Anger

[Jun]

*butting in* Anger good or justified or healthy? In a case of attempted rape when the woman gets mad as hell...and the rape ends up nothing but attempted.

 

That, again, is not anger but determination. The determination to survive. As someone who teaches rape prevention (civilian) and close quarter defensive tactics (military) the first thing I must instill in my students is the ability NOT to give in to anger, but to channel their determination to survive. Anger will only cloud their judgements and limit their effective responses. Afterwards, it may appear as though it were nothing more than anger, and they may feel anger towards what has happened.

 

Don't confuse raw anger and the aggression used to survive a confrontation.

 

Excuse me, but no. It can be raw anger. It has been raw anger. I know personally. I have been in that situation. I was also a rape crisis counselor for over 10 years. And in that some cases it is good, justified and certainly healthy ANGER.

 

I disagree.

 

You asked for an example. You attempted to redefine the emotion. And now you disagree. Obee kaybee. *shrugs*

 

 

I have not attempted to redefined anything.

 

I disagree that anger is healthy or that anger was the result of the outcome in your example of rape prevention. It is my assertion that THE WILL TO SURVIVE, SELF-PRESERVATION was/is the reason for preventing aggressive encounters - not raw anger.

[Garnet]

*butting in* Anger good or justified or healthy? In a case of attempted rape when the woman gets mad as hell...and the rape ends up nothing but attempted.

 

That, again, is not anger but determination. The determination to survive. As someone who teaches rape prevention (civilian) and close quarter defensive tactics (military) the first thing I must instill in my students is the ability NOT to give in to anger, but to channel their determination to survive. Anger will only cloud their judgements and limit their effective responses. Afterwards, it may appear as though it were nothing more than anger, and they may feel anger towards what has happened.

 

Don't confuse raw anger and the aggression used to survive a confrontation.

 

Excuse me, but no. It can be raw anger. It has been raw anger. I know personally. I have been in that situation. I was also a rape crisis counselor for over 10 years. And in that some cases it is good, justified and certainly healthy ANGER.

 

I disagree.

 

You asked for an example. You attempted to redefine the emotion. And now you disagree. Obee kaybee. *shrugs*

 

 

I have not attempted to redefined anything.

 

I disagree that anger is healthy or that anger was the result of the outcome in your example of rape prevention. It is my assertion that THE WILL TO SURVIVE, SELF-PRESERVATION was/is the reason for preventing aggressive encounters - not raw anger.

 

I disagree.

 

*chuckle* I think it's fairly obvious here that we are coming from two wildly different points of view and experience. I do not think that there is a way that you can convince me of your point of view. Nor can I convince you. So I'll just stop now before my emotions do get entangled in what is nothing more than an intellectual exercise on the internet.

[Jun]

*butting in* Anger good or justified or healthy? In a case of attempted rape when the woman gets mad as hell...and the rape ends up nothing but attempted.

 

That, again, is not anger but determination. The determination to survive. As someone who teaches rape prevention (civilian) and close quarter defensive tactics (military) the first thing I must instill in my students is the ability NOT to give in to anger, but to channel their determination to survive. Anger will only cloud their judgements and limit their effective responses. Afterwards, it may appear as though it were nothing more than anger, and they may feel anger towards what has happened.

 

Don't confuse raw anger and the aggression used to survive a confrontation.

 

Excuse me, but no. It can be raw anger. It has been raw anger. I know personally. I have been in that situation. I was also a rape crisis counselor for over 10 years. And in that some cases it is good, justified and certainly healthy ANGER.

 

I disagree.

 

You asked for an example. You attempted to redefine the emotion. And now you disagree. Obee kaybee. *shrugs*

 

 

I have not attempted to redefined anything.

 

I disagree that anger is healthy or that anger was the result of the outcome in your example of rape prevention. It is my assertion that THE WILL TO SURVIVE, SELF-PRESERVATION was/is the reason for preventing aggressive encounters - not raw anger.

 

I disagree.

