Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

Discussion related to living as a Catholic in the single state of life. As long as a topic is being discussed from the perspective of a single Catholic then it will be on-topic.

Tobias and Sarah's story is from the Book of Tobit, and his journey is guided by Saint Raphael.
Learn More: Tobias & Sarah as led by Saint Raphael

Mar 12th 2013 new

(Quote) Theodoric-68091 said: I think birth order DOES matter. Youngest children have tended to be Choleric from my experien...
(Quote) Theodoric-68091 said:

I think birth order DOES matter. Youngest children have tended to be Choleric from my experience. Older children become maternal/paternal when babies come along. Younger kids feel the need to fight for attention and also to battle older siblings as a teenager usually chllenges his/her parents.


We should start writing that book :)

--hide--


Yes, there is some interesting research behind birth order. The oldest child is compared to themselves. Parents don't really know what to expect so they show excitement when a child does anything. The younger children are always compared to the older children. Parents of younger children make comments that "Baby [2] learned to walk at 10 months, but baby [1] started walking at 8." They are constantly being compared and therefore learn to be competitive.

Mar 12th 2013 new

I don't know if it's an equivocation. Seems like three closely related elements of the same emotion. The definitions seem like straw men. If you define anger as an "irrational and unjust" response, then yes, it will fail. But I'd think that anger is neither good or bad, but what we do with it. Even if a natural impulse or inclination is "irrational and unjust", it doesn't mean we need to act on that impulse without reassessing. The emotion of anger draws our attention to something we perceieve as inappropriate, perhaps even inclines us to react a certain way. We fume inside, but that extreme emotion still just demands an awaeness of the cause and source.

If our free will overcomes our passion that the response to that emotion will always be acceptable. Perhaps anger as in "he reacted with anger" is an eqivocation, but the operative word there is reacted. The reaction was bad, but the emotion was just an internal awareness.

It's like evil thoughts - they only become sinful when we do something with them: dwell on them, entertain them or act on them. The thoughts, although evil in content, are umpulse and therefore not freely chosen. Without that free will there can be no sin or fault.

Mar 12th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: irrational and unjust instinctual response t...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: irrational and unjust instinctual response to the passion "anger" before one has intellectually determined that he has actually been denied what he is due."
--hide--

If instinctual means an automatic response, then there is no fault. If instinctual means a natural inclination, then there can be fault, but only in the response. The emotion of anger is fine. The response to that emotion is problematic.

Mar 12th 2013 new

You wrote: If instinctual means an automatic response, then there is no fault. If instinctual means a natural inclination, then there can be fault, but only in the response. The emotion of anger is fine. The response to that emotion is problematic.

Theodoric, while emotions are interesting, they're really not part of what I was talking about. The passion (one of the seven classical passions) anger can bring about angry emotions, but I would not class the emotions caused by the passion to be anger itself.

The way that I am using the word instinctual is "that which pertains or relates to instinct." It is an adjectival term used to modify the unjust and irrational response, which is the subject of the third definition I gave. The temptation to unjust and irrational response when riding the passion anger is heightened by concupiscence and a person's natural inclinations toward rash action (if he have such). When an individual is motivated by his natural inclination to act rashly, to give into such an action is "second-nature," exactly as with instinct.

The response, being the subject of discussion, would in fact be disordered if one were to act unjustly based solely upon natural inclination once the passion of anger is excited.

You wrote: I don't know if it's an equivocation. Seems like three closely related elements of the same emotion. The definitions seem like straw men. If you define anger as an "irrational and unjust" response, then yes, it will fail. But I'd think that anger is neither good or bad, but what we do with it. Even if a natural impulse or inclination is "irrational and unjust", it doesn't mean we need to act on that impulse without reassessing. The emotion of anger draws our attention to something we perceieve as inappropriate, perhaps even inclines us to react a certain way. We fume inside, but that extreme emotion still just demands an awaeness of the cause and source.

Two of the definitions are types of response, one is a passion. I fail to see how emotion has been confused into the mix.

Anger can certainly be defined to be a neutral occurrence. That is how semantics works. You merely need to provide the semantical definition which you wish to discuss and then stick with it. :) I personally find it more in conformity with the use of the word in English to treat the word as an equivocation with several different meanings.

I think that ultimately you and I are saying the same thing, I merely get the sense that my definitions are not communicating to you the sense they give to me.

You wrote: If our free will overcomes our passion that the response to that emotion will always be acceptable. Perhaps anger as in "he reacted with anger" is an eqivocation, but the operative word there is reacted. The reaction was bad, but the emotion was just an internal awareness.


