Critique My Philosophy of Life?

[Solitary]

Anger is the emotion that expresses dislike or opposition toward a person or thing that is considered the cause of aversion. Psychologists consider anger a natural emotion needed for survival. Anger can bring forth behavioral improvements; however, uncontrolled anger can cause social and personal problems.

Psychologists divide anger into three categories. One type of anger is an instinctual reaction to being trapped or hurt. Another type is a reaction to the perception of being intentionally harmed or mistreated by others. The third type of anger, which includes irritability, reflects an individual's personal character traits.

"If our anger doesn't sustain justice there will never be any justice." This is how tyrants and churches control people, by making them sheep that never get angry by being in control of their negative feelings for survival. There's more to survival than just controlling one's feelings, even if psychologists and psychiatrist get the shit scared out of them when a patient goes into a rage because he knows they are full of shit like you are, and that is an opinion of you, not an Ad Hominem.

A psychopath is a person that doesn't need emotions to survive, is that what people should be like? We are humans not androids without feelings and emotions controlled by someone for their benefit. Solitary

[Biodome]

False.  I can be concerned with my survival without feeling anger.  Let us say that I am carrying a gun, and a wild-eyed stranger wielding a bloody knife yells "I am going to kill you" and rushes toward me.  It does not require anger as a motivation for me to shoot him.  It simply requires concern for my own safety.

No, that "concern for your own safety" comes directly from the instinct of survival, whether you possess a weapon or not. The instinct of survival necessarily produces the fight-or-flight response, which includes many psychological/physiological effects and emotions such as anger (that Wikipedia article indeed mentions anger and aggressiveness if you only cared to look closely):

Psychological effects
*Anxiety
*Restlessness
*Lack of motivation or focus
*Irritability or anger
*Depression

However, even if you somehow managed to live a perfect life without any dangers, this in no way diminishes the necessity of anger, since natural selection is a slow process and immediate benefits or disadvantages are not required for it to function. You are simply an exception, but not a rule. You must also take into consideration that, ultimately, the reason why you want to survive is the ability to reproduce, which is exactly why anger has evolved in the first place. Male-male competition is still very relevant, just as it was at the dawn of our species. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be here.

None of this shows that anger is necessary for individual survival today--and nor does it show that anger is necessary for individual reproduction today.  I am a father, and like many men, I have never had to fight another man over a woman.

Not necessarily fight in the literal sense. Women are programmed to choose their partners based on their perception of how "good" the male is when compared to other males. This results in (not necessarily visible and/or physical) competition between the males. This is a rule and a fact that applies to all biological populations of individuals that reproduce sexually. You are a part of such population and you cannot escape biological mechanisms.

[Icarus]

The fight or flight response is what allows you to get angry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response
You need the response to survive because many situations require a quick boost of adrenaline. Without this quick boost in adrenaline you won't have the reaction time needed to survive. If a car is speeding towards you that adrenaline boost is the difference between life and death.

There is no mention of anger in the link you provide on the fight-or-flight response.

If you didn't read anything in the link how do you expect to find anger.

Psychological effects
Anxiety
Restlessness
Lack of motivation or focus
Irritability or anger
Depression

Use control+f then type in 'anger'

[Philosofer123]

False.  I can be concerned with my survival without feeling anger.  Let us say that I am carrying a gun, and a wild-eyed stranger wielding a bloody knife yells "I am going to kill you" and rushes toward me.  It does not require anger as a motivation for me to shoot him.  It simply requires concern for my own safety.

No, that "concern for your own safety" comes directly from the instinct of survival, whether you possess a weapon or not. The instinct of survival necessarily produces the fight-or-flight response, which includes many psychological/physiological effects and emotions such as anger.

The fact that the fight-or-flight response may cause anger does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  In fact, it does not even imply that anger is required to have a fight-or-flight response.

Therefore, you have failed to establish that one's concern for one's safety necessarily involves anger.

However, even if you somehow managed to live a perfect life without any dangers, this in no way diminishes the necessity of anger, since natural selection is a slow process and immediate benefits or disadvantages are not required for it to function. You are simply an exception, but not a rule. You must also take into consideration that, ultimately, the reason why you want to survive is the ability to reproduce, which is exactly why anger has evolved in the first place. Male-male competition is still very relevant, just as it was at the dawn of our species. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be here.

