Jesus warned against lust, adulterous emotion, as the inner equivalent of adultery, which violates the truth and high reality of marriage and family as understood on high. He warned against anger as he deepened the commandment forbidding murder, which violates the truth of the brotherhood of man, each person created in the image of God, each person infinitely loved, each person invited into the way of life.
Anger, as a brief, instinctive, immediate emotional reaction to an outrage, must be distinguished from anger as deliberately nourished in the human heart, as acted upon in thought and word, even if not in deed. Serious anger gets in the soul. Anger poisons the nervous system. Anger tinges relationships with everyone, not just with its target. Anger blocks the ministry of the spirit.
Some people say that Jesus got angry when he revolted against the commercializing and sacrificial system in the temple by liberating the sacrificial animals and overturning the tables of the money changers. I say that he acted not in anger but from righteous indignation. His act was ethically elegant: no person was injured, no property destroyed, no money stolen. Anger cannot come close to that superb performance.
A couple days ago, during communion time, I was struck by an uncharacteristically clear thought of concern for a person. It was deep concern, concern for the soul. I knew I had to act on it, to communicate concern to the other person; a shadow of fear came through my mind, because I was risking the status quo of my relationship with the person by expressing this concern. I prayed about it, and found a way (not an excellent way, as it turned out, but a clear way) to voice my concern. And I was freshly empowered to do so.
Earlier the same morning, in the prior phase of communion, I had been flooded with an experience of God’s love at a higher intensity and for a greater duration than ever before. I now know and understand that love can criticize without injecting poison. I knew that the Father’s critique is surgical, cleansing, never leaves us feeling bad about ourselves. I now know in greater measure the fullness of his love.
The previous night I had been reading about love, pondering, pondering, thinking of the path of truth, beauty, and goodness as a path to love, thinking of how I had focused so much on the path that I had not nourished myself in the goal, a goal which I have long known perfectly well to be available to anyone at any stage along that path or any other spiritual path.
The previous week I had been thinking of my duty to expose sophistry; I had felt conflicted about criticizing persons I am learning to love. I realize now that there was anger in me, subterranean anger, anger that I would occasionally feel but never took seriously. Now I know the power of love to dissolve and transform anger and fear, to empower, to en-courage, to laugh, to liberate, to let joy and spontaneity loose. Thus one human life takes one step closer.
Love sees destiny, helps create destiny, springs from the Source of destiny.
Why do the great realizations take so long to arrive? Because we have not yet achieved the alignment which makes us receptive to what our Father is ready to give us.
Happy aligning! Happy realizing! Happy taking time to receive the Father’s love!
I had an insight reading this, and that insight is that what you are expressing here, regarding anger, and what you were discussing last week, regarding sophistry or bad philosophy, are quite related. Really, I have believed this — or something like it — for a while, but my thought was clarified a bit.
Much of what passes as philosophy now is largely polemical, critical, reactive, and fueled by feelings of anger and resentment. If I am honest with myself I would say that I, too, was caught up in similar philosophies when I was younger. You have already given a good descriptions of what these philosophies are and their dangers, but I would add that, while they operate with some truth and goodness in mind, their primary goal is destruction and not creation. Further, they look into the world and see first the bad and try to obliterate it, but so often they take the good down, too. Anger and hatred are motivated by abstractions that individuate where seeing a whole is in order, and abstracting into “types” where seeing individuals or relations is really called for. What is interesting is that hatred and anger are very unified, but love expresses itself in many way: there are many ways to love, but hate has an ominous oneness.
I really don’t know if the norm of critical philosophy is fueled by anger and hatred, or if it is anger and hatred that fuel critical philosophy. And I must be clear: I am not suggesting that we all move to a warm and fuzzy love-in and get rid of all critical thought. It has it’s place. But what good is a workshop that has only tools for cutting, smashing, and destroying?
Plato wrote convincingly about the fecundity of love in the Symposium. While Eros is a kind of love often not associated with solidarity I say that it is in there, if only in an effete way. While Eros often speaks the language of possession, I like to add that it also is a “being possessed by”. When I love something or someone I want to be near it or them, but this nearness is not exhausted by covetousness and isolation with that which is desired. No, it is an opening out, a giving and sharing, which spreads a kind of love outward. Philosophers know this feeling well. The more we philosophers love an idea the more we wish to share it with others, discussing it, putting it “out there” for the world.
Might one even consider self-love in such a way? Is not self-loathing manifested in the solitary and deprived? Does not the one who properly loves himself wish to share himself, to see what others will make of him? This is maybe not germane to your idea, but you got me thinking.
Charles, thank you for taking the time to stay in touch with this conversation. You are a trained and practicing philosopher, a professor, and a person with a long devotion to pursuing truth in philosophy and beyond.
I just want to make a quick observation about one thing Plato has Socrates say in his dialogue, the Symposium. It’s loosely connected with the notion of solidarity. After mentioning the eros motivated by the body of a physically attractive person, Socrates goes on to mention eros motivated by the beauty of mind. The beauty of mind here is not the beauty of, say, Plato at his magnificent height; it is the beauty of a capable and well-motivated person who hungers for education in truth, beauty, and goodness.
You raise a question about self-love, and I want to observe that in the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle notices but does not discuss the question of whether it is, strictly speaking, proper to speak of self love. If you go to the Archives (the right pane on this weblog’s landing page) and go to November 2014, the third blogpost directly addresses that question. In a word, I think that we can respect ourselves, care for ourselves, and enjoy being ourselves–and these things, taken together, count for love in common parlance; nevertheless, in a spiritual and religious concept (by religious I simply refer to an understanding of spirituality that includes a concept of God), love is a relation between two persons. It is not an intra-personal reality.
I had an insight reading this, and that insight is that what you are expressing here, regarding anger, and what you were discussing last week, regarding sophistry or bad philosophy, are quite related. Really, I have believed this — or something like it — for a while, but my thought was clarified a bit.
Much of what passes as philosophy now is largely polemical, critical, reactive, and fueled by feelings of anger and resentment. If I am honest with myself I would say that I, too, was caught up in similar philosophies when I was younger. You have already given a good descriptions of what these philosophies are and their dangers, but I would add that, while they operate with some truth and goodness in mind, their primary goal is destruction and not creation. Further, they look into the world and see first the bad and try to obliterate it, but so often they take the good down, too. Anger and hatred are motivated by abstractions that individuate where seeing a whole is in order, and abstracting into “types” where seeing individuals or relations is really called for. What is interesting is that hatred and anger are very unified, but love expresses itself in many way: there are many ways to love, but hate has an ominous oneness.
I really don’t know if the norm of critical philosophy is fueled by anger and hatred, or if it is anger and hatred that fuel critical philosophy. And I must be clear: I am not suggesting that we all move to a warm and fuzzy love-in and get rid of all critical thought. It has it’s place. But what good is a workshop that has only tools for cutting, smashing, and destroying?
Plato wrote convincingly about the fecundity of love in the Symposium. While Eros is a kind of love often not associated with solidarity I say that it is in there, if only in an effete way. While Eros often speaks the language of possession, I like to add that it also is a “being possessed by”. When I love something or someone I want to be near it or them, but this nearness is not exhausted by covetousness and isolation with that which is desired. No, it is an opening out, a giving and sharing, which spreads a kind of love outward. Philosophers know this feeling well. The more we philosophers love an idea the more we wish to share it with others, discussing it, putting it “out there” for the world.
Might one even consider self-love in such a way? Is not self-loathing manifested in the solitary and deprived? Does not the one who properly loves himself wish to share himself, to see what others will make of him? This is maybe not germane to your idea, but you got me thinking.
Charles, thank you for taking the time to stay in touch with this conversation. You are a trained and practicing philosopher, a professor, and a person with a long devotion to pursuing truth in philosophy and beyond.
I just want to make a quick observation about one thing Plato has Socrates say in his dialogue, the Symposium. It’s loosely connected with the notion of solidarity. After mentioning the eros motivated by the body of a physically attractive person, Socrates goes on to mention eros motivated by the beauty of mind. The beauty of mind here is not the beauty of, say, Plato at his magnificent height; it is the beauty of a capable and well-motivated person who hungers for education in truth, beauty, and goodness.
You raise a question about self-love, and I want to observe that in the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle notices but does not discuss the question of whether it is, strictly speaking, proper to speak of self love. If you go to the Archives (the right pane on this weblog’s landing page) and go to November 2014, the third blogpost directly addresses that question. In a word, I think that we can respect ourselves, care for ourselves, and enjoy being ourselves–and these things, taken together, count for love in common parlance; nevertheless, in a spiritual and religious concept (by religious I simply refer to an understanding of spirituality that includes a concept of God), love is a relation between two persons. It is not an intra-personal reality.
C’est bon!! Where do we perceive is our seat of righteousness? Is it seated in man’s best attempts with critical philosophies? Is man’s attempt at ethical moral material humanitarianism sufficient to overpower the ‘opium of the masses’? Does not righteousness bespeak of the power to act in a moral way? Does our individual righteousness give way to nationalism? Can we not kill with love and courage and power for the betterment of whole and excise the cancerous parts that deem the whole evil? Behold the crusades. Behold jihad.
Higher values of Truth, Beauty and Goodness may be experienced individually; but where do you draw your ideal concepts? Is there a blend whereby scientific knowledge, critical philosophical thought and religious wisdom can be so unified as to appeal to all? Does isolation or separateness of these studies alienate and categorize us into unwanted cubicles – restricting a wholeness of being?
