Prima Secundae
112. Aquinas on Anger, Part 2: Anger in the Irascible Power, Anger and Reason, and Whether Anger Is More Natural Than Concupiscence (Articles 3–5)
Class of 2013-03-21
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/112-aquinas-on-anger-part-2-anger-in-the-irascible-power-anger/

[0:00] Whether anger is in the concupiscible, huh? That's a strange thing, Thomas. Did you know that yet? To the third, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that anger is in the concupiscible. For Tullius, huh? I mean Cicero, in the Tusculan Questions,

[0:23] says that anger is a libido quidam, right? Which is a kind of desire, right? Huh? But libido is in the concupiscible, right? Therefore, anger, right? Huh? Okay. We often say that anger is the desire for revenge, right? You know, desire is seems to be the name of a passion in the concupiscible. Moreover, Augustine says in the what rule, I guess, huh? That anger grows into what hate, huh?

[0:58] And Tullius says in the same book that that hate is inveterate. Anger. Yeah. Anger grown old. Yeah. Oh, yeah, terrible thing. But hate, of course, is in the concupiscible, just as love. Oh, I can see it as good as a question. Very convincing. yeah. Therefore, anger is in the concupiscible. Moreover, Damascene and Gregory Niceus

[1:28] say that anger is put together from sadness and what? Desire. Desire. But both of these are in the concupiscible. Therefore, anger is in the what concupiscible, right? But against this is that the concupiscible power is different from the irascible one, right? If therefore anger were in the concupiscible, it would not be what the irascible power would not be named from it, huh? Hmm. That's a good argument there, huh?

[2:01] All right, anyway. Now, what does the master say? I answer: It should be said that as has been said above, the passions of the irascible in this differ from the passions of the concubiscible. That the objects of the passions of the concupiscible are good and bad absolute, huh? Absolutely.

[2:29] But the objects of the passions of the irascible are good and bad with a certain what elevation or what difficulty, right? And Thomas comes back to that, you know, when you talk about, in other words, hope is transferred to a theological virtue, right? But something very good, noble, right, elevating, huh? Now, it has been said, however, that anger regards to objects. To it, the revenge which it what desires, right?

[3:06] And the one about whom it seeks revenge. And those are two different objects, right? Sometimes you know in these marital things, there you know the guy thinks he's got the wrong person, and he kills the wrong person. He thinks he's fooling around with his wife or something, right? So he's seeking revenge and revenge on somebody, right? But he's got the wrong on whom he should be revenging.

[3:34] Wrong somebody. Yeah. I thought you know some California there. There was this case where the guy he drove a truck or something like that and a cement truck. And he happened by chance, at noontide to be near his house, right? Oh, I'm going to stop in and have lunch with my you know my wife, and he saw this beautiful convertible in front of his house. Oh, who that is, right?

[4:03] And so as he approached the house and started to come in, he could hear the voices from the bedroom, right? Because he got was on, so he was too embarrassed to go in to interrupt them, so he went back and his truck was going to drive off, and then he got a second thought. He backed up his truck and lowered the cement into this beautiful convertible. This kind of news here.

[4:27] That was a great, a great start. Yeah, yeah. That was a good revenge. Yeah, yeah. The guy was trying to sue or something. I don't know. I'm talking about the audacity of that guy. So yeah, yeah. Take your punishment. Yeah. if you want to Yeah. Marvelous.

[4:51] Um. And he's lucky he didn't, you know, my my my Italian father-in-law used to always, you know, his expression, you know, put you in spent shoes. Yeah. That's the mafia, you know, that's what they would do. Give you a swim in the river. So he's lucky he didn't get that, right? Yeah. Got his car.

[5:22] Okay. So the passions of the irascible differ from the passions of the concupiscible in that the objects of the passions of the concupiscible are the good and the bad absolute, huh? But the objects of the passions of the irascible are the good and the bad with a certain elevation, right, or difficulty. Now it has been said above that anger regards two objects: revenge which it desires, and the one about whom it seeks revenge, huh?

[5:53] And about both, anger requires a certain what? Effort, you might say, right? Because it does not arise the emotion of anger unless there be some magnitude, right, existing about both of these, huh? For both of these are what? For whatever things are either nothing or valde modica, very little, right? We think not worthy of any what. Anything. Yeah. As the philosopher says in the second book of rhetoric, right?

