Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post Reply
coberst
Posts: 1516
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:30 am

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by coberst »

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Webster informs us that righteous is “acting in accord with divine or moral law”.

We often see US citizens, in our streets and byways, expressing their anger at certain actions taken by our government. On occasion this anger is directed at Big Bankers or some other group but generally it is directed at some action of government institutions.

“I’m mad and I won’t take it anymore” seems to be the general attitude often displayed by these demonstrators. I have concluded that most people identify the connection of anger to an argument signifies the righteousness of the argument and the person making the argument. Perhaps this is because anger often accompanies the pronouncements of preachers, priests, imams, rabies, and talk show hosts.

Do you think that anger necessarily signifies righteousness?

Do you think that anger signifies righteousness; but only for those protests for which you agree?
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by Oscar Namechange »

coberst;1299244 wrote: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Webster informs us that righteous is “acting in accord with divine or moral law”.

We often see US citizens, in our streets and byways, expressing their anger at certain actions taken by our government. On occasion this anger is directed at Big Bankers or some other group but generally it is directed at some action of government institutions.

“I’m mad and I won’t take it anymore” seems to be the general attitude often displayed by these demonstrators. I have concluded that most people identify the connection of anger to an argument signifies the righteousness of the argument and the person making the argument. Perhaps this is because anger often accompanies the pronouncements of preachers, priests, imams, rabies, and talk show hosts.

Do you think that anger necessarily signifies righteousness?

Do you think that anger signifies righteousness; but only for those protests for which you agree? Good point.

I was once told I lost my temper by a Judge when the truth was I was actually extremely calm In that situation and had I have lost my temper, the 'Victem' would have been staring at hospital lights for a long time. However, You can not argue with a Judge when he's summing up. :wah:

I do believe that In life we take so much. I had the police In my house last night discussing a local Issue and one Officer said he would not actually blame anyone who lost their temper and punched one of the Offenders we were discussing.

I think the question is... How much does a person take and for how long?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by LarsMac »

I think perhaps we have it backwards.

Righteousness may give folks a foundation on which to place their anger when they witness injustice, but just because your angry does not make you righteous, or even right.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
along-for-the-ride
Posts: 11732
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:28 pm

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by along-for-the-ride »

Anger is a natural human feeling. It's how we express that anger that defines us.
Life is a Highway. Let's share the Commute.
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by Lon »

LarsMac;1299280 wrote: I think perhaps we have it backwards.

Righteousness may give one a foundation on which to place their anger when they witness injustice, but just because your angry does not make you righteous, or even right.


But what is injustice? Wouldn't that be in the eyes of the beholder?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by LarsMac »

along-for-the-ride;1299284 wrote: Anger is a natural human feeling. It's how we express that anger that defines us.


True enough.

I have two forms of expressing anger.

When a minor event has angered me, I vent a little and let folks no I am not happy.

When something has REALLY pissed me off, I get real quiet, and you had better run and hide.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by Oscar Namechange »

LarsMac;1299287 wrote: True enough.

I have two forms of expressing anger.

When a minor event has angered me, I vent a little and let folks no I am not happy.

When something has REALLY pissed me off, I get real quiet, and you had better run and hide.


Ahhh You have hit the nail on the head.

In my situation, I was perfectly calm. The Judge was not there nor was anyoner else who felt they had a right to an opinion of my actions.

I knew I was calm yet a Judge saw It as 'Losing It'.

We can be In sityations where we know we are calm but from second hand Imfo, another Interpretes that you must have been angry and lost your temper.

The question I ask of the Judge In my case would be that as he also said In his summing up 'having seen the evidence, I can Understand why you were so upset' but was he talking that HE would have lost his temper In my situation and there-fore assumed I had?

It's often the way others percieve your actions.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by LarsMac »

Lon;1299286 wrote: But what is injustice? Wouldn't that be in the eyes of the beholder?


To some degree, perhaps, but are there not some things that we could all agree upon as being unjust?

I mean I am sure that somebody flipping us off in traffic my be more of a "eye of the beholder" thing, but someone committing evil against children would raise the hackles on most of us, would it not?

And certainly we have seen where righteousness can be an "eye of the beholder" sort of thing. Only Muslims seemed outraged by Geert Wilder's "artwork" I think, and there were a lot of people in Palestine celebrating what happened at at WTC. So righteousness and injustice can be relative.

likewise, Anger is relative.

I know that I can get angry of a lot of things that have little to do with righteousness or injustice.

