There's no reason to continue reading moral philosophy after this book. He completely nailed it

>happy
Lol wut?

Modern ethics is more complex
When engaging ethical ppl act ethical
When engage the unethical fuck ethics

What's confusing you?

>Mr. user, do you care to provide an analysis of Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia to the class?
>Prof he fuckin nailed it bro
I hate that bro chads are allowed to read philosophy or post on this board.

kek

>Why yes just have a balanced life and stick with good habits

Attached: 1560655583250.png (723x666, 163K)

virtues are relative

Humans are social and thus live in societies. Anger is very much needed otherwise certain people will walk all over you.

Even if it was true why does it matter?

To be angry is to lose control and there's never a situation where that benefits you. Humans can be social or naturally inclined towards socialization to any degree you wish, but that doesn't mean socialization is required to achieve happiness and fulfillment and eudaimonious hermits and monks are proof of this.

You can be angry and in control. Sorry your dad hit you.

If you're in control then you're not angry.

Plato & Socrates >Diogenes of Shitope > Aristotle

>Anger is never useful

Attached: tenor.gif (320x180, 3.5M)

Your playing a semantics game.
Anger the *energy* can be extremely useful, anger the *state of being* seldom if ever is.

yes, you could make your own virtues instead of from someone 2k years ago

> Anger is never useful or good
How did trump become president then.

This isn't semantics, it's logic. Anger is defined by the loss of control, so if there isn't a loss of control there isn't anger. Anger is distinct from energy or action because not every energy or action contain anger.

Okay, so what? This doesn't contradict what I said. Virtues can be relative and they can still be necessary for a happy and fulfilling life.

>Anger is defined by the loss of control
according to whom? You?

No not me, the moon. You're talking to me so of course it's according to me. If you dispute that definition then give me something that makes sense. You just tried to define anger as energy.

I don't remember this place ever being so retarded. I've dealt with some retarded people in this place too.

the problem is anything can be virtue if you call it that way then its just semantics
>having an unhappy life? just call whatever you are doing virtue then KAPLAU you are now happy sir

>being moral us one of the virtues, the others are all jordan peterson clean your room shit
nah

>faggot taking himself too seriously
me no trust rando

Attached: 1562824857686.jpg (406x364, 38K)

fuck u

I'm not the user saying anger is energy, that is almost equally as lofty as anger being a loss of control. If you want to understand what anger is, you have to find a definition which applies in all cases of anger. I can think of many examples in which I was angry, yet still in control; meaning that definition doesn't fit.
I'd describe anger as some sort of uncomfortable agitation, usually following a provocation. This does not mean anger cannot also involve a loss of control. The point is that such loss is not necessarily the determining factor in deciding what is and isn't anger. I'd argue that my definition of anger captures a more whole understanding of what anger actually is in most if not all cases, while at the same time not being vacuous.

>harnessing the anger of the american public.
>himself being angry at the democrats.
>became president.
Seriously, how can you say anger is neither useful or good when Trump used that very thing to become president and do what he thinks is good.

Anger is the name of an entire spectra of emotions.
Anger at it's most mild will include emotions such as annoyance, the moves through vexation and hatred, moves through wrath, into fury and eventually docks at your definition of total loss of control which normally informed people would call rage. Each of these subdivided emotional states are the further described by adjectives as to the length of time one remains in such a stare of being, and the overall outcomes of being in such a state of being i.e. white-hot-rage being of the more short lived with dramatic outcomes of the states of rage.
note for the mentally impaired: Anger isn't necessarily a linear spectra and it is entirely possible for emotional states to overlap. For example, one could be simultaneously vexed at the short term actions of a person they long term hold wrath towards.

To write off the entire spectra of Anger is short minded and really a waste of bandwidth to argue about with such conviction as your own.

if you think moral philosophy can tell you any more you are deluded and a man child

Happy not in the Epicurean hedonsitic sense of the word. Happiness does not mean pleasure. It's referring to a deeper fundamental and intrinsic understanding of long term or life 'happiness' also known as fulfillment or meaning.

Do you believe controlled anger is possible?