 

*chuckle* I think it's fairly obvious here that we are coming from two wildly different points of view and experience. I do not think that there is a way that you can convince me of your point of view. Nor can I convince you. So I'll just stop now before my emotions do get entangled in what is nothing more than an intellectual exercise on the internet.

 

 

with respect.

[Legion]

A man kidnaps a couple's child to sell it on the blackmarket. The couple's anger towards the man is justified.

 

I don't think their anger is "justified." It's natural to feel anger, and perhaps hatred too. But justified, no I don't think so. Justification, from the Greek "to declare/make righteous." Anger can never be righteous.

I disagree.

[Jun]

A man kidnaps a couple's child to sell it on the blackmarket. The couple's anger towards the man is justified.

 

I don't think their anger is "justified." It's natural to feel anger, and perhaps hatred too. But justified, no I don't think so. Justification, from the Greek "to declare/make righteous." Anger can never be righteous.

I disagree.

 

ha ha. Well this has been interesting. Clearly my Buddhist experience and martial training has given me a very different outlook.

 

There was a time when I would have felt anger towards people who don't do as I expect, or who may try to harm me. But I have learned that it is just a waste of time to get angry at people - for any reason.

 

After I awoke from my six months in a coma, having been attacked and mugged, I was at first angry - my Euro-Judeo-Christian conditioning no doubt. But that was of no use, it only resulted in more suffering and anger towards others and the world. Anger will get no-where.

 

With respect.

[Antlerman]

Good people, I am trying to understand anger. If you have any insights into its nature I would love to hear what you have to say. Please don’t assume that you have nothing to contribute. For I have looked into anger briefly and have found little agreement, even among those people who should know its every contour. In order to kick things off, here are some things that I’ve heard.

Anger is a mask covering hurt. Getting through anger gets to what lies underneath. It's usually vunerability.

[-Demona-]

Wherein lies the problem. Easier is not better. Using anger as a facade, a shield, is a weakness. When someone has done wrong to you, you should show them compassion and love.

I never meant to imply that using anger as a shield is a good or bad thing. Anger, like any emotion, is in and of itself neutral. It's what one does when one feels the emotion of anger that makes it good or bad.

 

If you allow it to eat you up inside, then it's bad. If you let it spur you into doing unwarranted harm to another, it's bad. If it spurs you on to doing great and positive things for others, then it's good. If feeling anger results in you protecting yourself and your loved ones, then it's good.

 

It's not our emotions that define us, but the net results of our actions. And I believe the OP's question was regarding the nature of anger, which doesn't solely rest on whether anger is good or bad, but more on how it comes about.

[Legion]

Anger is a mask covering hurt. Getting through anger gets to what lies underneath. It's usually vunerability.

That rings sincere Antlerman.

[Legion]

It's not our emotions that define us, but the net results of our actions. And I believe the OP's question was regarding the nature of anger, which doesn't solely rest on whether anger is good or bad, but more on how it comes about.

Precisely.

[Legion]

Well this has been interesting. Clearly my Buddhist experience and martial training has given me a very different outlook.

I promise you Jun that I will not stop here. I will continue to look into the nature of anger. Who knows? Perhaps in time my view of it will change. I'm just kind of happy that you chimed in here and shared your thoughts with us. Thanks.

[Vigile]

Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. Buddha

 

This is good advice for those who have a tendency toward feeling a personal slight. For example, I get really irritated when my wife gets angry at perceived personal slights. If her cousin is late (normal) my wife gets pissed and I end up feeling the brunt of her anger, not her cousin. When I explain this, she tries to justify her anger by detailing to me the personal slight her cousin caused her. Even this justification is to me a drawing out of a process I have no interest in and just want to put behind me.

 

On the other hand, some anger is good and the absense of anger can betray a certain shallowness in many people. I wish, for example many more would be angry when our government lies to us. If they were angry, they wouldn't stand for it. It's a moral failing IMO that they put up with much of what they put up with.

 

Likewise, many are wallowing in self pity over their own personal situation, whether it be with finances, relationships, or whatever. Enough anger at the situation can motivate them to get off their asses and take action that is necessary for change.

 

It's pretty hard to call anger a secondary emotion when there are so many different types of angers then. Perhaps the English language doesn't offer enough words to describe various types of anger similar to the way it doesn't offer alternatives to the word love?

[Legion]

On the other hand, some anger is good and the absense of anger can betray a certain shallowness in many people. I wish, for example many more would be angry when our government lies to us. If they were angry, they wouldn't stand for it. It's a moral failing IMO that they put up with much of what they put up with.

I don't want to get too sophisticated just yet. I just want to try and rephrase this to test my understanding of what you have said Vigile.

 

If I hear you right then you're saying that there are some circumstances in which we are morally obligated to become angry.

[Vigile]

Anger can often spur people to action.

I think it can also often be used to manipulate people.

 

Good point. Politicians use it all the time to emotionally manipulate their constituents. Jingoisms are a great example of this type of manipulation and it is not a positive in any shape or form.

 

Jun called anger an irrational emotion. Perhaps that's true. I tend to think though that a rational person can use anger positively as well though. Stirring up mob mentality would be a great example of an irrational application of anger. I'd like to offer a personal example of what I think is the Yin to the irrational Yang here. At one point in my life years ago I got so angry with my own personal place in the world that I was motivated to enter the university to make a change. I believe I was able to rationally channel that anger toward something positive.

 

Perhaps then anger is not rational or irrational, but rather it can be USED rationally or irrationally?

[Vigile]

If I hear you right then you're saying that there are some circumstances in which we are morally obligated to become angry.

 

Well, I don't like the word obligated as it seems to require a certain set of absolutes, which I don't believe in. But in my own personal moral code, which has a general relation to a general western moral code, then yes, sometimes being angry makes one a good citizen and the absense of it makes them shallow and not dutiful to their roles in society.

 

Of course we could all just adopt a sense of futilism and argue that nothing ultimately has any meaning. If we do, this discussion would be mute as we could then not define anything as positive or negative, but as just is.

[Dhampir]

Of course we could all just adopt a sense of futilism and argue that nothing ultimately has any meaning. If we do, this discussion would be mute as we could then not define anything as positive or negative, but as just is.

Moot.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Okay Jun, I think I hear what you are saying. In the main I agree. However, I also think that there are times when anger is healthy, justified and good. I doubt most anger ever falls into that category though.

 

Mmmm. Could you please give an example of anger being "justified," "good" or "healthy."

 

Question begs Jun-san, why do I, or anyone else have to "justify" or prove "good" or "healthy"?

 

Who or even what is the standard of what is or is not *right* for others?

 

kL

[Vigile]

Moot.

 

Thanks Dhampir, perhaps I should remain mute.

[Evolution_beyond]

Interesting discussions here about whether anger is good or bad, healthy or unhealthy.

 

Actually I think there are two different issues here. There are situations where anger is a natural, healthy reaction and one that is to be expected in any person who has a sense of concern for others or a sense of self-preservation. There are times when one feels moral outrage towards behaviour of those who would abuse their power and hurt others. There are also times when one is in a situation where they are being abused - anger is a natural reaction when you want the abuse to stop.

 

There is no way that in any of the above situations you could call anger 'wrong' or 'bad'. It is a natural reaction that you would expect in those situations. It is in many ways healthy to get that emotion out and express it to get it off your chest. You would think something was wrong with the person if they didn't at least feel the anger in those situations. If a person didn't feel anger when being subjected to abuse you would think they had hideously low self esteem, possibly even hated themselves. If a person didn't feel anger in the form of moral outrage when they witnessed others being abused then you would think they were a shallow and unfeeling person. So clearly the feeling of anger can be 'right' and to express it only healthy and natural.

 

However, does letting anger guide your actions have the best possible outcome in any circumstances? Can using anger to defend yourself or to defend others be useful at all? Here I would agree with Jun. Calmness would have better results - remember your anger but act in calmness because only calm behaviour can be rational and only rational behaviour can be succesful.

