People get angry according to five situations: arrogance, weakness, ignorance, modeling, and psychophysical pressures. Arrogant people consider it their right to be angry: they put on a show of anger so that they remind themselves that they are masters. The weak get angry because they can’t decisively do anything tangible about a situation: their anger allows them to put on a show that at least they are doing something; the ignorant get angry because they see the world through a very limited frame of reference: accordingly whatever they see or experience annoys and angers them; some people whom we can call the most average Joe/Janes (because they don’t want to deviate from social standards) don’t know how to respond to a situation: they model their behaviour on movies and soaps, and accordingly get angry as a learned behavior in unacceptable circumstances; majority of other people may succumb to anger under conditions of hunger, cold, lack of sleep, futility of efforts, repeat harassment, helplessness, lack of human empathy, financial and marital stress, illness and so forth. However, anger is a symptom, not a solution, and remedial and/or preventative solutions should be administered minus anger because anger clouds judgement and a clouded judgment cannot reach decisive solutions.
Unexpected Problems are a reminder that you have not changed/improved as much as you should have.
Husbands and wives don’t tend to think the same amount about the same things. Obviously. But if they did, they’d get even closer to each other.
Evil people are inwardly ashamed of themselves, even if they pretend they can’t “feel” that shame.
To hold that science is perfect is self-contradictory: there is always better science and simply because we have not reached it doesn’t validate our present state of science as perfect or infalsifiable. Moreover, science can only explain how or what but never why. So much for its perfectness.
Mathematics, trigonometry, geometry, algebra, calculus, and logic—the tools that can manipulate abstract ideas at levels that are physically impossible to do; the resultant discoveries can be applied to the physical world, but this doesn’t mean that the primary functionalities of these pure sciences are for practical purposes only. Their primary functionalities concern the discovery of higher truths from simple computations and rules that were derived from most intuitively sensible short-cuts. Thus it is possible to imagine that no higher-order abstract thought that is not rooted in intuition and subjected to basic logic should be acceptable simply because “it is too hard to understand or intuit”. In this regard, thus, both Samuel Johnson and George Berkeley were wrong. Berkeley’s esse est percipi (to be is to be perceived) covers only half of the truth (and half-truths are like half-doctors), while Johson’s kick (he kicked a rock to prove Berkeley was wrong and matter DID really exist) is a typical dogmatic refusal of Scientifc truths of a higher order.
From a Persian poem of a few hundred years ago:
انچه خواهد شدنا
انچه نخواهد شدنا
Literal word by word to reflect grammar:
Whatever will be(come)
Whatever won’t be(come)
What will be, will be
What won’t be, won’t be
Why should you worry when what will happen, it will, regardless of your worries….And what use are worries for event that won’t happen?
In effect stating the futility of worry and the importance of recognizing the Determined state of Destiny, while indirectly encouraging effort (instead of worry).