Seneca, named Lucius Annaeus Seneca, was a prominent Roman philosopher, playwright and statesman who lived between 4 BC and 65 AD. His life and works had a significant impact on Stoic philosophy and ethical reflections of the time. Through the ages, Seneca's ideas continue to inspire and intrigue followers of his philosophy of life.
Seneca lived during the period known as the Julio-Claudian dynasty, marked by political, social and cultural changes in the Roman Empire. He witnessed the rise and fall of several emperors, including Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Nero. As Nero's advisor, Seneca held an influential position, but he also faced ethical and moral challenges due to his pupil's controversial actions.
Stoic philosophy, heavily influenced by Seneca, emphasized self-control, virtue, and the pursuit of wisdom as means to achieve tranquility and inner peace, regardless of external circumstances. Seneca argued that philosophy was a practical tool for living a virtuous and meaningful life.
Among his main ideas for a full life, Seneca believed that virtue was intrinsically linked to the ability to control our emotions and desires. He emphasized the importance of self-control as a means of avoiding emotional disturbances and achieving inner peace. He encouraged his followers to accept the inevitability of death and to embrace each moment of life as a precious gift. Therefore, he advocated simplicity and moderation as antidotes to the excessive pursuit of material pleasures. He believed that the pursuit of sufficiency and the appreciation of simple things were fundamental to a fulfilling life. Because for him, man must act by cultivating virtues such as wisdom, courage and justice, even in the face of adversity, facing challenges head on and without complaints.
In this video, we will present one of Seneca's letters in which he discusses Wrath, creating a reasoning about which category it would fit into in our lives, whether it is really necessary for the human spirit, whether it is useful; whether it can be framed as a part of virtue or as a vice controlled by reason.
It is a simple and easy-to-read text, which we will seek to explain his ideas and summarize Seneca's position to facilitate understanding and create active and positive reflection. Therefore, subscribe to our channel, like and share with friends, come with us in this important reflection on how anger affects our daily lives.
According to the dictionary, Anger is an intense emotion of anger, indignation or fury, often accompanied by a desire for retribution or revenge. It is an emotional response to perceived frustrations, injustices, or threats.
A relevant study on anger is the work by Lerner and Keltner, in 2001, entitled "Fear, Anger and Risk". In this study, researchers investigated how the emotions of fear and anger affect decision-making in dangerous and alert situations.
According to Lerner, anger has the potential to influence decision-making in a significant way. When study participants were induced to feel angry, they became more likely to take greater risks in decision-making situations. Anger appeared to decrease the perception of danger and increase the willingness to take risks compared to those who were in a neutral emotional state, as anger can alter the subjective assessment of the risks involved in a decision, possibly due to the focus on the potential reward or motivation to pursue actions that can reduce the source of anger. However, this tendency to take greater risks in a state of anger is not always advantageous and can lead to impulsive or harmful decisions.
This discovery is not unprecedented, as Seneca, Plato, Aristotle and other important philosophers, thousands of years ago, had already made this discovery and discussed how the state of anger should be classified within the emotional field and reason.
According to Seneca, seeking to introduce the concept of anger, he states that: "it is not without reason that it seems to you that you have a particular fear of this passion, considering that of all it is the most terrible and violent. Behold, in the others there is a certain degree of calm and placidity, while in anger there is only chaos and revenge.Anger is full of excitement and impetus, enraged by an inhuman desire for pain, fighting, blood, torture.
Some wise men, said Seneca, said that wrath is a brief insanity. In other words, "she is equally unrestrained, alien to decorum, forgetful of emotional ties, persistent and clinging to what she started, closed to reason and advice, incited by vain reasons, incapable of discerning what is fair and true, very similar to something that collapses and shatters."
For the philosopher, it is not known whether this chaotic vice of the spirit is more detestable or more deforming. For other vices it is possible to hide and feed in secret, while anger is exposed and comes out in the eyes and features, and the greater it is, the more evidently it effervesces. It's just that other passions become apparent; this becomes prominent, that is, the anger is evident. You will see murders and poisons and mutual accusations between defendants, devastated cities and the extermination of entire peoples, heads of chiefs sold at public auction, torches thrown into homes. Behold, wrath has demolished them.
Seneca exemplifies: look at so many chiefs who have passed into history, examples of bad fate: one, anger entered his room; another, she slaughtered during a sacred welcome at the table; one she tore to pieces in front of the headquarters of the laws and before the gaze of a crowded forum; to another, he ordered his blood to be used for the parricide perpetrated by his son;
Anger turns all things best and fairest into their opposite, Seneca said. Whoever it has struck, wrath does not allow them to remember any of their duties. If it happens to affect a father, he becomes an adversary; in a son, he becomes parricide; in a mother, she becomes a stepmother; in a citizen, he becomes an enemy.
For anger, he says, “is the desire to avenge an injury or, as Posidonius states, the desire to punish someone by whom someone believes to have been unjustly injured. Some thinkers of his time defined it as follows: "anger is an impulse of the soul that aims to be harmful towards someone who was or wanted to be harmful.”
But if anger is the desire to punish someone whom someone believes has been wronged unjustly, Seneca asked, "why do the people rage against gladiators, and so unjustly that they consider it an offense that they do not die of willingly?”
Instead, people become spectators and adversaries. Could this be anger? Seneca asked.
No, he claims that whatever it is, it is not anger, but almost anger, just like that of children who, if they fall, want to hit the ground and, often, they don't even know why they got angry, but they just got angry. , without cause and without offense, not, however, without some idea of offense, nor without desire for some punishment. The children are deceived by the simulation of hitting the ground that supposedly offended them, with this false revenge, their false anger would be eliminated.
Another point raised by Seneca is that “Sometimes we get angry”, but not with those who insult us, but with those who show the intention of insulting us, proving that anger does not arise from an actual insult.
When thinking this way, we can observe that anger is not a desire for punishment, as the weakest often get angry with the most powerful and do not desire a punishment they do not expect, as they do not have the strength necessary for punishment.
By establishing that anger is not a simple desire for punishment, Seneca states that there is a desire to exact punishment, not the possibility of it; People, however, desire even what they cannot, especially because we are all powerful enough to be harmful.
Seneca goes on to say that Aristotle's definition is not very far from his. For he states that anger is the desire to return pain to the other aspects that distinguish anger in its species, with the Greeks having several denominations of anger.
However, Seneca refuted this by saying that for him there are no specific designations for anger, since even if we call a temperament bitter or acerbic, and also annoying, angry, vociferous, unfriendly, harsh, all of these are varieties of anger.
The philosopher recognizes that there are in fact certain angers that stick to the scream; there are others no less persistent than frequent; others, with a cruel hand, are more sparse in words; others, excessive in the bitterness of words and curses.
But is anger useful or useless for human nature?
Seneca suggests that we ask whether anger is in accordance with nature, whether it is useful, and whether it should be conserved to some extent. For what is more docile than man while the state of his soul is balanced? But what is more cruel than his wrath? What is more affectionate towards others than man? what is more hostile than his wrath? man was created for mutual assistance; wrath, to mutual destruction. he wants to congregate, she wants to disunite; he, to be useful, she, to be harmful; he, helping even strangers, she, attacking even the most expensive.
Anger, therefore, is eager for punishment, and to reside this desire in the most courteous breast of man is in no way in accordance with his nature. Human life consists of beneficent actions and concord, and, not by terror, but by mutual love, it is compelled to alliance and common assistance.
Seneca asks: “How then? Isn’t punishment sometimes necessary?” Why not? but this without wrath, based on reason, for it is not harmful, but it medicines under the appearance of being harmful.
He meant that punishment is not totally bad or imbued with hatred, anger or rage, sometimes certain types of punishment can be fundamental to educate and guide social interaction and social relationships. For example, traffic fines that aim to raise awareness and prevent accidents, protecting people; Likewise, the father who prohibits the use of cell phones on certain days or times so that his children can study. Note that there is no anger or vice in the intention, on the contrary, the punishment has a fair and lawful purpose. It is like a medicine for the soul of man to elevate.
Thus, Seneca advises that it is advisable for the legislator and ruler of a city, for as long as he can, to treat tempers with words and with these milder measures, in order to advise them he must then move on to a more severe speech, by which he still warn and censor. Finally, if it is not resolved after such an escalation, resort to punishments, which are still light, revocable and fair to the offense committed. Impose extreme punishments for extreme crimes, so that no one loses their life, unless losing it is in the interest of even the one who loses it, not because someone's punishment delights him or is a frivolous form of pleasure or fun. For this punishment in the form of delight is far from a wise man, as a wise man does not allow himself such inhumane ferocity over anger as selfishness and sadism.
Therefore, Seneca concludes, human nature does not feel like punishment; Therefore, anger is in no way in accordance with the nature of man, since punishment is desirable for anger.
Seneca contests an argument from Plato — that “the virtuous man does no harm.”
For Seneca, punishment that does not have the objective of medicating or teaching, that is, punishment used for different purposes of delight, causes harm; therefore, this punishment does not suit the virtuous man, and therefore, neither does anger, because punishment suits anger much more.
If the virtuous man does not rejoice in punishment, he will not even rejoice in that passion to which punishment serves as pleasure; therefore, anger is unnatural.
Seneca asks whether, although anger is not natural, should it be admitted because it has often been considered useful?
To answer this question, the philosopher recalled that anger exalts and incites emotions, therefore, some think that the best thing is to moderate anger, not suppress it, and after reducing what is excessive, compel it, control it. it to an essential margin and still retain that amount without which the action will become languid, lukewarm, and the energy and vigor of the soul will be suppressed.
Faced with this defense of the control of anger by human reason, Seneca counters by saying that, firstly, it is easier to exclude than to control harmful impulses such as anger, and not to welcome them than to moderate them once they have been welcomed. In fact, once they have settled in their domain, they are more powerful than those who control them, and they do not tolerate being cut or diminished. In other words, when vice and anger take over the individual's emotions, they act by removing reason, it is practically uncontrollable, so the idea of suppressing anger or considering it useful in human action is pure innocence, because anger it does not accept control when it explodes, it infects reason, it overshadows other virtues. She is ravishing and strong. If a virtue or emotion is mixed with them, contaminated, it cannot stop what it could have removed once, because, troubled and shaken the mind, it starts to serve what it is compelled to do, that is, anger, rage. , hatred, revenge. A mind driven by anger leads to destruction and self-destruction.
Therefore, for Seneca, the best thing is to immediately ignore the first irritation of anger, combat its seeds and be careful not to act on it.
Still, the reflection continues, concluding, is it more vigorous than reason or weaker? If anger is more vigorous, how can reason impose a limit on it given that nothing, except that which has less strength, is usually obedient? If it is weaker, without it reason is sufficient in itself to carry out its actions, that is, it does not want the help of someone who has less strength, don't you agree? Thus, if anger is stronger than reason, reason has no power to control or suppress it, because how can something weak control a stronger one? On the other hand, if reason is stronger than anger, why would it need something weaker? Isn't it in itself enough to carry out the action?
This explanation by Seneca raises a very interesting point, because it leads to the conclusion that anger has no use for human nature. Why? Think about this, anger calls for revenge and punishment, it is the lack of control of human nature, so if I consider that anger is useful for human nature, I have to be able to control it, if it cannot be controlled by reason , how can it be useful for action?
Imagine a man overcome with anger because his tractor broke down kilometers from the headquarters, after trying to fix it for hours, nothing works, in a state of anger, he starts punching the tractor, fighting his wrists, and finally, in anger, he sets the tractor on fire , their only means of plowing the land.
If the man could control his anger, he would conclude that he would hurt his hand when punching the metal, in the same way, he could conclude that it could be a simple problem or even with a reduction in value, he could avoid a total loss, with the sale or exchange of the good; he would also think that this fire could spread and become uncontrollable, destroying everything in its path.
Realize that when anger arises in man, it brings out his bestiality, overshadows his decision-making power, makes him vulnerable and reckless. Therefore, the idea that reason can control anger is not accepted. On the other hand, if anger is a weaker feeling controllable by reason, then what use would it have? If naturally I can, in any state of anger, act rationally, by definition I am not angry, at most upset.
To better illustrate, Seneca disagrees with Aristotle.
According to Aristotle, anger is necessary, and nothing can be done without it, because without the passion of anger the soul would not be filled and the spirit would not be inflamed. According to Aristotle, however, it should be used not as if it were a general, but as a soldier.
For Seneca, this is false, because if anger listens to reason and follows where it is led, it is no longer anger, which is characterized by extreme obstinacy. However, if he puts up resistance and does not remain quiet where he is ordered, but allows himself to be dragged along by his whim and ferocity, he is as useless an assistant to the soul as a soldier who does not heed the signal to retreat.
