Naturalism Idealism Spiritualism Pragmatism and Anger

Postby Leo Volont » Sat Jan 14, 2017 10:15 am

I would suppose that most people’s Behavioral Patterns, and the particular Philosophies by which they decide on how to Behave, is not consciously and deliberately chosen by them. The Usual Case, I suppose, is that People behave in much the same way their Families had behaved before them, and then of course there are the Regional Types of Behavior, such as in the case that ‘all People from New York act like New Yorkers’. But if one wished to Categorize and Specify particular Types of Behavioral Orientations in a sort of Philosophical Way, well we could start with the conceptual frameworks of Naturalism, Idealism, Spiritualism and Pragmatism.

Naturalism is perhaps the easiest of these ‘Ism’ to achieve in practice, as one simply has to follow one’s Animal-Instinctual Impulses and Drives – ‘as easy as falling off a log’, as they say. Yes, it would be very easy to be Judgmental toward those who behave entirely Naturalistically, but if I had to say something ‘Good’ about Naturalism it would be that, in Material Terms, sometimes the Animal Instincts – particularly the Go-For- the-Throat Killer Instinct, can pay off Big in many career fields. Indeed, many of the most successful Business People are almost entirely Animalistic. And Nowadays it doesn’t seem to hurt in Politics.

But it is easily understandable that these Naturalistic People would tend to do poorly with Anger Management. You see, to them Anger is SO ‘Natural’ that they tend to forgive it in themselves, just as one can easily forgive a dog, or for the dog to forgive itself, for barking and growling at the Potal Carriers. But while we live in a mostly Civilized World, it often happens that Naturalistic People find themselves inconvenienced by their Episodes of Angry, particularly if they must face adverse Social and Legal Consequences afterwards. But when this happens, well, these Naturalists most often resort to blaming others for having provoked them –by such means as not readily conceding to all of their Business or Personal Demands, or by not showing them enough Respect or Whatever. Of course, it is very often the case that the People whom the Naturalists blame for their Troubles are in fact other Naturalists themselves! So you see, behaving Naturally just seems to be Everybody’s Road Map to Trouble.

With Idealism I don’t have to be quite so much on my guard against being Judgmental – I like Idealists! You see, Idealists are your quintessential “Human Beings”…They believe that there IS or at least that there SHOULD BE an Intrinsic and Basic Distinction between ‘Human Beings’ and the ‘Lower Animals’. This Distinction, as we look about us in a largely Man-Made World, created for us largely by Past Idealists, is demonstrated in quite a number of Ways – Human Beings adopt a Sense of Morality and maintain Moral Ideals; Human Beings tend to endeavor to live like Ideal Beings – Dressing in Cloths, shaving and styling their Hair, and closeting off privately to accomplish the Animal Functions (such as sex and bowel movements), using utensils to eat rather than eating with their hands or just digging in with their ‘mauls’, and certainly there are many other examples we could think of . It is as though Idealistic Human Beings see themselves as something More and Better than just their Physical Bodies. And all of the Thought that has gone into Lifting Us Out and Above the Animal Nature has certainly helped us in many other ways – The Age Old Drive to push Thought to Higher and Higher Levels, in order to Adapt our Way to Better and Easier Means for Survival, undoubtedly served to Evolve our Large and Capable Brains, giving us the Ability to formalize, record and communicate Concepts, which is perhaps the Well Spring of All Human Inventiveness, and the Foundation for both Our Material and Moral Progress.

Spiritualism is much akin to Idealism, in that most Spiritualists are also Idealists. But not all Idealists are Spiritualists. You see, Spiritualists have the distinction of acknowledging some Central and Unifying Oneness or Life-Force in which all of our separate Lives form into One Great Life of All Things. It is a difficult concept to explain, but I was once helped to SEE the Idea of ‘Life In All Things’ in a Dream I had decades ago when I was still quite young. In this Dream I dreamt that I met this Young Man out in some Sun lit and arid countryside where the grass and the bushes were meagre and far between. The Young Man approached me and he had the most intense Smile – his whole Face beamed with it… no, it wasn’t a grin, and it wasn’t close to a Laugh…rather it was a deep benign and penetrating Smile – a Smile full of disinterested but fathomless Love, and it shown especially through his eyes. I was quite startled by it, as nobody ever looked at me like that before... or, wait… now that I think about it, not since I was a small baby (it seems my very First Memory is of my Grandmother looking down at me with just such a Smile (while I was being ‘changed’!)… apparently such a ‘Smile’ was powerful enough to awaken my Consciousness and switch on the Life Memory Circuit that has been running ever since… well, except for moments that are probably best forgotten...). But Back to My Dream! … after the Young Man gave me that penetrating, eerie and startling smile, he nodded a kind of ‘farewell’ and turned to walk away, out into that arid countryside. Then this Great Deep and Powerful Voice from ‘Out of the Blue’ spoke saying “And He went out into the Wilderness and became One”. As I continued to watch him, and he was still not very far away – he developed an Aura of Silver-Blue Light. But then I noticed that all of the Grasses and Bushes close by also began projecting the same Silver Blue Light… and then the bushes further off… and then the Trees out in the Distance. It seemed to show that the ‘Oneness’ that the ‘Out of the Blue Voice’ spoke of was a Oneness In the Life of All Things (if I could have seen myself at the moment, I probably would have had that same Blue Silver Aura!). We could ask why the Blue Silver Aura seemed to start in the Young Man. Interesting question, that. I would suppose because he was able to Feel It – that ‘to Feel It’ sparks a kind of cascading expansion of The Thing that is Felt – Boundless, All Penetrating Life. It kind of reminds me of another Old Dream I had in which a Dream Guru told me “You have Seen It. You have Heard It. Now all you have to do is Feel It.” Well, enough of Dream Land… let’s get back to the Waking Reality of this Discussion!

Well, we can easily imagine why any Spiritualist who thus acknowledges Oneness In All Life would adopt a Moral and Cooperative Approach in his or her Behavior. But the Idealist, who behaves in almost exactly the Same Way, may only have different Motivations – being Good and Moral because of Rational Convictions, Logical Arguments, Religious Reasons or by the influence of a Strong Moral Example.

Well, after such warm and glowing appraisals of Idealism and Spiritualism, you would think such people would have no problem with Anger, but in fact they do. They may actually have less anger than other people, but they are often more aware of anger as a ‘Problem’, that is, they are bothered more by it, as it conflicts with what they would see as appropriately ‘Ideal Behavior’. And then there is the Problem of Causation, that is, of What Makes these High Minded People Angry to begin with. It seems that for all of their Ideals, they are still saddled with many of the same Habits and Conditions of Life which weigh upon everybody else, and just like as with anybody else, for every Good Role Model in their Lives, there have probably been a Thousand Bad Ones. And there are some Bad Role Models to which Idealists are particularly susceptible – those who make a display of ‘Righteous Anger’ or Overweening Pride and who flaunt an Attitude of Contemptuous Indignation or Snobbish Superiority – all that is exactly the opposite of our Smiling Saint from the Land of Dreams! And then there are Family Dysfunctions in even the Best of Families, and of course the Peer Groups from One’s Youth are almost always the epitome of Stark Barbarism (“no Child is Enlightened… they are all Barbarians somehow or another”, as Aristotle had said.). So, yes, Idealists and Spiritualists can have Anger Issues, and it seems that they can also be caught in an impasse when it comes to Confronting their Anger, that is, when they try to ‘Re-Invent’ their own Anger Management ‘Wheel’, so to speak. I would suppose that They believe that just re-emphasizing the Constructs of their own Ideal Beliefs and Convictions would be enough to quell their Anger, that is, when they Flip Out they try to Fix Themselves by reading their same old favorite Books on Spirituality or Philosophy. While such readings won’t ‘Hurt’, still it would tend to lack the directly applicable focus that a dedicated Anger Management Book would have. So it is that some of the Best People continue on with sporadic incidences of Anger cropping up now and then all of their lives because they can’t somehow come to effective grips with the Problem in Terms that they are comfortable with. I would be the last person to call Idealistic People ‘Snobs’, but it does seem that they have an abiding Belief that Anger Management Books are somehow beneath them… maybe if the Publishers bound them in Tooled Leather and printed them with gilded edges…

