Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Humanity is a huge group and we can only talk about a statistical percentage of “emotional control”.
“British scientists” will be the first to write a report on how humanity has changed in recent years 10 – 100 – 168 years since the time when all of humanity can be documented. This is what concerns the task “All of humanity”.
The second problem is “full control”: assess the degree of anger (emotion) and violence (action).
And how often an uncontrolled emotion turns into uncontrollable destructive actions.
And also-the first will be British scientists who probably have already published their assessments on the control of emotions and actions and its dynamics in a separate British town like Oxford or Thiruvanathapuram.
Let me be beaten by humanists, but I believe that a person cannot get rid of hatred and violence, at least completely. You have to understand that he survived because of her. Thanks to the wars, man has become what he is now. Evolution is not a tale of good and honor. This is a brazen, brutal meat grinder, allowing you to identify a better adapted creature.�
Of course, violence and hatred are bad, perhaps even a relic of our dysfunctional past, but if we are talking about a person, then it is impossible to imagine him without hatred. If you remove these qualities, then it will be some other kind.
Of course he will learn. I totally disagree with those who believe that anger and violence are an integral part of human nature and culture , but they are not. Yes, this is a habitual pattern of behavior that is still fixed in the mass consciousness, but the sign of a highly developed society is precisely building relationships on a creative, rather than destructive basis. The modern world is still largely a world of primitive savages, who are just beginning to realize their internal mechanisms,and this is very good. I would call the path of nonviolence in favor of mutual support a matter of survival of our species, because otherwise, when the development of technology reaches a level that is not comparable to the emotional immaturity of humans, another game over will come, as it seems to have happened more than once or even twice on our planet.
I believe that complete control over the desire for violence is impossible. Because this craving is associated with many vital biological mechanisms. And disabling this craving is guaranteed to lead to the destruction of many psychological mechanisms that provide sane forms of activity.
I hope that no one will even try to seriously set the task of curbing the craving for violence, since all the disastrous consequences of mental violence can hardly be listed. It is only clear that these consequences will be monstrously many. The normal activities of all mankind will be blocked.
I hope not.
Anger is one of the basic emotions, if it is completely controlled, then the person will be… a little crippled (emotionally).�
Violent tendencies are a bit more complicated, but the principle is the same.�
The human psyche is a very, very complex system, everything is connected to everything, many times, and in different ways.
Attempts to reshape the psyche of a large number of people, even in favor of the weak, (for example, in some magical way, or alien technologies) will introduce a strong imbalance in the psyche of people, and it is likely that after such a procedure people will not be viable.
A much more promising option is when a large number of people's anger and desire for violence will be rationally sublimated, for example, in sports or physical work.