RE: In support of the rage of man
April 3, 2019 at 11:38 pm
(This post was last modified: April 3, 2019 at 11:48 pm by vulcanlogician.)
(April 2, 2019 at 6:09 pm)Belaqua Wrote:(April 2, 2019 at 5:57 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Blind rage
Nobody's in favor of blind rage
"Blind rage" was hyperbole. The point I was trying to make was that anger urges us to do things without the consent of reason. Sure, things done without reson's consent may be good (or even excellent). Yet, when speaking of moral behaviors, it seems like things done in anger do not apply any kind of rational scrutiny to themselves. So I ask: how can they be moral? Or at the very least I ask: is it any different if a deed done in anger were (rather) done out of rational necessity? Think about it. Is anger even necessary? Cannot logic compel one to do the selfsame good deeds that anger might compel one to do?