Fear and Aggression

Torakx

Is violence and aggression the product of fear?
And why so/not?

My own intuition is that all agression is based on fear. I can think of loads of examples where certain cases of violence could stem from fear of loss, public shame, past experiences projected to others etc.
But for lack of any other to discuss this with personally, I am curious what others here think and also what other more well known philosophers have thought.

Joe1919

You are (imo) to some extent right that all aggression is based on fear. But aggression is not the only response. For example, one can also respond to fear by ‘flight’ or very interestingly, by trying to appease the person/object of fear.
Some of the best writers in this regard were the existential philosophers/psychologists. e.g. Kierkegaard and Karen Horney.( submission, fight, and flight personality types)

http://www.enneagramspectrum.com/184/karen-horneys-three-trends-moving-towards-against-away-from-and-the-enneagram-styles/

Kierkegaard was particularly interested in the concept of dread/anxiety/angst. I think his point was that because of our freedom, we have to make choices in life (to make our life meaningful) and this in itself is a cause of great anxiety. I tend to agree with him here. For example, the biggest problem that many people that I know have is fear that their lives will have no value/become meaningless/boredom/despair.

Finally, I think there is a split in psychology about to what extent aggression is based on fear, with (e.g.) Freudians are pessimistic about human natures inherent destructive tendencies whereas others e.g. Karl Rogers and Steven Pinker (The Better Angels of Our Nature) are optimistic that fear/violence can be overcome.

Torakx

Thanks Joe, you aways have a good response
I'l check out some of those peoples writing.

My motivation for asking this, is based on my own philosophy with dealing with agressive and violent people or animals.
I find it very easy to forgive and that usually comes from understanding. I think even if I am wrong, it is the sense of understanding the other, that allows me to see(or feel I see) the reason in the maddness and forgive them.
But I have been saying generally to people that all aggression comes inherently from fear. I would like to know I am not misleading!
So I guess on this thread I want to pull fear and aggression fully apart into little pieces, right down to the root and see whats happening.

Any more info or thoughts are apreciated.

Oh, it might help also to take extreme cases as samples too right?
Like psychopathic behaviour when it comes to serial killers. If that can't be shown to be based at the root with fear, then I would be incorrect.
If anything I think it's generally thought that psychopaths have no awareness of consequences. But is there some form of fear driving the behaviour?
Or could we say psychopaths are one special case, where the brain is malfunctioning and fear does not get processed "correctly"?

Joe1919

There may be two sides to aggressiveness,
1. Defensive as in fear.
2. Offensive as in our desire for pride/glory/victory/competition/control and domination of others/our ego etc. (We can get pleasure from seeing people we don’t like suffer).
There is a dark side to humanity. I must think about it.

Torakx

This might help some.
http://www.psychopathicwritings.com/2013/02/phobias-fears-in-psychopaths.html

I suppose it may be more anecdotel than anything else. But also gives inspiration.

I'm unsure if psychopaths are the perfect case study here. It seems a good place to start to me.
Barring that, I might look to animals that are closely related to us, to get the foundations covered better. Or maybe I would just be looking at the exact same thing! Animals use power to rank each other. I could argue though, it is out of fear and want to survive. The fear of loss and death or simply in animals, the strong urge to eat and drink, which garuntees survival when not under threat.

This persons blog article seems to be saying that psychopaths all have phobias, but not necessarily fears. I am not sure that they are unrelated at the root.
Update:
http://www.sociopathworld.com/2013/09/psychopaths-feel-emotions.html

Joe1919

Torakx wrote: »

...... I could argue though, it is out of fear and want to survive. The fear of loss and death or simply in animals, the strong urge to eat and drink, which guarantees survival when not under threat.

I am going to suggest that you think about this. Charles Darwin who in his second later work 'The descent of Man' puts great emphasis on sexual selection and the necessity of species (and traits) not just to survive but to reproduce efficiently and grow.

