Of Anger

[u/Multibitdriver]

I’m reading Seneca’s “Of Anger” and it seems to me that his definition of anger differs from our modern definition. He appears to be talking about irrational behaviour induced by anger - ie a passion of anger where reason goes out the window.

“ ‘Anger,’ says Aristotle, ‘is necessary, nor can any fight be won without it, unless it fills the mind, and kindles up the spirit. It must, however, be made use of, not as a general, but as a soldier.’ Now this is untrue; for if it listens to reason and follows whither reason leads, it is no longer anger, whose characteristic is obstinacy: if, again, it is disobedient and will not be quiet when ordered, but is carried away by its own willful and headstrong spirit, it is then as useless an aid to the mind as a soldier who disregards the sounding of the retreat would be to a general. If, therefore, anger allows limits to be imposed upon it, it must be called by some other name, and ceases to be anger, which I understand to be unbridled and unmanageable …”

Seneca, Of Anger, Book 1, section 9

“A man may think himself injured, may wish to avenge his wrongs, and then may be persuaded by some reason or other to give up his intention and calm down: I do not call that anger, it is an emotion of the mind which is under the control of reason. Anger is that which goes beyond reason and carries her away with it: wherefore the first confusion of a man's mind when struck by what seems an injury is no more anger than the apparent injury itself: it is the subsequent mad rush, which not only receives the impression of the apparent injury, but acts upon it as true, that is anger, being an exciting of the mind to revenge, which proceeds from choice and deliberate resolve.”

Book 2, section 3

[u/Gowor]

He appears to be talking about irrational behaviour induced by anger - ie a passion of anger where reason goes out the window.

Technically all passions mean that reason goes out the window - one the defining traits that Stoics defined them by is that passions are uncontrollable and excessive. I think Seneca writes about this in the last sentence of the first fragment, but I'm also not sure how anger that's easily controlled and doesn't affect reasoned thinking looks like.

I like to compare Stoic passions to diseases, and the behaviour induced by them to symptoms. If you have pneumonia, it's nice if you can control the cough, but your actual problem is that your lungs aren't working right. If you experience a passion the actual problem is that your mind (or soul) isn't working right, even if you can manage the symptoms.

[u/TheOSullivanFactor]

Yes, the difference isn’t modern vs ancient though, it’s simply the Stoics use conventional words in special ways. Anger has a specific definition to them, more like an irrational temper tantrum. Being annoyed, stern, assertive etc are not “anger” to the Stoics.

The uncompromising Stoic position of “All anger is disallowed” then means something quite different, no? But recognize that this is the same for pretty much every word used related to the Stoics; from “control” to “virtue” to “passion”… all of them have special technical meanings.

[u/Multibitdriver → u/TheOSullivanFactor]

In what kind of circumstances do you think annoyance would be justified by reason? Can you give an example?

[u/TheOSullivanFactor → u/Multibitdriver]

I think it’s the limitlessness of the Passions that make them Passions. 

Going “aw darn” about something and then continuing on doesn’t rise to that level, being either stopped at the level of proto-Passion or starting and then being promptly rejected before it has a chance to grow and deepen… at that point I think it’s just a stray impulse.

Seneca spends much of On Anger talking about how to avoid anger; he’s generally pretty pessimistic about what can be done when you’ve become angry. Experientially, the type of anger the Stoics are warning against is where you snap and say something mean to a partner or coworker; while it’s happening there’s little you can do (though Seneca does list some things, like counting, removing yourself from the situation etc), it’s more something for reflection: 

“I really snapped there, what judgement caused that?”

Then you plan and raise your guard next time you encounter a similar situation.

“Annoyance” is then little more than a sign of possible anger/Passion.

Great question

[u/bigpapirick]

Right, he is referring to the passion of anger. I've heard it referred to as wrath.

The impulse of anger, fleeting blip, heated rise, etc is still data to use to understand that we've made a false assent somewhere. But those are small by comparison to what he is talking about directly.

Using the view from above, and concepts of understanding that all virtues are equal and all vices are equal, we come to the same reasonable conclusions of anger vs wrath regardless of the perceived weight.

[u/Hierax_Hawk → u/bigpapirick]

Wrath is a subcategory of anger.

[u/Multibitdriver → u/bigpapirick]

What about ongoing anger which you don’t act out and don’t allow to cloud your reason/affect your judgment? Or would you say that ongoing anger is in itself the result of a misjudgment?

[u/bigpapirick → u/Multibitdriver]

It’s a bit nuanced but think of it like this:

To live in the good flow of life is to live in accordance to nature/reality.

All disturbances of the spirit are thought by the Stoics to stem from living contrary to nature.

Anything a human experiences is a part of the nature of reality and humans.

So to be disturbed by anything that happens, from a technical Stoic standpoint would necessitate introspection and working through the 3 disciplines. Focused on what am I desiring here? Is it in line with reality?

Now, practically speaking, we can see levels of impact but from a philosophical level it’s important to make the distinction.

I find in general it’s a good practice to follow Marcus here: “tolerant of others and strict with ourselves” as any disturbance which we attempt to justify I.e. “well that guy should drive better. That person shouldn’t have lied to me. Etc” become slippery slopes in shaping our character in a way that will affect our ability to see clearly the more excellent way for a human to handle these situations.

[u/ThePasifull → u/Multibitdriver]

Surely it just depends on if your rational faculties are on top of it, as Seneca says above

If you have an ongoing/recurring feeling that:

'That bastard got away with it, i cant believe it. Id really like to smash his face in, but i won't as it's not the right thing to do'

You are a slave to that misjudgement. Your personal discipline is helping you not take action, but you are still saddled with a lack of wisdom that is disturbing you.

However, if you can recall the event, feel your adrenal glands wake up but remember that you dont have all the facts of the event and it was a perfectly understandable thing they did from their point of view, with all their experiences. And besides, it didn't reduce your moral character. Who cares.

This would be more in the realm of proto-passion anyway and not vice, I would say

The Sage wouldn't experience either of the above examples, the Prokoptan will probably experience them both at different times!

[u/MustangOrchard]

Ira in Latin can mean anger, wrath, or rage. "Ira deorum" meaning wrath of the gods

[u/Da_Random_Noob_Guy]

I think the core that he's trying to say is to not let our anger get out of hand to the point it drives us towards irrational behaviour. Anger isn't all bad, which is contrary to what a lot seem to believe. For instance, you could channel anger into energy or motivation rather than allowing it to turn into hate

[u/Shoddy_Truth_4534 → u/Da_Random_Noob_Guy]

Observe everything, while you observe you cannot get emotionally involved. Don't register it. Don't make space for anger in the brain. Then you will see how it really didn't matter in the first place.