Does Righteous Anger Exist?

[rex8499]

When we put our trust in something that is right and true, it will never be broken- ex, trust in God.

Not necessarily true. Someone might be naive enough to trust God to meet every single need of theirs without any effort on their part, or to heal their terminal sickness, and that trust could be, likely will be, disappointed..

You are tired. You wish to sleep so that you will no longer be tired. Being roused against your will by something or someone causes you to feel that your basic needs are being ignored. You choose to become angry in response to those feelings.

Those are just thoughts and conditions that lead to an emotion, anger. There's no primary emotion there that precedes anger that I can think of. Rather than saying you "feel" that your needs are being ignored, it would be more appropriate to say that you "think" your needs are being ignored.

[Guest]

You are tired. You wish to sleep so that you will no longer be tired. Being roused against your will by something or someone causes you to feel that your basic needs are being ignored. You choose to become angry in response to those feelings.

Tired and Ignored are not emotions. They're states of being.

Scientifically speaking, there's no concensus among the great philosophers on what the base emotions are (as opposed to complex emotions which are a combination of the base - just like there are only 3 primary colors that mix to form all other colors).

But, a popular one by Baruch Spinoza that I studied in Ethics class is that there are only 3 base emotions - Pleasure, Pain, and Desire. All other emotions stem from these 3.

So, if you go by this categorization any other emotion outside of these 3 increase in complexity (and would then be considered secondary, etc.)

If you go by Chinese Philosophy, there are 6 base emotions - joy, anger, fear, sadness, love, surprise, disgust.

So, what I'm trying to say is - you can't really say that anger is a secondary emotion - (hence my question, secondary to what?) unless you qualify from what philosophy you are talking from. Because to think of anger as a secondary emotion would also mean joy is a secondary emotion as well.

For me who has studied my anger, it is very base... sometimes just existing due to a hormonal imbalance or a medical condition (I remember starting a thread here one day when I was having a difficult time with it).... so definitely not secondary to any other emotion. Of course, I'm no philosopher.

Make sense?

Edited April 19, 2011 by anatess

[rex8499]

If you go by Chinese Philosophy, there are 6 base emotions - joy, anger, fear, sadness, love, surprise, disgust

I like that.

[ryanh]

Those are just thoughts and conditions that lead to an emotion, anger. There's no primary emotion there that precedes anger that I can think of. Rather than saying you "feel" that your needs are being ignored, it would be more appropriate to say that you "think" your needs are being ignored.

Secondary does not always indicate there was a preceding emotion. It means that there was an antecedent, whether an emotion or not. When one's thought processes are truly and deeply analyzed, you will always find an antecedent to anger. Ruling out abnormalities, it is always in response to stimuli.

[rex8499]

Ruling out abnormalities, it is always in response to stimuli.

But so is every other emotion.

[Guest]

Secondary does not always indicate there was a preceding emotion. It means that there was an antecedent, whether an emotion or not. When one's thought processes are truly and deeply analyzed, you will always find an antecedent to anger. Ruling out abnormalities, it is always in response to stimuli.

That's not just anger. That's ALL emotions. That's the definition of emotion - it's a response to stimuli - environmental, physiological, biological, or whatnot... abnormalities included.

[ryanh]

But so is every other emotion.

And therefore is a product of choice (or habitual response initially developed by choice, even if ignorant emulation).

[Suzie]

We can go by different philosophers or master psychologists.... I really don't know what it is so complicated. Anger is a warning, it is a secondary emotion to THE REAL ISSUES a person may be facing. When you see someone who gets very angry and starts beating their spouse, the person is just exhibiting the symptom (anger), whatever he is feeling DEEP, DEEP inside (primary emotions) isn't on the surface however it is the real cause of that anger. Most of the time it is related to some sort of psychological trauma or other related issues.

In the case of hormonal "anger", is a total different matter nevertheless, there is treatment (it is not hopeless).

[Guest]

We can go by different philosophers or master psychologists.... I really don't know what it is so complicated. Anger is a warning, it is a secondary emotion to THE REAL ISSUES a person may be facing. When you see someone who gets very angry and starts beating their spouse, the person is just exhibiting the symptom (anger), whatever he is feeling DEEP, DEEP inside (primary emotions) isn't on the surface however it is the real cause of that anger. Most of the time it is related to some sort of psychological trauma or other related issues.

In the case of hormonal "anger", is a total different matter nevertheless, there is treatment (it is not hopeless).

EMOTIONS in and of themselves are complicated. If Rene Descartes cannot even put a solid finger on emotions, you can be sure it is complicated.

Your explanation here is a myopic view of anger - that's why it sounds so simplistic. The anger triggered by genetic predisposition, hormonal imbalance, or a pain in the neck next-door neighbor is the exact same emotion. There's no "totally different matter" about it. There is not one "real cause" of anger. If it was that simple, I will not be having anger management training! Psychological trauma is just ONE anger stimulus! There can be THOUSANDS in just one person. Anger is not always a symptom of "deeper" emotions just like Joy is not always a symptom of "deeper" emotions. You can look at the sunrise and feel joy - plain and simple - without having any deeper emotion or other psychobabble behind it.

[Guest]

And therefore is a product of choice (or habitual response initially developed by choice, even if ignorant emulation).

The base emotion is instinctive. What you do with it is the choice.

You can also choose to be angry - just like you can choose to be happy. That's not the base emotion. That's a transformation of a base emotion. For example - Desire is a base emotion (I'm going by the Spinoza philosophy). I desire chocolates. I can transform that emotion to hate by training myself to look at obese people everytime I look at a piece of chocolate cake. So, THAT particular hate emotion is not the base emotion... it's the transformation of the base emotion of Desire which, in this case, is instinctive.

Anger can be a base emotion. When I lose my keys to the car, I get angry instinctively. I can transform that base emotion to constructive desire - the desire to find my keys. Or I can transform that anger to hate. Hating myself for once again losing my car keys. Those 2 emotions are, in this case, a product of choice. I spent YEARS learning how to transform my instinctive anger to a more constructive medium.

Edited April 19, 2011 by anatess

[rex8499]

And/or then into love when your spouse says, "I saw that you set them down on the bathroom counter."

:)

[Guest]

And/or then into love when your spouse says, "I saw that you set them down on the bathroom counter."

:)

Or even more hate for looking like an idiot to my husband once again.

What's really funny about your response... I lost my keys this morning... and yes, it was on the bathroom counter!!!

[Tyler90AZ]

My understanding of secondary emotions is that they are emotional reactions to other emotions. In the situation I explained anger was the first emotion. No other emotion preceded anger or caused me to be angry. Which means anger is a primary emotion.

[Suzie]

Your explanation here is a myopic view of anger - that's why it sounds so simplistic.

I only commented in one aspect of anger. I didn't really expand on it. My only point being is that anger never occurs in isolation and that's why it is described as secondary emotion.

Yes, it is not simplistic because anger has many "faces", not only as a secondary emotion but also as a substitute emotion and self-afflicted emotion for the purpose of manipulation ("I shout, scream, fight and get my way. I can control those around me when I am angry.") Chronic anger is also another side of anger related to interpersonal problems as well as passive anger and aggressive anger.

The anger triggered by genetic predisposition, hormonal imbalance, or a pain in the neck next-door neighbor is the exact same emotion. There's no "totally different matter" about it.

The "different matter" comment was based on those who have a chemical imbalance or other psychological or neurological related disorder which can cause the individual to have angry outbursts for no apparent reason (example: autism). Anger displayed for "no reason at all" in a healthy individual is seldom seen.

I believe that's your point? That it is possible to be angry for no reason? (healthy individual)? I think anger in itself may cause an individual (who deals with anger management issues) to think they are angry for "no reason" because they are trying to protect themselves from what they may discover. Hence, in some cases anger is self-inflicted and by making themselves angry they don't have to face a situation, a memory or a thought that cause them to feel afraid or vulnerable.

In many cases, when people feel they are angry for "no reason" they are actually feeling depressed. I had a relative who suffered from depression for many years and the way he displayed his depression was through anger, not through staying in bed day and night and feeling sorry for himself or sad like most people do. It was anger. So sometimes it is depression what a person may be feeling when they feel they are out of control and depression is a mental disorder, so we go back to what we were talking about before that those who do have these feelings of anger for no apparent reason are those who suffer some sort of chemical imbalance, psychological or neurological condition.

There is not one "real cause" of anger.

Of course not. There are many causes depending on the individual. Yet, it proves the point that there IS a reason/reasons for that behavior (underneath the aggressiveness and anger displayed by the person). Most of the time, feelings related to pain (physical or psychological).

[JudoMinja]

Well, now it's my turn to be learning new things from this thread. I'll have a more in-depth response tomorrow when I'm on a computer and not my phone, but for now I'll say I believe any instinctive emotional response is the base while the more complex response is the secondary emotion.