Nietzsche, who is critical of Darwin, also writes about this. For example, in the Gay Science (349), he states
" To seek self preservation merely, is the expression of a state of distress, or of limitation of the true, fundamental instinct of life, which aims at the extension of power, and with this in view often enough calls in question self-preservation and sacrifices it. ............... The struggle for existence is only an exception, a temporary restriction of the will to live. The struggle - be it great or small - always concerns superiority, on growth and expansion, around power - in accordance with the will to power, which is the will to live."
http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/THE_GAY_SCIENCE_FIFTH_BOOK_.aspx?S=349

Saint Augustine also spoke of mans 'lust for power' and saw it as part of mans depravity (whereas Nietzsche sees the 'will to power' as a fundamental drive in all of nature).

Thomas Hobbs who lived during the English civil war also was pessimistic about man who lived (when in a state of nature and without government or law) in continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

Corkgirl210

In my opinion there are only two emotions..
1 fear
2 love

all else are derivatives from each


you spend your life learning and unlearning fear only to return to love.. which is your naturally born state... (with some hard coded fears implanted in your DNA for this lifetimes purpose)

Violence and aggression to me is fear.. it is unhealed fear that can naturally emanate through ones behaviour.. whether it be conscious or unconscious.. its merely a warning that there is some unhealed fear lurking underneath..

I also believe that they both can take the form of defense mechanisms.. fear of not having enough=jealously, fear of not being good enough=pride etc. fear of security = violence etc.

Most of our fears never happen anyway... :rolleyes:

Joe1919

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

In my opinion there are only two emotions..
1 fear
2 love

all else are derivatives from each


you spend your life learning and unlearning fear only to return to love.. which is your naturally born state... (with some hard coded fears implanted in your DNA for this lifetimes purpose)

Violence and aggression to me is fear.. it is unhealed fear that can naturally emanate through ones behaviour.. whether it be conscious or unconscious.. its merely a warning that there is some unhealed fear lurking underneath..

I also believe that they both can take the form of defense mechanisms.. fear of not having enough=jealously, fear of not being good enough=pride etc. fear of security = violence etc.

Most of our fears never happen anyway... :rolleyes:

There is an idea in philosophy called the ‘unity of opposites’. The idea is that a ‘thing’ cannot exist without its opposite. So we can’t have mountains without valleys, good without evil, protons without electrons, pleasure without pain etc. etc. This can be interpreted objectively (as the way the world is) or subjectively (that to make sense and to talk about the world, we separate the world into dual complementary entities). Hence, I can make sense of dividing the emotions into two groups; a group that motivates us by attraction (e.g Love) and a group that motivates us by repulsion (e.g . Fear); and in this respect, I am in agreement with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_opposites

However, for the reason above, I am reluctant to say that people are inherently good or bad; or inherently loving or fearful. Could it be that love and fear are simply two sides of the same coin? For example, when we love someone, we are concerned for the safety and good of that person; or perhaps, in the case of the insecure lover, we fear the loss of the persons love. Some may argue that both love and fear come about due to excessive desire and perhaps clinging excessively to ones ‘self’, whatever this self may be (or perhaps the ‘self’ we create for ourselves). This would see excessive self concern as the root of the problem.

I agree totally with your final point (Most of our fears never happen anyway...). But people have memory and unlimited power of imagination and this increases their capacity to suffer . To quote Shakespeare ‘Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once.’

Corkgirl210

Joe1919 wrote: »

Could it be that love and fear are simply two sides of the same coin? For example, when we love someone, we are concerned for the safety and good of that person; or perhaps, in the case of the insecure lover, we fear the loss of the persons love. Some may argue that both love and fear come about due to excessive desire and perhaps clinging excessively to ones ‘self’, whatever this self may be (or perhaps the ‘self’ we create for ourselves). This would see excessive self concern as the root of the problem.

I agree totally with your final point (Most of our fears never happen anyway...). But people have memory and unlimited power of imagination and this increases their capacity to suffer . To quote Shakespeare ‘Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once.’

Different sides but yes they do make up the same coin.

I agree with the fact that we need one opposite in order to learn about the other.. if everything was black, how would we know what black is .. when compared to white (its opposite) we learn..

We strive to get balance -- as you said when not in balance, ego is usually prevalent. We are designed to suffer.. as this is what truly awakens our soul i.e. When the heart breaks, the soul rejoices! The dark night of the soul usually leads to some form of enlightenment.. but yes suffering usually comes from a previous life event or cellular memory. No pain, no spiritual gain!

Saralee4

Found this on a website called The Biological and Emotional Causes of Aggression - it will not allow me to post the link.

"Aggression is controlled in large part by the area in the older part of the brain known as the amygdala. Amygdala is a brain region responsible for regulating our perceptions of, and reactions to, aggression and fear. The amygdala has connections with other body systems related to fear, including the sympathetic nervous system, facial responses, the processing of smells, and the release of neurotransmitters related to stress and aggression."

Torakx

http://www.philoagora.com/content/view/76/129/

This was interesting.
A theory on aggression and its roots. This theory is going down the line of unconscious fear of death being the root of aggression.
With a caveat for us humans having a second form of aggression originating with the self(torture was one example).
The main form discussed here is the "natural" kind, shared with animals.
But Nietszches writing on the "will" seems to run counter to this.
Is it a running away from death or a racing towards dominance?

The reaction of aggression could be unconsciously, the attempted domination of ones own unconscious fears, projected onto an objective target.
If so, is fear the driving factor at the root or is it the Will to power?

In relation to "natural" aggression I can see it's uses through anthropology.
But it still brings the question of the triggers for those basic reptilian functions. What stimulates the amygdala to release adrenaline?
The fear of death?

Heres a wiki quote on the amygdala.
"Studies in 2004 and 2006 showed that normal subjects exposed to images of frightened faces or faces of people from another race will show increased activity of the amygdala, even if that exposure is subliminal.[45][46] However, the amygdala is not necessary for the processing of fear-related stimuli, since persons in whom it is bilaterally damaged show rapid reactions to fearful faces, even in the absence of a functional amygdala.[47]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala

That makes me curious now lol

Corkgirl210

"Yet we human beings, perhaps westerners in particular, have instead a “ defensive, controlling and fearful” quality, avoiding the “nakedness" of our souls and our vulnerability to decaying and death"

I love this statement!!
My stance is fear is the driver but behind that fear is ego/decay... I am not afraid of death but experience ego/fear whilst living..

Saralee4

perhaps aggression is a form of channelling fear and some people choose to release fear this way or to express fear this way.

when aggression is directed at someone then maybe the person is trying to project their fear onto someone else. they are trying to remove the fear.

I cant think of any examples where fear would not be the basis for aggression, it seems that it can always be broken down to fear.

For psychopath's the issue is probably that they cannot love. They have no empathy. They do have fear though. Its probably all they have. Just different fear that normal people feel. The fear getting caught. Maybe they carry out such acts of aggression so that they feel more fear because it is the closest thing to love to them because otherwise they are completely empty.

Joe1919

Saralee4 wrote: »

I cant think of any examples where fear would not be the basis for aggression, it seems that it can always be broken down to fear.

What about sexual aggression and acts of rape? Surely, in this case, the aggression comes about because the aggressor wants to control and dominate. The victim is often helpless.

Indeed, it could be argued in this case, that the reverse is true, and that the sexual offender offends because he has no fear of getting caught. (The influence of 'lack of fear' or Boldness in Psychopathy is discussed below) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

PS. It can also be argued that (a limited) aggression can be a successful life strategy. ( In many mammals, the most aggressive gets all the mates in the herd, survival of the fittest etc.)
Perhaps we all have a 'killer instinct'. http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/humans-and-chimps-share-killer-instinct-say-scientists-30595519.html

Saralee4

"What about sexual aggression and acts of rape? Surely, in this case, the aggression comes about because the aggressor wants to control and dominate. The victim is often helpless."

