I have been called angry often when I self-report as intense. Anger is in the eyes of the beholder. When one acts in rage, this is deemed acceptable when premised on justice. Immunity to prosecution for the killer cuckold who comes upon the act is an ancient use case.

Myisha Cherry doesn’t disambiguate rage from anger, but she does break out several forms of anger – and cherry-picks her own form “Lordean” to pertain to an anti-racist rage. Before this, she outlines several others; “Rouge Rage” – anger at injustice, “Wipe Rage” – anger with a genocidal aim to eliminate oppressor groups, “Ressentiment Rage” – reactive anger against those in power, and “Narcissistic Rage” – anger at not being accepted for one’s exceptional merit. Not all of these angers are Cherry’s, but lordean anger is. It is based on Audre Lorde’s work, which is new to my understanding.

Myisha also points to several ways of coping with anger – especially lordean anger. I have to say … I don’t get it.

There is a difference between anger and rage. Lordean is no different from road rage in my mind or when my demented loved one has a fit about something I did. Rage is never righteous, and violence is one step away from rage.

Slavery happened, is still happening. For the most part, we have always been racist, and it is part of our brain’s maturation.

I enjoyed the book. I liked the references to Portland, the advice to allies, the hope of channeling rage into productive purpose. I don’t see it. Anger is a bellwether for unjust acts (whether true or false.) We need to listen and take action with the mindset of correcting injustice and moving on. Understanding is not going to come from thinking some rage is acceptable while another is not. People don’t work that way. I’ll listen to the show and perhaps change on this. I doubt it.

What if someone claims that slavery in the Americas never occurred, and the trade was one of ivory, not human beings? And let's say that someone objects to this and calmly sits down and tries to explain to the one making the claim the historical evidence which refutes it. Wouldn't one who observes this exchange be justifiably angry at the emotional indifference to the violence of such a claim and the notion that it should be entertained at all? How could one who becomes angry in response to angerlessness escape responsibility for public expression of that anger without sharing justified condemnation along with the author of the original claim?

When I was growing up, churchmen and women famously called anger righteous indignation. This was meant to soften that which was frowned upon by righteous folks. This is another example of something I have christened contextual reality. We are taught, in other spheres of experience that unreasoning, senseless rage is inhuman and, well, just wrong. But, there it is. Not sure where this leaves us or where it goes. Just in another version of reality, I guess?

I know little of the Stoics, though I sorta get stoicism. And, I suppose Dr. King raged righteously inside while externally he appeared calm. Non-violence, on it's face, seems the antithesis of rage, yet we may easily see Ms. Cherry's point ( which she no doubt drives home in her book). Seneca's pronouncement, that rage is a kind of madness, makes perfect sense. When we are 'mad' at or with someone, we rage against what they have done; how they have behaved. Often times, anger is the only way we can get attention. Civil rights is a festering sore in America.

I am (I think) mostly with Mr. Smith. But, allowing for TBOD ---the benefit of doubt, I'll try to embrace the avoidably undesirable. Clearly, Ms Cherry is up on the civil rights struggle...was up on it before the time she began to write her book. She needed to fully grok the importance of anger before writing about its' role in the aforementioned struggle. Under normal circumstances, one would believe it prudent to avoid the undesirable. But if I catch her drift aright, the aura surrounding civil rights, though undesirable for many, has never been avoidable. Relying only on drift, this is the intention I have gleaned. The entire matter has never been pretty. The would be no way of avoiding this, near as I can tell.

What about philosophers and anger? What about Dostoyevsky’s Underground Man? He was right in so much of his ranting critique of society. Those that were socially successful, fat, and happy around him were banal and unjust. He was also right in the bordello scene, when he uplifted the girl who had been sold into prostitution, by giving her hope and a sense of worth.

But he was also a coward and a hypocrite and a scoundrel.

