Very well stated, especially with the present day sociopolitical context.
I normally skip over reading about anger just because true anger is something I very rarely experience. What I do feel a lot though is frustration at things that hinder my intentions. It’s related to anger, for sure, but there are big distinctions. Would Stoicism address this differently than true anger or consider it one and the same?
Good point! Yes, I think frustration would be treated similarly to anger since it is still (in Stoic terms) a misjudgment about the world. You're judging that you must do something or that something must happen when it's not actually possible. Fortunately, the effects of frustration are usually not as socially damaging as the effects of anger, but I think frustration causes a lot of personal stress!
So I would say we could correct this by thinking in terms of aligning with the universe, or to put it simply, going with the flow. Also, of course, focusing on what's in our own power rather than trying to do things that weren't granted to us. (I struggle with that one a lot myself--I feel like I should be able to make things happen in a certain way, when in reality I just don't have the power to force them.) It's incredibly hard to make the judgment call that something is outside of our power, but I think when we learn to correctly identify those situations, we save ourselves from a lot of unnecessary frustration.
Yes, good stuff! The thing about frustration is how sneaky it is. It seems to have its grips fully in me by the time I even recognize it. I suppose that means I’ve already assented to the impression. Your suggestion of a go with the flow attitude is a brilliant antidote. I mean, that’s basically having a smooth flow of life, one of the main goals, right? Thanks Brittany!
"Since we don’t live in a utopia, it will never be possible to eliminate anger from society completely." In our society, at present. Anger may play a greatly diminished role in other cultures, though. Jean Briggs’s ethnographic study of the Inuit, Never in Anger, portrays a society where anger seems far less prominent than, e.g., in modern America, and similar findings have been reported by a few other anthropologists studying specific hunter gatherer societies.
An interesting and appreciated addition to a much discussed topic. I particularly liked your point concerning burnout; that reason based on core values is likely to outlast anger as a motivation to act. Why waste energy on self aggrandizing righteousness that could be spent solving an injustice?
On Anger, the idea of Eliminating Emotions is the less disturbing, but what us with the others ?
I am skeptical of the Stoic approach and think the Epicurean were there also more realistic (for example Philodemus: limit passions to based natural/necessary desires )but they are no illness they are signals of our values/ideas/desires.
For example would someone have good arguments to eliminate grief or see grief as illness ?
And yes strong Emotions are not of long duration but they set value marker for fast decisions in the future ( Antonio Damasio ). Emotions/feelings and logic are not enemies but support each other as I understand it.
Hi Matthias, I agree that grief is a more difficult case than anger. Have you read Seneca's writings on grief, like his consolation to Polybius and his letters to Lucilius? The Stoics do consider grief to be a type of misjudgment about the world, because we know we're mortal and that all mortals will pass away. They say it doesn't make sense to be sad about a natural, inevitable, and beneficial process. (From a big-picture perspective death is beneficial to the whole world because it creates new life and renewal. It might not seem beneficial from the perspective of one individual, but in larger terms it is essential.) Seneca says it's normal to feel a twinge of grief, but he also explains why that grief should be short-lived. For example, it's better to be thankful you had that person in your life at all, because the alternative is that they never even existed. This is a really complex topic and I can't cover much in a short comment, but I would recommend Seneca's writings as well as some modern Stoic writings (like William Irvine's A Guide to the Good Life).
Yes, thanks for the response, for me it is sometimes hard to stay short here because of the deep subjects 🙂. I cannot see Emotions as illness. There is some good advice in Senecas letters but also some stone heart statements but maybe we misunderstand it because of lack of context. For example letter 99 from Seneca with horrible statements pushed me more to a gentler view like the Epicurean one:
Very well stated, especially with the present day sociopolitical context.
I normally skip over reading about anger just because true anger is something I very rarely experience. What I do feel a lot though is frustration at things that hinder my intentions. It’s related to anger, for sure, but there are big distinctions. Would Stoicism address this differently than true anger or consider it one and the same?
Good point! Yes, I think frustration would be treated similarly to anger since it is still (in Stoic terms) a misjudgment about the world. You're judging that you must do something or that something must happen when it's not actually possible. Fortunately, the effects of frustration are usually not as socially damaging as the effects of anger, but I think frustration causes a lot of personal stress!
So I would say we could correct this by thinking in terms of aligning with the universe, or to put it simply, going with the flow. Also, of course, focusing on what's in our own power rather than trying to do things that weren't granted to us. (I struggle with that one a lot myself--I feel like I should be able to make things happen in a certain way, when in reality I just don't have the power to force them.) It's incredibly hard to make the judgment call that something is outside of our power, but I think when we learn to correctly identify those situations, we save ourselves from a lot of unnecessary frustration.
Yes, good stuff! The thing about frustration is how sneaky it is. It seems to have its grips fully in me by the time I even recognize it. I suppose that means I’ve already assented to the impression. Your suggestion of a go with the flow attitude is a brilliant antidote. I mean, that’s basically having a smooth flow of life, one of the main goals, right? Thanks Brittany!
"Since we don’t live in a utopia, it will never be possible to eliminate anger from society completely." In our society, at present. Anger may play a greatly diminished role in other cultures, though. Jean Briggs’s ethnographic study of the Inuit, Never in Anger, portrays a society where anger seems far less prominent than, e.g., in modern America, and similar findings have been reported by a few other anthropologists studying specific hunter gatherer societies.
Thanks, Donald. I agree, contemporary American society is much angrier than many other societies—something I hope we can change.
An interesting and appreciated addition to a much discussed topic. I particularly liked your point concerning burnout; that reason based on core values is likely to outlast anger as a motivation to act. Why waste energy on self aggrandizing righteousness that could be spent solving an injustice?
On Anger, the idea of Eliminating Emotions is the less disturbing, but what us with the others ?
I am skeptical of the Stoic approach and think the Epicurean were there also more realistic (for example Philodemus: limit passions to based natural/necessary desires )but they are no illness they are signals of our values/ideas/desires.
For example would someone have good arguments to eliminate grief or see grief as illness ?
And yes strong Emotions are not of long duration but they set value marker for fast decisions in the future ( Antonio Damasio ). Emotions/feelings and logic are not enemies but support each other as I understand it.
Hi Matthias, I agree that grief is a more difficult case than anger. Have you read Seneca's writings on grief, like his consolation to Polybius and his letters to Lucilius? The Stoics do consider grief to be a type of misjudgment about the world, because we know we're mortal and that all mortals will pass away. They say it doesn't make sense to be sad about a natural, inevitable, and beneficial process. (From a big-picture perspective death is beneficial to the whole world because it creates new life and renewal. It might not seem beneficial from the perspective of one individual, but in larger terms it is essential.) Seneca says it's normal to feel a twinge of grief, but he also explains why that grief should be short-lived. For example, it's better to be thankful you had that person in your life at all, because the alternative is that they never even existed. This is a really complex topic and I can't cover much in a short comment, but I would recommend Seneca's writings as well as some modern Stoic writings (like William Irvine's A Guide to the Good Life).
Yes, thanks for the response, for me it is sometimes hard to stay short here because of the deep subjects 🙂. I cannot see Emotions as illness. There is some good advice in Senecas letters but also some stone heart statements but maybe we misunderstand it because of lack of context. For example letter 99 from Seneca with horrible statements pushed me more to a gentler view like the Epicurean one:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_letters_to_Lucilius/Letter_99