[6:32] So when you you know whack that mosquito on you, is that revenge? No. No. You're not going to be angry, huh? Yeah, that's a modica valde, right? Very little. Nullo digna, right? Once, because it has that what effort, right? Is manifested anger is not in the concupiscible but in the irascible. But indeed

[7:03] when. Yeah. Okay. Um. Now the first one is explain the word of Tullius, right? To the first therefore should be said that Tullius libidem he names he's, he, desire is some, what? Future good. future good, right? Having no discretion between what would it be difficult or not, right? And according to this he lays down anger to be under libido in so far as it is a desire for what revenge, huh?

[7:43] Okay, but that's like you know you say that anger is a desire for what revenge, right? The word desire is common to anger now and concupiscence, but it's not what. The same. It's a genus there, right? Okay. Sic autem libido communis, right, is common to the irascible and concupiscible, right? To

[8:10] second should be said about anger growing into hate, right? It is said that anger is said to grow into hate, not that the same passion in number, the same motion number, which was before anger, later becomes what hate to growing old, but to a certain what causality. For anger through its what length of time, right, will cause what hate, right? They hold a grudge. Now

[8:49] it happens in these Oriental countries, I mean, Near East. They're doing it now. Yeah, in China they're doing it again. I mean, but I mean, sometimes you got these tribes, you know, that must have had friction and then fought with each other, right? Huh? And this anger, you know, goes from generation to generation, and it finally turns into what? The Balkans. The Balkans. Yeah. It turns into hate, right?

[9:11] Okay. Again, he says that anger is said to be put together from sadness and desire, not as it were from what parts, but from what causes, right? Okay. So my mother and father parts of me.

[9:37] Yeah, but more ex causis and ex partibus right? We might speak of it as being. Yeah. No part of me is my mother. Part of me is my father. Okay. Part of me is my brothers. Okay. Part of me is my teachers. Mm hmm I remember uh. Father Brunelli is our is Franciscan Zimak he's the general, Father, general, and he wrote a book on the Eucharist. And one of the things, one of the statements he makes, is that when we receive our Lord in the Eucharist, there's always that mysterious presence of Our Lady.

[10:16] Well, I used to be in a in a homily in Australia, and one of the parishioners about an hour and a half after the mass came up to the priory and bang the door, he was all ticked off because I dared to say that that Our Lady was in the Eucharist. You know, it's only Jesus and nobody else. That would have been a good distinction to use, right there.

[10:35] Yeah. You could have said on the contrary. You see, You see, from the words of the consecration, the body and blood of our Lord is there, right? Huh? And then the I used to ask the second, Was the blood of our Lord in the what? In the host, right? Well, not from the words of the consecration, but because it's joined to the body, right? So if you receive the body, you're going to receive the blood of our Lord too, right?

[11:12] So you don't have to receive under both species, right, to receive both the body and the blood of our Lord, right? But the blood is there under the appearance of wine, because of the words of the consecration. Okay. And then, of course, you know the the the rest of Christ, you might say, right? His soul, right? His divinity are there, right? Not by the words of consecration, but because they're joined to the what?

[11:39] To what is there by the words of the consecration, right? And Mary would be after that, right? She might be with our Lord, right? It would be, you know, much less than than. His argument was, I think, was something like you wouldn't you wouldn't say that your you know your mother and your father are you. Yeah. Yeah. But you might say they're in you. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I was told, and then that didn't satisfy.

[12:09] Yeah. But you know, and even another one of our priests, he would say the same thing I'd be very careful about saying something like that in homilies." Yeah, They misunderstand it you know. Yeah. I'd say, we're having the 24-hour rosary there, you know, for abortion and getting rid of abortion. But they're going to have adoration, right? And and then the rosary, right? Huh? Continuous, you know. But you're adoring our Lord, right?

[12:43] Huh? Not Mary so much. But but the rosary, you know, you're praying to Mary. Okay. Um. So another article, right? But their anger is with what reason, huh? Well, he was angry with their what hard heartedness, wasn't he? Mm-hmm. What else was he angry? There's a couple places he said to be angry. in the gospel Yeah he was getting the whip of cords. Does it say he was angry when he drove out?

