Anger can be a very useful tool. It can be used as a fire to transform something into something else. It propels and pushes us forward. A lot of positives if channeled in the right way (with some professional guidance, perhaps) 🙏
"Drop the wish for payback, drop the (somewhat narcissistic) obsession with status, and figure out how to turn anger’s energy into productive action."
It has come to me that anger is a necessary emotion as well. It is our bodies way of saying, This does not feel good. Take action.
I disowned anger when I was younger as a reaction to being subject to my father's narcissistic anger. When I recently met Ghandi's grandson, he told me that Ghandi was a very angry man. And look what he did with that!
Your humility in admitting that people, including yourself, are prone to getting angry for the wrong reasons underscores the challenging nature of navigating this emotion. I agree with your point that certain philosophy, while guiding us on what we should do, may not always provide practical solutions. Anger management is far from easy. However, I also have to say the difficulty of the task should not overshadow its importance.
I do not have the answer but I look forward to future installments where you delve into how religion and psychology address the complexities of anger, further enriching this thoughtful exploration.
Hello Dan EhrenKrantz, I really like what you write here, and even if I would want to fine-tune a few points, laying out the problem is a tremendous contribution.
Toward the end you said philosophy is often better at telling us what we should do, than showing us how we can do it. I think I know a lot about the source of anger, but this is a comment, not a course. Another good one is: "wouldn’t we be better off focusing our energy and attention on something else?"
How about when you were five? How long did that insight stick? Would others intentionally try to rile you? I arrived at this idea on my own also, but more like when I was 50. More than an idea, it is an understanding.
A bit off topic here, I feel a close connection to Aurelius. He was speaking to men, the Scions of Rome. And he was speaking to himself, the emperor, who was expected to be manly. His real message is "The nearer a man (person) comes to a calm mind, the closer he is to strength,” unlike the angry or the complaining.
__________
IMO, Who justifies anger? He who cannot come to the bottom of it. Nussbaum's title, Anger and Forgiveness . . . . forgiveness is only about blaming. Stop blaming and forgiveness vaporizes.
1. is like 3. in that a payback means there is a perceived injustice. (It doesn't have to be real.) Every thought (every interpretation) creates a feeling, and if that interpretation is contrary to your held "should-be beliefs", it is a negative feeling. And you will call that an injustice. It is a real, built-in human mechanism, and I think you must acknowledge it as such. Aurelius is very clear, that why don't you alter your should-be beliefs. That you can do with the greatest of ease. But no - Anger and frustration are much better.
Nussbaum explains payback is not helpful, but it is; or otherwise the justice system wouldn't deal with it. True, it is not undoing the past deed, but it is defusing the bad, and automatic feelings of injustice in the victim. This is just how the human body/mind works. You can explain this to the victim, and maybe they will think leniency, and forgive, but it would be difficult to forget or not to blame. It was a fact.
With groups, racial or other, and nations, it is easier to see that vengeance produces a further spiral of revenge, even if it take generations. Then you can say, "it is my feeling that (reflective justice is needed), but it is not in my objectives, for long term peace". And then think of an amnesty solution.
With regard to number 2. Imagined disrespect or status; maybe it is a personal slight. But in this day and age people who can't out-argue you may surely try to discredit you. Even university presidents are fired for a few waffled unclear words. Countless journalists are unemployed for not rigidly following "the narrative". Of course it is the funding agents that insist on these eliminations.
In business life, as you noted, you do the work that is keeps the company running, and this other officer that knows how to "butter" gets the promotion. Then it is the same, you do the work to keeps the company going, and this other, that is now your boss, takes the credit.
So anger boils down to "things shouldn't be this way", but there is no fruitful mechanism to right this inconsistency. If there was a mechanism for redress, you would take it. If there is none, or if it is subverted, then there is only frustration, and anger arises.
OR, people get so used to jump to anger without even trying for redress, (it is too slow). Or they are too skeptical or on up to cynical. I do think that many of our modes of redress of disagreement have been blunted.
I don't really agree with your further point that anger might provide the jolt we need to do something. I acknowledge anger is used that way. Too many people think that tension, emotion and anger are the source of their power. How could that be, since anger takes a lot of energy, your body is contracted, and even every movement is around a center of tension that must be overcome? Feelings are deadened also. That is a formula for the destruction of society.
I think you can have a productive actions without "anger's energy". It is false. About war for promoting peace, we're still doing it big time. False justifying narratives are flowing like a river in floodwater. Let's say we're angry about the financial system and repeated billionaire bailouts. Where does the national debt end up if not is someone's pocket? Is it $ 33 Trillion and just a few years ago was $23 trillion? Do you know what a $ 10 trillion is? Getting angry is not going to change anything. Where will the currency explode, at $ 50 Trillion debt, how about at $100 trillion? I think both of us will live to see it.
I think the most productive endeavor would be building systems of redress that work, and don't favor money. With today's imbalances there will always be anger. It's like beating your head against the wall so you don't feel what is really going on. But you have to convince people that they can work toward a goal with an even temper. It is just a smoother belief system. Call it civilization.