I see that Jeff received inspiration in a ‘spiritual’ setting – not in a mindal environment!
In my opinion, Ray, the righteousness of the mind is anchored in wisdom about duty related to some sense of God. But righteousness is deeper than that. “The opium of the masses” is Marx’s dismissive characterization of religion; but religion has more power than ethical, moral, material humanitarianism.
Righteousness in the most effective sense is a gift of God. Think of Jesus’ beatitudes. They begin with this awesomely simple and powerful assurance: Happy are those who are poor in spirit (humble), for theirs is the kingdom of God. Once you know that you are a member in the family of God, once you experience the happiness of that, you are assured of your standing. And you are now ready to trust Jesus or his messenger for the next assurance: Happy are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. When our hunger and thirst are genuine—genuinely directed to the One who can supply what we cannot generate ourselves—then that hunger and thirst are already divine in their motivation and already contain within themselves the promise of their satisfaction. It by faith in God that we come to him, perceive him as best we can-and-can-receive, given our level of receptivity. In that person-to-Person fullness, the strength comes to us.
And whenever we are out of that zone of strength, we return to square one, the first beatitude, and then move on as may be necessary to refresh our persistent inquiry, our wholehearted and sustained quest for the divine life.
I would caution against using the word jihad simplistically. If you are not a pacifist, you recognize that war can sometimes be just—to defend the nation, the region, or humankind. The word jihad covers that. It also covers the higher and more difficult struggle and striving for righteousness.
I don’t need to tell you that truth needs to be unified on all levels: scientific, philosophical, and spiritual. I have indicated in my early blogposts on scientific living what that means practically in terms of cosmological attitude, biological responsibility, personal growth, and contributions to historical progress. Unification is not merely theoretical, and theory cannot flourish without personal, practical integration.
Where do you get truth? Truth has a flavor to it—a spirit of truth, if you will. The spirit within enables us to perceive that in things we read and things we experience otherwise. We all want the best we can get, and this tends to mean that if we can get truth from a higher-than-human source, that’s what we want. But finding that and gobbling it down into the intellect are not yet the fullness of realization. But you know that already. Thanks for your engagement and stimulating questions.
C’est bon!! Where do we perceive is our seat of righteousness? Is it seated in man’s best attempts with critical philosophies? Is man’s attempt at ethical moral material humanitarianism sufficient to overpower the ‘opium of the masses’? Does not righteousness bespeak of the power to act in a moral way? Does our individual righteousness give way to nationalism? Can we not kill with love and courage and power for the betterment of whole and excise the cancerous parts that deem the whole evil? Behold the crusades. Behold jihad.
Higher values of Truth, Beauty and Goodness may be experienced individually; but where do you draw your ideal concepts? Is there a blend whereby scientific knowledge, critical philosophical thought and religious wisdom can be so unified as to appeal to all? Does isolation or separateness of these studies alienate and categorize us into unwanted cubicles – restricting a wholeness of being?
I see that Jeff received inspiration in a ‘spiritual’ setting – not in a mindal environment!
In my opinion, Ray, the righteousness of the mind is anchored in wisdom about duty related to some sense of God. But righteousness is deeper than that. “The opium of the masses” is Marx’s dismissive characterization of religion; but religion has more power than ethical, moral, material humanitarianism.
Righteousness in the most effective sense is a gift of God. Think of Jesus’ beatitudes. They begin with this awesomely simple and powerful assurance: Happy are those who are poor in spirit (humble), for theirs is the kingdom of God. Once you know that you are a member in the family of God, once you experience the happiness of that, you are assured of your standing. And you are now ready to trust Jesus or his messenger for the next assurance: Happy are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. When our hunger and thirst are genuine—genuinely directed to the One who can supply what we cannot generate ourselves—then that hunger and thirst are already divine in their motivation and already contain within themselves the promise of their satisfaction. It by faith in God that we come to him, perceive him as best we can-and-can-receive, given our level of receptivity. In that person-to-Person fullness, the strength comes to us.
And whenever we are out of that zone of strength, we return to square one, the first beatitude, and then move on as may be necessary to refresh our persistent inquiry, our wholehearted and sustained quest for the divine life.
I would caution against using the word jihad simplistically. If you are not a pacifist, you recognize that war can sometimes be just—to defend the nation, the region, or humankind. The word jihad covers that. It also covers the higher and more difficult struggle and striving for righteousness.
I don’t need to tell you that truth needs to be unified on all levels: scientific, philosophical, and spiritual. I have indicated in my early blogposts on scientific living what that means practically in terms of cosmological attitude, biological responsibility, personal growth, and contributions to historical progress. Unification is not merely theoretical, and theory cannot flourish without personal, practical integration.