[Guest]

I only commented in one aspect of anger.

<stripped for brevity>

Well, now it's my turn to be learning new things from this thread. I'll have a more in-depth response tomorrow when I'm on a computer and not my phone, but for now I'll say I believe any instinctive emotional response is the base while the more complex response is the secondary emotion.

Yep. That's what I'm trying to say. ALL EMOTION is triggered by something. It never exists in isolation. Not in healthy nor unhealthy conditions. What differs is the sensitivity of the emotion to anger stimuli.

Calling it "secondary emotion" though is confusing. We've only started using it in this thread because the OP's wife used it. It's not used in philosophy nor psychology.

If you're going to name an emotion secondary to a stimuli - then all emotions are secondary. Because NONE of them exist "just because" - even if you have a chemical imbalance or medical condition. There will always be a stimulus.

But, if what you actually mean is that it is "secondary" because it is a "transformation" of another emotion... then ALL emotions can also exist as "secondary". Because you can always transform any base emotion to a different emotion.

But, if what you actually mean is that it is "secondary" because it is a combination of more than 1 emotion (for example, despair can be thought of as a mixture of fear and sadness) then the proper term for it is "complex" emotion rooted in "base emotions".

Or, if what you actually mean is that it is "secondary" because you're a Catholic and you look at emotions in 3 categories - base emotion (evil at its root due to original sin), basic emotion (application of reason over base emotions), or high emotion (application of morality or spirituality or empathy over basic emotion). In this case, base emotions are transformed to basic emotions through maturity and then transformed eventually to higher emotion as the person applies higher learning. In this case, basic emotions are secondary. For example - anger is a base emotion, indifference can be the basic emotion after anger (protecting the self from anger), and compassion can be the higher emotion after indifference (transforming the basic emotion to charity after applying moral choice). So here, indifference is secondary.

So, as you can see - just talking about ONE emotion - anger - is a very complicated business. It is very easy for me to recognize that anger is a base emotion - the FIRST instinctive reaction to external stimuli (not the Catholic version) - because I studied ME. But, I can't tell other people that because, I'm not Plato.

But, for the sake of the OP's original question - then I can state, with some authority, that feeling angry as the first reaction to anger stimulus is neither bad nor good. What you ALLOW yourself to do with it can be bad or good. If you consciously transform another emotion to anger, then that can be bad.

Righteous anger is consciously choosing to be angry because you feel the situation warrants it. I have no opinion on that matter. I, personally, cannot allow myself to consciously choose anger over some other method of dealing with a situation. It can get out of control very quickly.

P.S...

For Susie:

There's no such thing as Anger caused by a medical condition. There is only Increased/Decreased Sensitivity to Anger Stimuli caused by a medical condition. So that, when I say "I got angry for no apparent reason"... the word apparent is important. There is a reason - it's just not apparent. That is - something happened that triggered anger which, normally, shouldn't trigger it. Did that make sense?

Edited April 20, 2011 by anatess

[JudoMinja]

A quick aside..

Not necessarily true. Someone might be naive enough to trust God to meet every single need of theirs without any effort on their part, or to heal their terminal sickness, and that trust could be, likely will be, disappointed..

And that would be a trust in something that isn't true. It is against the nature of God to hand someone exactly what they want whenever they want it. So yes, that trust would be disappointed. My original statement was too vague, but the point still stands that putting trust in something TRUE will not result in disappointment.

And as for the rest of the discussion-

I have really enjoyed this. Its been a long time since I've participated in a truly stimulating conversation from which I've been able to offer valid input and learn new things from the input of others that has built upon my understanding and helped reshape my views.

I have always thought calling anger a "secondary" emotion was adequate, because as far as my own experience was concerned anger has always been a "chosen response" to something else. Whether that response was conscious or unconscious, it was still chosen and came after an initial instinctive reaction. However, I now see that use of the word "secondary" in describing the emotion anger is not entirely accurate.

I can see where anger would be considered an instinctive reaction. It is, afterall, half of the "fight or flight" mechanism, the other half being fear. Since I am naturally prone to a fear response over one of anger, it is harder for me to understand others who respond with anger. I made the faulty assumption that everyones emotions work the way mine do and that fueled my belief that anger would always be secondary.

So now, I would say that there are many different types and forms of anger. There is instinctive anger- the conditioned response connected with our "fight or flight" mechanism. We may not be able to control the onset of this response, but we can control how we fuel and channel that anger. Then, there is the anger I have until now recognized as "secondary". This is a more complex response in which an initial instinctive feeling, emotion, or other stimuli could cause one to CHOOSE anger as a defense. This is the type of anger we can train ourselves out of and should learn to avoid. Then there is "righteous anger"- another chosen response but carefully controlled and channelled to defend all that is good and holy from that which would destroy it.

