How to deal with a person who is angry?
We are taught to control our emotional feelings when we are young. We learn to be polite, patient, and hide our anger to people in everyday life. Most of us express our feelings indirectly: slamming doors, sullen silence, or snubbing others. Therefore, it is important to learn how to release anger in safe but effective ways. Unexpressed anger can smolder, causing stress and affecting physical health. After all, anger can escalate into violence. So, when we are dealing with a person who is angry, here are some strategies we can use: understand his/her anger, communicate with him/her, and help him/her to express the anger.
First of all, when we are dealing with someone who is angry, try to understand what his/her anger is. If we are talking with an angry person, the first thing we have to do to control ourselves is not to be involved in his/her strong emotions. So, calm down, and ask why he/she is mad and listen to what he/she wants to say to us. Understanding the elements and the background that make this person angry makes it easier for us to communicate with him/her. Do not try to ask someone who is already angry to calm down; it is the same as asking someone who is sobbing not to cry.
Secondly, try to communicate with him/her. It is possible to deal with anger by talking with someone. So, when we are trying to help an angry person, try to talk with positive manners. For example, avoid blaming, or accusing him by putting him on the ...
Stress-management. Humans usually react on impulse without giving a thought of what they are about to do or what they are about to say. If we give enough time to think if our actions or words would hurt others, then our violent behaviors will be reduced. One strategy that really works well is by keeping silent when you're at the peak of your emotion. When you are angry, frustrated, depressed, or hurt, it is much better to keep silent for a while. If you are already able to think clearly, that's the time that you ought to confront the person
Thucydides. On Justice Power and Human Nature. Transltr Paul Woodruff. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1993.
Anger is something that everyone has. It is a natural response to threats and it can sometimes be necessary to survive. However, when handled improperly, anger can be a very destructive emotion. Letting anger take control of a person can make them very violent, aggressive, and unreasonable
Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote “One man’s justice is another’s injustice.” This statement quite adequately describes the relation between definitions of justice presented by Polemarchus and Thrasymachus in Book I of the Republic. Polemarchus initially asserts that justice is “to give to each what is owed” (Republic 331d), a definition he picked up from Simonides. Then, through the unrelenting questioning of Socrates, Polemarchus’ definition evolves into “doing good to friends and harm to enemies” (Republic 332d), but this definition proves insufficient to Socrates also. Eventually, the two agree “that it is never just to harm anyone” (Republic 335d). This definition is fundamental to the idea of a common good, for harming people according to Socrates, only makes them “worse with respect to human virtue” (Republic 335 C). Polemarchus also allows for the possibility of common good through his insistence on helping friends. To Polemarchus nothing is more important than his circle of friends, and through their benefit he benefits, what makes them happy pleases him.
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
1. In the beginning-part plot outline, Pyotr is a frustrated youth who strives to balance his financial expenditures to that of the amount of his father's low income. The effort to consume father's pension for Pyotr's schooling creates a serious doubt to the financial security of every member in household. Pyotr's father is a disappointment to the family, his anti-social behavior has subdued the family into a state of fear and panic at the harsh tone of his voice.
and pleasure, the body changes into a relaxed state. When an individual is angry different
However, the argument with Thrasymachus raise some questions about justice and injustice and the advantages they offer to men. In order to attempt an answer, it is important to understand what is justice according to Plato himself and what other definitions it could have. Then it is possible to demonstrate that he succeed in a certain extent to refute Thrasymachus and Glaucon's opinion.
Plato’s view of justice ties in with his view of a perfect world. In Plato’s ideal world, the society would be a wise one, wise in understanding that their own position in society is just. This society in turn, must carry out their duties fitted to them by their position. Unfortunately the real world does not function in that manner, Plato understanding that ‘fault’ with society tells us that if the society is lacking wisdom, the most wise ones would be philosophers, (473d) and society should consider them to be the authority.
Thus, the purpose of this essay is to examine the debate of the two surrounding arguments where some have contended that an efficient and practical criminal justice system relies on police discretion as it allows the police to be flexible during times of scarce resources. Whereas, many scholars have explored the encompassing limits to this discretion such as issues of accountability, the ability to abuse such powers and perhaps the most precarious consequence of police discretion;
Dr. Charles Spielberger, a psychologist who specializes in the study of anger, has defined anger as “an emotional state that varies in intensity from mild irritation to intense fury and rage” (APA). This sounds simple enough, but it is this range in intensity, its causes, and its response that makes anger such a difficult subject. In terms of the causes, anger itself can be a response to many events, both external and internal. The anger could be directed at a person, an event, personal problems, or painful memories. No matter what the cause, when anger turns to the extreme, it can be extremely harmful to individuals and whoever surrounds them. As the American Psychological Association’s (APA) pamphlet entitled “Controlling Anger Before It Controls You” states, “Anger is a completely normal, usually healthy, human emotion. But when it gets out...
Expressing, suppressing and calming are the three ways of dealing with anger. The healthiest way is to express your feelings in an assertive - and not aggressive - manner. Suppressing your anger and then converting or re-directing it to other positive ways, is another way. This way of handling of anger can cause hypertension, high blood pressure or depression. You can defuse anger through diversion, distraction, humor or by talking about it, so as to calm you down. The third way is to force you to calm down inside, by controlling internal responses. You can be angry every day but learn not to show it so as to minimize the problems it may create, by any strategic manner. Culture does not allow one to show anger. If anger is not allowed to express, it stays in disguise. Anger built up over years can break even
Right after getting mad, my reasoning doesn’t kick in. It usually takes ranting to someone and about an hour before I realize the reason they might have done it, or figure out that it really wasn’t that bad. After that, it usually takes a day or two before I fully let it go. To solve this, I think I need to take a couple of really good breathes and just close my eyes for a minute and think of things I love and just calm down before I make rash decisions that make me feel disappointed in myself
This can either be a positive or negative thing and how you act on it, or do not act, can show how in control and effective you are with your feelings. According to the text, “just because you feel a certain way does not mean you have to act on it” and that “people who act out angry feelings actually feel worse than those who experience anger without lashing out” (Adler, Rosenfeld, Proctor II, year?). Even though acting on your feelings may seem uncontrollable, it is important to deal with them in a different and more productive way. Recognizing how you feel and using the right approach during a constructive conversation is always better than quickly lashing out without completely understanding the situation or how you feel besides angry. Furthermore, “recognizing the difference between feeling and acting can liberate you from the fear that getting in touch with certain emotions will commit you to a course of action” (Adler, Rosenfeld, Proctor II, year?). Understanding your emotions is important so that you will be able to experience feelings that may upset you and still be able to deal with them from a positive standpoint. Once you can separate your feelings from actions you will be able to make more rational
After the birth of my first child, I had to learn to develop constructive ways to vent anger. One of those ways was to go off alone, count to ten, and think about what it was that made me angry. After I discovered the root of my anger, I often asked myself, "Will it do me or anyone else any good to be angry?", and, "Will being angry do anything to solve the problem", and the answer to both questions was usually no. By the time I had done the walking and thinking, I was usually not angry anymore.