It's like evil thoughts - they only become sinful when we do something with them: dwell on them, entertain them or act on them. The thoughts, although evil in content, are umpulse and therefore not freely chosen. Without that free will there can be no sin or fault.

I don't buy into the notion that reacting in anger is by necessity to be judged evil. Again, I believe that anger is only disordered if one allows it to prevent rational thought or to oppose/contradict the object/s of the supernatural virtues.

Mar 12th 2013 new

And so...in review, here are the test instructions on Cm.


Test Instructions

The basis for distinguishing among the temperaments is an individual's habitual pattern of reaction, which should be evident from the time of childhood. Of course, even a talkative and friendly sanguine may be in a situation where he is momentarily at a loss for words! Even the most laid back, easy-going phlegmatic can be provoked into anger when something really upsets him or frustration has been building over time. Even the naturally pessimistic melancholic will be happy on a joyful occasion. Choose the best possible answers based on your natural instinct!


As a die-hard M-P (no matter how many times I've taken the test) I appreciate the self-knowledge it gives us and as one of my former priests always said: Know yourself, Know Jesus, Become like Jesus. It reminds me to 'temper' myself in various situations. My siblings and I thoroughly enjoy trying to determine our niece/nephews/godchildrens temperments and personalities and the generational 'built-in' traits we thought was unique in us laughing


And anger: well, righteous anger like Jesus in the temple is rare and hopefully filled with the Holy Spirit, otherwise I'm not sure who I would want to stand next to on judgement day, good or bad? never hurts to bring it to confession or spiritual director for a 3rd party opinion.

Mar 12th 2013 new

It's funny, I too, score as melancholic/phlegmatic no matter how many times I take the test. :P

Mar 12th 2013 new

(Quote) Katie-940643 said: Yes, there is some interesting research behind birth order. The oldest child is comp...
(Quote) Katie-940643 said:


Yes, there is some interesting research behind birth order. The oldest child is compared to themselves. Parents don't really know what to expect so they show excitement when a child does anything. The younger children are always compared to the older children. Parents of younger children make comments that "Baby [2] learned to walk at 10 months, but baby [1] started walking at 8." They are constantly being compared and therefore learn to be competitive.

--hide--

I think there may have also been undue pressure on the eldest child to please their parents more than that on the other children. I know that I tried so very hard to please my mom and be like her...and I think that may have made me behave in a choleric fashion more than I naturally would have. So may things I did or said were done because they were just like mom. As I began to grown and think and change around 12 or 13, I started to become more phlegmatic. Ever since I've known about the temperaments, I usually test phlegmatic/sanguine or sangine/phlegmatic, and I think it true. my leadership abilities as an edlest child have certainly contributed to my professional life and accademic life, wehre I am able to motivate myself and take charge...things which don't come easily to my temperament.

Mar 14th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I don't buy into the notion that reacting in anger is by necessity to be judged evil. Again, I bel...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I don't buy into the notion that reacting in anger is by necessity to be judged evil. Again, I believe that anger is only disordered if one allows it to prevent rational thought or to oppose/contradict the object/s of the supernatural virtues.
--hide--

There's too much to analyze in here. And I think the forest is being missed through the trees. If we were to draw venn diagrams of anger I think there would be a lot of overlapping between emotions and passions and reactions. Talking in a concrete way about a particular example can probably produce some fruitful discussions, but this is a nebulus path that keeps expanding. I think it's gone from the practical to the philosophical :)

Whether one arouses a passion or an emotion or a sentiment or an affection that is 'anger', it pragmatically makes no difference what you call it for our purposes. Whatever happens inside is involuntary and it's not a sin. The outward reaction to or manifestation of that 'thing', no matter what you call it, has the potential to be sinful. That reaction can be judged on it's own terms when there's a concrete example.

If that reaction is truly instinctual, then it fails to be sinful according to the requirements of sin: awareness that it is a sin and full consent. No consent. No sin.

Mar 14th 2013 new

Second guessing what we have said=phlegmatic.

Over thinking this whole situation=Melancholic.

Just saying. ;-)

Mar 14th 2013 new

(Quote) Naomi-825244 said: Second guessing what we have said=phlegmatic. Over thinking this whole situation=Melanchol...
(Quote) Naomi-825244 said:

Second guessing what we have said=phlegmatic.

Over thinking this whole situation=Melancholic.

Just saying. ;-)

--hide--

I'd have thought the second guessing was part of the melancholic overthinking. The phlegmatic response might be more like "eh, whatever". Either way I've got plenty to go around!!

Posts 121 - 130 of 140