the need to hurt someone else in retaliation, then it is not necessary. — anonymous66

If it's a need, then it is by definition "necessary." If it's a general desire, then it wouldn't be.

Good point. I changed my post.
Of course, some desires are automatic. My point is: just because we have the desire to hurt someone else, it doesn't follow that we must follow through.

On the other hand, some (the Stoics, Buddhists, for instance) argue that anger is always harmful, is not necessary, and can be removed from one's life altogether. — anonymous66

If you came across a herd of elephants, all dead including the babies, machined gunned by poachers simply for the ivory, the proper emotional response is anger and a desire to see the poachers brought to justice.

Just as one example of something that makes me instantly angry and I make no apologies for it. There are times when anger is the appropriate response.

If you came across a herd of elephants, all dead including the babies, machined gunned by poachers simply for the ivory, the proper emotional response is anger and a desire to see the poachers brought to justice. — Marchesk

Justice, sure. I don't see that at odds with my argument that "following through on a desire to harm is not necessary."

It seems to me that you want the behavior stopped and the people responsible held accountable for what they did... You don't believe, "in order for justice to be restored, I must be sure that the people responsible are harmed." do you?

You don't believe, "in order for justice to be restored, I must be sure that the people responsible are harmed." do you? — anonymous66

I certainly feel that if you're going to gun down a bunch of endangered animals just for some tusks that you deserve the same in return.

Intellectually, I acknowledge that justice would involve a trial and what not. I think some parks have adopted a shoot poachers on sight policy.

So, you find the dead elephants, then you find the people who were responsible, and you kill them. End of story? How does that help?

How does it help?

Those people won't be gunning down elephants in the future. It makes me that mad because it's human selfishness gobbling up the planet with no regard.

What about if we're talking about race relations? Did Ghandi and MLK get it wrong?

How about a case where someone's mom died while in the hospital, and they're convinced it was the doctor's fault?

Think about the term 'bad tempered'. It applies not only to humans, but also devices - like a band-saw or engine that is not 'tempered' properly, i.e. it runs erratically. I think the Buddhist and Stoic view is that anger is most often a consequence of a similar kind of temperamental failure or emotional maladustment. That is not to trivialise it, as those kinds of maladustments can run very deep indeed.

You will no doubt be familiar from your readings of ancient philosophy, about the constant injunction to rise above 'the passions'. I think emotional reactivity, including anger, is the subject of those warnings. That is why the ideal state is 'apatheia', tranquility or equanimity, where 'the sage' is not perturbed by 'the passions'. I don't think it means sheer dumb indifference or not giving a toss, but a state whereby the churning of emotions and feelings no longer drives you.

There is a natural reaction to seeing crimes committed or other acts which provoke anger, and the feeing of anger is unavoidable. But I think what a philosophical discipline comprises is not being driven by that, and by being self-aware enough to recognise and dissociate from the instinctive reaction that will often follow.

You will no doubt be familiar from your readings of ancient philosophy, about the constant injunction to rise above 'the passions'. I think emotional reactivity, including anger, is the subject of those warnings. That is why the ideal state is 'apatheia', tranquility or equanimity, where 'the sage' is not perturbed by 'the passions'. I don't think it means sheer dumb indifference or not giving a toss, but a state whereby the churning of emotions and feelings no longer drives you.

There is a natural reaction to seeing crimes committed or other acts which provoke anger, and the feeing of anger is unavoidable. But I think what a philosophical discipline comprises is not being driven by that, and by being self-aware enough to recognise and dissociate from the instinctive reaction that will often follow. — Wayfarer

I second this. Anger will occur. Getting this feeling of anger in certain situations may be appropriate. However, anger should not guide our actions. In fact, much the idea of established law and legal protocol is avoiding the issues of hasty judgement caused by anger.

there is the argument that anger is natural, and that we must only regulate it. It seems to me that if anger is defined as: the desire to hurt someone else in retaliation, then it is not necessary. — anonymous66

That's funny because anger is the very desire to regulate something that disturbs you.
There's a point to every emotion as long as it's not pointless, it's just the philosophy of the obvious.

That's not a good definition, because it's too specific. Anger need not be about that.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with anger. As with other emotions, it's about excess, deficiency and bad influence.