[13:17] Maybe one of the gospels does. Be careful when they taught us in grade school that anger is sin, right? Yeah. We're into dangerous things. To the fourth, then, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that anger is not with what reason, huh? For anger, since it is a certain passion, emotion, right, huh? Is in the sense-desiring power, right?

[13:57] But the sense-desiring power does not follow the grasping of reason, but the grasping of the sense part. That's why the other animals have it, right?

[14:10] Therefore, anger is not with what reason, huh? And then he goes on. The brute animals lack reason, right? Nevertheless, in them is found anger, right, huh? Therefore, anger is not with reason, right? There you go Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Get old dog there across the way there, right? Huh? Doesn't frighten me. It's a little little mutt, but isn't that anger you know that the dogs have? You know.

[14:58] The cats get angry sometimes too, but not as much as dogs. Dogs are, you know, irascible by nature. it seems Depends on golden retrievers, no, I don't think they have an irascible appetite. It was really gentle dogs. You can trust your kids, yeah.

[15:16] Moreover, drunkenness, huh? Binds binds reason, right? But it aids for what anger, right? So how many fights start because you've been out drinking, right, huh?

[15:31] Therefore, anger is not with what reason, huh? I have to say, you know, that you know, drinking there kind of releases the emotions, right? So the emotion that you're kind of have a weakness for, right, is what's going to come out, right? So guys are irascible by nature that will come out when he gets the drink, right, huh? You know, that will come out when he gets drinking, you know.

[15:56] So they ask, him, which comes out, in you? Question. Conversation over. It's interesting, though. You wouldn't think of fear though coming out to be some drinking would you? How much? No. Yes, yeah. Sometimes people will do will get drunk in order to overcome fear or something. Yeah, yeah, yeah. To build confidence, yeah. Go to confession. I know about that. I don't. I haven't heard that one yet.

[16:38] I haven't heard that one yet, but. um... We're not talking about the confessional. Yeah, yeah. Wait, that was Canon 5, 16, 9, the, Eastern Code.

[16:53] Okay. But against this is what the philosopher says in the seventh book of the Ethics, right? That anger follows reason. aliqualiter In some way. Yeah. Some sense. You know, it hears reason, but imperfectly, right? Okay. So, reason, in some sense, at least imperfectly, is saying, "this ought to be revenged," "right? This ought to be resented," you know, correct, and so on, right?

[17:24] Who's the great guy there with anger there in Shakespeare's plays? It stands out. The character. Yeah, yeah. In one instance, Othello. No, not so much Coriolanus, right? Oh, Coriolanus! Yeah, the play. Yeah, yeah. And and the tributes of the people there, you know, they think they can get him to, you know. Push his buttons Yeah, and then he'll ruin his advancement in the state, Yeah yeah Because then he turns against Rome.

[17:59] Oh. Okay. Answer should be said that it says above. Anger is a desire for what? Revenge. But this implies a what? Collatio. That's the word they use a lot. of times in talking about reason, right? Putting together. Yeah. Now, Albert the Great is always saying reason is collativus et discursivus, right? It's bringing together and then. Going forward. Yeah. And of course, when you reason, you got to bring these two premises together, right, and so on, huh?

[18:35] So he's referring then to collatio right, as as a kind of a middle term here, huh? This implies a collatio, bringing together, right, huh? Of the punishment to be inflicted. To what? And the harm to the harm given to us. Yeah, yeah. Given to us. Once in the seventh book. The Philosopher says that the angry man syllogizes right? It is necessary to oppose such a thing, right?

[19:08] Okay, but to bring together, confer, and to syllogize is something of what reason, and therefore anger is in some way with. what? Now, what about the first objection? That is just an emotion, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the motion of the desiring power can be with reason in two ways, huh? Thomas sees distinctions, huh? Brothers are just confused. In more ways than one In one way, with reason, what commanding, and thus the will is with reason. Right, whence it is said to be the rational, reasonable desire.

[20:04] In another way, with reason, what? Speaking, I guess. Yeah, and thus anger is with reason. And therefore, the philosopher says in the book on problems that anger is with reason, not as being what? Commanding. Yeah, but as by manifesting the injury, right?

