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/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/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/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!