Perhaps the fear of rejection. Or the fear of not reproducing with a mate. Or the fear of not having power over someone or someone's power over you. I have seen instances where a man can show anger towards a woman he is attracted to as he may feel that his attraction to her is a power she has over him, in a milder term when boys tease girls they fancy (obviously that's not aggression but maybe when a rape occurs it could be a more dramatic/aggressive version of this?)

Or if the rapist is a psychopath then fear of getting caught or to evoke fear in themselves in order to feel.

"Indeed, it could be argued in this case, that the reverse is true, and that the sexual offender offends because he has no fear of getting caught. (The influence of 'lack of fear' or Boldness in Psychopathy is discussed below)"

yes I agree, it says that psychopaths have a "Low fear including stress-tolerance" in Wikipedia, and maybe that is why they are prone to aggression, almost like they are using aggression to cause fear in themselves because of their lack of it. And maybe non-psychopath's work the opposite way, the more fear the more aggressive as psychopath's have less fear, the more aggressive. Maybe aggression causes fear in the psychopath. The opposite way round.

"PS. It can also be argued that (a limited) aggression can be a successful life strategy. ( In many mammals, the most aggressive gets all the mates in the herd, survival of the fittest etc.)
Perhaps we all have a 'killer instinct'"

I think this article shows how primitive we are as humans and yes we do need fear and anger to survive. If someone attacks you, you feel fear, then anger so you need those to defend yourself. Empathy is probably a part of evolving as a species.

Joe1919

Saralee4 wrote: »

....Perhaps the fear of rejection. Or the fear of not reproducing with a mate. Or the fear of not having power over someone or someone's power over you...

The above sentences are thought provoking. I think I could agree with nearly all that you are saying if you perhaps used the word ‘anxious’ rather than the word ‘fear’. I have a reason for saying this.

We do become anxious about what we fear but we also become anxious about our inability to fulfill our conscious (and even perhaps unconscious) desires.

In this respect, then, the rapist, I would say is ‘anxious’ because his desire for sexual (or even perhaps sadistic) gratification and control/dominance is not being satisfied.

biko

I agree that violent aggression can be based on fear (fight/flight responses) and in animals this will usually be the case.

But I think we need to separate violent action from violent reaction.
Chimpanzees can, just like humans, gang up on others (usually outsiders) and kill them. Then it's a matter of territory.
So instead of being fearful it can also be done to protect your turf or your group (troop?) or maybe assert status.

Torakx

At the same time I am also considering that maybe the loss of said turf, is a fear, or as mentioned earlier an anxiety and the root cause of any territorial behaviour.
Which is why I am for the moment trapped between my intuition of agression rooting from fear and Nietzsches "will" to power and inherent acts of dominance.

Why does a king need to assert their status? Becaase they are afraid of losing it, I think.
Hmm Is that why people celebrate their birthdays too
"I was born on so and so a day" "I am living" "This experience is real" " oh crap i'm gonna die soon".
A sort of funeral every year lol

Joe1919

Torakx wrote: »

At the same time I am also considering that maybe the loss of said turf, is a fear, or as mentioned earlier an anxiety and the root cause of any territorial behaviour.
Which is why I am for the moment trapped between my intuition of agression rooting from fear and Nietzsches "will" to power and inherent acts of dominance.

Maslow in his hierachy of needs talks about "deficiency needs" : esteem, friendship and love, security, and physical needs. If these "deficiency needs" are not met ( with the exception of the most fundamental physiological needs ) there may not be a physical indication, but the individual will feel anxious and tense.

So (imo), its not an either/or situation. We have 'needs' at different levels and because we have a needs for love, security and esteem as well as physical needs, we can become anxious and perhaps even fearful at their possible loss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs#Hierarchy

Frank Lee Midere

As usual with philosophy not much in the way of empiricism.

Steve jobs ( and other CEOs) were and are often agressive. Nothing to do with fear. Everything to do with power.

Torakx

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

As usual with philosophy not much in the way of empiricism.

Steve jobs ( and other CEOs) were and are often agressive. Nothing to do with fear. Everything to do with power.

