BY WORDS, NOT ARMS:

Lucretius on Anger and Aggression

ARCHIMEDES C. ARTICULO, M.Phil.

Dean
College of Arts and Sciences
Cagayan State University
chitocsu@gmail.com

I.
Between the self-sufficiency of the beasts and the Epicurean Gods, lies the delicate,
insufficient and unstable human existence.

Lucretius presents the body of human beings as a soft unarmed thing, defenseless in the
world of nature, subject to violence of many kinds. And the human soul, being not immutable
bodiless substance but a soft and divisible object, can also be ripped, and lives unsafely.

However, the human being is as dangerous – or far more dangerous, than any of the
self-sufficient beasts in nature: ​the aggressive passions that tear this being’s soul from within​,
according to Lucretius, ​is more hideous by far than the monsters of myth and the beast of nature
make – it lash out at the world, a danger to itself and to others​.

Following the analysis of Lucretius on the origin of human aggression, Naussbaum

presents a disturbing metamorphosis of anger and aggression from the ‘early humans’ who
dwells in forests and caves to the ‘modern humans’ who dwells in brick-walled and
well-fortified settlements. 1

At the very beginning, according to Naussbaum, the aggression displayed by man is

1
​The Therapy of Desires: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics​. 1994. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Chapter 7, p.241
limited at protecting themselves from the wild beasts in nature. The identifying characteristic of
these early humans is their hardiness – their stubbornness to be a living meal of merciless beasts
in the wild. Though they are tough or hardy, they don’t make sex sadistically, they don’t make
war against each other, or use force against each other unnecessarily. However, when these
‘early humans’ learned how to live as a community, then for the first time, they – the human
race- began to grow ‘soft’. Settled dwellings, clothings, and fire lead to physical softening, as
humans can no longer endure the rigors of the outdoor life.

Through human softening, marriage bonds, friendships, family, etc. became possible and
stable – but it also introduces new dangers, new potential incentives to violence as it have laid
the ground for more complex and dangerous attitudes. Naussbaum points out that for Lucretius,
the development of man in the direction of a gentler and less bestial life has its cost: for each
new softening brings new fear and dependencies and each new complex device of protection
generates attachments that lead the soul into increasing anxiety for itself and its own – and from
anxiety, all too often, into competitive and hostile raging.2

In short, as man becomes more physically soft and dependent, his soul becomes harder
and more hostile. This is because the same selfish insecurities felt by ‘early humans’ persist in
the hearts of the supposedly ‘civilized’ man.

They began to fight among themselves for wealth, honor and power because of the false
belief that these things would bring them security and safety, or would help them ​keep death at
bay​. Now that they victoriously fought-off the beasts or the monsters of nature, they turned
against one another in a spiral of violence and aggression.

Wars after wars were fought but their victories were all short-lived: anxieties remain in
their hearts. This is because, according to Lucretius, the greatest of all monsters has not yet been
confronted by man: ​the desires of his soul, especially fear and sexual longing.​ 3 Here, the human

2
Ibid. p.268
3
As discussed by Naussbaum in Chapters 6 and 5 respectively, of ​The Therapy of Desires: Theory and Practice in
soul is seen as not only the origin of aggression but also its battleground and its victim.

But the monsters of the soul have an enemy: epicurean philosophy. It’s weapons are not
arms, but the gentle, and even pleasant, weapons of words and arguments. The possibility of
peace, according to Lucretius, comes from Philosophy. And philosophy’s first and foremost
general task, in the war against anger and fear, is to make things clear – to give the soul an
understanding of its own situation and its possibilities: the anxieties that gives rise to strife can
be put to flight only by knowledge and self-knowledge.

Clearly, Lucretius believes that confronting one’s desire is a long step in the direction of
making them healthier. This is precisely the main goal of the epicurean therapy of desires.
However, the task of therapy is always incomplete while the roots of passions remain in the soul
– as they do remain, says Naussbaum, in any human life that cherishes itself and knows itself to
be incomplete.

And so, the war of Philosophy cannot be concluded completely or quickly – but only, if
at all, in each of the person’s life, in each deay’s effort to build kindly affectionate relationships
with friends, children, spouse, society, in each day’s vigilant efforts to limit and manage one’s
own desires – and all this, preferably, without being torn apart or bitten or trampled by the
hostility of others. Together with his family, friends and community, man can learn how to be
soft both in body and in soul.

Naussbaum observes that it is unmistakable that Lucretius gives an account of the

therapy of anger that aims at a familial and communal, not a solitary, self-sufficiency, fostering,
rather eradicating, ties of interdependence and mutual needs among human beings.

II.
“Ang lahat ng hindi pagkakaunawaan, nadadaan sa mabubuting usapan.”

Hellenistic Ethics​. 1994. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

 The Epicurean flavor tastes strong in this popular Filipino maxim. However, we need to
look first at the central role of the family and community in this apparently epicurean Filipino
way of dealing with violence and aggression.
The important role of family and community in the Lucretian idea of self-sufficiency as
therapy to anger and aggression is, I believe, of equal importance to the Filipino way of
confronting his anger, or his violent and aggressive tendencies. He builds his life, hope and
ideals within the perspectives of his family and community. Here, he learns how to survive the
world as aggressively as he must, but also trained to be compassionate and selfless in his
dealings with other people.

Through his familial and communal attachments, the typical Filipino learns how to live
with other people within the framework of “pakikipagkapuwa-tao” and “pagpapakatao”. For the
Filipinos, “pagiging tao” (to be man) is different from “pagpapakatao” (to be ​human​).
“Pagpapakatao” requires attitudes, behaviors, or qualities appropriate for ​human o​ r ​humane
beings​. And part of being human is to control one’s tendencies towards violence and aggression.

Filipinos are slow to anger and aggression, “mahinahon”, and they are merciful or
forgiving, “mapagpatawad”. They generally shun aggression and violence, “dahas”, as a last
resort at getting back to their transgressors. This is because they believe that aggressiveness and
needless violence shots back at the life of the aggressive and the violent. Consider for instance
this Tagalog proverb:

“Ang taong nabubuhay sa karahasan,namamatay rin sa marahas na paraan”

He who lives in violence, dies a violent death​. The violent seldom dies old, because he dies
young. This does not need some further explaining – the translation, I think, tells it all. Filipinos,
as people who generally live by the laws governing their community and country, also usually
take heed the prospect of social sanctions and punishments to those who cannot control their
aggressive and violent impulses.
 Here’s another Filipino proverb, this time, by the Kapampangans: ​“Ing mataloti lukluk
yang ​taboreti​, Ing matapang lukluk yang ​bitayan​.” ​Before I proceed with discussing the
connection of this proverb with the Filipino concept of self-control, let me say that this
particular proverb is surrounded by controversies. Other writers usually translate this proverb to
mean “the ​coward s​ eats on a chair, the ​brave seats on electric chair.”4 Thus, these people claim,
this proverb indicates in part the value of faint-heartedness for the Filipinos. Some writers
disagree, and I strongly support them.

The aforesaid translation is too literal that it fails completely to capture the practical
wisdom of this Filipino proverb. Worst, it defiles the cherished Filipino ideal of courage, while
it promotes cowardice. Filipinos does not value cowardice and they don’t negatively view
courage and braveness. What the passage tries to attack, I believe, is ​fearlessness,
aggressiveness ​or the ​violent ways ​which the individual can easily succumb to. It aims to warn
people of the consequence of living without fear or too aggressively. “Mataloti” should not be –
and the kapampangans would agree on this – understood as “cowardice” but rather “calmness in
spirit”, “control of one’s anger”, or, in short, “temperance”.

Now, viewing the passage in this way, we will have a more profound translation: ​“The
calm lives peacefully, the violent suffers a violent death.”I​ nstead of glorifying cowardice, it
rather praises self-control.

There are other proverbs that could provide practical advice to the Filipinos, but most, if
not all, revolves around the concept of “pagpapakatao” which, as I have claimed, includes the
quality of temperance. This shows, that the Filipino “pagpapakatao” implies not only a form of
character, or a predisposition, but most importantly, a way of life that is being lived everyday in
a community of persons: in one’s family or in a larger community.

4
Obviously this proverb evolved during the time of Marcos dictatorship where electrocution as the legal form of
“bitay” (punishment by death) was erratically practiced by the government. Today we have the lethal injection.
 So instead of using fists, “kamao”, or bolo, “itak”, to settle disputes, Filipinos see to it
that friendly negotiations, compromises, deals, and so on are tried first. In short, “in words, not
arms” – something that fits well on Lucretian, or rather epicurean, therapy of anger and
aggression.