When something which you perceive to be inferior to you harms you, or presents you with the prospect of being harmed in the near future, the natural response is anger. (If the agent doing the harming is perceived to be superior to you, you feel fear).

It is better to be Aristotelian when examining these matters. The problem is not anger per se, it is the habit of wrath. Any emotional response can be proper at a given situation, but the habit of wrath impairs our judgment and prevents the best use of our reason.

What's the difference between anger and the habit of wrath?

Anger is an instance, a habit is, well, a habit :D.

To use a Scriptural example, Jesus was angry with the moneylenders at the temple, but he did not have the habit of being angry.

When something which you perceive to be inferior to you harms you, or presents you with the prospect of being harmed in the near future, the natural response is anger. (If the agent doing the harming is perceived to be superior to you, you feel fear). — Mariner

Superior and inferior in what way? I may perceive someone to hold some power over me, and therefore I do not manifest my anger openly to them, but that doesn't necessarily mean I view them as superior to me. I may very well think they are inferior and do not deserve to hold that power that they currently do. Yet that doesn't prevent me from feeling anger towards them.

Superior and inferior in what way? — Agustino

In whatever way matters to you, the one displaying the emotional response. It is not "ethically" superior, or "intrinsically" superior, which is how you are interpreting it. A small dog annoys you, a lion makes you afraid. You are superior to both in many ways, but clearly inferior to the lion in the aspect which matters the most in that particular interaction.

If you are angry at some bureaucrat, it is because you perceive that you have a right which is not being served (i.e., that you have reason on your side, and that third parties would side with you). If you are afraid of the same bureaucrat, it shows that you perceive yourself to be wrong. At least in the eyes of some third party.

It is the difference between the consciencious objector and the soldier who flees from service. The first is angry, the second is afraid. (Remember that people can and very often do deceive themselves to hide the reasons of their emotions).

Nah, strike that out. It will probably open an off-topic debate, it is a controversial claim.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with anger. As with other emotions, it's about excess, deficiency and bad influence.

How are you defining anger?

I don't mind saying, "I've notice the desire in humankind, to hurt someone else in retaliation, and I don't believe it is ever necessary to follow through on that desire." If people say, "well, I don't think of that desire to hurt another in retaliation, as anger." that's fine by me.

that desire to hurt another in retaliation — anonymous66

Is called vengefulness.

How are you defining anger? — anonymous66

The usual way. Google it.

I don't mind saying, "I've notice the desire in humankind, to hurt someone else in retaliation, and I don't believe it is ever necessary to follow through on that desire." If people say, "well, I don't think of that desire to hurt another in retaliation, as anger." that's fine by me. — anonymous66

Like I said, that's too specific for a definition of anger (even if it's an example of a desire which involves feelings of anger). If you'd have simply googled it - although that shouldn't be necessary - then you'd have seen so yourself. If you put "anger meaning" into Google, then you get the following:



I agree with Noblosh that your definition is closer to the meaning of vengefulness.

The usual way. Google it. — Sapientia

You do understand that that is not really an answer, right?

You did actually provide your choice (the one you chose from among the many the possible choices from Google), so kudos for that.

Sometimes when I read your posts (in this thread and the pornography thread), I get the sense you're saying (with some frustration), "I just randomly choose a definition from the internet.. isn't that what you do?" Is that really the message you want to convey?

Here's a well reasoned article that expresses the idea that it's not actually anger that is the problem, it's aggression.

My perspective is that the “problem” normally is found in the aggressive actions that stem from our angry thoughts and feelings, as opposed to being with the angry feelings per se

You Americans are obsessed with managing your anger. I don’t get it. Aggression is what needs to be managed, not feelings of anger.

You do understand that that is not really an answer, right? — anonymous66

Of course it is. You do understand that your question suggests a failure to make a reasonable assumption: that your interlocutor is using ordinary words in ordinary ways?

You did actually provide your choice (the one you chose from among the many the possible choices from Google), so kudos for that. — anonymous66

And that shouldn't have been necessary. So no kudos to you for making me do something that you should have done yourself.

Sometimes when I read your posts (in this thread and the pornography thread), I get the sense you're saying (with some frustration), "I just randomly choose a definition from the internet.. isn't that what you do?" Is that really the message you want to convey? — anonymous66

There's nothing random about it. It shouldn't come as a surprise that I am much like everyone else, in that I tend to use words how they're commonly used; and these definitions from online dictionaries are how they're commonly used.

