A child can be fearful over the thought of an imaginary monster stalking them in the dark, but that doesn't mean the fear behind this hysteria is legitimate. An adult can be consumed with fear to the point of hysteria by the presence of a garter snake, one of the most harmless creatures on the planet. Or consider theatrics in a courtroom. A person can act quite viciously towards the person she believes raped her, only to find out 20 years down the road that DNA evidence proves him innocent. Her anger at the time was quite sincere, yet it was also 100% wrong. It turns out the only one in the room who was busy committing horrific acts against another person, taking away his freedom and destroying his family, was herself. The real monster in the room was the supposed victim. The only person entitled to such justified anger was the accused. And how about the others in the room? How justified was their wrath against the accused?
On a regular basis, people can be induced into blind rage by their own thoughts about what they think a person did or didn't do, without having even the slightest bit of actual knowledge or insight into the situation. This applies not just to situations of flat-out guilt or innocence, but to our overall interpretations of the actions of others. A person can feel quite hurt over the actions of another, without that person intending any hurt to be caused. People can feel sad and depressed over their own interpretation of a particular event in their lives, only to have that interpretation turn out completely wrong, and the event in question turn out to be a springboard to a positive outcome. So if we can invoke ourselves into blind rage without any knowledge of a situation and with little more than our own thoughts, what does that say about the validity of our emotions? What’s it say about the true source of all these horrible feelings?