January 25, 2020
The Chicago philosopher Agnes Callard has published an interesting article in the Boston Review, January 21, 2020 (the lead article for a printed issue On Anger). http://bostonreview.net/philosophy-religion/agnes-callard-angry-forever
Anger is defined as “a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility.” (Internet dictionary).
Here are some quotes from Callard’s article:
“There are two problems with anger: it is morally corrupting, and it is completely correct.”
“The morally correct way to respond to immorality is to do things—cling to anger, exact vengeance—that are in some way immoral.”
“Just because the moral corruption of anger is our best option doesn’t mean it is not corruption.”
“Nietzche, Foucault, and Girard have all argued that the darkest sides of anger—vengeance, bloodlust, and limitless violence—are baked into the very idea of morality.”
She concludes: “Nietzsche, Foucault, and Girard contributed to a strand of cultural criticism often invoked in support of attitudes of cynicism, misanthropy, and pessimism about the human condition. They are seen as radicals. In my view, however, all three are to be faulted for their timidity. It is striking the degree to which each writer held himself at a safe anthropological distance from the dark side of morality he so accurately described. If they had stepped inside their own theories, they would have immediately drawn the simple, devastating conclusion that it is impossible for humans—you and me and the three of them included—to respond rightly to being treated wrongly. We can’t be good in a bad world.”
I am a biologist, but don’t want to become involved in a lengthy discussion on the evolutionary origin of anger, beside briefly mentioning that anger may well have evolved as an adaptation to an adverse world (“we can’t be good in a bad world’). For example, a bird or a mammal or a human may become angry when some foreigner infringes on his/her/its territory and reacts accordingly, by driving the foreigner out. Often threatening gestures achieve that goal, such as the gnarl of a dog. I cannot look into a dog’s soul but know very well when it is angry at me and wants me out of the way! However, of course, not all characteristics have an adaptive value. Some aspects of them may simply be failed developments which one could well do without, or expressed more directly with respect to anger, anger may at least in some circumstances be counter-productive, harming oneself more than the supposed adversary. What a waste of energy!
In humans at least, anger is not always directed against individuals, it may well be directed against a political system that allows widespread misinformation by the mainstream press, social media etc., and over-exploitation. I cannot see any justification whatsoever to claim that such anger should in any way be ‘corruption’. Quite the contrary, such anger may be necessary if we want to save the world and our own survival. Unless, of course, we look at the world from the animals’ perspective. Is it worth being saved ? Animals, if they could, might well agree with Yang-biu and Heinrich Heine:
Yang-biu: “Wenn du mit einem deiner Haare die Welt retten könntest, gib es nicht her” (If you could save the world with one of your hairs, don’t hand it over). (cit. Jörg Drews1981, my translation) .
Heinrich Heine: “Die Welt ist ein grosser Viehstall, der nicht so leicht wie der des Augias gereinigt werden kann, weil, während gefegt wird, die Oxen drinbleiben und immer neuen Mist anhäufen”. (The world is a large cowshed, which cannot be easily cleaned like that of Augias, because –while it is being swept – the oxen stay inside and produce new shit). (cit. Jörg Drews, my translation).
However, I am human, and so I give you some reasons why we should indeed save the world (at least our planet and civilization). Any human has its own perspectives, the result of his/her cultural background and upbringing, and the following selection is mine and I do not expect that it will be universally accepted (indeed, if not, it would not make me angry).
Our world has an enormous diversity of microbes, plants and animals which has evolved over billions of years. Humans have evolved as part of this diversity and cannot survive without it. Humanity has reached high peaks in literature with the ancient Greeks and Romans, Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe, Stendhal, Balsac, Pushkin, Dostoyevsky, Twain, London and Brecht, in music with Monteverdi, Bach, Händel, Mozart, Gluck, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Mendelsohn-Bartholdy, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Orff and Richard Strauss, in graphic arts with Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Dürer, Velazques, Goya, Turner, Rembrandt, van Gogh, Nolde and Dix. Shall all this be lost because of the criminal activities of politicians and those who elect or support them? No, definitively, the world is worth saving. If anger is required, have it and get rid of corrupt politicians! In Australia, the list of such politicians is large, but headed by the former prime minister Tony Abbott and the present one Scott Morrison. They continue to support large-scale coal mining, deforestation and unsustainable agricultural practices, ignoring scientific advice, with disastrous consequences for the environment such as the Great Barrier Reef. They are supported in all this by the media controlled by Murdoch (almost 2/3 of printed media controlled by his News Corp.). On a global scale, the largest economy goes into a direction leading straight into the abyss, followed by other large economies like that of Brazil. Environmental considerations are non-existent, except for some PR exercises. This is corruption, and not the anger directed at these developments, as demonstrated for example by Greta Thunberg.
So, in conclusion, anger of humans can fulfill a very important positive role, if it is directed towards changing important aspects of our lives to the better.
(Cited from Jörg Drews: Neu im Zynischen Wörterbuch. In Tintenfass. Magazin für Literatur und Kunst. Ed. Gerd Haffmans. Diogenes, Zürich 1981)
Klaus Rohde 