Another note on Anger from Seneca.

How often we seem to grow angry with Clodius for banishing Cicero, with Antony for killing him! Who is not aroused against the arms which Marius took up, against the proscription which Sulla used? Who is not incensed against Theodotus and Achillas, and the child himself who dared an unchildish crime? Singing sometimes stirs us, and quickened rhythm, and the well-known blare of the War-god's trumpets; our minds are perturbed by a shocking picture and by the melancholy sight of punishment even when it is entirely just; in the same way we smile when others smile, we are saddened by a throng of mourners, and are thrown into a ferment by the struggles of others. Such sensations, however, are no more anger than that is sorrow which furrows the brow at sight of a mimic shipwreck, no more anger than that is fear which thrills our minds when we read how Hannibal after Cannae beset the walls of Rome, but they are all emotions of a mind that would prefer not to be so affected; they are not passions, but the beginnings that are preliminary to passions. So, too, the warrior in the midst of peace, wearing now his civilian dress, will prick up his ears at the blast of a trumpet, and army horses are made restive by the clatter of arms. It is said that Alexander, when Xenophantus played the flute, reached for his weapons. None of these things which move the mind through the agency of chance should be called passions; the mind suffers them, so to speak, rather than causes them. Passion, consequently, does not consist in being moved by the impressions that are presented to the mind, but in surrendering to these and following up such a chance prompting.

Among faithful Catholics, for whom the confession of sins to a priest is necessary for salvation, there is an issue known as scrupulosity. This is the process of constant self-judgment and self-recrimination which can drive a person insane if it goes too far.

Now, whether the Catholic Church, by mandating confession, sets people up for this sort of mental disorder is beside the point. If you look at manuals on how to make a good confession, scrupulosity is often addressed, and the would-be penitent reminded that they do not have to confess, as sins, those fleeting thoughts and emotions which enter their minds in response to external stimuli.

The sin is not a sudden feeling or thought. The sin is acting upon the sudden feeling or thought.

***

I've noticed that the comments have dropped off as I've pushed this particular piece of Seneca's, and I'm going to turn to something else soon. But there are at least two reasons I want to work with this one.

The first is straightforward enough. I think Seneca is right about the passions in general and anger particularly. When I was growing up, when a family member would fly off the handle and go on a screaming fit, it would be attributed to their "Italian temper." Later on in life, I heard the same things about "Irish tempers" and "Polish tempers." On a similar note, I've heard the following reasons given for drunkenness: Irish, Polish, German, Italian, Russian, Japanese, Korean. I conclude that people simply like making excuses for their bad behavior. (It's worth noting that in almost every case, the individuals in question were American, at least according to their passports.) I don't want to be that way. 

The second is that anger, as I've written before, our society is designed to lead us about by our passions. PR men, advertisers, and political hacks use the instincts toward rage, fear, lust and sociability to overcome our reasoning minds and lead us toward whatever behaviors they like. They use tv shows, commercials, memes, and social media tricks like "Downvotes" and "Like buttons." And we end up like cattle, led to despise certain groups and behaviors, support this or that candidate, and repeat the words of others instead of thinking our own thoughts.

Just a few minutes ago, I looked at Facebook, and I saw the following "conversation." One woman posted a lengthy account purporting to be the story of a man who received the coronavirus vaccine and had a very bad adverse reaction. Another woman commented "I am grateful to have received my vaccine this week. Trust the science." Now, "Trust the science" is not even grammatical, since "The science" is not a discrete thing, preferably a person, in which one can place trust and distrust. Moreover, I can guarantee that the woman who insisted that we "trust the science" has not spent so much as 30 seconds looking at or considering any of the scientific research around the vaccine, nor would she even be able to do so if she wanted to. And, of course, the words "Trust the science" are not her own. It's a slogan which was probably cooked up by the kinds of think-tanks whose job it is to produce easily-marketable talking points. She either heard it on TV or read it on the internet somewhere.

Of course, the first woman is just as guilty. Her part in the conversation consisted of re-posting someone else's words, verbatim, without comment. Does she have her own thoughts on them? Who knows. In both cases, you have human beings acting not even like animals, because animals at least make their own yowls, cries and growls. They're acting, instead, like robots. When you were a kid, did you ever turn two wind-up toys loose on the kitchen floor, to try to get them to "fight" each other? That's virtually all that most of us are these days. Little toys, wound up and set against each other by people with the minds of children. 

In the name of God, let's try and be better than that! "If you can control yourself, no one else can control you."
 More Seneca:

 
There can be no doubt that anger is aroused by the direct impression of an injury; but the question is whether it follows immediately upon the impression and springs up without assistance from the mind, or whether it is aroused only with the assent of the mind.
 