The virtue of generosity requires you interacting with others. Since the ultimate end is human flourishing, we must be political animals who are interested in a mutual flourishing, since it is impossible on one's own. Your knowledge, for example, is the result of people, for the most part, being generous enough to share theirs.

Is this the antithesis to Plato’s Republic?

>start with the greeks
>stop with the greeks because they're the best
You have to admit Chad's pretty based

Attached: 418u8kSDazL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (333x499, 17K)

Most, like you, seem to ignorant of the true nature of people in our world. Spending time with any number of cretins of the dark, you’ll begin to realize just how truly and utterly selfish these beings are. What you must understand is that society wants nothing but to use you and exploit as much as possible before you realize that very fact. The nativity of the World lies in the belief that humans are born good. God punishes is for our sins, and the time of atonement draws ever nearer.

As Kaczynski states, the collapse will not be slow, but of rapid and complete collapse.

Attached: 8AD2E58D-4B9F-4F9F-96C2-3B228F003198.jpg (640x640, 64K)

This until you read Kant.

based

>When engaging the unethical fuck ethics
You have to go deeper: When engaging unethical people, what would normally be considered unethical becomes ethical, it becomes ethical to be unethical.

Apart from Anger in art, as a response in actual like anger is absolutely useless. Anger is always self directed. Its an emotion that belongs to the most base part of the brain. You get angry when you don’t know what to do. If you did, you would find anger to be absolutely unnecessary.

This so fucking much. People have such a hard time understanding is that I tend not to bring up Epicurus at all

Attached: 16BC2BAE-9AB3-4ED9-BFA0-C946003A919F.jpg (640x929, 50K)

Google static vs kinetic pleasures, ataraxia, and take your 1st grade reading of epicurus back to the library

>nothing external is necessary for eudaimonia
How about food?

>anger is never useful

you clearly aren't human.

not needing anger makes you better than human. Look at the most spiritually advanced and content people on earth, the buddhist monks. They all realise anger is futile and they are better for it.
>but I gant fite bad guis widout muh angrr
Some of the best UFC fighters and boxers say anger holds them back from fighting at their best, they use adrenaline sure, but anger ruins your technique and thought process.

You are right, but the small brained materialist ledditors on this board will disagree because they have such a myopic view of life, they identify with the body and not the soul.

>Anger is defined by the loss of control
that's rage you idiot

>they identify with the body and not the soul.
What is the soul?

I guess buddhist monks are like Buddha in that respect: when he got hit with a rock and said: My feet hurt, but my mind is calm; the monk would say: I am angry, but my mind is calm. Buddha does not say: I dont feel pain - so the monk does not say: I dont feel anger. Buddha and monks are human beings after all, and anger is an important part of being human. So I think anger is very important. It helps you understand situations and other humans. I think a bodhisattva has to feel angry sometime (maybe: often; maybe even: very often), though he must not act on it in a destructive way: he must act on in it constructively. So anger becomes a tool in you human toolbox. The buddhist monk uses anger, whereas anger often uses people.

Anger is to be effected in such a way as to lose control of your sense of calm, peace and equanimity. I’m sorry that your baseline is the equivalent to a menstural cycle but I can assure you that is not common amount healthy intelligent people, seek professional help

The only thing i remember from this book is that too little and too much are both bad and that we should always aim for the medium of things. Also him fleshing out some concepts like courage, generosity etc. Never understood why this book was so recommended, was i suppose to take something else from it ?

Try reading it again. It's a favorite of many great minds, so there has to be something there.

lmao cope
nice justification for shittier than everyone and rejecting philosophical truths you incel

>Anger is never useful or good

How can someone be this söycore?

Attached: 1560930378353.jpg (624x624, 42K)

>whining over the demands of society
Little bitches like you wouldn't survive a single hour in a world without society. People are not selfish per se, but you have to actually engage with them to figure that out. People like you are the biggest hypocrites, though, because you live off of others like leeches and still complain that everyone is so cruel. Fuck you incel faggot bitch

The summa part II of Aquinas is the worthy follow up to it. But yes, this is the endgame of ethics.

Animal-corporeal life is not necessary for happiness even though it's preferable.

SHIT, GO BACK!!!

Attached: the-republic.jpg (800x1296, 459K)