By the way, why does Philosophy Talk “question everything but your intelligence”? In societies like ours—like Underground Man’s—in which banality rules and is fat and happy and successful, while workers aren’t even paid enough to afford housing, and massive numbers of young people (with spirited philosophical natures) are incarcerated for very little if any reason, and Underground Men gnash their teeth in private—why shouldn’t philosophers question nothing but our intelligence? Why shouldn’t they compel their students (we the people) to show our work? Why shouldn’t they urge us to BE just and to MAKE (techne) sense, instead of simply sticking signs in our windows spouting platitudes and calling it an act of civic activism? If we’re so intelligent, let’s see it—why not ask us for proof, evidence, and premises in support of our claims. This philosophy class is an easy A.

I’ll go back to gnashing my teeth in private….

P.S. Tell “Admin” that before deleting comments on this blog, it’s only polite to offer reasons as to why they are being censored. This is philosophy, after all. It’s supposed to be governed by reason, not Might Makes Right.

This is probably too simplistic. Tartar Thistle's example of the dog who no longer barks, is elegant---to a point. But, to claim the dog is no longer your friend misses a key distinction, in my humble opinion.
If the dog no longer barks because of its' perception that warnings go unheeded, it has merely intuited one or two things. 1. There is no danger, inasmuch as your lack of reaction has indicated thus.
2. If there is danger, likewise, your inattention shows it is not imminent. Dogs are pragmatists too. They are loathe to wasting energy when a nap is much more satisfying. Some smaller ones are perennially agitated. Pomeranians, for example.
Rage tends to be self-sustaining. Especially when the changes it is expected to effect are snail's pace.
Not only does it self-sustain, it increases exponentially, becoming ever more difficult to defuse. This has long been recognized by advocates of non-violent protest and demonstration. Sure, rage gets attention. As do barking dogs. Be careful not to cry 'wolf' too often...never ' fire!' In a crowded public place.

Participant Thistle's argument here is sound, but not valid. It's sound on account of the fact that erotilogism has a long history in the Western tradition, going back at least to Empedocles, but it lacks validity due to inference drawn that the same situation prevails today. And, since it would be irrational to ask for something which is known not to exist, the safe assumption is that only the soundness of the claim is to be taken seriously.

This claim is similar to Professor Cherry's in her splendidly excellent analysis of hostile emotional response in the interest of, in her words, developing a system of "emotional intelligence". To this end Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is cited for the point that anger which is appropriate constitutes a mean-gradient between no anger at all and too much. It's the quality of the anger, "about the correct things" and "in the correct way" (Nic. Eth., IV. vi. 4), which determines the quantitative measure for descriptive purposes. If this reasoning is applied to participant Thistle's argument made above, a clear claim is made that with regards to current philosophical work, there is a severe underdetermination by erotigenous responses in the contributing factors to subject matter. If the appropriate quantity of response is obtained, then it can be surmised that the point beyond which any larger quantity would override its qualitative appropriateness has not been reached. Too much and there's no more philosophy; too little and the characteristics of erotic love are left out in the cold. As Professor Cherry stated with regards to whether or not the person who doesn't get angry enough should be condemned by someone who gets angry at the right time, the appropriate recommendation here as well should not be "either/or", but "both/and", (my paraphrase, ala Hegel).

There's something else though that perhaps can be offered from Aristotle's concept of the Mean which I think may be pertinent to participant Thistle's lively requisition, and that is its similarity to friendship (Nic. Eth. IV. vi. 4). Of course the Greek term, philia, can also mean love, but here the loved one apart from the lover drops out, making the effort to "hit the mean" a kind of friendship with one's self. Being there for a friend with regards to virtuous conduct, then, according to Aristotle, is in a primary sense being there for one's self. In my view participant Thistle's argument above points in and to the direction of philosophic erotigeny for purposes of self-friendship in the context of serious intellectual labor.

Because the discussion has proceeded in diverse directions along a common theme, my purpose below is to tie together some of the issues brought up by three distinct posts, so that a common reply to each may offer some potential assistance.