 

It would be a difficult thing to manage calmness in the heat of the moment. But Buddhism may well be of help here. But being calm in the heat of the moment is likely to be more succesful in defusing the situation and preventing the violence than raw, uncontrolled anger.

 

It may be best to be calm in the heat of the moment and then express, repell and feel your anger later.

 

However that is easier said than done. And there are certainly situations when no one could say the person was 'wrong' for feeling their anger or that their feeling of anger was 'bad'. So clearly there can be such a thing as good anger or justified anger - but that doesn't mean that expressing anger is the best strategy for dealing with a situation.

 

That's my input anyway

[Ouroboros]

I heard that there are some evidence that anger is actually generally bad in a medical sense. It ruins your health. But that's just what I remember from the top of my head, and I could be wrong.

 

But I do think if you get angry at someone, if you can channel the emotion out quickly, but not necessarily against or to this person, but just get the frustration out, then you can manage the situation better and let this anger be the starting point to take action for either a change of yourself or a change of the situation you're in or maybe even use the anger as an energy source to drive you in the process to take care of the person (in a legal way) that made you angry (vengeance can be sweet sometimes).

[Legion]

Hans, I’ve recently ordered a psychology textbook entitled “Anger Related Disorders: A Practitioner’s Guide to Comparative Treatments” edited by Eva L. Feindler. I am excited about it. It seems to me that treatment is a form of corrective control. Effective control, in turn, is predicated upon accurate prediction, and accurate prediction is closely allied with understanding. I hope to move beyond a discussion of whether anger is good or bad, useful or useless. Seeing as some here have found this discussion interesting, I will try to keep you guys posted.

[Astreja]

For me, I find anger to be occasionally useful in the very short term but physically detrimental over the long haul. This is partially because my manifestation of anger, when turned up to 11, is both terrifying and exhausting.

 

To the best of my recollection, I've only completely lost it twice in my lifetime - Once when reading the riot act to someone who was in my house for a D&D game and who had said something particularly nasty; and once when confronting an ex-business partner who had cheated me out of a large sum of money. While I allowed the anger to flow freely, I felt exhilarated and positively unstoppable. Five minutes after the event, however, I was so physically depleted that I was woozy and shaking. An adrenaline rush followed by a massive blood sugar drop.

 

I now go out of my way to avoid situations that might trigger that kind of response. The power rush is so intense in me that, in a brief and unreasoning moment, there's a chance of causing serious injury to someone.

 

However, stopped-up long term anger (such as ruminating on a past grievance) is even worse. I suspect that the cortisol levels in my bloodstream are too high, the result of ten thousand mini-rages over many years.

 

Overall, I feel that anger is a necessary weapon that one holds in reserve, but one that has to be used with full awareness of its consequences.

[Legion]

Well, I have had my new book, “Anger-Related Disorders: A Practitioner’s Guide to Comparative Treatments” now for several days. I wish that I could read it all at once. So I’ve given a little bit of time to each chapter. The chapter that I’ve been most compelled by is chapter 11, “Treating Anger with Wisdom and Compassion: A Buddhist Approach.” This surprises me because when I first encountered this chapter heading in the table of contents I expected it to be one of the fluffier and least substantial chapters in the book. Instead it has turned out to be one of the more impacting parts of the book for me.

 

 

There is an excerpt in there from “Meeting the Monkey Halfway” written in 2000 by a monk named A.S. Bhikku which I would like to share.

 

“Undercut the power of your anger by seeing it in the present. Look intently into all its aspects and it will lose its power. Discard every layer of anger; look into your reactions in relation to the offender. Why are you angry? What do you wish to do with this anger? How far and in what direction do you want to go with it? How significant is this in your life? Is this anger worth jeopardizing your well-being? Is it worth all the time that you are spending on it? The exercise of questioning your way through your anger will effectively force you into facing the realities of that moment. It will also give you the opportunity to answer those questions honestly. At the end of your investigation, you can be sure that you have lost the momentum of that anger and, therefore, have regained control over your otherwise runaway emotions. This is one of the great escapes from suffering.”