当我自我报告很紧张时，经常有人说我很生气。情人眼里出西施。当一个人愤怒时，这是可以接受的，前提是正义。戴着绿帽子的杀手在遇到这种行为时可以免于起诉，这是一个古老的案例。

Myisha Cherry doesn’t disambiguate rage from anger, but she does break out several forms of anger – and cherry-picks her own form “Lordean” to pertain to an anti-racist rage. Before this, she outlines several others; “Rouge Rage” – anger at injustice, “Wipe Rage” – anger with a genocidal aim to eliminate oppressor groups, “Ressentiment Rage” – reactive anger against those in power, and “Narcissistic Rage” – anger at not being accepted for one’s exceptional merit. Not all of these angers are Cherry’s, but lordean anger is. It is based on Audre Lorde’s work, which is new to my understanding.

Myisha还指出了几种应对愤怒的方法——尤其是洛丁愤怒。我得说，我不明白。

There is a difference between anger and rage. Lordean is no different from road rage in my mind or when my demented loved one has a fit about something I did. Rage is never righteous, and violence is one step away from rage.

奴隶制曾经发生过，现在仍然在发生。在很大程度上，我们一直都是种族主义者，这是我们大脑成熟的一部分。

我喜欢这本书。我喜欢波特兰的故事，喜欢给盟友的建议，喜欢把愤怒转化为有成效的目标的希望。我看不出来。愤怒是不公正行为的风向标(无论真假)。我们要以纠正不公、继续前进的心态去倾听、去行动。理解不是来自于认为某些愤怒是可以接受的，而另一些则不行。人们不是那样工作的。我会听节目，也许会改变一下。我对此表示怀疑。

What if someone claims that slavery in the Americas never occurred, and the trade was one of ivory, not human beings? And let's say that someone objects to this and calmly sits down and tries to explain to the one making the claim the historical evidence which refutes it. Wouldn't one who observes this exchange be justifiably angry at the emotional indifference to the violence of such a claim and the notion that it should be entertained at all? How could one who becomes angry in response to angerlessness escape responsibility for public expression of that anger without sharing justified condemnation along with the author of the original claim?

在我成长的过程中，churchmen and women famously called anger righteous indignation. This was meant to soften that which was frowned upon by righteous folks. This is another example of something I have christened contextual reality. We are taught, in other spheres of experience that unreasoning, senseless rage is inhuman and, well, just wrong. But, there it is. Not sure where this leaves us or where it goes. Just in another version of reality, I guess?

I know little of the Stoics, though I sorta get stoicism. And, I suppose Dr. King raged righteously inside while externally he appeared calm. Non-violence, on it's face, seems the antithesis of rage, yet we may easily see Ms. Cherry's point ( which she no doubt drives home in her book). Seneca's pronouncement, that rage is a kind of madness, makes perfect sense. When we are 'mad' at or with someone, we rage against what they have done; how they have behaved. Often times, anger is the only way we can get attention. Civil rights is a festering sore in America.

I am (I think) mostly with Mr. Smith. But, allowing for TBOD ---the benefit of doubt, I'll try to embrace the avoidably undesirable. Clearly, Ms Cherry is up on the civil rights struggle...was up on it before the time she began to write her book. She needed to fully grok the importance of anger before writing about its' role in the aforementioned struggle. Under normal circumstances, one would believe it prudent to avoid the undesirable. But if I catch her drift aright, the aura surrounding civil rights, though undesirable for many, has never been avoidable. Relying only on drift, this is the intention I have gleaned. The entire matter has never been pretty. The would be no way of avoiding this, near as I can tell.

What about philosophers and anger? What about Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man? He was right in so much of his ranting critique of society. Those that were socially successful, fat, and happy around him were banal and unjust. He was also right in the bordello scene, when he uplifted the girl who had been sold into prostitution, by giving her hope and a sense of worth.

But he was also a coward and a hypocrite and a scoundrel.

By the way, why does Philosophy Talk “question everything but your intelligence”? In societies like ours—like Underground Man’s—in which banality rules and is fat and happy and successful, while workers aren’t even paid enough to afford housing, and massive numbers of young people (with spirited philosophical natures) are incarcerated for very little if any reason, and Underground Men gnash their teeth in private—why shouldn’t philosophers question nothing but our intelligence? Why shouldn’t they compel their students (we the people) to show our work? Why shouldn’t they urge us to BE just and to MAKE (techne) sense, instead of simply sticking signs in our windows spouting platitudes and calling it an act of civic activism? If we’re so intelligent, let’s see it—why not ask us for proof, evidence, and premises in support of our claims. This philosophy class is an easy A.

我将回到私下里咬牙切齿的....

P.S. Tell “Admin” that before deleting comments on this blog, it’s only polite to offer reasons as to why they are being censored. This is philosophy, after all. It’s supposed to be governed by reason, not Might Makes Right.

这可能太简单了。鞑靼蓟的狗不再叫的例子，是优雅的——在某种程度上。但是，在我看来，声称狗不再是你的朋友漏掉了一个关键的区别。
如果狗因为感觉警告没有被注意而不再吠叫，那么它仅仅是凭直觉感知了一两件事。1.没有危险，因为你没有反应已经表明了这一点。
2. If there is danger, likewise, your inattention shows it is not imminent. Dogs are pragmatists too. They are loathe to wasting energy when a nap is much more satisfying. Some smaller ones are perennially agitated. Pomeranians, for example.
Rage tends to be self-sustaining. Especially when the changes it is expected to effect are snail's pace.
它不仅会自我维持，还会呈指数增长，变得越来越难以消除。非暴力抗议和示威的倡导者早就认识到这一点。当然，愤怒会引起注意。吠狗也一样。注意不要太频繁地喊“狼来了”……从来没有“火!”在拥挤的公共场所。

Participant Thistle's argument here is sound, but not valid. It's sound on account of the fact that erotilogism has a long history in the Western tradition, going back at least to Empedocles, but it lacks validity due to inference drawn that the same situation prevails today. And, since it would be irrational to ask for something which is known not to exist, the safe assumption is that only the soundness of the claim is to be taken seriously.

这一观点与切里教授关于敌对情绪反应的杰出分析相似，用她的话说，这是为了开发一套“情商”系统。为此，亚里士多德的《尼各马可伦理学》被引用，以证明适当的愤怒构成了完全不愤怒和过分愤怒之间的平均梯度。这是愤怒的性质，“关于正确的事情”和“以正确的方式”(Nic)。乙。， IV. vi. 4)，确定用于描述目的的定量度量。如果这一推理适用于参与者蓟的论点上面，一个明确的声明，就当前的哲学工作，有一个严重的决定不足的情色反应的促成因素的主题。如果获得了适当的反应量，那么可以推测，超过任何更大的反应量将超过其质量适当性的临界点还没有达到。太多了，就没有哲学;太少，情爱的特征就被冷落了。就像Cherry教授所说的，关于一个不够愤怒的人是否应该被一个在适当的时候生气的人谴责，这里适当的建议也不应该是“要么是/要么”，而是“两者/和”(我的转述，像黑格尔)。

亚里士多德关于中庸之道的概念或许还能提供一些其他的东西，我认为这可能与参与者蓟的生动要求有关，那就是它与友谊的相似性(Nic)。乙。当然，希腊术语philia也有爱的意思，但在这里，除了爱人之外，所爱的人退出了，努力“击中mean”一种与自己的友谊。根据亚里士多德的说法，在道德行为方面，为朋友而战，主要是为自己而战。在我看来，参与者蓟的上述论点指向了哲学情爱的方向，目的是在严肃的智力劳动的背景下，以自我友谊为目的。

由于讨论沿着一个共同的主题从不同的方向展开，我在下面的目的是将三个不同的帖子提出的一些问题联系起来，以便对每个帖子的共同回复可能会提供一些潜在的帮助。

In a post from February 17, 2022 -- 9:15 PM, participant Smith states in response to a post by participant Thistle (now deleted), that Empedocles, who introduced the concept of love into the study of material phenomena as a kinetic principle, is of no importance and should not "be taken seriously" (last paragraph, second sentence). Love understood as a principle therefore can't offer any insight into whether or not anger is ever justifiable. I interpret participant Thistle's response to this to be contained in the post of February 18, 2022 -- 8:45 PM, in an extraordinary counterexample furnished by an analysis of the belief-understanding relation. This relation is described as an interchange between ideas in the mind and natural materials or, if you like, form and matter. This is accomplished on the example of the relationship between someone who performs physical labor as employment, and one whose employment consists of studying the physical properties of nature. The dichotomy brings up the familiar distinction between theory and practice. But that would be oversimplifying things, since each must have both, if nevertheless at differing levels of significance. Each is subject to prior conditions of habitual beliefs, and among them must be the belief about where social power is concentrated. One whose professional responsibility lay in theory understands, according to this participant, that "knowledge is power"; and one whose professional responsibility lies in physical labor, understands from a practical perspective, that "might makes right". Although neither of these can be said to be true, each expresses a clear relation between belief and understanding. "Knowledge is power" is an inference about material organization. "Might makes right" is a reference to prior beliefs. The suggestion is subsequently made that each remedies what the other lacks under conditions of friendly relations. In the escape from their own self-alienation, task fulfillment of each is achieved, as Empedocles describes with regards to material combination, building on the Pythagorean concept of opposition-unity. By putting the two together in friendship (philia), the sum of the two parts generates a greater product than they would independent from one another, supplying strong evidentiary support for Empedocles' theorem.

通过区分与个体行为有关的愤怒和针对整个行为交互系统的愤怒，建立了与潜在愤怒正当化讨论的联系。一种是针对人的，另一种是针对物的。一个具有道德或伦理的维度，而另一个主要是一个实践问题，因此表明了理论/实践二分法的变体。作为一个实际问题，指向社会组织系统的愤怒可能是过度的，如果一个人对一些可以在集体行为条件下改变的事情感到愤怒，或者有缺陷，如果一个人辞职冷静地容忍一些事情压迫的情况，但可以通过足够的努力来改变。通过这种方式，对系统合理的愤怒构成了一种介于不可能改变不良条件的自尊保存和改变条件的决定之间的手段。显然，正当的愤怒作为一种实际问题，在自尊被保存在组织可能性的边缘时得到了满足。无论在哪里，这种愤怒阻止了集体组织去改变人们所愤怒的事情，它就会变得过度、适得其反，因此就没有任何“正义”可言。

Hi there,

我的意思是，那些社会功能将他们置于这样一种地位的人，他们无法看到影响他们大部分劳动的性质和方向的能量来源(希腊三桨船底部的桨手，这个角色过去由希腊公民轮流担任，但后来由奴隶担任)，他们会感到沮丧和愤怒，因为他们无法理解劳动分工背后的基本原理。他们看不到船长不能同时在船壳里划船，因为他们必须注意天气和星星才能航行(这是柏拉图)。技术在功能上把我们彼此分开，以至于两个极端(最高船长，理解)底层(划手，信仰/信仰)都变得对对方的困境盲目和麻木。桨手不能看到和理解他在整个船的实体中的位置的性质。划桨者看不到控制划桨节奏的笛子手，笛子手在船长的指挥下放慢或加快划桨的速度。他们想象自己是自愿这么做的人，没有意识到音乐、情感和无意识行为是如何紧密联系在一起的。在政治民主中，处于功能性社会等级底层的人感到沮丧，因为他们被告知他们在政治上是“平等的”，然而这种表面的平等概念掩盖了社会中权力的实际运作，它既不是纯粹的自上而下，也不是纯粹的自下而上，而是像物理学中一样，是一种双向的相互关联的影响力流动，一种来回的流动。在流行的西方政治文化中，普通人天真地受到各方——精英和上层精英——的诱惑，从而采用这种对权力动态的肤浅理解，从而将看似强大的(可见的权威人物)与实际上强大的(能量影响的实际来源)等同起来。任何在科技领域工作的人都能理解其中的复杂性。他们让我们在这个案子上分了钱，还笑得屁股蛋。 Sorry to burst anyone's illusions...Just saying...