Pragmatism is the last Behavioral Category we will discuss. Pragmatism, basically speaking, is doing what seems most ‘Practical’. Pragmatism rises above Naturalism in that it recognizes the importance and complexity of Events, Situations and Conditions and attempts to steer the straightest and smoothest course through Life’s various Obstacles; whereas Naturalism only reacts moment by moment with emotion driven impulse. Of course the Pragmatist can be accused of oftentimes violating Moral Precepts in an effort to make Life More Comfortable for themselves, as, for instance, with those who Cheat on Exams or lie to their Relationship Partners about such things as ‘where they were and who they were with last Saturday Night’. Indeed, there is a Great Deal of this kind of Amoral Pragmatisms circulating nowadays, especially since the slow and steady decline in Greater Civilized Traditional Religious Values over the last several Centuries (yes, while there are people nowadays who claim to be motivated by “Religious Values”, well, what they call ‘values’ are often not very ‘Traditional’ – not in the context of our Greater Western Civilization that developed all of its Moral Fiber BEFORE the Protestant Reformation and all those Other subsequent Revolutions that have lead up to our Modern and Morally Muddled –Up Era.

Perhaps it would be helpful to present some idea or example of Amoral Pragmatism. So let us pretend that a circumstance containing a Moral Dilemma pops up, and actions must be taken at a Moment’s Notice, and IF it seems Easy and Uncomplicated to Lie, Steal or Cheat, and if Nobody will ever Know or Find Out (besides the ‘Friends’ who are urging one on), and if the Benefits will be Great, well, THEN there is really nothing of any weight in the ‘Pragmatists’ Mental and Moral Outlooks to stop them from choosing to do what they ‘KNOW’ to be Morally Wrong, is there? “Knowing” that Something is ‘Wrong’ would just be their cue to be careful not to get ‘caught’. Essentially a Pragmatist’s ‘Moral Choices’ come down to a Calculation based on Expected Consequences. The Religious Person would fear some kind of Supernatural Religious Consequences, whatever they might be – Hell or Bad Karma or Whatever. Indeed, many of your Religious People have the core belief that God SEES, or at least KNOWS somehow, everything that one does, and that He somewhat vindictively Keeps Score on it all and Promises to get Even in the End! Yes, such Beliefs may not be very ‘scientific’ but they do serve to keep The Believers on the moral ‘straight and narrow’…and all without the expense of maintaining Universal Police Surveillance, and a Judicial System that gives us more Lawyers than Doctors, and a Prison System that gives us more Prison Guards than School Teachers. Anyway, with the Rise of Pragmatism, we must be aware that there will be a corresponding Drop in the Trust we can expect to have in and from other People – “Love your Neighbor, but count your Forks before the guests leave”.

But, yes, of course, Pragmatisms isn’t always immoral (on the rare occasions when doing ‘Good’ would seem to result in some Material Benefit (such as contributing to a Tax Exempt Charity in response to solicitations from your Boss’s Wife) , but sometimes Pragmatism does have to Choose Between Evils – the Choice of doing some Absolute Good is often times not on the List of Available Options (and in Situations such as these often the Idealists are effectively ‘paralyzed’ – if not positively sure of doing ‘what is positively right’, they will do nothing at all). So, while we live in an imperfect World, it can be argued that People who are Responsible for the Welfare of Many Other People really should be Pragmatists. Take the Decision to Go To War – a Politician’s Decision to go to War should always be a Pragmatic Calculation –balancing the Concerns of Right, Justice, and National Interest, against the concerns for the Life and Limb of the Soldiers and Civilians involved (on both sides of the Conflict) and the possible detrimental Economic and Social Costs to the Nation, which can never be accurately predicted (“No War Plan survives the First Shot”… Sun Tzu). History is Full of instances where National Leaders would have begged to be able to go back in Time simply so they could ‘look the other way’ if given a Second Chance on their Choice for War. I suppose many Voters do not understand this or the underlying quasi-principles involved . We hear of Citizens criticizing various Politicians for Neglecting Principles and doing what is Expedient, and it doesn’t seem to occur to them that THAT is exactly what our National Leaders SHOULD be doing – that they really ought to DO whatever it takes to Bring the Best Long Term Sustainable Results for One’s People, even if it requires something of a Morally Zig Zag Approach to do so. And, yes, if it is not all Goodness and Light, our Leaders should not scruple but to Take the Sins upon themselves (when a President says he will take Full Responsibility, it is not for the Good and Moral Things he does, but for all of the unfortunate Things that Weight Heavy with Guilt). So before any of us People allow ourselves to get Angry with the Lying, Cheating and ‘waffling’ of Politicians, consider whether they are doing it only for their own personal benefit or whether that maybe they might be doing it all for the Good of the Entire Nation or even for the Sake of the World and Greater Civilization. And, of course, on the smaller scale, when you notice certain people within your own Orbit consistently being Pragmatic – choosing what Moral Precepts to Follow on a Case by Case basis, well, try to consider that if one could know the Full Circumstances and Conditions surrounding all of the related Events (if one could see “The Big Picture”), whether such Pragmatism could actually seem warranted or at least understandable in some vaguely qualified Moral Sense –You know, such as the “Robin Hood” Rationale.

But, now, considering Pragmatists in reference to Anger Management, they are perhaps the most pliable group. Yes, the Idealists and Spiritualists would be Perfect, but only if they were as Good as they Wished they were. But Pragmatists have no problem doing whatever they calculate will be to their lasting advantage. So, if such Pragmatists find they have an Anger Problem that is holding them back, well nothing seems more sensible to them then to just Deal With It by resorting to Anger Management Therapy or Self Help.

So, in conclusion, let me go over my assertions in brief: that Naturalists see Anger as just a Part of Life, and if reprimanded for it, they tend to resort to excuses and rationales, and this makes them very poor candidates for Anger Management Therapy. Idealists and Spiritualists are typically less angry than most other people, unless they have a ‘thing’ for Righteous Anger, but when these High Minded People are angry they may feel more than ordinarily concerned for it, as it does not conform to their Ideal Image of Themselves, but in dealing with their Anger Issues they tend to confine themselves to their Own Personal and often very limited Resources, so they tend to shy away from Effective Anger Management Therapy or Self Help. Pragmatists, if they become aware that Anger has become a Problem for them, will seek appropriate help and will tend to cooperate and take an active role in Fixing their Anger Problem. Of course, all of the Above are all just very Broad–Stroke Generalizations, but it still may offer a Starting Place for one’s Thinking if this type of subject matter ever becomes a matter of concern.
User avatar
Leo Volont
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:26 am
Likes Received: 146


#1

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:58 pm

An interesting overall philosophy.

Pragmatism doesn't mean selfish or making judgments based on what is in ones own self interest.
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1271

#2

Postby Leo Volont » Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:48 am

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:An interesting overall philosophy.

Pragmatism doesn't mean selfish or making judgments based on what is in ones own self interest.


Hi Richard!

Well, Richard, you caught me! I didn’t do a bit of Research for that Paper. I just sort of ‘winged it’ and had great hope and trust in my education that I wouldn’t be too far off on anything. So, when you confronted me with “Pragmatism doesn't mean [being] selfish or making judgments based on what is in one’s own self- interest”, well I had to go and ‘look it up’. Well, yes, ‘They’ say Pragmatism is a Philosophical Stance that evaluates Truth on its ‘success rate’, that is, whether acting on such ‘Truths’ culminates in demonstrable practical results or not.

So I wonder where you see that I ‘over-reached’? After all, if a Person finds in his Own Experience that acting “selfishly” or “making judgements based on one’s own self-interest” seems to give himself a ‘high success rate’ and ‘demonstrable practical results’, well, ISN’T that Pragmatism? I am almost certain that I cannot be the first Philosopher who has ever taken the position that Pragmatism when practiced by Individuals can work against Social Morality, Social Utility, and Civilized Cooperation.

We DO see enough of it, that is Pragmatism being advanced by means of Selfishness and Self-Interest. I alluded to some of it in my paper, when I spoke of Cheating on Exams. It seems there has been some flagrant Cheating at more than a few of the U.S. Military Academies, where the Cadets had traditionally been ‘honor bound’ to be honest and upright. But a great many Cadets must have found that it greatly augmented their chances of placing well in their Academic Rankings if they cheated on the tests. I can’t think of any other Philosophy that could account for such Decisions. They were not cheating for the sake of cheating. They were cheating in order to achieve ‘practical results’.

But, all that being said, I can’t be quite sure that I answered all of your objections. But perhaps your only objection was that you thought my Paper a bit ‘thin’ in that area and so you tossed out a comment trusting that I would use it to flesh out the Aspect of Pragmatism a bit more in that respect.

Let me know I you think it needs a bit more…
User avatar
Leo Volont
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:26 am
Likes Received: 146

#3

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Sun Jan 15, 2017 2:37 pm

Leo Volont wrote:But a great many Cadets must have found that it greatly augmented their chances of placing well in their Academic Rankings if they cheated on the tests. I can’t think of any other Philosophy that could account for such Decisions. They were not cheating for the sake of cheating. They were cheating in order to achieve ‘practical results’.


Hi Leo,

You are describing Consequentialism more than Pragmatism. It is a "the ends justify the means" philosophy.

Cheating is an ethical decision. How might your naturalist, idealist, and pragmatist differ in their approaches to such decisions? It depends on their values.

There is an assumption that 'practical results' means to cheat, but not if a person values integrity, honesty, fairness, justice. A pragmatic person might not value the short term gain of cheating on a test over the long term value of maintaining their integrity. It is not practical to cheat, because of the perceived consequences.

One might also argue that a pragmatist would have no need to cheat, because they would see the practical value of actually knowing the material. If a pragmatist was aware others that are cheating, it would be practical to turn in the cheater as to ensure a just and fair system. But, once again it is an assumption that we know what any individual pragmatist values. They don't all value the same thing.

Let me put this another way. There is the classic ethical decision, "The Trolley Problem." You see a trolley is barreling down the tracks. Ahead on the tracks are 5 workers that are unaware of their impending doom. On a side track there is 1 worker. You see a switch that will change the path of the trolley from the 5 workers to the 1 track with the one worker. It is either 5 are killed or 1. Do you pull the switch?

How might the pragmatist, idealist and naturalist deal with the above scenario? Well, it doesn't matter, let us deal with the pragmatist.

It seems rather practical to pull the lever. Save 5 and 1 dies. When presented with this scenario, 90% of people say they would pull the lever. Seems pretty pragmatic. But is it? There is an assumption of values taking place. The same as there is an assumption that pragmatists will value academic rankings over all other values, there is an assumption that human life is the key value in the trolley scenario. It isn't...

The scenario is changed, where instead of a switch you can pull, the only way to save the five men is to push a person onto the tracks in order to stop the trolley. Do you push the person? All of the sudden the situation reverses. Only 10% of people elect to push the person onto the tracks? Why the difference? It is still 5 vs. 1...how did all the pragmatism suddenly disappear?

The explanation is that it is not necessarily the end result that is "practical", that what is considered practical is based on our values and how an ethical decision is framed. There is an assumption in the cadets that the pragmatic cadets are the cheaters because they value academic rankings and therefore will cheat for the results. Like the trolley problem, this may not be the case. Some of the pragmatic cadets may not have the same values you have attributed to them. For some pragmatists, based on what they value, it may be more practical to not cheat.

And for fun, I will argue some of the naturalists cheat as they see it as "survival of the fittest". :)

And of course some of the idealist also cheat, because they believe that in an ideal world there would be no such thing as exams or tests, that ideally we all would be free to choose whatever path we want in life without judgment and a test is judgment so it has no merit. Cheating therefore is no big deal, because in an ideal world tests should not exist in the first place.
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1271

#4

Postby Leo Volont » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:02 am

Wow! Richard, that was Great! I didn’t know you were a Philosopher, among many other things I’m sure. I loved the ‘Trolley Analogy’. I am surprised that 90% of the People say they would actually commit Murder! Yes, I do see the Utility of sacrificing 1 Life to save 5, BUT, does anybody Think about having to actually pull the lever that will Kill a Man. For the 5 to die, one only need to stand there paralyzed in horror and just let it happen. I am not sure what I would do in such a circumstance, and it surprises me that so many people Think that they DO.

Oh! Of course the Naturalists would cheat! Would a Dog take a Bone? But of course you must have discerned that I did not attribute the least little bit of any Civilized Trait to the Naturalists… and I was expecting more ‘blow-back’ from that area.

Of course you are correct in your entire assessment regarding my use of the Word ‘Pragmatism’ in context to its Academic Classification. So let us just say that I selected an English Word to talk about what I wanted to talk about, and that it wasn’t the best word I could have used, but it has to be far from the worst. However, I did talk about what I wanted to talk about, and I have no doubt that you understood what I was saying. But your problem with It was that I was not describing Classical Pragmatists… that I should have called the Cheaters ‘Consequentialists’ or Whatever, but then I would have lost people who only know non-Academic English, and I HATE the Methodology of German Philosophy that begins every Paper with pages of tedious Definitions of Terms (Oh, you know, they used to do that because when the German Philosophers were in their Hey Day, there really was as yet no Fixed German Language – they were making it up as they went along, and so you could see that they would have a real need to define their made-up-on-the-spot Terms. But why English Philosophers, who have a healthy old established language, would pick up the habit, well, it seems so bazaar, for, after all, the French simply laughed at such fussiness and rightly assumed that people who would READ French Philosophy must already KNOW French.)