Where do you get truth? Truth has a flavor to it—a spirit of truth, if you will. The spirit within enables us to perceive that in things we read and things we experience otherwise. We all want the best we can get, and this tends to mean that if we can get truth from a higher-than-human source, that’s what we want. But finding that and gobbling it down into the intellect are not yet the fullness of realization. But you know that already. Thanks for your engagement and stimulating questions.
The distinction between anger and righteous indignation is not an easy concept to grasp. After many years of grappling with it, I have arrived at this partial understanding. Anger arises from the purely human nature. It is a manifestation of the self preservation instincts of the self, and mobilizes all the natural powers of the self to meet the perceived threat, real or unreal, justified or unjustified.
Righteous indignation arises from the soul. It is the result of the moral insight into what is really right and what is really wrong as apposed to the concepts of relative right and wrong. Such an insight causes a moral reaction within the soul that we know as righteous indignation.
Righteous indignation is never selfish, that is acting on behalf of the self, but acts on behalf of higher values. It is devoid of anger, though those observing such a display may well conclude that it is a manifestation of anger. Righteous indignation is a reflection of moral grandeur and spiritual attainment and always leaves the individual who exercises it with an enhanced moral and spiritual status. It causes a replenishment of moral and spiritual energy.
Angry on the other hand debases the self, depletes the energy charge of the self and leaves the self in a weakened state. It does not enhance moral or spiritual growth.
By allowing love to dominate our, our natural impulses anger will be subordinated to love, and anger will become less and less an expression, finally disappearing altogether when love has completed it work.
Dr. Perry
Dr. Perry, what an extraordinary partner you have been from the beginning in this weblog! Thank you for completing the thought so well!
The distinction between anger and righteous indignation is not an easy concept to grasp. After many years of grappling with it, I have arrived at this partial understanding. Anger arises from the purely human nature. It is a manifestation of the self preservation instincts of the self, and mobilizes all the natural powers of the self to meet the perceived threat, real or unreal, justified or unjustified.
Righteous indignation arises from the soul. It is the result of the moral insight into what is really right and what is really wrong as apposed to the concepts of relative right and wrong. Such an insight causes a moral reaction within the soul that we know as righteous indignation.
Righteous indignation is never selfish, that is acting on behalf of the self, but acts on behalf of higher values. It is devoid of anger, though those observing such a display may well conclude that it is a manifestation of anger. Righteous indignation is a reflection of moral grandeur and spiritual attainment and always leaves the individual who exercises it with an enhanced moral and spiritual status. It causes a replenishment of moral and spiritual energy.
Angry on the other hand debases the self, depletes the energy charge of the self and leaves the self in a weakened state. It does not enhance moral or spiritual growth.
By allowing love to dominate our, our natural impulses anger will be subordinated to love, and anger will become less and less an expression, finally disappearing altogether when love has completed it work.
Dr. Perry
Dr. Perry, what an extraordinary partner you have been from the beginning in this weblog! Thank you for completing the thought so well!
Thank you Jeff and Dr. Perry for such fruitful and insightful reposes!
Thank you Jeff and Dr. Perry for such fruitful and insightful reposes!
Jeff, I like the way you draw the distinction between anger and righteous indignation. It helps clarify my thinking, and I think it is an important distinction to make for the sake of mental health and moral action. It has long seemed to me that another aspect of that distinction, which I think is related to the one I understand you to address, is that anger involves a kind of inappropriate judgment about the intrinsic nature about the object of our anger, whereas righteous indignation is more of an immediate response to a specific situation and involves little or no final judgment. Anger implies something like “You no-good….” whereas indignation implies something like “Hey, stop that!”
I see anger as implicitly regarding the other person as not worthy to live–and this idea, insofar as it may be true, helps explain the impact of parental anger on a defenseless child.
I see righteous indignation as reaching forth with a powerful relating, calling, “Brother!” “Sister!” to rouse the person from their slumber.
Jeff, I like the way you draw the distinction between anger and righteous indignation. It helps clarify my thinking, and I think it is an important distinction to make for the sake of mental health and moral action. It has long seemed to me that another aspect of that distinction, which I think is related to the one I understand you to address, is that anger involves a kind of inappropriate judgment about the intrinsic nature about the object of our anger, whereas righteous indignation is more of an immediate response to a specific situation and involves little or no final judgment. Anger implies something like “You no-good….” whereas indignation implies something like “Hey, stop that!”
I see anger as implicitly regarding the other person as not worthy to live–and this idea, insofar as it may be true, helps explain the impact of parental anger on a defenseless child.
I see righteous indignation as reaching forth with a powerful relating, calling, “Brother!” “Sister!” to rouse the person from their slumber.