Rage and Outrage

[tackattack]

I shouldn't have said as opposed to but rather in addition to. Rage is the emotion which is made of the same thing as outrage, but outrage is focusing that emotion (rage) outward instead of just "feeling" and identifying the emotion inwardly, IMO.

[Rhizomorph13]

To me the distinction between rage and outrage is wrong and right i.e.:

rage = wrong, dysphemism, illogical

outrage = right, euphemism, logical

In common parlance rage is typically ascribed to people who hold some flawed view and are acting agressively towards something while outrage is ascribed to people who are correctly enraged by a situation through their correct view.

So, I would agree that they are exactly the same thing but they are used rhetorically to lead the reader to a conclusion about the person or people who are expressing the emotion even if it is the author of the text.

[tackattack]

I don't even want to factor in justifications for it, which is what happens when you say one thing is right as opposed to wrong. I would say outrage would be more a cacophemism than a euphesim, but I don't know hit so wtf ever. What about a rape victim who doesn't think logically about the circumstances, but reacts with pure rae towards their rapist. Now we can all look on and say that's an outrage and she's justified, but from her perspective I don't see where should would apply outrage to her feelings and say "I'm outraged I was raped" She'd just be pissed and angry and "seeing red".. at least initially.. I'm speaking hypotheitcally from something I have no knowledge of, just vomiting ideas.

[theVOID]

When I feel something to be "outrageous" I don't also feel like stoping on it's skull... That's the difference

[Edwardo Piet]

Surely that's because you're not as outraged as you could be?

[tackattack]

Void that personficies the object. That would be projecting your emotion onto an object. That IT's outrageous. That's just another one of those "not normal" monickers that we like to tack onto objects. We're referenceing feeling outraged personally vs. feeling rage personally. Which is typically a empathetic responce to someone elses deep suffering as opposed to our own suffering, but not always.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't see projecting outrage onto objects as MUCH more absurd than onto sentient beings, since ultimately I don't believe we have any choice in our actions because I don't believe in free will.

[tackattack]

and you're entitles to that, but I think projecting emotions onto objects that have no possibility to express or feel emotion is far more absurd than projecting emotions onto sentient beings. It's part of the way social creatures empathize and sympathize.

[theVOID]

Surely that's because you're not as outraged as you could be?

Something is either outrageous or it is not, I don't think there are levels of outrageousness.

To be outraged is to find something outrageous
To find something outrageous is to find something beyond the scope of what is acceptable.
To find something beyond the scope of what is acceptable does not imply rage.

BP's neglegence was somethig I found outrageous but not something that caused me rage, for example.

Then again, if I am wrong about what constitutes outrageous there could be different levels of outrage.

[Edwardo Piet]

Something is either outrageous or it is not, I don't think there are levels of outrageousness.

??

So it's impossible to reduce or increase outrage?

That's like saying there aren't levels of rage, either you're enraged or you're not. But surely it's clear there are levels of rage, why would you think there aren't levels of outrage?

Of course, you could say that there aren't levels of outrage because NOTHING is outrageous objectively. But like I said, since nothing is intrinsically outrageous that is why I am equating the EXPERIENCE of outrage (what people consider outrageous) with the experience of rage. And surely, that experience can be more or less intense. Like all experiences.

To be outraged is to find something outrageous

A-ha! So now we're not talking about intrinsic outrage of course. We're merely talking about the experience of outrage. And can that experience not be more or less intense?

To find something outrageous is to find something beyond the scope of what is acceptable.

And can not the experience of "finding something outrageous" be more or less intense? Remember: It's the experience I'm talking about.

Just because you only get "outraged" when you consider something beyond acceptable, doesn't mean that EXPERIENCING that outrage is any different to experiencing rage. The cause of outrage is different to the experience of it.

To find something beyond the scope of what is acceptable does not imply rage.

If rage is reduced to the near minimum it is still the same thing in experience besides that reduction: It's just rage reduced to a minimal level. The concept would be labelled as something different, we would't still call it "rage". But in experience, the thing is the same thing just reduced to a very minimal level.

So, when we experience outrage, it could just be the experience rage on a reduced level. Unless we're intensely outraged, and then it becomes pretty much indistinguishable from rage.

For example, if "bliss" is merely "intense happiness" that doesn't mean that happiness isn't the same thing as bliss (in actual experience) on a more minimal level. The only difference may be the intensity.

BP's neglegence was somethig I found outrageous but not something that caused me rage, for example.

If rage is extreme outrage in actual experience then it may be that you just didn't find it outrageous enough to be enraged. Maybe besides the difference in intensity - in actual experience - there is no difference.

Likewise, if you are enraged by something, that could just be intense outrage in actual experience. Just because we label it as "rage" doesn't mean in actual experience it's any difference to intense outrage.