None of this shows that anger is necessary for individual survival today--and nor does it show that anger is necessary for individual reproduction today.  I am a father, and like many men, I have never had to fight another man over a woman.

Not necessarily fight in the literal sense. Women are programmed to choose their partners based on their perception of how "good" the male is when compared to other males. This results in (not necessarily visible and/or physical) competition between the males. This is a rule and a fact that applies to ALL biological populations. You are a part of such population and you cannot escape biological mechanisms.

The fact that there is competition between males does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  And that is what is being debated.

[Solitary]

Findings of Harvard scientists have made it possible to argue that venting negative emotions in a controlled manner ensures sustaining mental health.

Today's society regards anger as very threatening emotion. So called "positive thinking" has been widely cultivated recently, an attitude that could possibly lead to a life totally devoid of anger. According to the head of the study, professor George Valliant, this practice couldn't be more wrong because suppressing negative emotions (which are vital to our survival) eventually bounce back badly on a person. Scientists claim it again that fear, anger and other negative feelings are natural to humans and bear significant meaning.

Scientists say negative emotions give us the power to survive. However, professor Valliant who is director of the Study of Adult Development (the publisher of the study) points out that uncontrolled anger is destructive. According to the professor, we all feel anger (Note, if normal.)but people who are able to vent some steam without serious consequences tend to make a lot of progress in emotional growth and mental health.

What's this say about you control freak?  :roll:  I had a friend that never got angry like you say we don't need to do survive. He was a perfect soldier and never got angry and did his job killing 80 people as a tunnel rat. He killed his wife without getting angry with a pistol just because it was for his benefit. He got away with it because he was so cool and calm during the trial no one thought he could have done it. If you don't get angry that means you are a psychopath and mentally ill. Solitary

[Philosofer123]

PLEASE NOTE:

Despite the best efforts of several individuals on this thread, no one has been able to establish that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  It is not worth my time to continue arguing the point, so I will not respond to any additional posts on the topic of anger.

I will be happy to respond to any constructive feedback on any other aspect of my philosophy.

Thank you for your comments up to this point.  I look forward to constructive dialogue.

[Biodome]

Therefore, you have failed to establish that one's concern for one's safety necessarily involves anger.

Alright, I can supply you with lots of other sources if you wish - up until the point when you start agreeing to the facts. Let's start with this one:

Fight/Flight Response

Anger triggers the fight/flight response, which mentally and physically prepares the body for survival. During the flight/flight response, the body automatically responds to a threat without conscious thought.

Source: http://www.pathwaytohappiness.com/anger ... -anger.htm

The fact that there is competition between males does not imply that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  And that is what is being debated.

You are right when it comes to competition for females - usually that does not result in any blood or deaths (the key word: "usually"), however, I, for the fourth time in a row tell you to look at the dangers in the contemporary world: murder, accidents, animal threats, environmental threats. Being ready to take action in the case of such dangers is necessary for successful survival. This has been repeated to you several times in a row now. Stop repeating yourself and look at what is being written to you.

[Biodome]

PLEASE NOTE:

Despite the best efforts of several individuals on this thread, no one has been able to establish that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  It is not worth my time to continue arguing the point, so I will not respond to any additional posts on the topic of anger.

I will be happy to respond to any other constructive feedback on any other aspect of my philosophy.

Thank you for your comments up to this point.  I look forward to constructive dialogue.

Ironically, you have created exactly the same thread on several other intelligent forums. And in most of them the discussions ended with exactly this - a declaration by you that no one has enough IQ to actually argue against your splendid work of art.

Might I take a step further and conclude that, since you are not considering to accept any of the criticism that is presented to you, your real motive in advertising your work is actually to gain real money for every visit to your .doc? This would make sense, because you have not considered revealing your identity either. If you are a proud self-declared professional philosopher and an ex-executive, you might as well tell us who you are. After all, you should be treated as a real star in the world of philosophy, shouldn't you?

[Icarus]

PLEASE NOTE:

Despite the best efforts of several individuals on this thread, no one has been able to establish that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  It is not worth my time to continue arguing the point, so I will not respond to any additional posts on the topic of anger.

ie. "You have proven me wrong and I don't want to admit it"

[Solitary]

Hot damned, another troll bites the dust out of frustration which is a form of anger for survival, proving he was wrong. I think he was ready to blow his top. If he can't even survive here, he is really in trouble outside his bubble in the real world.  :rollin:    8-) Solitary

[josephpalazzo]

I have re-read all of your posts, and in none do you establish that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  None of the others have established this conclusion either.

If anger has been transmitted from species to species for hundreds of millions of years, do you really think that this trait will disappear over a few thousands of years?!??!

You are attacking a straw man.  I am not arguing that anger "will disappear over a few thousands of years".  I am arguing that anger is not necessary for individual survival today.

IOW, you think that it has disappeared, which shows you are totally clueless how natural selection works.

[Solitary]

This is hilarious: Submission History

Most recent topics:

•Arguments for moral anti-realism?

•Is death harmful for the one who dies?

•What makes a moral fact "moral"?

•Critique My Philosophy of Life?

•Ways to combat loneliness?

Find all topics submitted by philosofer123


Most recent posts:
• I used to be a physicalist, but I gradually became uncomfortable with the arguments that support it--there were just too many potential objections...

• In my view, the whole point of moral realism is that objective moral facts would have inescapable practical authority--they would provide normativ...

• I did not say that our emotions are rendered useless. I said that some of our emotions are rendered irrational. That is, they are based on false... No shit red ryder!

• Determinism, if true, would preclude the existence of ultimate responsibility. And without ultimate responsibility, a whole range of negative emo... Why would that be, even without freewill your actions would be determined by you and be your responsibility.

•By the way, yochay, your overall philosophy is very similar to Stoicism. You might want to check out the three books on Stoicism in the recommended r...

Find all posts posted by philosofer123  It appears he may not have been a troll, but just wrong, and trying to convince himself he is right. Solitary

[Biodome]

It appears he may not have been a troll, but just wrong, and trying to convince himself he is right. Solitary

That does not make him really much different from the regular Christian chew toys we get. Both are blind when the evidence turns against their conclusions.

[mykcob4]

What do you call someone so involved with their own ego that they completely dismiss facts from experienced well respected scientist who have conducted exhaustive studies decades long compiled with centuries of data?
You call that person a troll for that is exactly what they are.
What do you call a person that post a theory and when you prove them wrong by setting a simple trap and they fall into that trap...easily, but said person continues to keep posting they same old crap that has more than been refuted?
You call that person a troll.
That is what we have here, a bonofide troll.
He claims that a biologist doesn't know what evolution is all because that biologist doesn't agree with his fucked up theory. He gets facts presented to him backed up by credible sources and he claims that it never happened.
He claims someone is angry, but the fact is that it is he that is angry and frustrated.
It's understandable. He wanted everyone to respect his little theory even though the theory wasn't researched, is baseless, isn't supported by the facts.
All that matters is his ego...HIS emotion. Too bad that reality has set in and he is reduced in defending a unatainable position.
But that is what trolls do and how the threads always end up when dealing with one. When you put your ego ahead of facts, you're stuck. If you can't admitt to being wrong you are always the loser in these things.
So we are dealing with a loser troll that is so full of himself that he forgot the fundemental rule in arguing a position....FACTS.
Inscedently, I can't believe that this guy was a successful executive. Most if not all successful executives can write a thesis that is supported by facts. You can't obtain a masters degree if you can't do so.
So put it to the forum that we not only have a troll but a fraud as well.

[Sargon The Grape]

I am afraid that you have completely destroyed your credibility.

For someone who likes pointing out logical fallacies, you sure do love to use them.

If you believe that I have committed a logical fallacy, then please demonstrate exactly how.  Otherwise, you cannot be taken seriously.

Attacking someone's argument on the grounds of credibility is classic ad hominem. As someone who has called ad hominem on others before now, you should know this.

PLEASE NOTE:

Despite the best efforts of several individuals on this thread, no one has been able to establish that anger is necessary for individual survival today.  It is not worth my time to continue arguing the point, so I will not respond to any additional posts on the topic of anger.

I will be happy to respond to any constructive feedback on any other aspect of my philosophy.

Thank you for your comments up to this point.  I look forward to constructive dialogue.

Translation: I'm right, you're wrong, now fuck off. TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Plenty of people have proven it, and your only answer has been to say, "That's not good enough." You never bother to say why it's not good enough, of course; but if there's anything I've learned from people as set in their opinions as you are, it's that there is no "why" aspect to your logic, because no amount of evidence will ever persuade you otherwise.

Oh, and before you call "ad hominem," that doesn't apply here: I'm not trying to attack your argument by attacking you. I'm just attacking you.