Anger

Anger is one of life’s most powerful emotions. It is capable of rendering the otherwise unimaginable actions possible; it can transform people from peaceful beings to malevolent madmen; it can have consequences which last lifetimes.

It would therefore be quite wise to try and get to grips with anger. We need to understand it better.

What is it? How does it come about?

Is it good? Is it bad?

What should I do with it? Should I ignore it? Should I endorse it?

Time will reveal all.

The Impending Tsunami

“The Internet is a wonderful thing.” Discuss. [25]

A photographer taking a snapshot of the present day would capture man in an interesting point in his history: regeneration after two truly global wars, attempts at solidarity in a time plagued by terror and the brutal exploitation of the Earth and her environment would no doubt feature. Yet, especially in the last few decades, it is surely the relentless rise of technology that has had the biggest impact on civilisation. It is impossible to place this technology on a sliding scale between good and evil , much like it is absurd to attribute a “good” or “bad” moral price tag on a hammer – both are nothing but tools per se, and it is only when placed in the context of their impact in a given situation that their influence on society can be thought of as positive or negative.

However, given mankind’s dependence on this mysterious digital ether and its extensive presence in our cameraman’s image of today, it would be wise to examine technology’s control over humanity and discover if it really is unlocking a brighter future for all or whether instead it is leaving us destined to anti-social isolation forever.

And the Internet is technology personified.

People

People are a funny business.

The number of people who agree with you on absolutely every matter is 0. Practically everybody knows this.

Yet the number of arguments, confrontations, battles and wars which have stemmed from the inability to agree to disagree is extraordinary.

We shouldn’t be scared of disagreement: we should embrace it and celebrate it, much like we uphold creativity and diversity.

So what’s my point?

Depression is perhaps the best thing that has ever happened to me. It has given me the mental maturity to appreciate my place in the world, what I have, my relationships and my life. It has shown me what empathising with someone actually means. It has demonstrated to me that understanding people is the key to life which unlocks that potential to thrive and flourish and blossom as a human species.

Debating forms a relatively large minority of my life, and so I’d like to think I’m well versed in its formalities and idiosyncrasies. I know how to signpost, what rebuttal is, and how to refute any argument you can throw at me.

In a way, that’s great. It means I can always win.

But perhaps that isn’t what I want. Or at least, what we should want.

In any argument you find yourself in, you always want to win – who’d enter an argument wanting to lose, anyway? You want to prove yourself right over the other person, stamp your intellectual authority, show them who’s boss and demonstrate your confidence and ability to outmanoeuvre them with words.

It’s funny – I go to a number of primary schools to teach youngsters a bit about debating, and I always explain to them the difference between an argument and debate:

In an argument, you go in to win. You never really listen to the other side. You couldn’t care less what they say. You just want to prove yourself right.

In a debate, however, we need to listen. We need to truly pay attention to what the other side is saying, and think of why they might be wrong and why we might be right. We need to listen and interact with their arguments to prove why our side is better than theirs.

I drone on reciting the same speech week after week, yet perhaps I myself haven’t truly internalised what I say.

We have to listen.

Granted, in a debate you are still in it to win it, but still – listening is something I think we are all generally very bad at.

Here’s a challenge: when next going to speak to someone who supports a different political party than you do, follows a different religion to you, has different values to you – when you next get into a conversation and discussion into why you believe what you believe or which of your views is correct, try for a minute to forget thinking of any argument possible to knock down what the other person just said.

Anybody can think of any argument to refute anything. That’s not the point.

Instead, try and actually understand what he (or she – whenever I say he assume he/she) is saying. Try and see where they’re coming from. Try and get why they think the way they do.

Because, whether you like it or not, every human being is, to at least some degree, intelligent. They have the capacity and capability to form judgements of their own through their own vision of the world having weighed up the pros and cons of the respective issue. They have a right to an opinion.

And you should respect that.

Appreciate why they think the way they do. They’re not a complete moron for disagreeing with you – you’re not the God who knows all, despite what you may think. They have a voice too, and they deserve to be given a chance to speak.

You don’t have to agree with them, and I think that’s where a lot of people go wrong. Many people believe that by allowing themselves to consider the other side they’re falling into the trap of losing the battle of words and admitting defeat – that by understanding the other position they have to agree. That’s nonsense.