In a post from February 17, 2022 -- 9:15 PM, participant Smith states in response to a post by participant Thistle (now deleted), that Empedocles, who introduced the concept of love into the study of material phenomena as a kinetic principle, is of no importance and should not "be taken seriously" (last paragraph, second sentence). Love understood as a principle therefore can't offer any insight into whether or not anger is ever justifiable. I interpret participant Thistle's response to this to be contained in the post of February 18, 2022 -- 8:45 PM, in an extraordinary counterexample furnished by an analysis of the belief-understanding relation. This relation is described as an interchange between ideas in the mind and natural materials or, if you like, form and matter. This is accomplished on the example of the relationship between someone who performs physical labor as employment, and one whose employment consists of studying the physical properties of nature. The dichotomy brings up the familiar distinction between theory and practice. But that would be oversimplifying things, since each must have both, if nevertheless at differing levels of significance. Each is subject to prior conditions of habitual beliefs, and among them must be the belief about where social power is concentrated. One whose professional responsibility lay in theory understands, according to this participant, that "knowledge is power"; and one whose professional responsibility lies in physical labor, understands from a practical perspective, that "might makes right". Although neither of these can be said to be true, each expresses a clear relation between belief and understanding. "Knowledge is power" is an inference about material organization. "Might makes right" is a reference to prior beliefs. The suggestion is subsequently made that each remedies what the other lacks under conditions of friendly relations. In the escape from their own self-alienation, task fulfillment of each is achieved, as Empedocles describes with regards to material combination, building on the Pythagorean concept of opposition-unity. By putting the two together in friendship (philia), the sum of the two parts generates a greater product than they would independent from one another, supplying strong evidentiary support for Empedocles' theorem.

A relation to the discussion of potential anger-justification is made by distinguishing between anger in relation to the behavior of individuals and the kind of anger directed at whole systems of behavior interactions. One kind is directed at people, the other at things. One has a moral or ethical dimension, while the other is largely a practical matter, therefore indicating a variant of the theory/practice dichotomy. And as a practical matter anger directed towards systems of social organization can be excessive, if one becomes angry about something that can be changed under conditions of collective behaviors, or deficient, if one is resigned to calmly tolerate something a situation of oppression but which could be altered with sufficient effort. By this, justified anger with regards to systems constitutes a mean between self-respect preservation where no alteration of undesirable conditions is conceivable, and condition-alteration determination where it is. Apparently, righteous rage as a practical matter obtains just at the point where self-respect is saved at the edge of organization-possibility. Wherever this rage precludes collective organization to change things one is angry about, it becomes excessive, counter-productive, and hence in no way "righteous".

Hi there,

I meant that people whose social function places them in such a position that they are unable to see the energetic source influencing the nature and direction of much of their labor (rowers at the bottom of a Greek trireme ship, a role that used to be rotated and performed by Greek citizens but was then later performed by slaves) get frustrated and angry because they cannot understand the rationale underlying the division of labor. They cannot see that the captain of the ship cannot simultaneously be down in the hull rowing because they have to pay attention to the weather and the stars in order to navigate (this is Plato). Technology divides us functionally from one another in such a way that the two extremes (top-captain, understanding) bottom (rower, belief/faith) each become blind and insensitive to the plight of the other. The rower cannot see and understand the nature of his position within the whole entity of the ship. The rower does not see the flute player that's dictating the rhythm of the rowing--slowing it and speeding it up as directed by the captain. They imagine they are the ones doing this of their own accord, not aware of how music and emotion and unconscious action are intimately interconnected. Those on the bottom of the functional social hierarchy in political democracies are frustrated because they are told they are politically "equal," and yet this superficial notion of equality serves to disguise the actual operation of power within society, which is neither purely top-down, nor purely-bottom up, but just as it is in physics, a two way inter-relational influential flow, a back and forth. In popular Western political culture the average person is naively seduced by all sides--elites and on-elites--to adopt this superficial understanding of the dynamics of power, and thus to equate what appears powerful (visible authority figures) with what in fact is powerful (actual sources of energetic influence). Anyone in the tech scene grasps the complexity involved here. They make their rubles keeping us all divided on this one, and are laughing their asses off. Sorry to burst anyone's illusions...Just saying...