[20:29] So the sense appetite does not immediately obey reason, right? huh But by means of the reason But by means of the what will, right? Okay. So, in desiring candy, the reason doesn't have to enter in much, right? No. But desiring to avenge myself, I have to make a certain comparison, right? A collatio a comparison, right? You see that you deserve to be punched in the nose, right?

[20:58] What you've done? Now, the brute animals—they have a natural instinct. They're endowed with this from the divine reason, right? By which they have motions both within and without that are like the motions of what? Reason. Reason, huh? Yeah, as has been said above, huh? Okay. Say something like that, son. Instinct, huh?

[21:32] Now, as has been said, to the third should be said, as is said in the seventh book of the ethics. This one I was referring to. Ira audit aliqualiter rationem right? Just as announcing that what something has injured, one, right? But sed non perfecte audit, right? Hmm. Okay. So does anger here reason? Yes or no? Aliqualiter Not simpliciter perfecte, right? Mm-hmm. But somewhat does, right? Okay. Okay.

[22:09] Now, he's going to go on here. Let's see if he does it. But it hears it not perfectly because it does not observe the rule of reason. Paying back. Yeah, it might do more, right? Okay. And you know, you read about the newspaper every day. You know, somebody gets angry with somebody, and does you know more than required. Okay. Yeah. For for anger is required some act of reason, right?

[22:41] Huh. And is added the what impediment of reason, right? Whence the philosopher says in the book about problems that those who are much what? Drunk. Drunk. As were having nothing of the judgment of reason. are not Angered. Yes, Jesus says that. But when they are a little bit drunk, right, then they get angry, right? Huh? As we're having the judgment of reason, but impeded, right? I think Aristotle says somewhere too, you know, that a man is more embarrassed by his concupiscence than by his anger.

[23:22] Because concupiscence has less of reason than anger. Yeah, yeah. And you know when Thomas is supposed to have grabbed the flame from the piece of wood, or was the flame, and chased the maiden out of the room, you know, that was anger, you know, overcoming concupiscence, right? It hears reason more, right? But concupiscence, you know, is kind of doesn't have very much right

[23:57] Yeah. I saw a lady going into the movie the other day and she had a big bucket of popcorn. She's kind of fat, you know. My wife says, you know, see what I would be if I had all that popcorn. But it's kind of you know solitary sitting there, you know, eating these things,

[24:20] All these things they have from the microwave, you know, to make popcorn, you know, which is. You can watch the movies, you know, they offer the movies, you know, by line up there in the supermarket. And like when

[24:35] I went down to my sister's, they they not only have the Oreo cookies, and they have double stuff Oreo cookies. Now they have mega stuff Oreo cookies. It's like more is better. More, more, more. Of course, I enjoyed them immensely. Yeah, thank you.

[24:55] Super mega, super mega, ultra mega. So you know, they represent these great men like Coriolanus, right? There, in terms of anger rather than in terms of concupiscence, right? And and the concupiscence is more for the comic character, right? You know, the we've lost the the comic work of Homer, you know, but the Margites, you know, kind of indicates the kind of worthless fellow, you know. And so you think of you know Falstaff, you know, as you know, you know, eating and drinking, you know, to some excess, right?

[25:31] But you see, now Coriolanus is a man to be what feared, feared, huh? And I suspect a lot of these men would get to the very top, you know, in government or even the army. somebody said they have this, you know, anger, you know, which you're kind of afraid of them, right? Yeah.

[25:53] I remember when LBJ there talked out at St. Mary's College, and I was they had like the 100th anniversary of the college, right? So they had a. number of people and somebody, I guess, had some connection, you know, and so LBJ came out there, right? And I guess he had a little cold that day, but anyway, he was in kind of a he wasn't coming out on a platform until time to give a speech, right?

[26:15] And he was there with some of the associates in kind of a side room, you know, and some of the Christian brothers around there, you know, and he was chewing them out. Yeah, his subordinates. So,

[26:28] Uh... so you know, some of these guys, you know, they they're part of that. You got to have the facts. You got to have your briefing. You know, you got to be right to the point. You know, and Otherwise your head's on a platter. Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, I think you finally, you know you kind of think that even Napoleon and stuff like that, right? It would be you know absolutely irascible.

