat odd as I arrived from England a year ago. Apart from having an NHS, England and particularly the part I came from which is the home district of David Cameron, was way off to the right politically and what I experienced in terms of closing manufacturing or if profitable selling it off, was unrestricted capitalism / free trade and just destroying each company I worked in, so maybe I'm a bit biased. It is as though I have seen the future consequences of far right policies and what they lead to.

Also policies labelled as left wing, and often the left is gullible enough to also believe these labels, are actually right wing. One example is that high levels of immigration undercut the lowest wages and therefore right wing policies. I'm interested by the stance Trump takes and agree with his basic idea though not his proposed implementation. Also labelled as left wing is the whole philosophy of having an EU, although it was pushed through by the Conservatives. On this I differ from many and am still waiting to be enlightened by a bearer of the truth.

My own stance on each issue so far could be simplified by saying 'do what the Germans do'.

But tomorrow I've got to read the article on anger because that is the part I'm not familiar with.

 

[razzelflabben]

To me the interesting part of this thread was to find out that anger is more complex than I had thought coming in a number of varieties from aggressive through passive variants with different loci as well.

My own perspective is likely to be somewhat odd as I arrived from England a year ago. Apart from having an NHS, England and particularly the part I came from which is the home district of David Cameron, was way off to the right politically and what I experienced in terms of closing manufacturing or if profitable selling it off, was unrestricted capitalism / free trade and just destroying each company I worked in, so maybe I'm a bit biased. It is as though I have seen the future consequences of far right policies and what they lead to.

Also policies labelled as left wing, and often the left is gullible enough to also believe these labels, are actually right wing. One example is that high levels of immigration undercut the lowest wages and therefore right wing policies. I'm interested by the stance Trump takes and agree with his basic idea though not his proposed implementation. Also labelled as left wing is the whole philosophy of having an EU, although it was pushed through by the Conservatives. On this I differ from many and am still waiting to be enlightened by a bearer of the truth.

My own stance on each issue so far could be simplified by saying 'do what the Germans do'.

But tomorrow I've got to read the article on anger because that is the part I'm not familiar with.

Your posts intrigue me...for example, on the issue of minimum wages, there are two sides and both sides are right to a point. Unless we are willing to listen to all sides and different perspectives we cannot hope to know truth and yet scripture tells us truth, scripture tells us that all governments are inherently bad because they are based on man and man's evil nature. Which is why it doesn't make sense to me for people to take the emotional, hard, unbending approach to anything other than following God with all that they are. Whether we are talking about politics, sexuality, or something beyond those, every point has a counter point that includes at least enough truth to make it a convincing argument to at least some. Why allow that to make us angry? Why not accept that each has some truth and some falsehoods and focus our attention of holding to the truths of God over the conveniences of man's understanding

 

[MorkandMindy]

Your posts intrigue me... ...Why not accept that each has some truth and some falsehoods and focus our attention of holding to the truths of God over the conveniences of man's understanding

In real life most people agree with me and I with them on some aspects of what they are saying.

I have a science background and in science 'viewpoint' is not a meaningful measurement.

In politics I agree that viewpoint does have meaning, the top 1% wealthiest in the US should vote Republican perhaps or something.

But people are gullible and vote against their best interests.

So I split the issue into aims and means

My aims coincide with traditional Republican aims, so it is then only a question of how best to achieve those aims.