Could it be argued that power is simply the counterbalance to helplessness?
And anyone strongly seeking power has in some form or another, a certain heightened sense of helplessness or lack of power in some way?
Maybe the fear of losing power is more at play than the ascension to power or the will to power.
Running from fear/insecurity or running to power?

I guess that might be where that joke comes from about guys with big cars
it kind of seems true.. the over compensation that appears in people when expressing themselves unconsciously or just in their behaviur generally.
To Joe1990.

We have 'needs' at different levels and because we have a needs for love, security and esteem as well as physical needs, we can become anxious and perhaps even fearful at their possible loss.

The question for me here, is whether the "at their possible loss" is the main mechanic at play, which equals fear as the start of aggression and not dominance or power at the core.
I think it still might be "either/ or", as in everything might be traced back one or the other.
Maybe the only fall back that seems safe right now, is to conclude that it can be either fear(insecurity?) and/or power aquisition that causes aggression at the root, accepting that we have many modalities that effect our response.
But I am leaning much closer to fear.
It's a tough one.

I'l meditate on this some more. Maybe finding a way to merge the two, is a good way to go. So that it's not an either or situation.
Maybe Fear and power are a bit like Ying and Yang, in relation to insecurity and security respectively. And what meets in the middle is called Life

Joe1919

Torakx wrote: »

Maybe Fear and power are a bit like Ying and Yang, in relation to insecurity and security respectively. And what meets in the middle is called Life

I think (from what I have read) that there was always a bit of a divide on this subject, as to whether aggression and other offences (and sins) were caused by some kind of ‘lust for power’ or as a reaction to our natural fears and anxieties. For example, in Christianity, St. Augustine argued against Pelagius; In Psychology, the Freudians’ may argue against Rogers. In existentialism, we see two philosophers putting forward two different perspectives on this subject, with Nietzsche seeing all human motivation in terms of ‘will to power’ whereas Kierkegaard (who wrote books with titles like ‘Fear and Trembling’ and ‘The Concept of Anxiety ) focusing very much on the role that Anxiety plays in human motivation. There are of course other perspectives. For example, Aristotle tended to see things in terms of actuality and potentiality (the acorn was a potential oak tree) and Maslow would perhaps be partly in this camp by seeing the highest in human motivation in terms of ‘self actualization’.

We can of course possibly accept that there are different perspectives/world views and different ways of seeing things. In this respect, then, if one wants to see aggression from the perspective of ‘fear’ or better still ‘anxiety’, then I think it may be useful to take a quick look at Kierkegaard’s view.

Kierkegaard to some extent, widened the use of ‘dread’ to include ‘anxiety’ and even further still to include ‘angst’ , which is a ‘dread’ or ‘despair’ (or perhaps a fear without a real object ) that we experience, because we continually are faced with choices in the world. i.e We are aware of and sometimes ‘fear’ our own possibilities.

Kierkegaard view is good at explaining more subtle forms of (passive) aggression, and things like ‘despair’ and aggression caused by boredom, or aggression turned inwards towards self hate/harm. It can also explain the crippling anxiety and paralysis of despair/depression when we become fearful of making choices, which is part of life.

For example, in my own case, the times I remember been most anxious are when I had to make an important decision about something. e.g. Should I stay in a relationship or not. I can also remember being anxious and angry with myself for been fearful and not having the courage to ask someone out etc. Ah. ....Regrets.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angst

Torakx

Wow great reply
I think Kierkegaard might have to be next on my list of phiolosophers to study.
His name has come up a lot when reading The Nietzsche Reader and it seems again his theories are relevant.

Agnst is an interesting one to consider along with bullying.
I've often heard the phrase "teenage agnst" and have always associated it with teenagers being angry, depressed, lashing out, but until now I had not associated it with fear and anxiety. More like rebellion and frustration.
Something for me to think about anyway.
I might do a search on bullying to find out what psychologists say is the root cause. I want to see if it can be explained by angst.
Then maybe move on to self harm and see if there is a connection there too.... probably is.
Then back again to the Will to power theory for a clash of Kierkegaard v Nietzsche
Best laid plans... haha