[26:51] His authority, but quite honestly, had to be no. Turns against Rome. Okay, so we got move for the other one in the house. Okay. Whether anger is more natural than concupiscence Now this is this is really getting ridiculous now, isn't it?

[27:32] To the fifth, one goes forward thus. It seems that anger is not more natural than concupiscence. For it is a property of man, is said to be that he is an animal that is mild by nature, right? Okay. But gentleness or mildness is opposed to what? Anger, right? As the philosopher says in the second book of the rhetoric, right? And mansuetudo gets also the name of the virtue that moderates anger, right?

[28:09] And we speak of something as a gentleman, right? That's kind of you know supposed to aspire to be gentleman, right? Gentle is the opposite of what? Anger. Yeah.

[28:23] I guess my maternal grandfather was supposed to have been a very gentle man, right? He wouldn't even slap the mosquito. What do they say? He wouldn't

[28:33] slap the mosquito, right? Very gentle man. Yeah, he kind of brushed them off like that, you know. How can a man be that gentle?

[28:49] Therefore, anger is not more natural than concupiscence But it seems altogether, right? You know, right? To be against the nature of man, right? Huh?

[29:02] Moreover, reason is divided against nature, right? Huh? But those things which are done according to reason, we do not say to be done according to nature. But anger is with reason, huh? Concupiscence without reason. There's a quote there from somebody in the seventh book of the ethics, right? Would that be?

[29:29] Must be that guy who calls this philosopher. Therefore, concupiscence is more natural than anger, right? Huh? Moreover, anger is a desire for revenge, huh? But concupiscence is most of all desire for what is pleasing according to the sense of touch, to wit, food and reproductive things, right?

[29:55] But these are more natural to man, right? Than revenge, right? That's what I was thinking, right? Yeah. Okay. Therefore, concupiscence is more natural than anger, right? Candy's always seemed more natural to me than revenge. It goes right in. Now you have to think about it. Yeah. Okay.

[30:18] My goodness, this is what the philosopher says in the seventh book of the ethics that anger is natural, it's more natural. How could the philosopher have made such a mistake? Concupiscence, huh? How could he? My goodness.

[30:38] I answer. It should be said. Thomas says that that is said to be natural; that is caused by nature, as is clear in the second book of the physics. That's where he defines nature, right? Says what natural is, right? Huh? Natural can mean has a nature, but can also mean by nature when you don't have a nature.

[31:02] Whence whether some passion is more or less natural is not able to be considered except from its cause, right? Now the cause of a passion, as has been said above, can be taken in two ways. In one way, from the side of the object, right? Another way, from the side of the what? Subject. Subject, right? Huh? So it's my hatred of of

[31:36] Sam. Yeah, is that on the side of the object or the side of the subject? I think it's more on the subject. Although you may protest on the side of the object, but that's something.

[31:54] If therefore one considers the cause of anger and of concupiscence on the side of the object, thus the concupiscence and most of all that of what food and reproduction is more natural than anger. Well, thank God, at least he's seen that, huh? Yeah. And insofar as these things are more natural than what revenge, so candy is more, you know, natural. Little boy here, huh? Talk about candy, little bit.

[32:27] I'm the grown-up boy. Yeah. If, however, one considers the cause of anger on the side of the subject, then in one way anger is more natural, and in another way, concupiscence, right? Okay, now this is interesting. Okay, so even here he's not giving the way entirely to anger, right? In this this way.

[32:57] Now the nature of man can be considered either according to the nature of the genus, right, or according to the nature of the species, or according to the makeup, makeup, complexion, as proper to the individual, right. If therefore one considers the nature of the genus, which is the nature of this man in so far as he is an animal, thus more natural is concupiscence than anger,

[33:30] because from this common nature of man, man has a certain inclination to desiring those things which conserve what life, either according to species as reproduction, or according to individual as food. If, however, we consider the nature of man on the part of species, to wit, in so far as he is what Rational. rational, then anger is more natural to man than what concupiscence huh? In so far as anger is what with reason more than concupiscence Okay.

