so...what is anger? an instinct that tells us things are not what they ought to be according to US!!
okay!
so?
well, to begin with, the situation entails different feelings in different humans, doesn't it? to the weak, it causes- desperation. to the adapting, it causes- compromise (with a sigh, though), and to the mighty-anger.
anger, hence, is a virtue of the mighty. a thought perhaps too akin to that of our national poet(read Dr. Ramdhari Singh Dinkar).
having said that, does getting angry mean that one is mighty?
NO!! anger is a an intuit. it is a REaction. which means that there ought to be actions first. and hence, anger is NOT even the domain of the mighty. it is an open reaction, akin to both the mighty, as well as the lesser mortals.
so what do we categorise anger with? in fact, CAN anger in itself be a display of strength OR weakness?
from what we have set out as premises, clearly the answer is "NO".
so anger is a 'virtue' of the weak as well as the strong. however, the reactions to this intuit are indeed circumstantial. and call for a greater inspection than what has hitherto been discussed.
case 1- if anger indeed is a public property, how shall the 'weak' react?
case 2- if anger indeed is a public property, how shall the 'not so weak' react?
case 3- if anger indeed is a public property, how shall the 'mighty' react?
(forgive me for my three 'generalised' categories)
case1- they cannot react and shall conform to the established. this has, and will remain the basic mode of evolution. Darwin has written enough about it already. and when the weak begin to show their traits, i.e. when the weak decide to give vent to their anger, there ARE TWO POSSIBLE CASES AGAIN. either their voices WILL be heard or they WON'T. if their voices are NOT heard, they remain the so called 'weak'. and if their voices ARE heard, mankind witnesses events like the French revolution and the Indian struggle for independence. cases that imply that their categorisation as 'weak' in the first place does not hold. so in either case, case 1 is null and void. for in the first case they CANNOT react and hence DO NOT matter. and in the second case, when they DO matter, they are no longer entitled to be called 'weak'.
case 2- the 'not so weak' have been the 'adaptive' epitomes of mankind. thereby depriving humans of ANY extremities that it could have achieved. these are the so called 'bourgeois'- the class that was born to serve. i do not say this because of any biases. you just take the pages of history and they shall bear witness to this hypothesis. this breed knows only one thing- compliance. the greatest apple polishers, and in fact the greatest 'well-known' were born in this category. they started with 'borrowed mindsets', continued with 'plagiarised principles' and finished with 'hackneyed hold-it-on's'. parasites, that lived and perished as parasites. contd...
