永恆憤怒的哲學論證︰道歉都無用🤬 |

如果有人做了一些事對不起你，你覺得你可以嬲佢幾耐？
有一個論證可以證明你有理由永永遠遠咁嬲一個人。
哲學家卡德拉（Agnes Callard）的文章〈The Reason to Be Angry Forever〉討論了一個「永恆憤怒」的論證以及不同兩派哲學家的回應。
會員專屬講座 | Patreon：bit.ly/3pyKCjV
=================
鳴謝：艺鵠
=================
好青年荼毒室
直播課金：streamelements...
網頁: corrupttheyout...
網店: corrupttheyout...
Instagram: / corrupttheyouth
Facebook: / corrupttheyouth
Patreon會員計劃: / corrupttheyouth

[@benbenben017]

原本睇呢條片之前係務實派 不過睇完呢條片之後 我都係要決定加入永恆憤怒派。

[@staceytsang1317]

呢個結未令我永恆憤怒，老師實行體驗教學

[@winterwolf8476]

我等左條片大半日，老師你結尾咁對我？！ 我都憤怒鳥！

[@onshittttt]

生氣是本能驅使，但之後的原諒就是睇情況。例如已經補償左或者道歉左，咁可以接受嘅。但我都選擇咗不會原諒一個人，佢就係講左啲詛咒類的說話，所以我決定永遠不原諒佢

[@next1646]

咁樣結尾, 老師你今次真係道歉都無用😩

[@wingfufung4330]

憤怒只有在對方經歷一樣事情和感受再誠心懺悔才會relief ，所以先知才明白神的業力系統才是最公平

[@緣拾]

憤怒係短暫嘅,反而是因對方嘅各種行為因而產生嘅蔑視就長久得多.因為是對對方嘅睇法發生咗顛覆生嘅改變,而憤怒可以是,例如對方發雞盲好大力踩了你一腳,你感覺強烈痛楚而產生憤怒,甚至產生敵意'但這不具顛覆性所以是短暫,只有由憤怒轉為蔑視,這種感覺才會是恒久不滅.

[@ericzzz9999]

好憤怒呀老師講一半唔講埋落去😡

[@hillhill3490]

永恆憤怒派，嬲老師琴晚無比link 四哥

[@SammiWongKarate]

睇到個結尾，有種令人忿怒嘅感覺！😡😆

[@kawing99]

老師做緊社會實驗呀？

[@d114316]

我覺得呢個topice有好多嘢可以講喎 憤怒係咪同逼切性嘅嘢有關聯？ 如果我個憤怒係對外冇破壞性 咁係咪唔太需要分永恆的憤怒？ 同埋某程度上，憤怒係動力嘅一程方式，但個詞嘅負面傾向係大過正面傾向 希望有機會可以再講落去 嚟多幾位 多d角度去探討

[@lepetitchat123]

Just as I have always thought! To forgive is for losers

[@hingpatreon7061]

6:44 CONCLUSION What I did will always be wrong; it will always constitute a violation of the norms of our relationship and therefore a disvaluation of that relationship. But that may not always matter. We may stop caring that I disvalued our relationship. Both your concern for what I did (anger) and my concern for what I did (contrition) can be replaced by our joint concern for our relationship(co-valuation). If this happens, we can be said to have solved the problem between us-the problem I created by doing what I did. Why, then, is the problem-solving approach to anger mistaken? It is a mistake to think that the angry person, considered on his or her own, has, let alone is in a position to solve, the problem in question. The idea that my action represents a problem to which the solution is your return to valuing does not emerge until we add my thoughts and feelings to the story. The problem is our problem, not your problem; the solution is our return to valuing, not yours alone. The problem-solving view misses this bilaterality because it treats the angry person as too autonomous, self-possessed, and too aloof from the damage the other has inflicted on him or her. When I apologize and you forgive me, we solve a problem, repairing our damaged relationship. But anger, considered by itself, is not an attempt to repair a damaged relationship. In order to be motivated to repair it, one would need to value it, and valuing our relationship is something we do together. But this shared activity is exactly what my action has impeded. Anger is not a desire to fix something but a way of grasping the fact that it is broken: The canonical expression of anger is, “How could you have done that?!” When you are angry at me, you care about that wrong thing I did, not as a way of bringing some good about but rather because you are someone whom my evildoing touches. Anger is uniquely poised to apprehend the disvaluational significance-the wrongness-of some action, but this apprehension itself comes at an apprehensional cost. When I anger you, I inflict a valuational injury on you by withdrawing support from our shared project. And this is just what it means to be vulnerable to someone: His or her actions can damage your very faculty of ethical apprehension. When we are in relationships, our values-which is to say, our selves-are on the line. The brokenness of our relationship is something you cannot apprehend without yourself becoming broken. I have said that ignoring me and punishing me are characteristically irrational ways of managing anger, because, like the problem-solving view, they underestimate your dependence on me. If, instead of hiding or lashing out, you opt to show me how you feel, that might provoke me to (show you that) feel correspondingly. We can then take steps to, once again, feel together. Confrontation is a rational response to anger, because it is a cry for the help that the angry person really does need. When I have wronged you, I am the one who can free you from what is, in the solitary throes of your anger, bound to look to you like a reason to be angry with me forever.

