Strudel
Regular Member
- Messages
- 79
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Ontario
- Ethnic group
- Deutsch
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H4a1a1a
I agree with this premise. In my estimation, both anger and hate are simply brain growth and adaptive in a positive sense, speaking strictly from a progenitive point of view, not moral.
I question the premise that animals do not experience anger. While, I acknowledge these things like our own subjective human emotions are difficult to fully be sure about re other species, there are some ways to in which we can perhaps infer or extrapolate via similar behaviour.
As an example, we have a husky, I would swear she gets angry. Huskies are an extremely intelligent breed of dog. My own kind of working theory about anger is that true visceral anger is a complex mechanism that arise from "gut" intelligence to more cerebral intelligence and when it does so, it is a mark of dominance/protectionism of interests.
Hate is also complex and I would surmise more associated with and springing from the animal kingdom and natural base "like and dislike", inasmuch as it is a Self-interested protectionism as per "this is not good for me" or "this poses a threat to me". The way we humans now with language and more neurotic ways of defining and mixing up hate, it can become abused or muddled up when not careful to distinguish between what is mere carefulness vs. what could be harmful to us.
Addendum: Seeing as this topic is in the Opinion section, which to my way of thinking must take a broader perspective, I want to add that while I see progenitive benefits to hate and anger, as I have summarized in my above post, it is also important to acknowledge the other side (negative attributes) of these, which I view as driving forces.
The thing about a driving force: it has a root, a growth & influence (which often gets overlooked/discounted) and an outcome.
Where I see "What is bad about?" coming from is in the dis-jointed way many modern people deal with anger and hate. There seems to me to be a state of divorce from root intelligence, imo. and also a state of confusion about ultimate intention.
To boil it down:
1) we get an instinctive response, we have no idea where it comes from (or we make up where it comes from, called: rationalization)
2) we make a decision to act or not act (the latter choice can then be driven underground into more nefarious actions), and some think for moment, others longer, about "What's my intention?", while others and probably most only think in the moment, "What do I want right now?"
3) When anger (defensiveness) and hate (like/dislike) are the instigators we always have a choice in how we act. We don't have a choice in whether we we feel them or not. I believe this is mostly biologically determined (yet also mediated by personal life experience).
4) Our choice in how we deal with our anger or hate is what makes both of these drives either good or bad, morally speaking, not hate or anger itself.
Last edited:
kashii: :? 
