Anger is one of the emotions. It naturally exists in all of us. Yes, it is considered by some as something to be avoided, even condemned.
Some initial questions to get us thinking. We will attempt to give answers to them in what follows below.
What causes anger?
When is it justified, if ever?
When do you feel angry yourself and what do you do about it?
Do you think it's possible to avoid anger, as the Stoics advised?
1. What are the causes of anger? Between partners, friends, neighbours and others? How should the causes be dealt with? Give examples from your own experience.
2. Is there a point beyond which an 'angry action' is justified in response to the cause of the anger?
3. Looking at the world today and in the past and the various wars and conflicts, do you think any were caused by anger?
The short link here is Seneca on Anger. Please read it.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/165/Seneca_On_Anger
4. What do you think of the claim that 'pathe go against reason, while eupatheiai are in alignment with reason'?
5. What do you think of the three phases or 'movements' of anger, as described in the link?
6. There are 8 suggestions from Seneca on how to handle anger. Which for you are less obvious, more helpful, more feasible?
7. This is the last sentence in the last paragraph:
Just as there is no excuse for what you do if you drive while intoxicated, so there is no excuse for what you do when in the thrall of anger.
What do you think of this analogy?
8. Mention anything else in the link you feel is worth discussing further.
The two paragraphs quoted below are from Wikipedia on anger.
The first is the last paragraph in the introduction:
Modern psychologists view anger as a normal, natural, and mature emotion experienced by virtually all humans at times, and as something that has functional value for survival. Uncontrolled anger can negatively affect personal or social well-being and negatively impact those around them. While many philosophers and writers have warned against the spontaneous and uncontrolled fits of anger, there has been disagreement over the intrinsic value of anger. The issue of dealing with anger has been written about since the times of the earliest philosophers, but modern psychologists, in contrast to earlier writers, have also pointed out the possible harmful effects of suppressing anger.
The second is in section Psychology and sociology.
Anger can potentially mobilize psychological resources and boost determination toward correction of wrong behaviors, promotion of social justice, communication of negative sentiment, and redress of grievances. It can also facilitate patience. In contrast, anger can be destructive when it does not find its appropriate outlet in expression. Anger, in its strong form, impairs one's ability to process information and to exert cognitive control over one's behavior. An angry person may lose their objectivity, empathy, prudence or thoughtfulness and may cause harm to themselves or others. There is a sharp distinction between anger and aggression (verbal or physical, direct or indirect) even though they mutually influence each other. While anger can activate aggression or increase its probability or intensity, it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for aggression.
9. Which is nearer to your own experience and understanding of anger, Seneca's views and what is said in the link or what is described in the two paragraphs above?
10. Following what has been said so far, what do you think our response to angry people and their actions should be, whether these are ordinary people or people of some authority and power?
11. How should we deal with what/who causes the anger and how should we deal with the angry person and their resulting action?
12. Are some 'angry actions' justified when they contribute to putting an end to a situation that causes distress to people?
13. How do laws deal with acts prompted by anger? Are laws usually tougher on those who cause the anger or on those that react to them?
