Skip to main content

Taking the Grr out of anger // Ian Blair

Aristotle's style of creating spectrums to define various virtuous or unvirtuous qualities of people really drives home how important it is to master the art of self control. Many times throughout history, division and chaos have been caused by those who do not exercise proper control over their feelings. One quality of utmost importance that can really cost someone quite a bit is their temper. Though at times it is best to let anger or rage motivate us to accomplish a positive goal, it is often this same temper that causes children to smash toys, fights to break out in the stands of sports events such as the NBA's Malice at the Palace in 2004, and rioters and looters to annihilate entire blocks on city streets. What does having a good temper look like? Aristotle makes his answer clear:

"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. This will be the good-tempered man, then, since good temper is praised. For the good-tempered man tends to be unperturbed and not to be led by passion, but to be angry in the manner, at the things, and for the length of time, that the rule dictates; but he is thought to err rather in the direction of deficiency; for the good-tempered man is not revengeful, but rather tends to make allowances." (Aristotle, 40).

That last line is quite the revealer of the difference in philosophy that people like Aristotle had versus the consensus of Athens at the time. Vengeance not being a good-tempered response, thereby negating it as a responsible action really differs from the custom of wronging someone who has wronged your family that Athens seemed to endorse. I personally would argue that being teaching the young and growing good self control and temperance would eliminate more than half the problems we currently face in today's "modern" society. That is not to say that we would have to make the younger generations Vulcan-like with their emotions, but developing a good temper would allow someone who has it to think rationally even under emotional pressure.

p.s. I commented on Hailey Morgan's and Braylan's posts.

Comments

  1. Learning how to control anger is definitely an important skill to possess. I will say, however, that there are some people who, instead of expressing sadness, will instead resort to getting frustrated. These people think that crying is a form of weakness and because of this, allow themselves to suppress their sorrows until they bubble over as full-force fury.

    It is for this reason why I believe we much teach children how to properly deal with all of their emotions. By only focusing on certain ones (ones that society has deemed as 'bad' or 'innapropriate'), we are essentially setting them up for failure.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Absolutely, what are some ways we could go about teaching a child a good temper and proper "feeling". Can feelings be improper or wrong? Are feelings ever bad in themselves?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...

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.

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...