Dictionaries are useful things. The dictionary definition for anger that I gave happened to more-or-less match what I had in mind, and that it did was no pure coincidence. It also has the advantage of expressing it better than I could have done unassisted.

You, on the other hand, seem to just pluck a definition from your mind in the spur of the moment, without checking a dictionary, risking the consequence that it will be idiosyncratic or faulty in some way, as has been the case with your failed attempt in this discussion.

I had already made clear what I thought was wrong with your definition: that it was too specific, and need not be about the desire to hurt another in retaliation. (And that struck me as blindingly obvious, after having spent only a very short time considering various situations in which a person can experience anger). So it should have been very easy for you to figure out the meaning of anger. Googling it should have provided sufficient confirmation. Lo and behold! The very first few definitions differ from your own failed attempt, and do not suffer the same fault that I pointed out.

Ironically, my own reactions in this discussion count as counterexamples to your definition. My frustration has not gone unnoticed, yet I do not desire to hurt you in retaliation. I don't want to break your legs, I want to improve your method. My criticism is constructive.

Dictionaries are useful things. The dictionary definition for anger that I gave happened to more-or-less match what I had in mind, and that it did was no pure coincidence. It also has the advantage of expressing it better than I could have done unassisted. — Sapientia

You're evading the question. Why did you choose that definition, and not another?

Googling it should have provided sufficient confirmation. — Sapientia

Explain to me the process by which you decide which definition to use... do you just use the first one you see? or do you use some other process to make your choice?

Or is it the case that you just look for the definition that you already had in mind? In which case, can you explain why you have that definition in mind, and not some other definition?

You're evading the question. Why did you choose that definition, and not another? — anonymous66

You didn't ask me that question, and I've already provided the answer. It was the first definition in the list of results which was close enough to what I had in mind. I could have gone further down the list and picked any of the numerous other definitions which were similar enough in meaning, but that would have been unnecessary and less convenient.

Explain to me the process by which you decide which definition to use... do you just use the first one you see? or do you use some other process to make your choice?

Or is it the case that you just look for the definition that you already had in mind? In which case, can you explain why you have that definition in mind, and not some other definition? — anonymous66

Again, I think the answers to these questions can be found or surmised from my previous comments and by applying some common sense. I go with the first one I see, unless my intended meaning differs in some important respect. If we're talking about commonly used, well known words, such as "anger", then obviously I already associate that word with a meaning I have in mind, and this meaning naturally conforms with common usage, and therefore roughly matches that which can be found in a dictionary. Subsequently, for sake of precision and clarity, I may seek a dictionary to refine said-meaning.

Alternatively, one could pick a meaning which doesn't conform quite so well with common usage, ignore rightful criticism of it, and stubbornly press on regardless.

It's certainly natural, and I think the view that it's always harmful is ridiculous. Can it be removed from your life if you're prone to the reaction, as most people are at times? I think it's possible in some cases (aside from it being theoretically possible to remove via "physical" brain modification), but in some cases, it probably isn't possible, and it's not easy to say what would work to stop having the reaction.

It's not something anyone seems to be able to change quickly via any simple or clear-cut method. But some people who used to get angry reach a point where they no longer do.

However, note that not getting angry can be harmful, too. Sometimes anger helps you not be taken advantage of, not be manipulated, etc.

Unless anger is pretty regular or out of control for you or it makes you violent, I'd not worry about it. Sometimes you'll get angry, but it passes. I wouldn't say that anger necessarily involves thoughts of or a drive towards hurting other people, by the way. It's often just more of a heightened frustration--frustration to a point where you want to scream/yell, for example.

Alternatively, one could pick a meaning which doesn't conform quite so well with common usage, ignore rightful criticism of it, and stubbornly press on regardless. — Sapientia

Melchett: 'If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.' ;)

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.

Anyway... I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine who happens to be a philosophy professor. I mentioned that the Stoics defined anger as the desire to hurt someone in retaliation, and that the Stoics believed that anger is always harmful to the one who is angry. He mentioned that Aristotle defined anger in much the same way. I know that Aristotle thought that anger was merely something to be regulated (so not always harmful to the one who is angry). I haven't taken the time to see if he was right about the way Aristotle defines anger.

He was right regarding Aristotle.