My intuitive answer would be yes, but now I am realizing that for me sadness or fear is probably much closer to anger than for you. In my mind they all are "feel bad, be unhappy and express it too".
I suppose if we define anger in a very granular and precise way and not just as a general bad feeling, "being mad at" but more like, giving a long rant, it can only apply to humans because I will swear to the rain but only briefly, to let steam out, I will not give a long angry rant to it. I will be "mad at it", but not angry in that social sense that is clear.
Halfway conceded: anger in the very granular sense only applies to humans.
But. Can you think of a counter-example where 1) humans violate our expectations 2) but it is no a social rule or cohesion violation, and do we get angry or not?
This is very tricky, because our expectations are, of course, based on social rules! Usually. Now I am searching for a case when not.
Can you think of a counter-example where 1) humans violate our expectations 2) but it is no a social rule or cohesion violation, and do we get angry or not?
I already did give such an example - a short story with a "twist" ending. Such an ending violates our expectations (that's what makes it a "twist") but it doesn't break any social rule, so people often find these amusing, clever, etc. On the other hand, a "twist" ending in a context where there is a social rule against such endings might well make people angry - for exam...
Another month, another rationality quotes thread. The rules are: