tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4799625193693441199..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Wrath and its daughtersEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90940696369250930992022-10-01T15:44:45.710-07:002022-10-01T15:44:45.710-07:00“Be angry, but do not sin” (Ephesians 4:26) makes ...“Be angry, but do not sin” (Ephesians 4:26) makes it pretty clear there is a just anger and a sinful (unjust) anger. I don’t go for the splitting hairs of ‘angry at the action not the person’. Both are connected. The action does not occur separately, it involves the will of that person. Besides, Jesus makes it pretty clear He is angry with the Pharisees because they should know better. It IS personal. Therefore I can be legitimately angry at someone if they knew better than to do something wrong, just as rightly ordered anger dissipates when we realise someone acted involuntarily (eg. bumped into you because they were pushed) or did not know better because they hadn’t been morally formed or were mentally impaired. The difficulty is looking at it impartially which requires humility, prudence and temperance. And the right punishment is not only just but imperative. In whatever capacity is appropriate to you (eg. I cannot punish corrupt politicians but I can speak out, vote, lobby for different laws, help the oppressed, PRAY for their conversion etc.). Otherwise we are condoning sin, allowing or encouraging it which is what the Church says ‘participation in others’ sin. We’ll be judged for that too. <br />Any vice which creeps in will be what we are punished for as Jesus indicates in Matt 5. It’s a tricky balance and I am far from it yet… Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21438135483447289142020-07-23T08:21:47.020-07:002020-07-23T08:21:47.020-07:00I have always said that the Hulk's greatest we...I have always said that the Hulk's greatest weakest was his ignorance of Thomistic Theology.Paulihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17506171638613025839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2719950262121893812017-06-05T09:42:45.392-07:002017-06-05T09:42:45.392-07:00Some Thomists have argued that the very nature of ...Some Thomists have argued that the very nature of modern warfare makes a just war practically impossible in these days. What would you say about that?Olmy Olmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11926423306225264986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78807208869047563482017-05-29T06:28:09.129-07:002017-05-29T06:28:09.129-07:00explains so much of what SJWs are about today.explains so much of what SJWs are about today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5266134973679173272017-05-27T08:42:03.185-07:002017-05-27T08:42:03.185-07:00i also think that anger can be used to prevent fur...i also think that anger can be used to prevent further evil, but in the right way, of course.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77312201273020827022017-05-25T23:49:12.670-07:002017-05-25T23:49:12.670-07:00Thank you Tony for the response.
"Billy, I t...Thank you Tony for the response.<br /><br /><i>"Billy, I think the Thomist position is that each species of emotion is natural in the animal that can harbor that emotion...It would be, on this account, impossible for man's nature to be capable of the species of emotion 'anger' and yet have no situation in which anger is the right emotion to feel. "</i><br /><br />This makes sense, but I guess it brings further questions, but I will leave it there I believe.<br /><br />CheersBillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14579200479132033014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66876997880238264522017-05-25T08:36:04.965-07:002017-05-25T08:36:04.965-07:00The problem today is that the world has trouble wi...The problem today is that the world has trouble with distinguishing and applying righteous wrath. Consequently we get Bosnia, Rwanda, Nazis, Communists and Asian despots. One would think that after several millennia of "civilization" and the philosophy that it engendered, we should be able to distinguish when justifiable physical action needs to be taken to prevent further evil. But, alas, it seems that evil is always one step ahead of us and now manifests as virtue by standing aside and advocating "noninterference" in the affairs of others. pueblosw@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04955678254129002919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77534938433577449632017-05-24T18:27:43.776-07:002017-05-24T18:27:43.776-07:00The rules of engagement in siege warfare was that ...The rules of engagement in siege warfare was that if the city resisted, there would be a three-day sack. If there were no resistance, there would be no sack. A siege was terrifying for the besiegers, since they were subject to typhus and other diseases, and the sacks were a sort of reward. We don't relate to that because we sack cities ahead of time from the air. But when combat was mostly hand-to-hand, the fury of combat was a very real thing.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2680282595952871152017-05-24T18:24:09.742-07:002017-05-24T18:24:09.742-07:00But Christ Himself did not write down a single wor...<i>But Christ Himself did not write down a single word kind of signaling that the written word is not that important.</i><br /><br />What a coincidence. We don't have a single word written by Socrates, either. Plotinus was actively hostile to writing his teachings, and was persuaded by Porphyry only by the latter first writing them, then presenting the old man with a fiat accompli. <br /><br />The Greeks in general did not trust the written word. You could not get nuance, tone of voice, gesture, and so on. You could not look the writer in the eye and judge his honesty. They much preferred "the living word," i.e., eyewitnesses. Most bioi and historie did not get written down until these eyewitnesses began to die off. Since many of the disciples were martyred, this actually happened more quickly in the case of the gospels than in most other ancient accounts. Hence, the earliest writings are letters, which did tend to be contemporary. TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24785477345441078752017-05-24T10:11:12.999-07:002017-05-24T10:11:12.999-07:00Agreed with the Anons above. Only one (contempora...Agreed with the Anons above. Only one (contemporary, Catholic, loud-mouth blogger) person came to mind while reading this post. Spot on. ndoerrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13351522537774470540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50410355746093814212017-05-23T21:40:34.523-07:002017-05-23T21:40:34.523-07:00@ thefederalist,
”It is quite certain that we hav...@ thefederalist,<br /><br /><i>”It is quite certain that we have several documents by writers who knew Christ personally - Matthew, John, Peter, James and Jude.”</i><br /><br />It is unlikely that any of the gospels or epistles were written by eyewitnesses of the incarnated Christ, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Bible#New_Testament" rel="nofollow">see here</a>. But Christ Himself did not write down a single word kind of signaling that the written word is not that important. An in any case what speaks for scripture is the truth it contains not who the author was. <br /><br />Several of Paul’s epistles are genuine though, so we have much that was written by somebody who personally knew several of Christ’s closest disciples including Peter. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41897121086861410602017-05-23T18:13:12.744-07:002017-05-23T18:13:12.744-07:00I never said emotions are not natural. I agree tha...<i>I never said emotions are not natural. I agree that they are, but that doesn't mean particular emotions are. </i> <br /><br />Billy, I think the Thomist position is that each <i>species</i> of emotion is natural in the animal that can harbor that emotion. It then falls to us to determine the right time, place, and circumstance for the INDIVIDUAL INSTANCE of the emotion to be rightly felt. It would be, on this account, impossible for man's nature to be capable of the species of emotion 'anger' and yet have no situation in which anger is the right emotion to feel. <br /><br /><i>Anger, similar to sexual arousal and other emotions, from the get go, seems to impede our ability to reason. It would seem that if we are not moved to correct injustices based purely on love and reason, it is a sign that we are not complete. If we were, reason should guide us to the right action, and love should move us. That should be sufficient. </i> <br /><br />Man was designed originally with the gift of original justice, under which the emotions WERE under the command of reason, so that we would only have an emotion consequent upon the mind discerning "this is the appropriate circumstance". Original sin damaged us and lost us that gift. Now we have to work hard at achieving the 'acquired virtues' under which we act under a habitual conditioning to operate with emotions as reason would approve and not otherwise. The man of virtue, then, DOES act with reason but also with emotions assisting. Even in perfection, man did not act out of love ONLY and without passions. <br /><br /><i>It would seem that anger is something that exists in animals that have no interest in justice,</i> <br /><br />You are right, that animals act with anger and the object of their emotion is not an injustice. I think the Thomistic answer is that in the animals, the anger is directed at any threat against the animal's good as perceived, and since animals are driven by the sensible good, it is threats against sensible good that is the object of anger. Justice is not a sensible good. <br /><br />In man also he can feel anger against any threat against his perceived good, and this includes sensible goods. However, man through his intellect can (and should) know that some sensible goods are not <i>proper and due</i> for us at this time and situation, and so a threat to take away some sensible good is not perceived as a threat against the "true good for me here and now" except as he perceives that sensible good is also "good for me here and now" - i.e. insofar as he considers that good thing is appropriate and fitting for him. Since (for man) an aspect of the judgment of a good being appropriate and fitting is a judgment that it is "my just deserts", a threat against it is also perceived as an injustice. (The man can be - and often is - WRONG in this judgment, but this merely means that he <i>ought not</i> feel anger if that good is threatened, not that he <i>would not</i> feel it. <br /><br />A simple example is this: if my brother strikes me for no reason, I get angry. If my brother strikes me <i>the very same way</i> because I ask him to practice a karate move, I do not. Or at least, I should not. But the physical harm is identical in the two cases. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42889269568686857542017-05-23T17:49:10.942-07:002017-05-23T17:49:10.942-07:00The trouble with that is it is at odds with realit...<i>The trouble with that is it is at odds with reality. The real best which was managed was that a very few leaders were able to keep men under control.</i> <br /><br />I don't know all of history, but I disagree. I think that there are enough examples of Christians warring with Christians that did not degenerate into slaughter of civilians to say that such degeneracy is not all but unavoidable. <br /><br />I also think the analogy with sex is more apt than that you let on. When you consider (a) how many men DON'T make the effort to restrain their interior sexual desires (even when they restrain their outward actions); and (b) how difficult it is even for a man who intends to restrain his sexual desire strictly to its only licit use, for him to do so not only usually but always, even in its interior acts. In point of fact, <i>most</i> men fall down in sins of lust, (at least lesser sins), even married men who have a lawful outlet for the passion. <br /><br />In reality, most men in most of history have been saddled with many sins throughout their lives, and the depth and extent is grievous. With anger, as with lust and pride and greed, few are the ones who escape unscathed. <br /><br />This is one of the reasons we know man to be so deeply broken: that it is nearly impossible for a man to fully and completely live the life of reason. Indeed, without grace it IS impossible, and typically (under God's providence) men move toward perfection in this matter (as in most) slowly, in fits and starts, and with two steps forward followed by one step back. <br /><br /><i>Yes, I get the principle, but it seems a counsel of perfection.</i> <br /><br />That's funny, because the <b>counsels</b> are set out as something better than what the ordinary man could hope to achieve, something heroic. Most men can manage to keep their greed under control so that they don't steal from others: only the heroic could be so far removed from it as to give up even their JUST AND LEGITIMATE claims to worldly goods. Most married men can manage to keep their lust under control so that they don't actively covet their neighbor's wife; it takes heroic scale to set out to so eschew not only the vice of lust, but even the lawful desires of sex in marriage. Most men can learn to submit to the obligatory demands of the law and the magistrates, and thus avoid excesses of pride; it takes heroism to so forego self-will as to give up directing their own lives even in those lawful and ordinary ways men do it in their own lives. <br /><br />Why, then, would it not be similar in anger: it is sufficient for most men that they learn to restrain themselves from unlawful and illicit anger that generates positive sin; it is for the heroic life to pass up even those lawful acts of anger that are conducive to ordinary restraint of evils against the common good. (Which is why priests and religious are permitted to avoid the draft)? You want to set out _not having anger_ as the norm, and having only licit anger as living according to the heroic counsels, but that can't be right. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80365241111393335582017-05-23T14:38:49.841-07:002017-05-23T14:38:49.841-07:00I never said emotions are not natural. I agree tha...I never said emotions are not natural. I agree that they are, but that doesn't mean particular emotions are. <br /><br />Animals fear, it would seem, because they are incomplete and living in a world of incomplete things and beings. We would have to assume that a perfect hare would still fear a perfect fox in a perfect world, even though the fox has no reason to bother the hare, since it won't be hungry, and the hare has no reason to be fearful of the fox, since the fox will not be a threat. Not the best analogy by far, but I think about the pigeons who live around humans so much, they behave very casually around them (or is that not natural?). Animals don't reason, so even if they are perfect, if the rest of the world isn't, then they wouldn't understand that it is imperfect and so are not compelled to correct it in anyway. We do though.<br /><br />Anger, similar to sexual arousal and other emotions, from the get go, seems to impede our ability to reason. It would seem that if we are not moved to correct injustices based purely on love and reason, it is a sign that we are not complete. If we were, reason should guide us to the right action, and love should move us. That should be sufficient. Injustice is evidence of the fallen state of the world, and we understand that it is so. I see love as natural to us, since it cannot impede reason and I can't really see a vicious act of love. <br /><br />NOTE: I am basically a Thomist, and I do accept Feser's assessment of anger, but I do not find it very compelling. Most likely I am misunderstanding something, which is why I wanted to raise this.<br /><br />Cheers :)Billynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59470965611713740062017-05-23T12:32:34.438-07:002017-05-23T12:32:34.438-07:00How fortuitous. I've been studying the letter ...How fortuitous. I've been studying the letter to the Ephesians, and wondered what was meant by "clamor" (ch. 4 v 31, RSV).thefederalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17514099991587503764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22033174395597860612017-05-23T12:22:24.693-07:002017-05-23T12:22:24.693-07:00Emotions certainly exist in animals. Many animals ...Emotions certainly exist in animals. Many animals are capable of fear, for example. It is not perverse, but natural, for animals to fear. So from the fact that animals have emotion, one cannot draw the conclusion that emotions are not natural.Tim Finlaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57399845486076974962017-05-23T08:06:21.866-07:002017-05-23T08:06:21.866-07:00"The oldest documents that we possess were wr..."The oldest documents that we possess were written about a generation after Christ’s passing. Actually it is doubtful that we have a single document by somebody who knew Christ personally."<br />It is quite certain that we have several documents by writers who knew Christ personally - Matthew, John, Peter, James and Jude. Also Paul, if we believe his story about meeting Christ Himself personally on the road to Damascus, and then later being instructed by Him in the desert. Which, why wouldn't you?<br />The earliest New Testament writing is generally held to be I Thessalonians, about 42 A.D., so half a generation after Christ. And Luke specifically states that his purpose is to give an account of the events, so even if his purpose, like Plutarch's, was pedagogical, his approach was historical.<br />Can't say it looks like you're reading the Scriptures the way the Church does.thefederalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17514099991587503764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16467361687752382182017-05-23T07:40:00.419-07:002017-05-23T07:40:00.419-07:00And yet ...
"Hate the sin, love the sinner,&q...And yet ...<br />"Hate the sin, love the sinner," right? Punish the sin, but don't punish the sinner? Deal with the crime harshly, but leniently with the criminal?<br />This is not just a problem with our fallen state; our words and actions come from what we are and help to make us what we are. Yes, we are angry with the criminal; how do you punish a theft once it has happened? You punish the thief.thefederalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17514099991587503764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17328501214932369512017-05-22T08:34:00.247-07:002017-05-22T08:34:00.247-07:00Hi Damian, thank you for the good comments.
I wa...Hi Damian, thank you for the good comments. <br /><br />I was thinking about the Christian scripture. Christ Himself did not write down a single word, a significant fact that deserves more discussion. The oldest documents that we possess were written about a generation after Christ’s passing. Actually it is doubtful that we have a single document by somebody who knew Christ personally. We can only be confident that several or many of Christ’s sayings have come down to us in their original form, because in that time it was customary to memorize such sayings and repeat them at sermons, and probably some lists of sayings were written down. All other written testimony that has come down to us has been written in the context of a nascent church of great dynamism and power – and their end was soteriological, administrative and political, not historical. <br /><br />How then should we read Christian scripture? I think we should read it in the way we listen to music: by its power to move on our soul. Our soul was created by the same person Christian scripture is about, and as it were it recognizes its master’s voice and moves in joy. At the same time we should consider scripture only as a stepping stone into our life in Christ. For if Christianity is true then Christ is present and working in His church. With infinite power and infinite gentleness. <br /><br />One more thing. You write: “<i>anger will make you liable to judgment, but that does not necessarily mean that your anger will be found as being sinful.</i>”<br /><br />Point well taken. Now we all agree there is divine judgment – even though it’s a big discussion what exactly it consists of. Let me only point out that elsewhere Christ warns us against being judged. I am referring to the famous <i>”Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.