Rage and Outrage

[Edwardo Piet]

Rage is irrational, outrage is a rational, calculated response to something. Rage requires no thought, to be outraged, you need to figure out why you are outraged.

By rational I assume you don't mean rationally valid? Because of course, people can be outraged whether they have valid or invalid reasons for doing so.

So in other words, by rational you mean based on judgement of any kind?

When is anyone ever enraged without a rational reason, be it valid or invalid, then? When people may seemingly have a fit of "temper" then that is merely intense frustration unless disapproving judgement of some kind is included, isn't it?

I'll give an example: Would you say that a rabid dog in a frenzy that is highly frustrated, distressed and aggressive and ostensibly in a fit of temper is "angry?". I would think not? I would say it would only be enraged if it was outraged. Otherwise it's just in a frenzy, highly frustrated and aggressive.

I think people are always angry or enraged, for a rational reason, this is why I think it is - in reality - identical to outrage.

Aggression + Frustration is different to anger I would say. Many animals can be aggressive and frustrated but I wouldn't call them enraged or outraged. When someone or something is "enraged" by something I don't really see it as any different to being "outraged" it's only the connotation that is somewhat different I reckon.

What do you think?