Skip to main content

Anger; Right or Wrong? // Jackson Riddle

I somewhat enjoyed this week's readings; it was interesting to read how an ancient Greek scholar viewed aspects of character and virtue. I found it particularly interesting how Aristotle considered the virtue of anger, specifically his belief that anger, in moderation, is cause for praise. "The man who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised" (Aristotle, Book 4 Chapter 5). Anger tends to have a negative connotation, given that it usually leads to violence. Aristotle takes an interesting stance on anger, one that I see as somewhat controversial. "Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:31-32) As Christians anger is something we try to avoid; we strive to live a lifestyle of loving one another, just as Christ loved us. I personally believe that Aristotle's perspective of controlled anger is not all that skewed. Anger, righteous anger, anger with reasonable cause, is not wrong; parents are angry when their children lie, but it is a response that teaches the child that what they did was wrong. 

In essence, While I believe that we ought to live as much as Christ as we can, I agree with Aristotle's perspective that fair, controlled anger (not the kind that leads to violence,) is ok. Now I turn the question to you; what do you think?

I commented on Clabo and Logan's posts.

Comments

  1. I also thought that Aristotle's view on anger was very interesting. I had to think for a while on the idea of righteous anger, but it does somewhat make sense. Anger is just as much an emotional response as things like sadness and happiness, and can be used beneficially just like the two previously mentioned.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...

One shall stand, One shall fall // Ian Blair

      I usually have a little introduction into my thoughts about the reading for this week before I start with the actual blog part of my post, but I can't help but think about the bone-chilling realization that awaits us in Book VIII, so my introduction this time will be brief. It is my personal opinion that if people are imperfect, then we are only capable of imperfect systems and societies consequentially. However, this does not mean that we must not aim for the closest system to perfect that we can achieve.      The realization I wrote of earlier is the suggestion by Socrates that tyranny stems from the system we know as democracy. At first I disagreed, it is anarchism that causes  tyrannical reign as a byproduct of fulfilling its purpose of overthrowing the current power and not establishing another system. All anarchism does is create a power vacuum for another power to take over and the cycle repeats itself, right? ...Right? Quic...