Member-only story
It’s natural, but is it right? On the perils of rage
A few days ago I saw a tweet that talked up a forthcoming book which will argue that rage is necessary to address racial injustice. The book isn’t out yet, so this essay isn’t about it, directly. But it is about the general notion that becoming enraged at injustice is both natural and right.
I have been writing about the perils of anger and rage for a while now, ever since the Stoics have convinced me that these are truly unhealthy emotional responses. Seneca wrote a whole book on anger, which begins:
Anger [is] a short madness: for it is equally devoid of self control, regardless of decorum, forgetful of kinship, obstinately engrossed in whatever it begins to do, deaf to reason and advice, excited by trifling causes, awkward at perceiving what is true and just, and very like a falling rock which breaks itself to pieces upon the very thing which it crushes. That you may know that they whom anger possesses are not sane, look at their appearance. (On Anger, I.1)
It has now become a predictable pattern that every time I post on social media something on anger from the Stoic perspective people get angry. They seem to be afraid that I wish to rob them of a god given right to get enraged, obviously — they think — always for the right reasons. But nobody can take away the right to be angry from anyone else. That said, in an open society were public discourse should be encouraged, it may not be a waste of time to listen to an admittedly uncommon opinion about such a common human reaction.
The common opinion about anger and rage is that they are a good thing if two conditions are satisfied: (i) they are in response to an injustice or injury received; and (ii) they are expressed in moderation. That, in a nutshell, is Aristotle’s take on the issue. And here is how Seneca responded to him:
Aristotle says that “certain passions, if one makes a proper use of them, act as arms.” Which would…
