What is its purpose. How does it motivate you to prevent what advocated it originally? Why does anger influence us to do the opposite of when we are not angry? If anger is an illusion like fear, then why is it still manipulating us?

Discuss.

At 1/26/12 08:33 PM, hiddeninthecrowd wrote: life makes me angry

u feelin the emotion of anger bro?

Anger is that special feeling we all get when we just wanna shove out cock I MEAN FOOT up the nearest persons throbbing asshole.

At 1/26/12 08:33 PM, hiddeninthecrowd wrote: life makes me angry

How does life make you angry? Are you sure that you meant you allow life to make you make yourself angry?

Anger is a result of id and instinct not liking something and making us go on the aggressive defense. It's always defense; we have things we want to protect. I see angst as the other possible reaction, which I see as a sort of inward anger. I try to not get outwardly angry; instead, when somethings "angers" me, I get all stoically tactical and either plot some kind of subtle revenge - typically poetic justice - or just deal and move on to the next situation. Over time, a raging fury builds up inside. When punching air starts to feels good, video games are at their funnest. For me, nothing quite relieves my anger like a good session of Far Cry 2 or Splinter Cell. Safe expression of human nature's predatory instincts is, in my opinion, essential to a peaceful, civilized life and civilization itself. Video games can help in this - if one can see past the "virtualness" of it.

My two cents, anyways.

At 1/26/12 08:52 PM, hiddeninthecrowd wrote:

At 1/26/12 08:42 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote:

At 1/26/12 08:33 PM, hiddeninthecrowd wrote: life makes me angry

How does life make you angry? Are you sure that you meant you allow life to make you make yourself angry?

you confuse me and so i'm allowing you to make me angry

You are trying to confuse me by saying I confused you by not confusing you into confusing me to confuse myself to confuse you into confusing yourself to confuse me that I confused you when you are obviously not confused. In the end, I do not allow you to make me angry. ^_^

At 1/26/12 09:11 PM, Ilssm wrote: To me, anger is when I'm frustrated at something, I want to break it and everything around me. If it's a situation,/event, I just want to scream.

Why do you allow your anger to manipulate you?

We can control it.

To me anger is somthing that replaces my mind with the urge to cause pain and suffering

At 1/26/12 08:31 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: What is its purpose.

Anger is the emotion created when an internal or external force conflicts with our will. It can have many purposes - namely, ones to motivate us to make a change or seek a viable solution to the issue. I could be wrong, as I am not a biologist; but, this seems psychologically correct to me.

How does it motivate you to prevent what advocated it originally? Why does anger influence us to do the opposite of when we are not angry?

As I said above, anger motivates us to make a change - which usually implies making a bad situation better, more survivable, satisfactory, etcetera. Happy and calm incidents/situations do not induce anger because there is no need for change or alterations in behavior.

If anger is an illusion like fear, then why is it still manipulating us?

I don't know who told you anger (like fear?) is an illusion, but whomever you are basing this conclusion off of should be promptly slapped by a dead fish. This question leads me to believe you are hinting some sort of pseudo-philosophy in regard to reality - and, common sense shows that both anger and fear exist as collectively defined. If you disagree, please define "illusion"; because, I would guess you are oblivious to the definition.

At 1/26/12 09:06 PM, Tydusis wrote: Anger is a result of id and instinct not liking something and making us go on the aggressive :
My two cents, anyways.

Isn't it safer to eliminate the illusion of anger to begin with? If people use video games as an outlet. What happens when they don't have the time for video games?

At 1/26/12 09:06 PM, Tydusis wrote:

The dictionary's two cents, anyways.

fixed

Pseudopsycholigists like insantuary make me mad and horny which leads to rape

At 1/26/12 09:33 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 1/26/12 08:31 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: What is its purpose.

Anger is the emotion created when an internal or external force conflicts with our will. It can have many purposes - namely, ones to motivate us to make a change or seek a viable solution to the issue. I could be wrong, as I am not a biologist; but, this seems psychologically correct to me.

How does it motivate you to prevent what advocated it originally? Why does anger influence us to do the opposite of when we are not angry?

