Rage and Outrage

[Edwardo Piet]

Is there really a difference between Rage and Outrage?

Since nothing is intrinsically outrageous.

[Ubermensch]

A quick trip to dictionary.com yields us this.

Rage
–noun
1.angry fury; violent anger.
2.a fit of violent anger.
3.fury or violence of wind, waves, fire, disease, etc.
4.violence of feeling, desire, or appetite: the rage of thirst.
5.a violent desire or passion.
6.ardor; fervor; enthusiasm: poetic rage.
7.the object of widespread enthusiasm, as for being popular or fashionable: Raccoon coats were the rage on campus.
8.Archaic . insanity.

Outrage
–noun
1.an act of wanton cruelty or violence; any gross violation of law or decency.
2.anything that strongly offends, insults, or affronts the feelings.
3.a powerful feeling of resentment or anger aroused by something perceived as an injury, insult, or injustice: Outrage seized the entire nation at the news of the attempted assassination.

So short answer. Yes.

[Edwardo Piet]

*Sigh* I wasn't talking about the concepts but rage and outrage as they are experienced in reality.....with the definitions of them already understood.

That's why I mentioned "Since nothing is intrinsically outrageous".

[Sam]

*Sigh* I wasn't talking about the concepts but rage and outrage as they are experienced in reality.....with the definitions of them already understood.

That's why I mentioned "Since nothing is intrinsically outrageous".

Even as they are currently understood and used I think the difference is obvious.

Rage is an experience or an action on the part of an individual whereas outrage is response to an outside action. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Cheers

Sam

[HeyItsZeus]

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Is there really a difference between Rage and Outrage?

Since nothing is intrinsically outrageous.

Not sure.

Offhand I'd say rage is the same as anger,a threat reaction,and instinctive.

Outrage is I think indignation,which is a learned response. The feeling seems based in part on the quaint notions that others should share our values and have an obligation to meet our personal expectations.

[Minimalist]

I thought this was going to be another one of those modern rock group threads.

[Violet]

*Sigh* I wasn't talking about the concepts but rage and outrage as they are experienced in reality.....with the definitions of them already understood.

That's why I mentioned "Since nothing is intrinsically outrageous".

Rage is a state of uncontrolled fury,

Outrage is more furious, but also more controlled.

Simply: Rage is blind, outrage is directed.

Illustration: striking me (hard) from a state of relaxation will likely cause me to have a brief rage (uncontrolled anger lashing out as my brain catches up). Hitting me while I'm fully aware of my surroundings will cause a much more controlled outburst of anger (i understand what happened and what to direct my fury upon), whether that be then contained, reserved for future vengeance, or simply vented by the fist.

Second illustration: Cage a wild tiger, and shock it repeatedly without it being aware of how the shocks are administered. This tiger will very likely go into a rage as is fights to stop what is happening without knowing what that is. Repeat the caging on another wild tiger, and jab at it with a stick.... the tiger will be outraged at you/the stick/both and will exact its violence upon such.

More simple for anyone that *still* doesn't get it: I'm going to punch you in the face. With a screwdriver.

[Edwardo Piet]

Rage is an experience or an action on the part of an individual whereas outrage is response to an outside action. Or am I misunderstanding you?

I think you do misunderstand me.

If a person looks at a red box from one angle, and another person looks at the same red box from another angle making it look different... does that mean its a different box? No. The perspective is just different. The red box is the same red box in experience, in reality, even if they are defined as different things when they are looked at from different perspectives.

So what I'm suggesting is that the experience of outrage can still be the same as the experience of rage..... it's just that the outrage is a raging mind looking at the thing that caused the rage, and the rage is the experience of the raging mind itself.... it's just a different perspective. And, importantly: Because rage does actually exist intrinsically as an emotion, and on the other hand, nothing is intrinsically outrageous: When we are enraged isn't that in fact identical in experience to when we are outraged?

[Violet]

I'm a fan of saving space ^_^ Sing Sling Swing Kwlerping ^_^

---

So what I'm suggesting is that the experience of outrage can still be the same as the experience of rage..... it's just that the outrage is a raging mind looking at the thing that caused the rage, and the rage is the experience of the raging mind itself.... it's just a different perspective. And, importantly: Because rage does actually exist intrinsically as an emotion, and on the other hand, nothing is intrinsically outrageous: When we are enraged isn't that in fact identical in experience to when we are outraged?

Can the experience of knowing be the same as the experience of not knowing?

No.

That's the crux of the difference, Evie.

Rage: Undirected fury.
Outrage: Directed fury.

If a person looks at a red box from one angle, and another person looks at the same red box from another angle making it look different... does that mean its a different box? No. The perspective is just different. The red box is the same red box in experience, in reality, even if they are defined as different things when they are looked at from different perspectives.

Reality:

The box is an illusion suffered by both parties, and does not exist outside of their own subjective experiences. I truly do not exist to a stone, though I can see it, hold it, smell it, taste it, and toss it violently into another stone that also does not exist to the stone. The red box is a different thing to everyone (and everything) that detects it, and there is nothing to guarantee that the box is anything to anyone else. Some people are taken to special locations with padded cells because things exist to them that do not exist to the other people around them... though those people that do not see may infact be the crazy ones.

Perspective is everything. Reality cannot be dumbed down into any single visualization of what it is... as all reality is: is what everything together makes of it. Should that quantity be nothing, then so too is 'reality' nothing. That red box is also a sphere, and a cylinder, and empty space, and blue with yellow stripes, and violently exploding, and flat, and in motion, and not in motion, and gigantic, and not even registering as a particle, and also a butterfly among twenty others, and maybe even a banana. You speak of the subjective angles in the box... yet angles are nothing as to how very differently all can see "box".

That 'objective' state of reality either doesn't exist (everything being my subjective invention) or cannot be understood as objective by myself. I certainly do not see a reason for the "red box" to be anything but how i see some unknown number and/or shape of things... it seems very naive indeed to conclude that it objectively is anything, and especially that what it objectively is be identical to what i see.

This talk about experience and reality as if they occur beyond experience and reality is silly. The question isn't so much "Is this red box real?"... but "To whom/what is this red box real?". And if someone else should tell you "This red box is real to me": your days yet remain outside the loony bin

---