MarkE in post #2 wrote:If you back a human into a corner, threatened with death - most likely the human will do the same thing. That is its only chance at survival.
Being aggressive may indeed be the person's best chance at survival. Rather than deny that I think it better shows how weak the person is. Getting crazy aggressive and attacking like a wild animal seem like the metaphorical
Hail Mary Pass of a weak person; doesn't it?
MarkE in post #2 wrote:I know i seem cold-hearted by saying sometimes you just have to be aggressive to be strong. But the Alpha Males in all of nature do the same thing. That's why they're the leaders.
That's an interesting point, but there are other ways of looking at it. For one, the animal world is a lot more dangerous of a place in many ways than the modern first-world for humans. Is not the fact that many animals are so aggressive in ways humans are civilized a sign of their desperation to survive in ways that come easy to stronger humans? Also, at the risk of being anecdotal, aren't small dogs known for being a lot more aggressive than big dogs?
***
ontologic_conceptualist in post #5 wrote:Scott wrote:Do you think that anger, discompassion and hatred are usually symptoms of weakness? Why or why not?
These themselves are not weaknesses per se' rather than just emotions [...]
I am not saying they are weaknesses, but rather that they are
symptoms of weakness.
***
Jiddy20, thanks for your comments. You say that anger, lack of compassion and hatred are expressions of fear. I think that is true at least in most circumstances. Wouldn't you say that fear is also a sign of weakness -- thus the signs of fear being at least indirect signs of weakness?
***
snus27 in post #9 wrote:Anger can be motivating. It is difficult to see how to overthrow a tyranny by meekness and stoicism.
That's a good point, but again like others I think you have given an example that only further proves my argument: being the oppressed people of the tyranny is a form of political weakness and the angry often suicidal attack of one's own government a reaction to that circumstantially weak state, isn't it? Aren't these people violently, angry and perhaps even hatefully revolting against their government behaving similarly to the small animal backed into a corner suddenly lashing out in response to its perceived weak position?
ssnus27 in post #9 wrote:Perhaps you can clarify something for me which could help; do you mean anger, apathy and hatred against things or people?
I was mostly considering towards people, but I guess both. For one thing, I'm not anger is so specific. A person who is angered or enraged seems to spew his rage and hatred out at whatever things and people happen to be around, doesn't he? For instance, a guy has a bad day at work and comes home and kicks his dog. Does he hate his dog or does he hate his job or both? Is he so mad about what happened at or or so mad at his dog or both? I don't think anger is as much an object then as perhaps an object emotion that finds objects that happen to be around after the person has already been angered or enraged.
Intuitiv3infid3l wrote:Anger is simply a defense mechanism to help humans when they feel injustice has been done to them. The more angry a person is, the more injustice has been committed against them (factors such as genes also make a difference). It has nothing to do with being a weakness.
If someone is angry about an injustice particularly repeated injustices, doesn't that still imply weakness in that this person is so often a victim? Wouldn't a stronger person tend not to be a victim as much? Moreover, if someone commits a so-called "injustice" against a strong person or a least person who thinks himself to be very strong, does the confident strong person become very angry? Imagine an adult waiting at the ice cream truck who is cut in line by a rude child who can barely afford the ice cream he wants because he is just a child. If the adult notices but just laughs it off because he just doesn't feel that angry about it, isn't that a symptom of not only the fact that he doesn't feel threatened by the child (i.e. in a weak position) but also that he is not an angry person overall because perhaps he doesn't feel his position in society is weak; maybe he has a good, secure job and a hot, faithful wife and lots of money to buy ice cream after this silly little rude child?
dowhat1can wrote:I suppose "weakness" here would be better thought of in terms of what Belinda describes above as "fear'"in post #11 in this thread. I see the term "weakness" as being emotively satisfying but not very helpful in this discussion.
Needless to say, fear and weakness go hand in hand in that fear itself is a symptom of weakness. Mike Tyson would probably not be afraid if I challenged him to a fist fight because he is so much stronger a boxer than me. The roles reversed, I think it's safe to say I'd be afraid to see Mike Tyson trying to punch me. Of course, fear leads to a fight or flight response. Flight may be more outwardly fearful but not very angry. However, consider the fight response particularly not a more clear-headed fighting response like a snake calmly waiting to easily poisoning me to death as I walk by but in the erratic crazily aggressive behavior of an animal backed into a corner. The fear of me and my strength at fighting the animal is there, yes. But that fear has the same connection to a flight response. However, the sort of aggressive response is not only because original fear that could cause flight but to the perception of a weak position. The aggressive, or angry, response seems to be specially connected to weakness, especially perceived situational weakness, rather than just fear even though fear and weakness are so closely tied together. In humans I think this is especially interesting because our situational view is a lot more complex than literally being stuck in a corner preparing for a physical fight but in being stuck in all sorts of consciously understood metaphorical corners like being in a dead-end job that isn't going well or desperately trying to make it in the politics of being popular in high school. And I think this has a lot more to do with perceived situational weakness inspiring anger as opposed to mere fear inspiring a instinctive fight
or flight response.