Flat tire on the expressway, hitting my thumb with a hammer, slamming my finger in the car door, finding ants in the kitchen, stock prices falling, the dog peed on the carpet, a bill collector calling during my nap time, etc.

And surely I could find some self-righteousness to help justify my anger and feed it, and puff myself up in righteous indignation, were I to wish to entertain such things, but then my wife points out what a fool I appear to be and my anger deflates rather quickly.

Most of our anger comes from somewhere else, and we try to find the righteousness to justify it.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by LarsMac »

oscar;1299294 wrote: Ahhh You have hit the nail on the head.

In my situation, I was perfectly calm. The Judge was not there nor was anyoner else who felt they had a right to an opinion of my actions.

I knew I was calm yet a Judge saw It as 'Losing It'.

We can be In sityations where we know we are calm but from second hand Imfo, another Interpretes that you must have been angry and lost your temper.

The question I ask of the Judge In my case would be that as he also said In his summing up 'having seen the evidence, I can Understand why you were so upset' but was he talking that HE would have lost his temper In my situation and there-fore assumed I had?

It's often the way others percieve your actions.


Absolutely. I can be rather melodramatic (it runs in the family) and some folks have perceived a dramatic demonstration as a loss of temper.

Likewise, I have gotten very pensive, and quiet during a discussion, and that has been mistaken for "losing it"
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by K.Snyder »

coberst;1299244 wrote: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Webster informs us that righteous is “acting in accord with divine or moral law”.

We often see US citizens, in our streets and byways, expressing their anger at certain actions taken by our government. On occasion this anger is directed at Big Bankers or some other group but generally it is directed at some action of government institutions.

“I’m mad and I won’t take it anymore” seems to be the general attitude often displayed by these demonstrators. I have concluded that most people identify the connection of anger to an argument signifies the righteousness of the argument and the person making the argument. Perhaps this is because anger often accompanies the pronouncements of preachers, priests, imams, rabies, and talk show hosts.

Do you think that anger necessarily signifies righteousness?

Do you think that anger signifies righteousness; but only for those protests for which you agree?


No, not in it's entirety.

The emotion one assumes when they feel a "wrong" is omitted is as moral as their ability to resolve the situation in favor of said emotion. This means the sum of the equation present in this context of "anger" is correct and is then completely defined by the means it takes to achieve said sum.

Whatever the means it takes to achieve a divinely moral result is dictated by that end result ultimately defining the means as being moral upon a moral result. Anything else is a skewed interpretation of either the "means" or "end result", which defines complete and utter irrelevancy upon that point afterwords relative to both "equations".
User avatar
AussiePam
Posts: 9898
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:57 pm

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by AussiePam »

coberst;1299244 wrote: Is anger a sign of righteousness?




The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines anger as "extreme displeasure", and angry as "showing anger, extremely displeased, resentful" - leaving moral dimensions out of it entirely.

I'm inclined to think it's a human emotion which is in itself neutral, can be used for good or ill. Some examples:

I'm angry that kids somewhere are starving.

I'm angry that pet owners are dumping unwanted cats in the bush.

I'm angry that I got passed over for this job and some (insert ethnic nationality) got it.

I'm just plain angry (in an unfocussed way because I'm a loser and nobody loves me).

I'm angry at what life has done to me.. and I'll make somebody pay

I'm angry because my parents are strict

I'm angry because my partner left me

I'm angry because everyone ignores the (religious/ atheistic) truth I'm bringing them

I'm angry because my party lost the election, my football team lost the match.

I'm angry because I feel powerless.

I didn't get my own way, so I'm angry.

Other people didn't agree with me, so I'm angry.

I don't like the government / president / health bill etc so I'm angry.

I'm angry because I'm an angry sort of person.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"

coberst
Posts: 1516
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:30 am

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by coberst »

LarsMac;1299280 wrote: I think perhaps we have it backwards.

Righteousness may give folks a foundation on which to place their anger when they witness injustice, but just because your angry does not make you righteous, or even right.


I think that you are correct and I think that such is the common view. This is why it is so important to connect at least an appearance of anger with the portrayal of the issue under consideration. One might say that the metaphor is ACTING ANGRY IS PERSUASIVE.
coberst
Posts: 1516
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:30 am

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by coberst »

LarsMac;1299296 wrote:

Most of our anger comes from somewhere else, and we try to find the righteousness to justify it.


Emotions equal instinct. First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling.