Our opinion is that it ventures nothing by itself, but acts only with the approval of the mind. For to form the impression of having received an injury and to long to avenge it, and then to couple together the two propositions that one ought not to have been wronged and that one ought to be avenged - this is not a mere impulse of the mind acting without our volition. The one is a single mental process, the other a complex one composed of several elements; the mind has grasped something, has become indignant, has condemned the act, and now tries to avenge it. These processes are impossible unless the mind has given assent to the impressions that moved it.

Maybe we can remember this, and be slower to wrath when YouTube or the television gives us the impression of a vicarious injury. 


More Seneca:

Aristotle says a that certain passions, if one makes a proper use of them, serve as arms. And this would be true if, like the implements of war, they could be put on and laid aside at the pleasure of the user. But these "arms" which Aristotle would grant to virtue fight under their own orders; they await no man's gesture and are not possessed, but possess. Nature has given to us an adequate equipment in reason; we need no other implements
 
I'm always happy to see anyone criticizing Aristotle
 A final note from Seneca's On Anger, to say farewell to 2020:

"It is impossible", says Theophrastus, "for a good man not to be angry with bad men." According to this, the better a man is, the more irascible he will be; on the contrary, be sure that none is more peaceable, more free from passion, and less given to hate. Indeed, what reason has he for hating wrong-doers, since it is error that drives them to such mistakes? But no man of sense will hate the erring; otherwise he will hate himself. Let him reflect how many times he offends against morality, how many of his acts stand in need of pardon; then he will be angry with himself also. For no just judge will pronounce one sort of judgement in his own case and a different one in the case of others. No one will be found, I say, who is able to acquit himself, and any man who calls himself innocent is thinking more of witnesses than conscience. How much more human to manifest toward wrong-doers a kind and fatherly spirit, not hunting them down but calling them back! If a man has lost his way and is roaming across our fields, it is better to put him upon the right path than to drive him out.

Reflecting on the year just past, I find myself greatly tempted to anger with my fellow Americans. I can't figure out how it's possible to believe that what one sees on the television is real, or not to realize that major media corporations manipulate the mind and emotions of their viewers on purpose. At my worst, I want to start screaming at people for behaving little better than cattle.

This is precisely the behavior that Seneca would have me avoid. And isn't he right? Haven't I been equally as foolish? Don't I need pardon from time to time, and, given that, hadn't I better offer it to others-- even if it seems that they've deliberately replaced their brains with the voice of Don Lemon? And if they are acting like cattle-- can you blame a cow for being a cow? 

While the TV news has been terrible, 2020 has been, for me, one of the best years of my life, and I'm sorrow to see it go. Thank you to everyone who has been reading and commenting on this blog. See you next year, everybody!
More On Anger:

"Anger is profitable," it is said, "because it makes men more warlike." By that reasoning, so is drunkenness too; for it makes men forward and bold, and many have been better at the sword because they were the worse for drink. By the same reasoning you must also say that lunacy and madness are essential to strength, since frenzy often makes men more, powerful. But tell me, does not fear, in the opposite way, sometimes make a man bold, and does not the terror of death arouse even errant cowards to fight? But anger, drunkenness, fear, and the like, are base and fleeting incitements and do not give arms to virtue, which never needs the help of vice; they do, however, assist somewhat the mind that is otherwise slack and cowardly.

If we need to rely on wrath and provocation to enter into any conflict, even if the conflict is worth fighting, the mere fact that we would not have entered into it without the aid of anger proves that we are-- by Seneca's standards-- "slack and cowardly."

 More On Anger:

Again, anger embodies nothing useful, nor does it kindle the mind to warlike deeds; for virtue, being self- sufficient, never needs the help of vice. Whenever there is need of violent effort, the mind does not become angry, but it gathers itself together and is aroused or relaxed according to its estimate of the need; just as when engines of war hurl forth their arrows, it is the operator who controls the tension with which they are hurled.

I'm reminded of a story of a samurai sent to execute a traitorous lord. As the samurai raised his sword to strike, the lord spat in his face. The samurai sheathed his sword, bowed, and departed-- unwilling to kill in anger.

For Seneca, even when we have to fight-- as we sometimes do-- anger is no help at all. It overwhelms us and directs our actions in altogether unhelpful ways; in battle it is "as useless as the soldier who disregards the order to retreat.

The useful soldier will be one who knows how to obey orders; the passions are as bad subordinates they are leaders.

Profile

readoldthings

December 2024

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
1516 17 18192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 10th, 2025 12:13 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios