In philosophy and religion, passions are instinctive, emotional, primitive drives in a human being (including lust, anger, aggression, jealousy, etc.) which a human being must restrain, channel, develop, and sublimate in order to be possessed of wisdom. Passions in religion and philosophy have a different connotation from the popular concept of passion which is generally seen as a positive emotion. The philosophical notion of passion, in contrast, is identified with innate or biologically driven emotional states regarded in ancient philosophies and the great religions as being the basis for deadly sins and seen as leading to various social and spiritual ills such as unstable relationships, broken marriages, lack of social integration, psychological disorders and other problems. In the philosophical tradition of the West passion is often placed in opposition to reason. Nowadays, the place and analysis of passions in seventeenth-century philosophy should perhaps be introduced with some context. It is often forgotten that seventeenth-century philosophers worked within an intellectual milieu in which passions were regarded as a potent element of human nature, capable of disrupting any civilized order, including philosophy, unless they were tamed, outwitted, overruled, or seduced. The power and capriciousness of emotions made them the subject of diverse challenging problems that permeated various branches of philosophy, demanding attention. Natural philosophy deals with the actions and operations of passions, and the task of moral philosophy is to explain how these inordinate appetites can and must be bridled, and how their indifference is transformed into good or evil by virtue of the domination of right reason.[1] Reason is advocated in the control of passion, something seen as desirable and necessary for the development of a mature, civilized human being. This is achieved by the cultivation of virtue. Four virtues in particular have long been seen as of especial value in this regard.
The majority of philosophies and religions advocate at the very least tempering the passions to keep them within acceptable bounds. However, most of the great religions recommend both the restraint and the transformation of the passions to the point where they no longer arise. This is true of Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism. The institution of the monastery within various religions is a means by which human beings may temporarily or permanently seclude themselves from circumstances exacerbating the arising of passion and provide a supportive environment for doing spiritual work.
Contemporary philosopher Roberto Mangabeira Unger has developed a view of the passions that disassociates them from human nature, and instead gives them a formless life that serve in our non-instrumental dealings with each other. Rather than the guiding force behind our relations with the world, they organize and are organized around the need and danger that is at the heart of our relations with each other. In this way, Unger rejects the traditional view of the passions as something counter to reason and which are associated with certain expressions, rather he sees them at the service of reason and their expression formed within certain contexts.[2]
The subject of the passions has long been a consideration in Western philosophy. According to European philosopher Michel Meyer, they have aroused harsh judgments as the representation of a force of excess and lawlessness in humanity that produces troubling, confusing paradoxes. Meyer sees philosophers as having treated the passions as a given expression of human nature, leaving the question of whether the passions "torture people because it blinds them, or, on the contrary, does it permit them to apprehend who and what we really are?"[3]
The seventeenth century Dutch philosopher Spinoza contrasted "action" with "passion," as well as the state of being "active" with the state of being "passive." A passion, in his view, happened when external events affect us partially such that we have confused ideas about these events and their causes. A "passive" state is when we experience an emotion which Spinoza regarded as a "passivity of the soul."[4] The body's power is increased or diminished. Emotions are bodily changes plus ideas about these changes which can help or hurt a human.[4] It happens when the bodily changes we experience are caused primarily by external forces or by a mix of external and internal forces. Spinoza argued that it was much better for the individual himself to be the only adequate cause of bodily changes, and to act based on an adequate understanding of causes-and-effects with ideas of these changes logically related to each other and to reality. When this happened the person is "active," and Spinoza described the ideas as adequate. But most of the time, this does not happen, and Spinoza saw emotions as more powerful than reason. Spinoza tried to live the life of reason which he advocated.[5][6][7]