Understanding and comprehending exactly why someone thinks the way they do will provide such a better discussion than a superficial (and often heated) argument where stupid insults are thrown around to and fro.

That pretty much sums up why I love philosophy so much – study into that discipline makes you realise how people of seemingly the same intelligence and background can come to shockingly different conclusions.

Now, that fact used to make me despair: there’s no black or white, right or wrong, objective moral truth out there. It’s all just a load of wishy washy rubbish. Great.

But you shouldn’t despair. Perhaps there is a right and wrong answer to whether or not we should legalise euthanasia, or what we should do over the refugee crisis. But you have to appreciate the fact that it is not apparent to us, and that different people with their respected different life experiences and views and opinions and thoughts will naturally arrive at different conclusions to yourself.

This is neatly summarised in this quotation I found of someone studying philosophy:

However, one of the professors I most admire took me aside and said,

“You’re quick, but you aren’t being a philosopher. You’re being a Sophist. You might as well go be a lawyer. If you want to do some real philosophy, try arguing for the least accepted view as if it were your own. Then, and ONLY then, have you earned the right to respond to that position. Philosophers are pretty smart. If they’re saying something, they probably have a damn good argument for it. You just make yourself the fool for underestimating their claims, and you’ll never make any progress. Don’t let your ego get inflated by the fact that everybody seems impressed when you tear apart positions you don’t like. That is not philosophy. You are a philosopher when you examine your own position as harshly as possible, and interpret counterarguments to your position as charitably as possible. Then you might get somewhere new. But it isn’t easy, and anyone who pretends it is had better be Saul Kripke or the like, or else he’s a schmuck. If you have even one original insight in your entire philosophical career, be happy with that, because it’s rare.”

Instead of immediately jumping to conclusions when someone disagrees with a strong sentiment of your own, take a minute to allow them to make their case. Try and see if you can see why someone might think like that. No, I’m not forcing you to agree with them, I’m forcing you to appreciate their value as a human being.

And when someone realises that you’re not going to get aggressively confrontational and you aren’t going to judge them for having a different view to you, not only will you get along much better, have a more peaceful discussion and get a lot more out of it, but you’ll also find that they respect your views in the same manner. They give you a chance to make your case, and they appreciate where you’re coming from. They’re under no obligation to agree, but they’ll treat you with respect like you deserve.

Who knows. You may even make a new friend.

Wouldn’t the world be such a better place if that happened?

“Oh, but you’re being so unrealistic, depressiondeconstructer. That’ll never happen in real life. Some narrow-minded idiot will probably throw a punch before we get the chance to talk.”

And that mindset is exactly the problem. We’re always blaming someone else for our inability to tolerate different views. We’re always justifying our anger with the anger of others. It’s got to stop.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, we are living through one of the most tense, confrontational, isolated, anger-driven periods in human history. One of the major ways to improve the world in which we find ourselves in is to give other people a shot – respect them, allow them to speak, and treat them how you’d like to be treated.

It’s a childish rule for a childish population.

Once this has been accomplished, then – and only then – can we successfully tackle all the problems we have in the world, due to, in my humble view, miscommunication, misunderstanding and a whole lot of pure unadulterated hatred.

Solving these issues isn’t done through inappropriate aggression or anger or hostility or violence or condemnation or war.

It’s through acceptance, and the willingness to listen, and respect for other people.

It’s through recognising the fact that every human being is worth at least something, that everybody deserves a say, and allowing yourself to be brave enough to challenge and critique your own views by listening to those whom we thoroughly disagree with.

Why can’t peace and love flow through debates rather than bitterness, mockery and antagonism?

Now, we can all probably think of at least a few cases in the news to which this article may be thoroughly applicable. Yet, I don’t feel comfortable referring to said articles.

Why?

Since I’m scared – of what I think, those who will disagree, the backlash I might get, those who think I should be terminated and so on.

If I said I agreed with the 5p charge for plastic bags, for instance, that would cause a riot in my household!

What kind of a world do we live in where I’m scared to say what I think because of other people’s aggressive disapproval?

A world where we don’t give a damn about what others think and where it’s every man, woman and child for themselves.

Now it’s not for me to persuade you to think X or to bully you into doing Y. It’s for me to persuade you to think for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

And to allow others to do the same.

I don’t know where that post came from. But I feel better now I wrote it.

Till next time 🙂