And one more tidbit. In democratic societies, at the functional level political power resides not in the capital but in the classroom. Politics is kayfabe or theater. The classroom is where social movement occurs. The teacher is the conductor, but as well all know, the teacher is influenced by the students just as much as the students are influenced by the teacher. Physics here, the influential flow is back and forth, not top down. We all know this. A teacher cannot effectively instruct others by force. A person as to be receptive to the teacher's instruction. If there's no trust, no receptivity, learning cannot occur. But students are not blank slates. We arrive at kindergarten preprogrammed for we have already acquired a degree of linguistic and symbolic competence. Our caregivers have instilled in us the concept of limit and of respecting boundaries. Caregivers grant and withhold privileges (pleasure and pain) based on meeting behavioral standards. This same back and forth occurs in the classroom, only the youths are permitted to contribute to the discussion. Teachers are receptive to hearing what students have to say. They want to know what they think, feel, and want. They are curious. The position of a teacher is like a window into the base of society--teachers see and understand what's happening on the shop floor, the battlefield (choose your metaphor) of society by looking through the window of their students. The lower the grade level, the more revealing the window is, since children have not yet learned to filter. This window is also a doorway, both teachers and students can move into realms otherwise socially denied them by connecting with one another at this level. And this window is also a mirror, for the student reflects back that which they perceive using the collectively shared symbolic languages. In the classroom, the mathematical principle of equality or justice (conceived as balance) is artificially created and experienced under the guidance of a good teacher. But as we know, not all teachers are good, and not all ideas are good either. What this emphasis on the power residing in this central (not top) social position makes us realize is why there is so much legal oversight and ethical protection over this authoritative relationship (only comparable to that in medicine), and why replacing the function of the teacher with online learning in public schools is a supremely BAD and unwise idea. For, at this point, there will be intellectual stagnation--no movement upwards from below. And from the perspective of physics, healthy and balanced power dynamics are back and forth, not top down. The flow of movement upwards is very important, and stopping it, closing this window, doorway, and mirror into the base of society is both (and primarily) UNJUST, but it is also unwise. Consider here the fallacies of division and composition. Simply because something appears qualitatively a certain way on the whole/surface, does not in any way guarantee that its part shares that same qualitative characteristics. And conversely, assuming that because the part possesses certain qualities, therefore the whole also possesses the same qualities, is similarly ignorant (remember Aurelius' son Commodus). Here is the ignorance of institutionalized slavery, which is both unjust and unwise. For, if one wanted to undermine one's foe and one is numerically at a disadvantage, all one has to do is infiltrate their society from below via inserting within the slaves being traded a teacher (one who knows) that looks like a slave. Once a society has been infiltrated from below in this manner by "slave" elements, bad ideas flow upwards. The "slave" now has a window, doorway, and mirror with spectacular view into your society, complete with vistas at both the top (the elite household) and the bottom (the trireme ship). To combat this ignorance and injustice contained in institutionalized slavery, Socrates wanted all members of society to be educated and militarily trained (youth and women). They were all to be guardians for the state of balance/justice within society. But if a society institutionalizes slavery, it manufactures a blind spot for itself. The teacher no longer has access into this segment of the population. They cannot "see" and understand what's going on within this realm. Thus society loses touch with itself on this level, and this is dangerous. Remember the dog that doesn't bark. Colonial influence is both from below, as just described, and also from above, through its introduction of bad ideas. Because the social positions are no longer rotated among citizens (movement from below) and instead slaves remain stagnant in social positions that deny them an understanding of power relations and dynamics, and this position is out of the sight of society's leaders/teachers, things fester down there. The bad ideas putrefy and spread... like a disease...

I would so love to hear what others think.