As I said above, anger motivates us to make a change - which usually implies making a bad situation better, more survivable, satisfactory, etcetera. Happy and calm incidents/situations do not induce anger because there is no need for change or alterations in behavior.

If anger is an illusion like fear, then why is it still manipulating us?

I don't know who told you anger (like fear?) is an illusion, but whomever you are basing this conclusion off of should be promptly slapped by a dead fish. This question leads me to believe you are hinting some sort of pseudo-philosophy in regard to reality - and, common sense shows that both anger and fear exist as collectively defined. If you disagree, please define "illusion"; because, I would guess you are oblivious to the definition.

I disagree. Anger seems more like a negative charge. It deludes you from thinking clearly. It makes you do things you wouldn't do if you weren't angry. It turns you into something you are not; something that you can prevent and take charge of. We can control ourselves.

Anger does not motivate change. It motivates you to lash out without control. It overcomes you, and causes you to do things as if your body and mind took over your ability to choose things on your own. It's a powerful illusion that is as real as you allow it to be. Just like fear.

When I say ''illusion'', I'm regarding the idea that anger and fear do not exist. We only allow them to exist, because we do not control our negativity/paranoia. If we were to stop acting like things can make us angry/paranoid -- when it us that establishes this illusion -- there would be no reason for it to exist. It's all in our heads. I wonder if these illusions reflect off of our imbalanced nature.

Because you know your race is sad when they are dominated by their own minds.

At 1/26/12 09:46 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote:

At 1/26/12 09:33 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Anger is the emotion created when an internal or external force conflicts with our will. It can have many purposes - namely, ones to motivate us to make a change or seek a viable solution to the issue. I could be wrong, as I am not a biologist; but, this seems psychologically correct to me.

I disagree. Anger seems more like a negative charge. It deludes you from thinking clearly. It makes you do things you wouldn't do if you weren't angry. It turns you into something you are not; something that you can prevent and take charge of. We can control ourselves.

Your question was specific towards the emotion "anger" and not the products of it - which can include overreaction and lack of self-control. The inability for one to address a problem rationally, while in anger, does not make anger a "negative charge". Anger itself is beneficial to what our subjective nature tends to seek in terms of happiness or success in even the most trivial situation. The negative aspect of it comes into play when other factors are introduced (such as hate).

When I say ''illusion'', I'm regarding the idea that anger and fear do not exist. We only allow them to exist, because we do not control our negativity/paranoia. If we were to stop acting like things can make us angry/paranoid -- when it us that establishes this illusion -- there would be no reason for it to exist. It's all in our heads. I wonder if these illusions reflect off of our imbalanced nature.

This is absolutely ludicrous. To imply that anger/fear does not exist, yet are invented by us (therefore, exists), is completely illogical. I have explained how self-control and anger are two different aspects of human nature. Both anger and fear can be observed in the animal kingdom - not just "our human minds". Neither emotion is an illusion or even remotely controversial; the only feasible method of debating the "existence" is to manipulate the very definition of the words (both of which are generally accepted in the population, excluding wannabe philosophers who are entirely out of touch with reality and ask truly ridiculous questions).

At 1/26/12 10:14 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 1/26/12 09:46 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote:

At 1/26/12 09:33 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: Anger is the emotion created when an internal or external force conflicts with our will. It can have many purposes - namely, ones to motivate us to make a change or seek a viable solution to the issue. I could be wrong, as I am not a biologist; but, this seems psychologically correct to me.

I disagree. Anger seems more like a negative charge. It deludes you from thinking clearly. It makes you do things you wouldn't do if you weren't angry. It turns you into something you are not; something that you can prevent and take charge of. We can control ourselves.

Your question was specific towards the emotion "anger" and not the products of it - which can include overreaction and lack of self-control. The inability for one to address a problem rationally, while in anger, does not make anger a "negative charge". Anger itself is beneficial to what our subjective nature tends to seek in terms of happiness or success in even the most trivial situation. The negative aspect of it comes into play when other factors are introduced (such as hate).

When I say ''illusion'', I'm regarding the idea that anger and fear do not exist. We only allow them to exist, because we do not control our negativity/paranoia. If we were to stop acting like things can make us angry/paranoid -- when it us that establishes this illusion -- there would be no reason for it to exist. It's all in our heads. I wonder if these illusions reflect off of our imbalanced nature.

This is absolutely ludicrous. To imply that anger/fear does not exist, yet are invented by us (therefore, exists), is completely illogical. I have explained how self-control and anger are two different aspects of human nature. Both anger and fear can be observed in the animal kingdom - not just "our human minds". Neither emotion is an illusion or even remotely controversial; the only feasible method of debating the "existence" is to manipulate the very definition of the words (both of which are generally accepted in the population, excluding wannabe philosophers who are entirely out of touch with reality and ask truly ridiculous questions).

It's amusing how you cry philosophers are way out of touch with society when you've just admitted that the definitions of the terms for our emotions are generally acceptable [an undertone of accepting that they aren't 100% viable.] You are implying that they should be set in-stone. You believe that philosophers -- who are possibly only trying to apply a greater form and sense to something of our reality -- are out of touch; when you are willing to allow terms that are only acceptable because of the general population, and not the reason and structure behind said term.

I cry that you are delusional, and should open your mind up for more understanding of what you speak there of.

Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering.

Either you're Insanctuary, or the number of NG users who fooled themselves into thinking they're deep and philosophical had a sudden boost.

It's all in your head

At 1/26/12 08:34 PM, yoshikoshi wrote:

At 1/26/12 08:33 PM, hiddeninthecrowd wrote: life makes me angry

u feelin the emotion of anger bro?

Oh yeah. He feelin the emotion of anger.

At 1/26/12 10:38 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 1/26/12 09:46 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: It deludes you from thinking clearly. It makes you do things you wouldn't do if you weren't angry.

All emotion does that. Anger is not unique in that respect.

It turns you into something you are not

No it doesn't. It might make people behave irrationally and/or excessively but those are obvious characteristics of an emotion which all humans are capable of manifesting.

If we were to stop acting like things can make us angry/paranoid

But things CAN and DO make us angry/paranoid, often for legitimate reasons.
If I witness some kind of injustice taking place, it makes me angry. I'm not kidding myself into thinking I have a reason to be angry, because I actually DO have a reason to be angry; I've just witnessed a wrong-doing.

Anger might lead to negative situations but it's a basic survival instinct we all possess.

I partially agree. Which emotions are you referring to mainly?

When someone does A when you are so used to them always doing B. I'd classify that as ''being something you are not''. Especially when you do things without reason or thinking.

How is it a survival instinct?

At 1/26/12 09:46 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: I disagree. Anger seems more like a negative charge. It deludes you from thinking clearly.
...
Anger does not motivate change. It motivates you to lash out without control. It overcomes you, and causes you to do things as if your body and mind took over your ability to choose things on your own. It's a powerful illusion that is as real as you allow it to be. Just like fear.

Magnets have charge; magnets push, pull, and hold things. And like a magnet, we sometimes need to hold anger back. But doesn't mean we can't use it. Revolutionaries, trolls, and master manipulators alike use people's anger to make change. Without change, turmoil builds up. Now tell me, if you wanted change, do you think you could make it without ever making someone angry?

When I say ''illusion'', I'm regarding the idea that anger and fear do not exist. We only allow them to exist, because we do not control our negativity/paranoia.

I do agree with your view on that "we allow our emotions to control us," if that is what you are saying. But unless you have near-supernatural levels mental training, you cannot prevent your physical brain from releasing the neurotransmitters that go down the negative feedback neural pathways that your genes have created to serve whatever purpose they are supposed to serve. When growing up, these pathways are our instincts and exist before our consciousness do and helped us to survive before then. As a believer in stoicism, my job is to counteract these "bad" neurotransmitters with "good" ones before the feedback gets out of control. I do this with a sheer, blind, metaphorical freight-train of optimism. When I get unhappy, it's because I've lost the willpower to keep it up for a time. Anger exists, if not just in a biological sense.

Because you know your race is sad when they are dominated by their own minds.

In good faith, this suggests to me that you are a solipsist. Solipsism? I used to be a solipsist, but I started to not really like how it made me feel. I don't believe anything is wrong about the idea, but in the end, it wasn't working out for me. It got me on the trail of thinking "aware; aware-of-awareness; aware that I can be aware of awareness; aware that I ponder other people's awareness; aware of how and why I ponder other people's awareness; aware that I am aware of how and why I ponder things like this; ..."
Please, be careful with your thoughts. I let mine carry me away and it messed me up, and I am still recovering from that. :(

And yes, Solipsism is a legitimate, philosophical idea. It's just not necessarily a "safe" one. A solipsist is like the Neo who never got the message or even met Morpheus. Think about, but not too hard. That's where I got into trouble; it's hard to stop thinking when that's all you do.

When the values of moderation are violated with a excessive action an excessive response is usually the result as a means of returning to moderation. Anger is an example of how that's manifested.

I have oranges. A thief takes my oranges. I get angry which helps fuel my drive to get my oranges back (or, punch a wall and blog about it for an hour because I'm a whiny bitch and can't apply logic to my anger).

What is anger? Anger is when I get so fucking mad I wanna fuck somebodies shit up.

At 1/26/12 10:48 PM, Tydusis wrote:

At 1/26/12 09:46 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: I disagree. Anger seems more like a negative charge. It deludes you from thinking clearly.
...
Anger does not motivate change. It motivates you to lash out without control. It overcomes you, and causes you to do things as if your body and mind took over your ability to choose things on your own. It's a powerful illusion that is as real as you allow it to be. Just like fear.

Magnets have charge; magnets push, pull, and hold things. And like a magnet, we sometimes need to hold anger back. But doesn't mean we can't use it. Revolutionaries, trolls, and master manipulators alike use people's anger to make change. Without change, turmoil builds up. Now tell me, if you wanted change, do you think you could make it without ever making someone angry?

When I say ''illusion'', I'm regarding the idea that anger and fear do not exist. We only allow them to exist, because we do not control our negativity/paranoia.

I do agree with your view on that "we allow our emotions to control us," if that is what you are saying. But unless you have near-supernatural levels mental training, you cannot prevent your physical brain from releasing the neurotransmitters that go down the negative feedback neural pathways that your genes have created to serve whatever purpose they are supposed to serve. When growing up, these pathways are our instincts and exist before our consciousness do and helped us to survive before then. As a believer in stoicism, my job is to counteract these "bad" neurotransmitters with "good" ones before the feedback gets out of control. I do this with a sheer, blind, metaphorical freight-train of optimism. When I get unhappy, it's because I've lost the willpower to keep it up for a time. Anger exists, if not just in a biological sense.

Because you know your race is sad when they are dominated by their own minds.

In good faith, this suggests to me that you are a solipsist. Solipsism? I used to be a solipsist, but I started to not really like how it made me feel. I don't believe anything is wrong about the idea, but in the end, it wasn't working out for me. It got me on the trail of thinking "aware; aware-of-awareness; aware that I can be aware of awareness; aware that I ponder other people's awareness; aware of how and why I ponder other people's awareness; aware that I am aware of how and why I ponder things like this; ..."
Please, be careful with your thoughts. I let mine carry me away and it messed me up, and I am still recovering from that. :(

And yes, Solipsism is a legitimate, philosophical idea. It's just not necessarily a "safe" one. A solipsist is like the Neo who never got the message or even met Morpheus. Think about, but not too hard. That's where I got into trouble; it's hard to stop thinking when that's all you do.

To be honest. The ego and their anger that is followed by their ego being pressured is the reason why there is no change being made. People get angry, and never control themselves to understand the voice they persist to drown out. When I argue with another, I am not angry, I am passionately reasoning. It gets me to places that my anger could never begin to fathom.

There is no ''supernatural'' [I'm assuming you said that, because you feel as though battling our impulses requires a serious amount of willpower.] We have the will, we choose not to use it. Our impulses are strong if you allow them to be real. We most certaintly allow them to be real as they can be. If only people were to acknowledge that we are able to live for our minds; not our minds are able to live for us.