What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

”Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”

The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

“Emotions are inseparable from the idea of reward and punishment, pleasure or pain, of approach or withdrawal, of personal advantage or disadvantage. Inevitably, emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.”

Emotions result from stimulation of the senses from outside the body sources and also from stimulations from remembered situations. Evolution has provided us with emotional responses from certain types of inducers put these innate responses are often modified by our culture.

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained” bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.”

Quotes from The Feelings of What Happens by Antonio Damasio

Questions for discussion
coberst
Posts: 1516
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:30 am

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by coberst »

AussiePam;1299425 wrote: The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines anger as "extreme displeasure", and angry as "showing anger, extremely displeased, resentful" - leaving moral dimensions out of it entirely.

I'm inclined to think it's a human emotion which is in itself neutral, can be used for good or ill. Some examples:

I'm angry that kids somewhere are starving.

I'm angry that pet owners are dumping unwanted cats in the bush.

I'm angry that I got passed over for this job and some (insert ethnic nationality) got it.

I'm just plain angry (in an unfocussed way because I'm a loser and nobody loves me).

I'm angry at what life has done to me.. and I'll make somebody pay

I'm angry because my parents are strict

I'm angry because my partner left me

I'm angry because everyone ignores the (religious/ atheistic) truth I'm bringing them

I'm angry because my party lost the election, my football team lost the match.

I'm angry because I feel powerless.

I didn't get my own way, so I'm angry.

Other people didn't agree with me, so I'm angry.

I don't like the government / president / health bill etc so I'm angry.

I'm angry because I'm an angry sort of person.


I think that you are inserting anger where other feelings are in order. Anger is an emotion but we have rational justification for some things and we have other emotions such as compassion, which is associated with seeing children starving. This is why anger is so useful because it can also hide from view what is really going on.
User avatar
AussiePam
Posts: 9898
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:57 pm

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by AussiePam »

coberst;1299244 wrote: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Webster informs us that righteous is “acting in accord with divine or moral law”.



Do you think that anger necessarily signifies righteousness?

.......

Do you think that anger signifies righteousness; but only for those protests for which you agree?


coberst wrote: I think that you are inserting anger where other feelings are in order. Anger is an emotion but we have rational justification for some things and we have other emotions such as compassion, which is associated with seeing children starving. This is why anger is so useful because it can also hide from view what is really going on.


--------------------------------------------------

Firstly, I don't really want to get embroiled in current American politics.

What I was trying to say was that anger and righteousness are not mutually exclusive, but also do not necessarily go together. Unless, that is, you define anger in such a way as to make this link tautological.

In fact, a large branch of western thinking (the Catholic Church) historically listed anger as the second most deadly sin, after pride. Presumably anger was therefore seen at least by some as necessarily signifying the opposite of righteousness.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"

User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by Bill Sikes »

coberst;1299244 wrote: Do you think that anger necessarily signifies righteousness?


Of course not. It often signifies selfishness, or hurt.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by LarsMac »

Anger can be simply a body chemistry issue, as well.

I have recently had some issues with thyroid, and one of the side effects seems to be anxiety/anger.

I get to feeling on edge and EVERYTHING just pisses me off.

Yesterday was one of those days.

Before the problem was recognized and diagnosed, I had some rather exciting times, and nearly alienated my entire family.

Now I can see it coming and I just hide out until it passes.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
Amythest
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:28 pm

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by Amythest »

Anger is at first a fight mechanism that signals something is wrong, or a threat to your wellbeing.

It's always righteous ( to me this means Justifiable and has no religious context) but the source of that righteousness may not be one with integrity.

It is a necessary emotion for self protection. Healthy anger goes hand in hand with good emotional health.

>>Anger is a natural, healthy emotion that is designed for your protection.

Anger has lots of energy that you can use for good, healthy purposes.

Anger is a response to a threat of any kind, and that has survival value.Healthy Anger and Your Health

It is how one expresses or directs their anger where problems may arise.

Usually when a situation, person, authority figure or group puts out the message you are not allowed to be angry, react to the source of your anger, it is usually an attempt to control and/or subordinate you, thus allowing the authority to do as they wish. It's disempowering for any individual thus keeping them in harms way.

Just shut up and take the abuse it is what they want.

That's not very "righteous"
coberst
Posts: 1516
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:30 am

Is anger a sign of righteousness?

Post by coberst »

Anger is an emotion.

I once took a college course in acting. Acting 101 informs me that an actor is more effective it s/he makes the motions associated with an emotion than if that actor tries to first create the feeling and then the action will follow.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy”