Seneca who was a Roman philosopher between 4 B.C and 65 B.C has given his opinion about anger in his essay 'On Anger '. This essay will illustrate his views on anger by looking at his definition on anger, the discordances of anger with nature, the decision and causes to start anger, his argument on anger and the remedies of it.
Seneca defined anger as "a burning desire to avenge a wrong" or "a burning desire to punish him by whom you think yourself to have been unfairly harmed" (Seneca On Anger Extracts I.2). When we feel we have been unjustly treated, an agitated feeling arises which is called “anger” (Cooper, J& Procope, J 1995 p.6). Seneca then talked about the accordance of anger with nature. He said "Man was created for mutual assistance, anger for mutual destruction..."and "anger is greedy for punishment…" (Seneca On Anger Extracts I.5). This suggest that anger opposite the common
…show more content…
He then states that the second thing that arouses anger was a sense of “unfairness” things done to us (Seneca On Anger extract 2.31), as an agitated feelings arise when we have been unjustly treated.
In addition, Seneca argued that “prosperity fosters bad tempers” as he observed that prosperous people are more prone to anger (De Botton, A 2000 p.84).
“Vedius Pollio was angry for identifiable reason… ” (De Botton, A 2000 p.84). Seneca states that wealthier people are far too optimistic as they hope too much and tend to have more expectations and therefore anger arises due to their unreasonable ideas when they foster the wrong expectation.
Rich people tend to believe that their money will insulate them from disappointments which is simply untrue and therefore, Seneca’s advice to deal with anger is to be more pessimistic, as he felt that if people are more pessimistic about daily life that they will be less surprised by disappointments and thus less angered by
Anger creates discourses that can prevent dialogues of mutual understanding which is the main goal of reconciliation. Furthermore, Coulthard acknowledges the problems that arise as a result of a discourse based upon anger. He utilizes Nietzsche and Brudholm work on the significance of anger to prove this through the genealogy of anger and an irrational preoccupation with the past. I agree with Coulthard’s assessment of their work, however, he justifies the utilization of violence for the creation“alternative subjectivities and decolonial practices.” If anger is utilized as the framework for reconciliation, it creates the justification of political violence and the internalization of individual’s oppression. Coulthard specifically argues that politicized anger can be utilized transformatively under certain conditions, it creates a dynamic in which Indigenous identity can be defined as an Otherness in relation to the anger. As a result, the utilization of anger as a framework can lead to a shift in Indigenous identity but can also be harmful to public perception that impacts reconciliatory practices. Furthemore, if anger is utilized as the main form of discourse, it prevents the achievement of the objectives of reconciliation because it does not embody “mutual recognition and
...the increase in (his and Mattie’s) passion results in an increase in Zen’s displeasure” (Shmoop 1). This is very relatable because at some point, people may have noticed someone’s jealousy, but have done nothing to stop it. Some may even continue to do the action because they like it when others are jealous of them. Wharton’s ideas are valid through the sense that many people in today’s world are able to relate to them.
This paper will examine Robert C. Solomon's Emotions and Choices article, to best identify what anger is, and to what extent a rational human being is responsible for their anger. Firstly, Solomon's argument must be described. A quick summation of Solomon's argument can be found in the following four points: Emotions are judgements, emotions are chosen, emotions serve a purpose, and emotions are rational.1 To quote Solomon, he explains that “Emotions are not occurrences, and do not happen to us. They ... may be chosen like an action.”2
Society today is split in many different ways: the smart and the dumb, the pretty and the ugly, the popular and the awkward, and of course the rich and the poor. This key difference has led to many areas of conflict among the population. The rich and the poor often have different views on issues, and have different problems within their lives. Moral decay and materialism are two issues prevalent among the wealthy, while things such as socio-economic class conflict and the American dream may be more important to those without money. Ethics and responsibilities are an area of thought for both classes, with noblesse oblige leaning more towards the wealthy.
Wrath and anger are synonymous and envy contrasts with anger and wrath but envy does not provide further clarification. p. 260
...e person feel better at a certain point. The amount of anger a person feels at this stage is inexorable. Doctors, nurses, closed ones and every other person; are victimized by the person’s anger whether or not they are at fault. Even the law of nature is faulty of completing its course. Kubler-Ross and Kessler defined anger as being an anchor and “giving temporary structure to the nothingness of loss.” Anger is meaningful in the light of darkness. Anger encompasses feelings such as love, regret, guilt and hope.
In ‘Of Mice and Men,’ anger and violence is of common recurrence. Anger, as shown by many characters, is always around because of fear, jealousy and anxiety.
Passion, emotion, and furor influence almost all action of epic literature heroes—this distinguishes heroes from men. The hero, Aeneas, stands out from all other epic heroes with his gift of pietas. Virgil’s The Aeneid juxtaposes pietas and furor to describe the heroic attributes of Aeneas. The gods give Aeneas the special virtue of pietas. This virtue grants emotional loyalty to men or the gods. Either Aeneas’s pietas could fall to his own personal desires and emotions when Mercury attempts to motivate him with the reputation of his son (4.370-73), or Aeneas’s pietas could steer clear of his own aspirations and instead fight for the will of the gods in respect for his mission. This problem affects not only Aeneas, but the people around him
Seneca believes that gods allow people to endure hardships because the hardships are fated. He writes, “Fate directs us…events do not, as we suppose, happen but arrive by appointment” (“On Providence,” 41). Moreover, these fated events are not limited to only large events. He also writes, “Even those phenomena which seem irregular and anarchic…do not happen without a plan, though their coming may be unexpected” (“On Providence,” 28). Because every event is fated, the “duty of the good man” is “to offer himself to Fate” and accept the hardships that fall upon him (“On Providence,” 42). Because all events are fated and humans do not really make choices, hardships do not occur as punishments for things done previously; they will happen regard...
He also wants us to know that we should understand what is in our power and what is not. When something is not in our power we should just accept it and move on with our lives. It’s very important that in life we conquer our will and use our “Rational Nature.” (Denise et al., 52). Epictetus believes that we should avoid frustration and disappointment. This goes along side his idea of not taking to heart what is out of our control. We should try to avoid the feelings of frustration and disappointment and instead use our will power to overcome it. Epictetus argues that everything that happens in life is because of the divine beings will for it to be so. We should act logically and just trust that everything happens for a reason. “[ Remember ] that such is, and was, and will be, the nature of the world, nor is it possible that things should be otherwise than they now are.” (Denise et al., 52). It is important that humans just accept everything as is and try their best to fulfill their duty to the city of God. Epictetus warns that a person who chases after pleasures will feel more sorrow than someone
In Michael R. Hagerty’s and Ruut Veenhoven’s article “Wealth and Happiness Revisited – Growing National Income Does Go with Greater Happiness” they talk about the effect wealth has on your emotions...
Third, anger is used as an information signal. It informs people about causes and possible ways of responding of that
Moreover, still in the coverage of the previous theory, Heraclitus expanded Anaximander’s idea of the interaction of opposites. Heraclitus views that the animosity between all the opposites’ things in this world is actually universal; it never end. In fact, animosity might be the reason behind why we could have justice and equilibrium.
Anger is an immediate reaction to an obstacle. It is a strong negative emotion of displeasure, hostility or fury that might occur to anyone on any occasion. Anger generates other bad feelings such as fear, disgust, shame, irritability, outrage, hostility and even violence and the aggressive response it generates can harm you. Anger is a punishment to you for somebody's fault.
..., a person who earns $25,000 is happier than a person who makes $125,000 and an employee who makes $500,000 is only slightly happier than someone who makes $55,000. Lastly, there are more important things in life that and make you happy, for example, friends. They don’t come with a price tag, and if they do, you definitely need new friends. Money won’t make you happy since good times can’t be bought. You don’t need a fancy vacation to have a good time; it’s just a matter of who you spend it with. Over the years, humans have blown the value of money way out of proportion. People make it seem like if you’re not filthy rich, then you won’t live a good life but it’s not true. You can lack money and yet still live a perfect, happy life.