</i>” in Matthew 7. What comes out clearly from this passage is that divine judgment is different than what goes on in our courts of law. In the latter you have specific rules: the law of land. In divine judgment how one has judged others defines the rules by which one will be judged. Which is a momentously important revelation. Not only for Christian soteriology, but also I’d say for Christian metaphysics. Our relation to our neighbor appears to be part of the very fabric of reality. <br /><br />So what is divine judgment? In a nutshell I would say that divine judgment is the enforcement of the metaphysical law which keeps us far from heaven. Now on the one hand divine judgment should be considered a good thing since in it divine justice is realized, but from one’s own point of view it is a bad thing for it keeps one away from heaven. Thus it is certainly best to live in a way that does not subject one to stern divine judgment :-) <br /><br />Cheers, <br /><br />DianelosDianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78260098448314568522017-05-22T08:08:48.216-07:002017-05-22T08:08:48.216-07:00"It serves the function of moving us to corre...<i>"It serves the function of moving us to correct injustices, broadly construed."</i><br /><br />It's outside the scope of this post, but what arguments does Aquinas (or others) give this claim?<br /><br />It would seem that anger is something that exists in animals that have no interest in justice, and we can be moved to correct injustice without anger, so I am wondering what case is made for this?<br /><br />Why think it is natural, rather than perverse?Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14579200479132033014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89923932167864245482017-05-22T08:06:44.301-07:002017-05-22T08:06:44.301-07:00@Tony: The trouble with that is it is at odds with...@Tony: The trouble with that is it is at odds with reality. The real best which was managed was that a very few leaders were able to keep men under control. Certainly the norm for Christian armies doesn't show such forbearance. <br /><br />Godfrey de Bouillon did manage to keep those under his DIRECT command from going wild when Jerusalem fell, but the rest went on a slaughtering rampage. Coeur de Lion could do so. Even the very disciplined Macedonian army committed its most brutal butchery when Alexander (no saint, he) was wounded by the Malians, and unconscious. But the sack of Constantinople, and the behavior of most of the Crusaders in Jerusalem were the norm.<br /><br />The comparison with lust isn't quite apt, unless you assume that someone else jumps in while we're carried away - not usual in married sex. The soldier swinging a sword is confronted with one enemy, then another, and then someone else who may be an enemy. It's not easy to make quick judgements. That remains true today, as soldiers and cops know. But it was worse when it was hand-to-hand. Yes, I get the principle, but it seems a counsel of perfection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25782169844066872842017-05-22T06:01:58.825-07:002017-05-22T06:01:58.825-07:00I guess the simple and pithy retort to the one you...I guess the simple and pithy retort to the one you described as the "militant pacifist" is the common adage: "Physician, heal thyself!"HAAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12965778442692203576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63265770887522266262017-05-22T05:57:06.092-07:002017-05-22T05:57:06.092-07:00hahah...Brilliant!!!hahah...Brilliant!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76409857288918248062017-05-22T04:21:11.129-07:002017-05-22T04:21:11.129-07:00To love is to wish the good for someone. We wish t...To love is to wish the good for someone. We wish the evil-doers also get what's good for them; viz., that they be caught and prevented from doing further evils.<br /><br />One of the things that Catholics ought to realize is that not only do bad things happen to good people, but that good people may wind up doing bad things despite themselves. And vice versa. Winter Aid, a program to deliver food and coal to people who were cold and hungry in Bavaria was instituted and carried out by the National Socialist Party, whom we normally think of as evil-doers. TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80683293554363634682017-05-22T04:09:06.346-07:002017-05-22T04:09:06.346-07:00Moderns, I think, are continually conflating anger...Moderns, I think, are continually conflating anger with hate, although they are not the same thing. You may hate the sin, but must love the sinner. But anger has a formal <i>and</i> a material aspect. It is a desire for revenge and a disturbance of the blood around the heart -- an Aristotelian observation borne out by modern physiology. It would hardly seem just to hold a man guilty for a natural physiological response; only for entertaining it and nurturing it, for allowing it to outrun reason to the point where the vengeance is inordinate -- too great for the offense or carried out by one unauthorized by law to do so. <br /><br />As Aquinas points out, anger is always directed at a deed, never at a person. It is one of the four markers distinguishing anger from hate. (De malo, XII)TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.com