Anger can be a very useful tool. It can be used as a fire to transform something into something else. It propels and pushes us forward. A lot of positives if channeled in the right way (with some professional guidance, perhaps) 🙏
"Drop the wish for payback, drop the (somewhat narcissistic) obsession with status, and figure out how to turn anger’s energy into productive action."
It has come to me that anger is a necessary emotion as well. It is our bodies way of saying, This does not feel good. Take action.
I disowned anger when I was younger as a reaction to being subject to my father's narcissistic anger. When I recently met Ghandi's grandson, he told me that Ghandi was a very angry man. And look what he did with that!
This is helpful, Dan — Thank you.
Your humility in admitting that people, including yourself, are prone to getting angry for the wrong reasons underscores the challenging nature of navigating this emotion. I agree with your point that certain philosophy, while guiding us on what we should do, may not always provide practical solutions. Anger management is far from easy. However, I also have to say the difficulty of the task should not overshadow its importance.
I do not have the answer but I look forward to future installments where you delve into how religion and psychology address the complexities of anger, further enriching this thoughtful exploration.
Hello Dan EhrenKrantz, I really like what you write here, and even if I would want to fine-tune a few points, laying out the problem is a tremendous contribution.
Toward the end you said philosophy is often better at telling us what we should do, than showing us how we can do it. I think I know a lot about the source of anger, but this is a comment, not a course. Another good one is: "wouldn’t we be better off focusing our energy and attention on something else?"
How about when you were five? How long did that insight stick? Would others intentionally try to rile you? I arrived at this idea on my own also, but more like when I was 50. More than an idea, it is an understanding.
A bit off topic here, I feel a close connection to Aurelius. He was speaking to men, the Scions of Rome. And he was speaking to himself, the emperor, who was expected to be manly. His real message is "The nearer a man (person) comes to a calm mind, the closer he is to strength,” unlike the angry or the complaining.
__________
IMO, Who justifies anger? He who cannot come to the bottom of it. Nussbaum's title, Anger and Forgiveness . . . . forgiveness is only about blaming. Stop blaming and forgiveness vaporizes.
1. is like 3. in that a payback means there is a perceived injustice. (It doesn't have to be real.) Every thought (every interpretation) creates a feeling, and if that interpretation is contrary to your held "should-be beliefs", it is a negative feeling. And you will call that an injustice. It is a real, built-in human mechanism, and I think you must acknowledge it as such. Aurelius is very clear, that why don't you alter your should-be beliefs. That you can do with the greatest of ease. But no - Anger and frustration are much better.
Nussbaum explains payback is not helpful, but it is; or otherwise the justice system wouldn't deal with it. True, it is not undoing the past deed, but it is defusing the bad, and automatic feelings of injustice in the victim. This is just how the human body/mind works. You can explain this to the victim, and maybe they will think leniency, and forgive, but it would be difficult to forget or not to blame. It was a fact.
With groups, racial or other, and nations, it is easier to see that vengeance produces a further spiral of revenge, even if it take generations. Then you can say, "it is my feeling that (reflective justice is needed), but it is not in my objectives, for long term peace". And then think of an amnesty solution.
With regard to number 2. Imagined disrespect or status; maybe it is a personal slight. But in this day and age people who can't out-argue you may surely try to discredit you. Even university presidents are fired for a few waffled unclear words. Countless journalists are unemployed for not rigidly following "the narrative". Of course it is the funding agents that insist on these eliminations.
In business life, as you noted, you do the work that is keeps the company running, and this other officer that knows how to "butter" gets the promotion. Then it is the same, you do the work to keeps the company going, and this other, that is now your boss, takes the credit.
So anger boils down to "things shouldn't be this way", but there is no fruitful mechanism to right this inconsistency. If there was a mechanism for redress, you would take it. If there is none, or if it is subverted, then there is only frustration, and anger arises.
OR, people get so used to jump to anger without even trying for redress, (it is too slow). Or they are too skeptical or on up to cynical. I do think that many of our modes of redress of disagreement have been blunted.
I don't really agree with your further point that anger might provide the jolt we need to do something. I acknowledge anger is used that way. Too many people think that tension, emotion and anger are the source of their power. How could that be, since anger takes a lot of energy, your body is contracted, and even every movement is around a center of tension that must be overcome? Feelings are deadened also. That is a formula for the destruction of society.
I think you can have a productive actions without "anger's energy". It is false. About war for promoting peace, we're still doing it big time. False justifying narratives are flowing like a river in floodwater. Let's say we're angry about the financial system and repeated billionaire bailouts. Where does the national debt end up if not is someone's pocket? Is it $ 33 Trillion and just a few years ago was $23 trillion? Do you know what a $ 10 trillion is? Getting angry is not going to change anything. Where will the currency explode, at $ 50 Trillion debt, how about at $100 trillion? I think both of us will live to see it.
I think the most productive endeavor would be building systems of redress that work, and don't favor money. With today's imbalances there will always be anger. It's like beating your head against the wall so you don't feel what is really going on. But you have to convince people that they can work toward a goal with an even temper. It is just a smoother belief system. Call it civilization.
Thanks
.
Every manager should read this!