About anger

An interesting discussion I recently came across regarding anger aims to clarify whether anger is one of the absolute bad qualities that should be completely gotten rid of or whether it is a virtue like all virtues that should be used wisely.
Aristotle claims that anger is a normal quality and even in this one should follow the middle path because it is sometimes necessary (the Rambam, of course, went with Aristotle). On the other hand, Seneca claims that there is no use for anger and that it should be gotten rid of.
I will copy his words here. Perhaps the Rabbi will want to read them. Also, if the Rabbi has a way to decide or if he wants to write his personal opinion – we would be very happy.
“Aristotle says: “Anger is necessary, there is no ability to win a war without its help, if it does not fill the soul and ignite a fire in the minds; But he should not be used as a commander, but as a simple soldier.” 16 This is not true! After all, if he listens to the voice of reason and acts according to it – it is no longer anger , the essence of which is stubbornness. If he resists and does not rest according to the order, but rather adds to it with his wild jealousy, then he is useless even as a servant of the soul and is like a soldier who does not heed the signal given to him to turn back. If he tolerates, therefore, that a limit be set for him, another name will be given to him and it ceases to be anger , which means, in my opinion, an emotion freed from any restraining restraint in him. If he does not tolerate – he is corrupting, and the things that bring help should not be considered at all. In short: either he is not angry, or he is not useful. For he who demands punishment not because he longs for punishment from himself, but because he sees himself obliged to do so, will not be counted among the angry. But he is a useful soldier, who knows how to listen to the advice given to him. The feelings of the heart also as “Servants are also bad as leaders.” (Seneca, On Anger)