(image courtesy of blackeri)
What is Wrath?
Dante described vengeance as “love of justice perverted to revenge and spite”. In its original form, the sin of anger also encompassed anger pointed internally rather than externally. Thus suicide was deemed as the ultimate, tragic, expression of hatred directed inwardly, a final rejection of God’s gifts.
Wrath is the desire for destruction. Anger, or wrath, is not inherently a bad thing. Nothing really is. It’s value is context-dependent. I’m with Aristotle on this:
Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy. – Aristotle
Hacking Wrath:
Instead of randomly destroying anything and everything in sight, it’s prudent to take the trouble to figure out what needs destroying, how, and why. If we don’t do this, we may very well end up damaging ourselves or things that we care about. I find myself thinking about the movie X-Men: First Class, about two specific scenes in particular.
Erik Lehnsherr: You’re always telling me I should push myself.
Charles Xavier: If you know you can deflect it, then you’re not challenging yourself! Whatever happened to the man who’s…who’s trying to raise a submarine?
Erik Lehnsherr: Well, I can’t! Something that big, I…I need the situation, the anger.
Charles Xavier: No, the anger is not enough.
Erik Lehnsherr: Well, it’s gotten the job done all this time.
Charles Xavier: It’s nearly gotten you killed all this time.
And in another scene:
[as he’s about to start his training]
Alex Summers: You know, when I do this bad things tend to happen.
Charles Xavier: That’s because you can’t control it. It controls you. That’s why we’re here, Alex. That’s why we’re training.
Erik and Alex both possess incredible power, but aren’t quite able to control it- Erik is a danger to himself, and Alex is a danger to others. It’s not their powers that are dangerous- it’s the fact that they weren’t effectively able to control it.
The same applies to wrath in general. It isn’t terrible by itself- it’s only terrible when it isn’t controlled effectively, when it’s chaotic, random, impulsive and wanton.
Prejudice, ignorance and intolerance ought to be “destroyed”, in my opinion. It can be quite amusing, as a thought experiment, to apply wrath to itself- how do you “destroy” the impulse to destroy?
The hack lies in understanding that violence is rarely the most effective way to destroy something anymore. It used to be, for hundreds of thousands of years, which is perhaps why the impulse for it is still so strong. We haven’t quite evolved to see complex phenomena in shades of grey, it isn’t as intuitively obvious as it ought to be.
Anger and violence used to work well as an intimidation tactic- its very unpredictability was what made it so potent. An angry man’s threat carried far more weight than a calm, rational man’s one. You know that the latter wouldn’t do anything silly that might potentially harm himself, while the former might. So in a strange way, convincing others that you didn’t care about your own safety was a valid strategy to ensure it. Back then.
Violence does not resolve disagreements. The problem is not destroyed, merely squashed, put aside. The person disagreeing with you may be intimidated or beaten into silence, but he does not see things your way- and if he might have before, he probably isn’t going to anymore. You nourish his resentment and frustration. Your attempt to destroy his resistance only strengthens it. This is why many war manuals emphasize that enemies are to be crushed completely.
“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. ” – Machiavelli
In this day and age, human relations have become so complex that it’s highly unlikely that you’ll find an opportunity to destroy a fellow person completely- so it makes sense to avoid doing damage as far as possible.
The impulse for destruction can and should be expressed constructively. It’s a natural emotion, so you don’t want to suppress it too much- that has nasty effects of its own. You gotta deal with it. Expressed tactfully and effectively, it serves to communicate negative sentiment, redress grievances and resolve injustice.
Try to avoid getting angry in the first place.
Constantly remind yourself of the unfortunate consequences of unbridled anger.
Consider the potential benefits of temperance, patience and grace.
Consider the last time you acted on your impulse to anger, and ask yourself if you could have gotten more out of the experience if you had chosen to act differently. The answer is almost always a resounding yes.
Pay careful attention to the instances where you do get angry, and look for patterns- is there anything that gets you angry on a regular basis? Look at it as a challenge- is there any way you can deal with it more broadly, without resorting to anger?
Personally, I used to get angry and frustrated whenever disagreeing with people about things like religion- but I learnt eventually that insulting people never convinced them of anything. Acting on the impulse to destroy never destroyed anything. To “destroy” the root of the problem, I would have to facilitate better communication and understanding. Sometimes a little bit of anger might arise due to a misunderstanding, but it’s quickly resolved if I make an effort to clarify things.
Learn to kill anger quickly when it happens. This isn’t very easy to do, I suppose, because the conscious mind tends to jump out of the window once anger takes over. It might be a good idea to develop a simple snap habit- get up and walk away. This also has the bonus effect of communicating your anger to the other party in a non-damaging way, and usually gets them to take you more seriously when you return and make an effort to be civil. Avoid jumping to conclusions, always remember that you usually have the option to wait things out.
