Anger and Hate from a Philosophical Perspective

At first glance, it may appear that these elements belong to two different dimensions: on one side there is philosophy, identified as the correct use of rationality, which implies the ability to follow the “veining” path of reality. Plato associated this concept to the ability, possessed by philosophers, to understand relationships between genres. On the opposite side, there is anger, hate, resentment, and violence: these categories, indeed, do not seem to be interpreted on the basis of the philosophical categories.

Violence is generally considered the direct consequence of hate and anger and it seems to be constantly embedded in human nature. Several authors reached this same conclusion in times far away from neuroscience’s findings; Darwin’s hypothesis of the existence of an instrument with selective purposes, and, later on, Lorenz’s reference to violence as a constant behavior belonging to the animal kingdom, including humans.

Philosophy seems to take a step back from all of this. It appears almost as if it does not recognize the phenomenon by choosing to maintain it outside its domains. The same attitude was present among Plato’s commenters. Their evaluations could be carried out in an optimal way only if they were raised “far” from anger and violence. It is almost as if their intent was to avoid contamination and the loss of pureness in thoughts, which represents the highest capacity of evaluation.

One could say that even biblical epics were initiated by a violent act: condemnation of humanity to an earthly and strenuous existence. The background of our story is the murder of Abel by Cain.

Greek tragedians almost absolutized anger and hate when composing and presenting the series of violent and cruel facts making up the primordial myths of creation. As long as we know, those myths were later assimilated by the western Roman Empire until its decadence.

In the Middle Ages, the concept of Theodicy comprised the attempt of justifying from a theological point of view the existing part of evil that hosts hate and violence. Today, theologies, philosophies, and religions are still ashamed of its existence and its aporias.

In fourteenth-century Europe, Meister Eckhart used to preach about the concept of detachment, while passing on the image of a wise man dipped in a serene and contemplative indifference. The German mystic acquired this idea from ancient philosophical schools, and its features can be traced in the first form of stoicism, under different designations such as apàtheia or ataraxia (apathy, ataraxy, imperturbability). These concepts will be found once again in the Christian mindset, which comprises the “Incarnated Logos” and engages against anger and hate, in the doctrinal war that will place wrath among the “seven sins.” On the path to absolutism, this war’s features will gradually give birth to the fundamental conflict between good and evil.

As hate, anger, and violence express irrationality, the philosopher ought to observe them from a distance, in the same way a construction worker must check the progress of his building by looking at it from far away if he wishes to grasp a view of the whole.

As sons and daughters of hate, we have been condemned to live with it since the beginning of our time. We are always close to giving in to this feeling and there is not much we can do about it, except learn to use those tools that we have been given by Reason. Sapere Aude! In Kant’s critique, it is reason itself, though, that was placed on the witness stand and left to the doors of modernity, wearing enlightment’s guise of “progress” with the objective of helping man to escape from his state of minority.

These same concepts were later used by Nietzsche’s nihilist theories. These theories were securely placed on the other side of good and evil, and a glimmer of hope for the birth/rebirth of a better humanity, as a consequence of the death of God.

Similar to myths, religions often expect and demand the dangerous association to violence, anger, and hate. They even place these feelings as distinguishing and founding elements. This is the case of Christianity, a perfect example of the concept exaggerated to the point that, in the apotheosis of a rabid and violent act, violence is unleashed against the incarnated son of God himself.

As already noted, most of the religions belonging to the Ancient Near East and the so-called Abrahamic religions originate from an act of rage and violence. Not to mention the polytheisms of the Classic era, based essentially on enraged and choleric relationships between several members of the Pantheon, which portrayed the gods in a constant state of conflict one with each other.

By juxtaposing it to religion, though, we get a glimpse of something different regarding the essence of hate. Nowadays, we witness the creation of parallel pathways between violence and religions almost on a daily basis, and realise how they can turn out to be dramatically contiguous.

After September 11, 2001, world populations witnessed how lethal and dangerous this combination can be, in a historical time where world peace is threatened by what can be considered the most degraded product of rage and hate. The matrix of terrorism has today revealed its essential religious nature and this alone should be enough to impair our own rationality.

Terrorism itself has changed tune, taking on unedited modalities and making use of a weapon that openly challenges our capacity to think rationally: the human body. The human body, indeed, has become an actual “unconventional weapon,” a tool used to inflict death and pain. One could bitterly hypothesize a sort of post-modern era of terrorism. Today, it imitates contemporary anthropology, leading to an abuse of the body for its malleability and adjustable properties and intensifying the concept by using it to bring pain, death, and desperation. This is how the violence of a rabid act transforms into a moment of glory, becoming martyrdom. Then, hate borders on celebration. As a consequence, those concepts, intrinsic in and approximated to rage, hate, and violence, urgently need a philosophical reinterpretation.

Our opinion is that a philosophical observatory of international experts should be created in order to approach and possibly understand modern terrorism. This observatory should indicate new ways to intervene in our current social reality to guide its evolution away from submerging man himself, by using new perspectives, while processing categories of thought that have been verified in the past.