[@5erlkonig503]

What if, the one who disvalued the relationship by inflicting the anger isn’t/ won’t be broken? As they inflict the others anger in the first place, they don’t care about the value of the relationship, then why the angry person have to be even more vulnerable to provoke the wrong person to be vulnerable-almost like they depend upon them to see if they (may or may not) show their emotions, which, is risking to get violate again, if the wrong person show their devaluation of the relationship again. Like you said the motivation of repairing a relationship is to value it, and in order to value it is to do it together, so if the wrong person doesn’t value it, there is no way of repairing it in the first place. And you said angry is not trying repairs the relationship, but in a way it’s asking for help cause I am damaged. And I being angry could make the wrong person vulnerable too, cause they no longer have my support, so now we are both damaged, in different ways. So can I interpret it that being angry is a way of hurting the wrong person? Which can only be valid under the circumstances that the wrong person actually cares about the relationship? For instance if you don’t care about the relationship, then me being angry and causing you to lose support in this relationship doesn’t affect you in any way because you don’t care, so no matter what I do, I resent you, ignoring you or punishing you, admitting my dependence on you, can never get you to free me from this anger, cause we are not in this together anymore.

[@litim8342]

LIKE 已經收回

[@benau-yeung4757]

如果like係+1 ，like 類似係欣賞，收回like 係變返0，報復/ dislike 先係-1 咁收返個like 都應該未算報復？

[@benau-yeung4757]

要人原諒嘅誠意係咪必須等於着數？

[@ericlam307]

我承認我係一個小氣鬼，無諗住改變

[@WTCTSwehom]

在永恆憤怒派的觀點黎講, 咁站在激嬲人嗰個的立場, 其實道歉同補償係完全冇用, 因為咁同畀人影過裸照咁永恆勒索係一樣🤣 所以激嬲左人請繼續做仆街, 千祈唔好覺得有咩愧咎🤣(?)

[@akaiwon6594]

這個論證有一個很通俗的名稱：翻舊帳。果然是女性哲學家會做出的論爭（茶）

[@hingpatreon7061]

Agnes Callard 唔係翻譯做艾格尼絲·卡拉德咩 點解字幕打左卡德拉？

[@pa12345u]

好嬲好嬲

[@3925fatepuppet]

憤怒只會降低你的智慧

[@GdySde]

憤怒只不過是一個遊戲

[@nyannyanneko5919]

憤怒>被道歉>怨恨 transform咗成為第樣嘢 唔會怒屌，但都係不爽條友

[@onebrokegirl3864]

其實選擇原諒係一個「自私」嘅決定，因為你拒絕再被個個人影響擺布你嘅情緒持續做成精神損耗。 太多人將原諒同和好/容忍繼續承受傷害混為一談，但選擇前者同後者根本冇因果關係，原諒咗依然可以老死不相往來/唔再相信佢，或者行使法律權利告9對方。

[@kunpeng768]

人點解會憤怒?就係因為大腦入面既[認知],同發生緊既[事實]有矛盾啊麻 我地咪嬲囉 我地覺得,喂,做人唔應該咁X街 唔可以囉個咩所謂既理想出黎,就可以搶錢搶糧搶娘們 思想改造,勞改你地 呢D野係唔岩傢啵 相反,如果你相信呢條道理,覺得我囉左個咩偉大思想出黎 咁你地呢D身份既人就應該比我搶 我打你應該,唔打你悲哀 你咪唔會憤怒囉,仲覺得好開心,有好正當既理由就可以搶野啦 如果我地認同自己既道德觀點係正確既 對於不道德,不公義既行為既憤怒,唔止唔係小器,完全係一種美德啦唔該 X你怒火燒盡九重天,永恆憤怒至X堅!

[@KingJohnLeung]

分哲真係好悶

[@3925fatepuppet]

我發覺荼毒室好多呀q。 你有沒有資格對強者憤怒。

[@Jason-jl9up]

局人join 會員

[@fuk17yt]

就咁呢條片 真係幾廢吓