[34:12] So although I'm listening to reason imperfectly, right? I'm listening to reason more when I get angry than when I'm pursuing the candy or the popcorn ball. And so far as reason is what is peculiar to man as a species, right? There we go. Right? Okay. This is a marvelous man, but not as thick as this guy was. Harry has to be so confused over such a topic and is completely unable to see these distinctions, right?

[34:45] Hey, this is a marvelous guy, this Thomas, huh? Yeah. Whence the philosopher says in the fourth book of the Ethics that it's what more human to punish? Yeah, which pertains to anger, right? Than to be meek Yeah. In so far as each one naturally rises up against the things that are contrary and harmful, right? Would you have me be false to myself? says Coriolanus in the play.

[35:16] Say I play the man I am. A marvelous, huh? Yeah. If, however, we consider the nature of this individual according to his private makeup, right, complexion, thus anger is what more natural than concupiscence, because the what natural inclination or disposition? Yeah, for anger, which is from one's makeup, right? Anger more easily follows, right, than concupiscence or some other passion, right? He's excusing Coriolanus a bit here, right?

[36:04] For a man is disposed to anger according as he has a choleric what complexion? That's complexion. Yeah, just like Coriolanus, yeah. Corolla, right? That's the thing that's causing it apparently. Among the other humors, more quickly moves, right? And it's similar to what? Fire. Fire, right? That's corollas. Wow. And therefore, is more prompt, right? The one who's disposed, right, according to a natural complexion of anger, becomes angry, right?

[36:37] Then the one who's disposed to what? Concupiscence That he. Yeah. And in kind of this, the philosopher says in the seventh book of the Ethics that anger is more of what? Carried over from the parents to the son than concupiscence right? Okay. What's what's example Aristotle gives there where he says the son has knocked the father down, dragging him out. He did that to his father, and my son will do it to me.

[37:05] He says. Passed on from one to the other. Go go back and read the great plays there of of uh Sophocles, right? You know. And the the anger, right huh makes one do certain things, huh?

[37:27] To the first, therefore, it should be said that in man one can consider the natural makeup on the side of the body, which is tempered, right, and what the ratio of it. Now, on the side of the bodily complexion, naturally, man, according to species, does not have what a surpassing excellence, excess of neither anger nor some other passion, which the dog has, according to species, right? Okay.

[38:03] On account of the temperament of his complexion, that's why he's supposed to have the best sense of what touch, right? Huh? More sensitive, his sense of touch.

[38:15] Other animals, according as they recede from this quality of complexion to the disposition of some what extreme complexion, according to this, they are naturally disposed as a species, right, to the excess of that passion, as the lion to what boldness, right? The dog to anger. That's what I said, right? Little mutter barkingly in the

[38:41] the hair, or the I guess is the is that the rabbit? Yeah. Yeah. To to fear, right? Yeah. And likewise about other ones, right? So there's some excess, right?

[38:58] But on the side of reason is natural to man both what to be angry and to be what. Insofar as reason, in some way, causes anger. Insofar as it announces, it announces the cause of anger, right? And insofar as, in some way, it what calms anger. Yeah. Insofar as the man what does not totally listen to the command of reason, as has been said above, right? Okay.

[39:34] To the second, should be said that reason itself pertains to the nature of man. Whence from this that anger is with reason in some way, right? It follows that in some way it is natural to man, right?

[39:53] And to the third, it should be said that that reason proceeds about anger and concupiscence on the part of the object, right? Where he admits that the concupiscence is more natural, right? Okay. So it's more natural for me to want to eat some candy now than to get angry, seek revenge.

[40:19] As far as the object says, it's more natural, right? That food is more natural than revenge, right? But in terms of my generic nature, right?

[40:33] Food is more so, right? Huh? But in terms of what my specific nature, right? Anger involves reason more than what? Than concupiscence. Yes. Yeah. My desire for revenge involves human reason, although imperfectly, right? Why don't you reason at all to the end? Do we just say? Do what feels. That's what the the old song used to say: "Don't think, feel." Or like Falstaff, you can harness reason in the service of concupiscence.

[41:13] Yeah. Yeah. It's a nice guy there. Pandarus. Pandarus. We just have to stop now, I guess. Yes. You know, idiot would stop me now. Not yet.