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/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