To deal with anger in others, the best reaction is to keep calm. (Seneca’s idea, not mine!) A certain kind of deception is necessary in dealing with angry people- it never makes sense to respond to anger with more anger. Avoid giving in to people’s demands while they’re angry- be calm but firm. You never want to let anybody develop the idea that anger is a reasonable solution to a problem. (That includes you!)
Anger, if you let it get the better of you, becomes a kind of madness, a neurosis of sorts. Master it, don’t let it master you.
“Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?” – Abraham Lincoln
Hacking The 7 Deadly Sins: Wrath
What is Wrath?
Wrath is the desire for destruction. Anger, or wrath, is not inherently a bad thing. Nothing really is. It’s value is context-dependent. I’m with Aristotle on this:
Hacking Wrath:
Instead of randomly destroying anything and everything in sight, it’s prudent to take the trouble to figure out what needs destroying, how, and why. If we don’t do this, we may very well end up damaging ourselves or things that we care about. I find myself thinking about the movie X-Men: First Class, about two specific scenes in particular.
And in another scene:
Erik and Alex both possess incredible power, but aren’t quite able to control it- Erik is a danger to himself, and Alex is a danger to others. It’s not their powers that are dangerous- it’s the fact that they weren’t effectively able to control it.
The same applies to wrath in general. It isn’t terrible by itself- it’s only terrible when it isn’t controlled effectively, when it’s chaotic, random, impulsive and wanton.
Prejudice, ignorance and intolerance ought to be “destroyed”, in my opinion. It can be quite amusing, as a thought experiment, to apply wrath to itself- how do you “destroy” the impulse to destroy?
The hack lies in understanding that violence is rarely the most effective way to destroy something anymore. It used to be, for hundreds of thousands of years, which is perhaps why the impulse for it is still so strong. We haven’t quite evolved to see complex phenomena in shades of grey, it isn’t as intuitively obvious as it ought to be.
Anger and violence used to work well as an intimidation tactic- its very unpredictability was what made it so potent. An angry man’s threat carried far more weight than a calm, rational man’s one. You know that the latter wouldn’t do anything silly that might potentially harm himself, while the former might. So in a strange way, convincing others that you didn’t care about your own safety was a valid strategy to ensure it. Back then.
Violence does not resolve disagreements. The problem is not destroyed, merely squashed, put aside. The person disagreeing with you may be intimidated or beaten into silence, but he does not see things your way- and if he might have before, he probably isn’t going to anymore. You nourish his resentment and frustration. Your attempt to destroy his resistance only strengthens it. This is why many war manuals emphasize that enemies are to be crushed completely.
In this day and age, human relations have become so complex that it’s highly unlikely that you’ll find an opportunity to destroy a fellow person completely- so it makes sense to avoid doing damage as far as possible.
The impulse for destruction can and should be expressed constructively. It’s a natural emotion, so you don’t want to suppress it too much- that has nasty effects of its own. You gotta deal with it. Expressed tactfully and effectively, it serves to communicate negative sentiment, redress grievances and resolve injustice.
Try to avoid getting angry in the first place.
Constantly remind yourself of the unfortunate consequences of unbridled anger.
Consider the potential benefits of temperance, patience and grace.
Consider the last time you acted on your impulse to anger, and ask yourself if you could have gotten more out of the experience if you had chosen to act differently. The answer is almost always a resounding yes.
Pay careful attention to the instances where you do get angry, and look for patterns- is there anything that gets you angry on a regular basis? Look at it as a challenge- is there any way you can deal with it more broadly, without resorting to anger?
Personally, I used to get angry and frustrated whenever disagreeing with people about things like religion- but I learnt eventually that insulting people never convinced them of anything. Acting on the impulse to destroy never destroyed anything. To “destroy” the root of the problem, I would have to facilitate better communication and understanding. Sometimes a little bit of anger might arise due to a misunderstanding, but it’s quickly resolved if I make an effort to clarify things.
Learn to kill anger quickly when it happens. This isn’t very easy to do, I suppose, because the conscious mind tends to jump out of the window once anger takes over. It might be a good idea to develop a simple snap habit- get up and walk away. This also has the bonus effect of communicating your anger to the other party in a non-damaging way, and usually gets them to take you more seriously when you return and make an effort to be civil. Avoid jumping to conclusions, always remember that you usually have the option to wait things out.
To deal with anger in others, the best reaction is to keep calm. (Seneca’s idea, not mine!) A certain kind of deception is necessary in dealing with angry people- it never makes sense to respond to anger with more anger. Avoid giving in to people’s demands while they’re angry- be calm but firm. You never want to let anybody develop the idea that anger is a reasonable solution to a problem. (That includes you!)
Anger, if you let it get the better of you, becomes a kind of madness, a neurosis of sorts. Master it, don’t let it master you.