Essentially, I think it all comes down to defense. Anger is an emotion meant to be used for defense. Unfortunately, it is most often used improperly. Much like martial arts- those truly committed to it understand that martial arts are learned so that we can defend ourselves when necessary- but it is learned in the hopes that it will never have to be used. Often, this is twisted and taught improperly so that it is used as an offensive and destructive strategy to bring "pain to your enemies". This is how I see anger.

Nowhere in the scriptures does it tell us that anger is all bad. Someone here already quoted that we are supposed to be "slow to anger". If anger were ALL bad, we would be told to avoid it completely. Yet we are not. I think the admonition to be slow to anger is telling us to be careful and use it properly.

[Guest]

A quick aside..

And that would be a trust in something that isn't true. It is against the nature of God to hand someone exactly what they want whenever they want it. So yes, that trust would be disappointed. My original statement was too vague, but the point still stands that putting trust in something TRUE will not result in disappointment.

And as for the rest of the discussion-

I have really enjoyed this. Its been a long time since I've participated in a truly stimulating conversation from which I've been able to offer valid input and learn new things from the input of others that has built upon my understanding and helped reshape my views.

I have always thought calling anger a "secondary" emotion was adequate, because as far as my own experience was concerned anger has always been a "chosen response" to something else. Whether that response was conscious or unconscious, it was still chosen and came after an initial instinctive reaction. However, I now see that use of the word "secondary" in describing the emotion anger is not entirely accurate.

I can see where anger would be considered an instinctive reaction. It is, afterall, half of the "fight or flight" mechanism, the other half being fear. Since I am naturally prone to a fear response over one of anger, it is harder for me to understand others who respond with anger. I made the faulty assumption that everyones emotions work the way mine do and that fueled my belief that anger would always be secondary.

So now, I would say that there are many different types and forms of anger. There is instinctive anger- the conditioned response connected with our "fight or flight" mechanism. We may not be able to control the onset of this response, but we can control how we fuel and channel that anger. Then, there is the anger I have until now recognized as "secondary". This is a more complex response in which an initial instinctive feeling, emotion, or other stimuli could cause one to CHOOSE anger as a defense. This is the type of anger we can train ourselves out of and should learn to avoid. Then there is "righteous anger"- another chosen response but carefully controlled and channelled to defend all that is good and holy from that which would destroy it.

Essentially, I think it all comes down to defense. Anger is an emotion meant to be used for defense. Unfortunately, it is most often used improperly. Much like martial arts- those truly committed to it understand that martial arts are learned so that we can defend ourselves when necessary- but it is learned in the hopes that it will never have to be used. Often, this is twisted and taught improperly so that it is used as an offensive and destructive strategy to bring "pain to your enemies". This is how I see anger.

Nowhere in the scriptures does it tell us that anger is all bad. Someone here already quoted that we are supposed to be "slow to anger". If anger were ALL bad, we would be told to avoid it completely. Yet we are not. I think the admonition to be slow to anger is telling us to be careful and use it properly.

I wish I could thank this 100 times! Awesome post Minja! It gives hope for someone like me that somebody can understand the struggles I go through! Right now - the only people I know who understands this is my husband, my kids, and my mother! And I'm not sure about my mother...

[rex8499]

Nowhere in the scriptures does it tell us that anger is all bad. Someone here already quoted that we are supposed to be "slow to anger". If anger were ALL bad, we would be told to avoid it completely. Yet we are not. I think the admonition to be slow to anger is telling us to be careful and use it properly.

I think that's especially well said.

[JudoMinja]

I wish I could thank this 100 times! Awesome post Minja! It gives hope for someone like me that somebody can understand the struggles I go through! Right now - the only people I know who understands this is my husband, my kids, and my mother! And I'm not sure about my mother...

You know, I've realized that our entire society has trouble recognizing "instinctive anger". There are anger management classes, but these (as far as I know, I have no personal experience in the matter) are focused on "chosen anger". We are always told that we choose to be angry, and there is no clinically recognized anger "disorder".

Yet, there is such a thing as "anxiety disorder" which is essentially an overactive fear response. Since its all part of our "fight or flight" mode, maybe they are somehow connected? Could those who find themselves overreacting with anger benefit from taking anti-anxiety medication?