还有一个小趣闻。在民主社会，在职能层面上，政治权力不在首都，而在教室。政治就是戏剧。课堂是社会运动发生的地方。老师是指挥，但众所周知，老师受学生的影响就像学生受老师的影响一样。在这里，物理学的影响流动是来回的，而不是自上而下的。我们都知道这一点。教师不能用武力有效地指导他人。一个不善于接受老师教导的人。如果没有信任，没有接受，学习就无法进行。 But students are not blank slates. We arrive at kindergarten preprogrammed for we have already acquired a degree of linguistic and symbolic competence. Our caregivers have instilled in us the concept of limit and of respecting boundaries. Caregivers grant and withhold privileges (pleasure and pain) based on meeting behavioral standards. This same back and forth occurs in the classroom, only the youths are permitted to contribute to the discussion. Teachers are receptive to hearing what students have to say. They want to know what they think, feel, and want. They are curious. The position of a teacher is like a window into the base of society--teachers see and understand what's happening on the shop floor, the battlefield (choose your metaphor) of society by looking through the window of their students. The lower the grade level, the more revealing the window is, since children have not yet learned to filter. This window is also a doorway, both teachers and students can move into realms otherwise socially denied them by connecting with one another at this level. And this window is also a mirror, for the student reflects back that which they perceive using the collectively shared symbolic languages. In the classroom, the mathematical principle of equality or justice (conceived as balance) is artificially created and experienced under the guidance of a good teacher. But as we know, not all teachers are good, and not all ideas are good either. What this emphasis on the power residing in this central (not top) social position makes us realize is why there is so much legal oversight and ethical protection over this authoritative relationship (only comparable to that in medicine), and why replacing the function of the teacher with online learning in public schools is a supremely BAD and unwise idea. For, at this point, there will be intellectual stagnation--no movement upwards from below. And from the perspective of physics, healthy and balanced power dynamics are back and forth, not top down. The flow of movement upwards is very important, and stopping it, closing this window, doorway, and mirror into the base of society is both (and primarily) UNJUST, but it is also unwise. Consider here the fallacies of division and composition. Simply because something appears qualitatively a certain way on the whole/surface, does not in any way guarantee that its part shares that same qualitative characteristics. And conversely, assuming that because the part possesses certain qualities, therefore the whole also possesses the same qualities, is similarly ignorant (remember Aurelius' son Commodus). Here is the ignorance of institutionalized slavery, which is both unjust and unwise. For, if one wanted to undermine one's foe and one is numerically at a disadvantage, all one has to do is infiltrate their society from below via inserting within the slaves being traded a teacher (one who knows) that looks like a slave. Once a society has been infiltrated from below in this manner by "slave" elements, bad ideas flow upwards. The "slave" now has a window, doorway, and mirror with spectacular view into your society, complete with vistas at both the top (the elite household) and the bottom (the trireme ship). To combat this ignorance and injustice contained in institutionalized slavery, Socrates wanted all members of society to be educated and militarily trained (youth and women). They were all to be guardians for the state of balance/justice within society. But if a society institutionalizes slavery, it manufactures a blind spot for itself. The teacher no longer has access into this segment of the population. They cannot "see" and understand what's going on within this realm. Thus society loses touch with itself on this level, and this is dangerous. Remember the dog that doesn't bark. Colonial influence is both from below, as just described, and also from above, through its introduction of bad ideas. Because the social positions are no longer rotated among citizens (movement from below) and instead slaves remain stagnant in social positions that deny them an understanding of power relations and dynamics, and this position is out of the sight of society's leaders/teachers, things fester down there. The bad ideas putrefy and spread... like a disease...

I would so love to hear what others think.