Actually. I accept both negative and positive. I'm a balance of pessimism and optimism. Anger, fear and intelligence -- by their very definitions -- are simply useless when you understand how I've come to this conclusion.

I do not believe that I am one mind. I believe in everything as a whole. I'm only stating what I said, because it really is sad that our human race is enslaving itself. We can control our minds. Instead, we let our minds control us.

:3

At 1/26/12 11:10 PM, hiddeninthecrowd wrote:

At 1/26/12 10:23 PM, Adam-Beilgard wrote: Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hate leads to suffering.

Suffering leads to fear

If you apply control before fear and render fear nonexistent. Fear cannot breed anger. Anger could not possibly produce hatred. Hatred would only dream to induce suffering.

At 1/26/12 11:21 PM, bgraybr wrote:

At 1/26/12 11:13 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: If you apply control before fear and render fear nonexistent.

How could that possibly be a good thing? I mean it's good to be able to control your fear to the extent that you can react to it in a logical manner, but completely eliminating the emotion will lead to a complete disregard for danger. That's not good.

Fear cannot breed anger. Anger could not possibly produce hatred. Hatred would only dream to induce suffering.

Fear can't breed anger? You've never hated something that scared or threatened you? You've never felt anger towards being threatened? Hatred can never inflict suffering? None of that makes any sense.

I've learned how to discipline my mind. Knowing what to do and what not to do is common analysis. If we were to discipline ourselves into capitalising any given situation and understanding what we might face in our life is the reason why fear and anger will seize to exist if you can control yourself.

Tell me. Why do we believe there is a function called ''fear?'' Is it ignorance? Is it lack of control? What is it? Fear does not exist.

When I was younger, yes. I felt anger. I know what anger feels like. It's an illusion. You can control it. Why get angry if you can control it and experience a humble state of mind that thinks clearly -- that handles the situation with utter grace? Anger is like fighting with your eyes closed. Controlling yourself is like fighting without fighting. You experience something far more enlightening than anger could ever bring you. I honestly do not know how to explain it any better than that at this current time.

To control yourself is a state of being that cannot be defined with the human language alone. It's truly astounding when you are able to stop your dark instincts. To handle extreme temperatures. To accept the simplest of things. To make a choice to be alone to sought for something that you believe in your mind is true, instead of becoming something you are not to survive in a reality that never gave you a chance to understand yourself; let alone support it.

At 1/26/12 10:21 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote:

At 1/26/12 10:14 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: This is absolutely ludicrous.

It's amusing how you cry philosophers are way out of touch with society when you've just admitted that the definitions of the terms for our emotions are generally acceptable [an undertone of accepting that they aren't 100% viable.]

What? Do you even understand that what you just said was a contradiction? How can one be out of touch with society by making a correct statement based on ... society?

You are implying that they should be set in-stone.

I never stated, nor even remotely implied this. I said it is generally accepted in definition regarding both terms - period.

You believe that philosophers -- who are possibly only trying to apply a greater form and sense to something of our reality -- are out of touch; when you are willing to allow terms that are only acceptable because of the general population, and not the reason and structure behind said term.

I am convinced you are clueless in either case and do not understand what you are reading. So, let me make this painfully obvious so that you might at least attempt to think rationally. Humankind communicates by means of verbal or written language. In this language are words, which are each used to define something by which we all share experience with, realistically. When you read this:Dog, what is it you think of? I daresay you thought of a dog - and, if not, any rational person would assume that you either A: do not understand English or are illiterate, or B: are, quite frankly, stupid.

What you are suggesting to me is that "dogs" do not exist simply because you call them "cats" or refuse to acknowledge the existence of the animal. It is both idiotic and anything but a sensible conclusion. You have willingly disillusioned yourself by appearing to be some sort of intellectual, and asking what you assume to be deep, philosophical questions. Please do yourself a favor, and come back to planet Earth.

