Rage and Outrage

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't intend to argue against your solipsism on this thread.

I DO intend to stand by the fact that I don't see how the experience of rage is any different in reality to the experience of outrage. I don't think something is ever angry or enraged unless it feels outraged: Unless it is angry AT something... in other words: Directed anger: Outrage.

How can it not be directed?

[Ubermensch]

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.

[Violet]

I don't intend to argue against your solipsism on this thread.

As if I were a solipsist... I have faith that everything is not generated by myself, if you'll recall.

I DO intend to stand by the fact that I don't see how the experience of rage is any different in reality to the experience of outrage. I don't think something is ever angry or enraged unless it feels outraged: Unless it is angry AT something... in other words: Directed anger: Outrage.

How can it not be directed?

Blindly. Lashing. Out.

A raging brain may well be scrambling to understand, and if successful in doing so become outrage.

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/20...piral.html <-- example of rage that is not outrage.

It is not rationally directed at anything... but if there were a direction to be accused of it: that would be everything.

[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?

[Autumnlicious]

Rage - generic emotional state.

Outrage - same as rage, except with the additional modifier of cause or reason.

What's next?

Bridge and Toll bridge?

[Edwardo Piet]

I already dealt with this in my last post.

Do you think that rage can happen without a cause or reason? You think that rage happens for no reason whatsoever?

Anger is an emotion related to one's perception of having been offended or wronged and a tendency to undo that wrongdoing by retaliation.

According to Wikipedia anger is when we DO have a reason to be angry, when we are offended, etc. So when we are angry, we are to an extent outraged (hence the 'offended', the umbrage). And since rage is extreme anger, rage is therefore intense outrage.

We don't get angry for no reason. We don't hate things for no reason either. Just as we don't get excited for no reason and don't love things for no reason.

[The Omnissiunt One]

I see your point, EvF (or should that be DvF?) I think you're right; we wouldn't call it rage or anger if there weren't a reason for it. Perhaps outrage has a different sort of cause, though; perhaps it's more moralistic, more impersonal, whereas anger or rage is more personal. If someone is punched in the face, they are angry; if they oppose the cheating of professional footballers, they are outraged.

What do you think?

[Edwardo Piet]

I think what I've already said on this thread, that outrage is the same thing as rage in actual reality, it's just that they are different concepts referring to the same thing from a different perspective.

And, contrary to what Saerules suggested, a specific box is still that specific box however you look at it by definition. If you look at it from a different perspective, it is, by definition, that very same box from a different perspective. It's vacuously, tautologically, completely 100% true logically from definition. This applies whether external reality exists or not because it's true by definition. For fuck's sake.

[tackattack]

IMO, experience is based primarily on an individual perspectives focus of attention. As such, any force of will where you're directing an emotion towards something as opposed to just "feeling" the emotion would significantly change the experience. Therefore I would think that rage at is basest is that same composition as outrage, but due to the necessity of experience they are completely different in every other aspect.


btw Sae, awesome diagram!

[Edwardo Piet]

By direct an emotion without "feeling" it do you mean seeming to feel an emotion that one does not in fact feel? For example, being very aggressive and seeming "angry" without being angry?

I'm sure that when people are aggressive they are often, or usually, aggressive: But I think it's of course perfectly possible to be aggressive without feeling angry. Or even feeling anything. What about a robot programmed to be aggressive and attack and shout and intimidate without it feeling a thing emotionally?

I agree that rage is the same as outrage in experience, but I think the only difference is the perspective on the matter and how rage IS actually experienced, IS actually FELT, the feeling, is the same as outrage.

Outrage without the emotion wouldn't actually exist in experience. Rage without the emotion of rage wouldn't actually exist in experience. Is there a difference between the two? I think not, remove one and you remove the other.

Outrage the concept is different to outrage as experienced in reality. Rage the concept is different to rage as experienced in reality. I mention this obvious fact because sometimes people do get confused by the Use/Mention distinction, e.g: The first response I had on this thread when I had the dictionary pulled out on me as if I was disputing the concept.