Craniumonempty wrote:When you say "discompassion" do you mean without compassion? I'm unsure on this word exactly. If it's simply without compassion, then I'm not exactly sure why it's there. That's why I think it means something different.
I mean unkindness.
Discards in post #26 wrote:So, the point I'm trying to make, which hasn't seemed to come up as much in this thread is that certain people actually enjoy hating and being angry. It gives them a feeling of power. You don't have to be insecure to desire power. You don't have to be afraid in the first place, either, to enjoy that feeling of power generated by giving over to your anger and violence.
You may
need to feel weak or low in power to want to be empowered more but certainly it is an indicator of that. In analogy, a woman may not need to feel like she is not good-looking in the face without makeup to frequently want to wear a lot of makeup on the face, but certainly it is an indicator, right? You generally wouldn't be looking for so much more of something if you think you already have enough, right?
HexHammer wrote:If one is emotionless either you are a broken person, a utterly mental case, or born with low stimulated emotions.
It would be perfectly rational for a normal person to be emotional if their kids are hurt, contrary if a person is unemotional about their kids being hurt, there may be something wrong.
I am baffled to why the question is even asked.
What depends on the degree to the emotions.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean in the context of the topic. I'm not looking down or criticizing on weak people in a weak position, such as a kid who is constantly being bullied, who feel anger, hatred and unkindness because they feel anger, hatred and unkindness. The question is NOT
are anger, hatred and unkindness reasonable reactions to feeling weak. The question is if those feelings are symptoms of being weak and/or feeling weak.
Gaebriel wrote:I think that anger and hatred are symptoms of weakness, but I think a lack of compassion seems more environmental, or perhaps psychological. Anger and hatred (depending on the topic, of course) seem to stem most often from laziness, and a lack of knowledge about the topic at hand. It is much easier to get angry and decide to hate someone/something rather than taking the time to educate ones self about it and find common ground. A genuine lack of compassion, on the other hand, is far deeper. To be able to look at someone/something in pain, or truly not care about anything going on around you is an emptiness that all the education in the world may not be able to fill. You can't make someone care if they choose not to, but with some people, it doesn't seem to be a choice at all.
Yes, psychopathy and sociopathy are disorders that are caused not by being weak or the self-perception of weakness but are to empathy what blindness is to sight. Sadism is very different than psychopathy and sociopathy. Sadism involves having empathy but wanting to cause and empathize with pain in others -- like a special form masochism but outwardly focused of course. By discompassion I pretty much meant unkindness. It has a more of a sadisitic tinge to it than utter psychopathy. Also, to me, it can be much more of a temporary things. A person in an enraged state becomes less compassionate and more sadistic than they are when in a less angry state. But some people are more angry overall in a long-term sense but even that can change and I think be affected by a general sense of confidence and strength as opposed to weakness such as getting a job promotion and feeling proud and hopeful about one's career and family life as opposed to feeling beaten down by the world. While not as hard-wired as psychopathy, it is something that seems to be a mix of setting variables which may be out of one's control (feeling insecure after being disfigured by an accident or getting laid off) and of one's general outlook, e.g. the way the confident and steadily strong Martin Luther King could react compassionately and lovingly to the same circumstances that would make most people feel weak and enraged and react much more unkindly.
wanabe wrote:Usually, yes, (A.D.H.) indicates weakness in a moral sense.
That may or may not be true, depending on what is meant by the word moral, but I do not use moral terms because I think they are too equivocal. But I doubt it is what I mean by weakness. When I talk about weakness I mean the civilized human equivalent of how a small animal often acts when backed into a corner. With the help of the replies given so far, I notice the animal's perception of weakness appears to be two-fold: Firstly, the animal feels insecure or weak in terms of being threatened. This weakness goes hand-in-hand with fear. This combo of weakness and fear inspires a fight or flight response. Flight of course is not really associated with
I think you are right about the notoriety of inferiority complexes leading to aggressive behavior being because it is more flagrant than other coping mechanisms, and that's a good point. However, the aggressive behavior is still common although not universal and that would still make the aggressive behavior a sign of self-perceived weakness, wouldn't it?