Yes, you were right about Values. I used the term Moral Values as though they were a Monolithic Universally Accepted Bulwark of Understood Principles (the same mistake People make when they say that “all religions are basically the same”). But as you would say, not all People who do have Values and Ideals have the SAME Values and Ideals. However, we must also understand that if we are talking about people from the Same Civilized Culture, well, how much Different could they possibly be? Well, nowadays, a Question like That would open up a complete Can of Worms! Everybody disagrees, In Principle, with everybody else! But I honestly think our Civilization is on the Verge of Collapse. Civilization is Based on Cooperation and we can’t have much Cooperation without a basic level of Agreement, and everybody disagrees! So we’re Doomed!

But, yes, Richard, I guess I have been caught Over-Generalizing. Well, I think that one almost has to Over-Generalize. To be Endlessly Particular (which isn’t even possible since after a while we simply run out of the necessary information to keep going), that is, to revolve into every branch of minute detail and to qualify every statement for possible exceptions – well, it would be too hard to write and too boring to read.

But, yes, Richard, that was a Great Essay that you wrote in its own right! I am glad I gave you the occasion for it!
User avatar
Leo Volont
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:26 am
Likes Received: 146

#5

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:41 pm

Hi Leo,

I am also not a big fan of playing the definition game, but it seems almost an indispensable part of philosophy if not communication in general. It is odd to think that when it comes to philosophy, what makes language a perfect tool is that it is not perfect. Put another way, if I had interpreted pragmatism the same as you, this back and forth discussion may have never occurred. It is the very lack of precision in language that often times affords us the opportunity to discuss.

Definitions aside, there is another point that I'm not certain has yet been made clear.

We have an observable behavior, cheating. My point, is that the same observed behavior can be attributed to an idealist, a naturalist, a pragmatist, a consequentialist, etc. It is all in how the flawed observers, you and I, choose to frame the situation to rationalize our personal beliefs. Label me a rationalist, lol.

My point about values was more that no real conclusions can be drawn regarding how a pragmatist will approach the exam, because it is just rationalizing the observed behavior "cheating". For each category (idealist, naturalist, etc.), we can create a narrative that sounds like a plausible reason why they will cheat. It is very Freudian, where no matter the discussion, a good story is created that links a persons observed behavior to some desire to sleep with their mother, the same as everyone cheats on their exam.
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 1271

#6

Postby Leo Volont » Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:32 am

Hi Richard,

Yeah, you are right about ‘Definitions’ (and I was ‘wrong’ about the French being cavalier about definitions, since after I posted I remembered how tiresome They are with their Existentialism with their made-up funny terms and even funnier definitions). You can see my own Behavior in regards to Definitions on the Forum where I am a great stickler on the point that ‘Anger’ should NOT have two different definitions – it should be either a Behavior or its Motivating Emotion, but it is confusing if it is Both at the same time (I got Angry because I got Angry). So, yes, I understand your point. But everyone enjoys a good cry every now and then, and my crying is about how boring definitions can be.

And now to your main point, with which I agree: “My point, is that the same observed behavior can be attributed to an idealist, a naturalist, a pragmatist, a consequentialist, etc. It is all in how the flawed observers, you and I, choose to frame the situation to rationalize our personal beliefs. Label me a rationalist, lol”

Certainly! It sounds like my argument on the Necessity of Submitting to Generalized Knowledge, since nobody can know All of the Particulars. And in addition to the Generalized Knowledge, one needs a Conceptual Framework or Intellectual Model to Plug It All into. Of course, as you pointed out, a person’s particular Conceptual Framework may be either quite flawed, or quite out of step with the Standardized Conceptual Frameworks utilized by the greater part of the Educated Elite.

But THIS IS a Discussion Forum, and so it seems the Perfect Place for me to listen to critiques of my Conceptual Frameworks and Intellectual Models with the intent of perhaps tweaking them up for a better Fit. Indeed, just Thinking About Things is Enlightening in Itself, considering how many people go through Life seemingly on ‘Auto-Pilot’.
User avatar
Leo Volont
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1152
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:26 am
Likes Received: 146



  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Anger Management