The logic of anger

I've been thinking more about Solomon's notion of the logic of the individual emotions (from The Passions: The Myth and Nature of Human Emotion, 1977). It clears up so much confusion I have had about various emotions for years, because it has shown me that the way I am accustomed to thinking, in my ordinary, calm state of consciousness, does not always follow the logic of the individual emotions. Understanding the logic of anger, for example, which is built upon assumptions and goals inherent in the emotion itself, helps me get to the bottom of anger, and helps me to better express it and learn from it.

By approaching an emotion like anger as something with its own inherent logical framework, I can no longer view it as simply "irrational" or otherwise misguided. Anger has a voice, and it wants to be heard.

As psychologist Charles Tart aptly points out, a "logic" is essentially arbitrary, in that it proceeds upon certain assumptions and carries them to their conclusions. Of course, certain logical systems are more conducive to physical and psychological survival, which is why we need to rely on them. But there is more to life than survival, and there are other logical systems, each with their unique sets of assumptions and conclusions. Christian theology is a logical system, as is the emotion of anger.

According to Solomon, anger's logic is very similar to the proceedings of a courtroom--the one angered is the judge, jury, and plaintiff, the person one is angry at is the defendant, and the verdict is undeniable guilt. Anger is tied up with issues of justice and fairness (excluding the different emotion of self-directed anger)--it is inherently intersubjective (involving other people). One's decision as to whether the guilty party is indeed guilty can only come from reflection upon the anger. Anger, in its essence, declares the other party completely responsible for the injustice or unfairness or insult or offense felt by the angered party, no questions asked.

A clear indicator of that the logic of anger is different in certain ways than one's logic when one is calm or content, is that one's thoughts proceed differently. If I observe my thoughts when I am quite angry, I will notice that the stream is different--I may be gathering evidence for the case (thinking of other things that person has done that has angered me, insulting them in my head, using words like "always" and "never"), I may be having an imaginary confrontation with the person in my head, I may be obsessively defending myself (because in anger I am the judge, jury, and plaintiff, it is crucial that I appear infallible, at least in this particular situation).

One value of anger lies in its motive to act (as with many emotions). I can reason about a social problem, with my "calm" logic, but if that reasoning is accompanied by anger, by the conviction of injustice, I am much more likely to act on the situation. Recognizing this helps me to give anger the respect it is due, and to learn to listen to it, but also to criticize its motives and assumptions in a given situation.