It probably isn’t useful to ask something like what is anger?, because one will say it is this or that.
One will formalise it, categorise it, reduce it, shroud it, attach it to ideas that one has learned through reason & logic, society, culture, or inherited as truth from childhood- whatever: one will project their experience of anger that isn’t synonymous with what anger is.
Instead, it might be beneficial in asking (for the purpose of this dialogue) are you [really] angry? Is this/that [really] anger?.
Asking this, I feel, might challenge the fundamental ideas & basic characteristics of anger, and will provoke the question whether anger is something that is constitutive to one’s [B]eing (or [b]eing).
By asking this, one immediately instigates the inquiry into anger as something that is; something that is in itself, for itself.
One suggests whether anger can really exist as an entity in itself, or an entity via pre-existing entities (us): whether it [E]xists or just [e]xists.
Yeah, Ima go sleep now!
[… I’m sorry, this is not a wholly constructed opinion & is flawed in the respect that things like anger or Race have no significance for the individual, and are meaningless for the individual- neglecting racism or bullying-, as (other) ideas of, for example, Race, Freedom, Democracy, etc, are just historical constructs & phases at certain points in human existence. Of course, this is not the only problem with my claim(s), but I’m too tired to elaborate, or give a flying-fuck what I’m talking about].
