Q&A: On Anger
On Anger
Question
An interesting discussion I was exposed to recently about anger aims to clarify whether anger is one of the completely bad character traits that one must get rid of entirely, or whether it is a trait like all other traits, which should be used wisely.
Aristotle argues that anger is a normal trait, and with regard to it too one should follow the middle path, because it is sometimes needed (and Maimonides of course followed Aristotle). On the other hand, Seneca argues that anger has no use at all and that one should get rid of it.
I will copy his words here. Maybe the Rabbi will want to read them. Also, if the Rabbi has a way to decide the issue, or would like to write his personal opinion, we would be very glad.
“Aristotle says: ‘Anger is necessary; one cannot prevail in war without its help, if it does not fill the soul and kindle fire in the mind. But one must use it not as a commander, but as a simple soldier’16. This is not correct! For if it obeys reason and is guided by it, then it is no longer anger, since its whole essence is obstinacy. And if it resists and does not rest according to command, but instead increases in strength through its wild zeal, then it is useless even as a servant of the soul, and it is like a soldier who pays no attention to the signal given him to retreat. If, therefore, it tolerates having a boundary set for it, then another name would suit it, and it has already ceased to be anger, whose meaning, in my opinion, is an emotion freed from every restraining rein. And if it does not tolerate this—then it is destructive, and should not be counted among the things that bring help. In the end, either it is not anger, or it is not beneficial. For one who demands punitive justice not because he longs for punishment for its own sake, but because he sees himself compelled to it, should not be counted among the angry. But this is a useful soldier, one who knows how to listen to counsel given to him. The emotions of the heart, whether as servants or as leaders, are bad.’ (Seneca, On Anger)
Answer
In principle, I completely agree with Seneca, with one reservation: it is possible to arouse anger as a tool for creating motivation. The question of whether to relate to such a state as anger is semantic. By the way, I am not sure Aristotle wrote anything different. For him too, anger is a soldier. If so, this is just a semantic dispute: whether such a state is defined as anger or not.