At 1/26/12 11:30 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote: I've learned how to discipline my mind. Knowing what to do and what not to do is common analysis. If we were to discipline ourselves into capitalising any given situation and understanding what we might face in our life is the reason why fear and anger will seize to exist if you can control yourself.

Full understanding of self control germinates from understanding yourself as an individual and as a species. Ultimately, fear is hard wired into our very selves as a species and to outright ignore it is detrminetal to being in control of yourself. You're just deluding yourself into thinking you have attained self control via blocking out the genetic/nurtured lessons your body has taken.

When I was younger, yes. I felt anger. I know what anger feels like. It's an illusion. You can control it. Why get angry if you can control it and experience a humble state of mind that thinks clearly -- that handles the situation with utter grace? Anger is like fighting with your eyes closed. Controlling yourself is like fighting without fighting. You experience something far more enlightening than anger could ever bring you. I honestly do not know how to explain it any better than that at this current time.

To control yourself is a state of being that cannot be defined with the human language alone. It's truly astounding when you are able to stop your dark instincts. To handle extreme temperatures. To accept the simplest of things. To make a choice to be alone to sought for something that you believe in your mind is true, instead of becoming something you are not to survive in a reality that never gave you a chance to understand yourself; let alone support it.

To call 'anger' a dark instinct is contradictory to the nature of the world. Good and evil are not hard wired into nature, nature just is. The denial of anger to find some nirvana in some logical intangible paradise is foolish, it's always the communication with the body and the earth that fuels logic and helps us make our choices.

At 1/26/12 11:31 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 1/26/12 10:21 PM, BlackHoleLogic wrote:

At 1/26/12 10:14 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: This is absolutely ludicrous.

It's amusing how you cry philosophers are way out of touch with society when you've just admitted that the definitions of the terms for our emotions are generally acceptable [an undertone of accepting that they aren't 100% viable.]

What? Do you even understand that what you just said was a contradiction? How can one be out of touch with society by making a correct statement based on ... society?

You are implying that they should be set in-stone.

I never stated, nor even remotely implied this. I said it is generally accepted in definition regarding both terms - period.

You believe that philosophers -- who are possibly only trying to apply a greater form and sense to something of our reality -- are out of touch; when you are willing to allow terms that are only acceptable because of the general population, and not the reason and structure behind said term.

I am convinced you are clueless in either case and do not understand what you are reading. So, let me make this painfully obvious so that you might at least attempt to think rationally. Humankind communicates by means of verbal or written language. In this language are words, which are each used to define something by which we all share experience with, realistically. When you read this:Dog, what is it you think of? I daresay you thought of a dog - and, if not, any rational person would assume that you either A: do not understand English or are illiterate, or B: are, quite frankly, stupid.

What you are suggesting to me is that "dogs" do not exist simply because you call them "cats" or refuse to acknowledge the existence of the animal. It is both idiotic and anything but a sensible conclusion. You have willingly disillusioned yourself by appearing to be some sort of intellectual, and asking what you assume to be deep, philosophical questions. Please do yourself a favor, and come back to planet Earth.

I'm implying that philosophers are more society savvy than you are; providing that you are supporting terms that could might aswell be flawed. [Which they probably are.] While philosophers are only trying to make sense out of something that is quite senseless. Who cares if they make illogical theories; they are only using Ockham's Razor on steroids. They are still applying ideas that could allow them to later manifest a tangible component. What are you doing? Nothing. You are letting a possible inheritly flawed term sit in the archives of social judgment because of..?

It is generally accepted. Why does it matter if it's accepted or not by a society if the term lacks reason?

Now I am convinced that you are taking this too literal. Perhaps your field of science cursed you with the habit of over complicating everything? I don't need you to lecture me with what I'm am highly knowledgable of. I'm talking about three terms right now: anger, fear and intelligence. Those three terms are the in the spotlight right now. Do not create excess, please.

Please, do yourself a favor and realise that your blinds are closed. You can do whatever you want in your mindless house; to never look outside. You will never understand the simplicity of my reasoning if you continue to delude yourself with what you're regurgitating.

Things that are logical just aren't practical, we are like machines, we are programmed and controlled by habit or something.