Thus, if she tolerates a limit being applied to her, she must be called by another name, it is no longer anger, which I understand as unbridled and incapable of being tamed; If it is not tolerated, it is harmful, harmful and should not be counted among the useful soldiers. For a useful soldier will be one who knows how to obey a decision. Passions are as bad as servants as they are as guides.
Therefore, reason will never take to its aid reckless and violent impulses, over which it itself would have no authority or control, which it could never repress, except if these impulses had opposed those that are their peers and similar, as against the anger, the fear.
For he who falls into the bondage of some passion must live in tyranny.
Therefore, for Seneca there would be no consideration that “passion is useful, if moderate”. No, for him it is useful if it is based on nature.
But what about anger when directed against an enemy? In this case, Seneca replies: “anger is not necessary.” On no other occasion is it less so than when impulses need to be not hasty, but measured and obedient.
Anger is not useful even in battles or wars, as it is prone to rashness, and dangers, while it wants to impose them, are not wary of them.
"How then? When he sees his father or his own son killed, will a virtuous man not weep or fall down?”
It's not that! Calmly, Seneca explains that such things, that is, his duties, the virtuous man will carry out undisturbed, intrepid; and so he will do what is worthy of a man of virtue: he will do nothing that is unworthy of a man. my father will be murdered: I will defend him; was murdered: I will seek justice, because it is necessary, not because it hurts me or because I am taken and unrestrained. Virtuous men must act for injustices against their own.
It is not affection that moves that anger, but weakness, as in children who cry for the loss of both their parents and their almonds. To be angry with one's own is not characteristic of an affectionate soul, but of one that is weak. Realize that you must seek justice, even revenge, but never moved by anger, because he who acts with anger is not virtuous and does not act in a prudent and rational way. Your revenge or justice must be conscious and in a necessary and sufficient measure.
For what is beautiful and dignified is to present oneself as a defender of one's parents, children, friends, fellow citizens, driven by one's own duty, benevolent, thoughtful, prudent, not impulsive and angry.
No passion is more eager to take revenge than anger, and for this very reason it is incapable of taking revenge. Because it is very hasty and insane, like all greed in general, it itself serves as an obstacle to what one is hasty and desires."
Thus, neither in peace nor in war, it was never a good thing. If bravery is a good, no one will wish it to be diminished in any part. Therefore, too, it is disadvantageous for anger to be increased, oryet, that it exists,this It is not a good that which, through growth, becomesonan evil.
Seneca says that anyone who claims that anger is “useful” because it makes us more combative is mistaken.
Because anger, drunkenness, fear and other things of this kind are base and temporary stimuli and do not provide instruments for virtue. In other words, the rational man must have clarity in his actions, even on the battlefield he cannot be irrational, reckless or blind. Therefore, he cannot use anger in combat, as it numbs, causes momentary euphoria and causes more risks than it helps.
Thus, Seneca said: "which in no way needs vices, but, at most, it slightly elevates the weak and indolent spirit. No one, by becoming angry, becomes more valuable, except someone who would not have been so without anger. For anger does not come to the aid of virtue, but instead of it, since everything that is weak is by nature irritable.
It cannot happen, says Theophrastus, “that a virtuous man does not become angry with the wicked.” In this sense, the more virtuous someone is, the more irascible they will be in the sense of fighting against injustice and for what is fair.
Finally, Seneca asks, what do they go wrong when madness compels them to crimes derived from passion? He responds that it is not appropriate for a prudent man to hate those who make mistakes; otherwise he himself will be hateful to himself, because the virtuous man seeks just and sufficient reparation, he desires justice as a remedy that educates, prevents or repairs, even if in the form of punishment. Because when you hate for the sake of hating, or you only harbor irrational revenge based on anger and vitiated passions, such as selfishness, sadism and violence.
Seneca, the Stoic philosopher, warned about the dangers of anger and argued that it is not useful for virtue. His reflections highlight that anger undermines self-control, rational judgment and the search for justice. He emphasized that true bravery and wisdom do not depend on anger, but rather on balance, compassion and self-control. Seneca reminds us that the pursuit of virtue should guide our actions, while uncontrolled anger can obscure the path to true inner peace and harmony.
We leave it here and I hope it has been inspiring for a deep reflection on the usefulness of anger in our behavior. But how can we take advantage of this understanding in our daily lives?
Simple, understanding that anger is not a virtue and has no use for emotions or human action, will lead you to internalize that getting angry can harm your intention, it can be more harmful than maintaining serenity and calm, applying strength in proportionate, conscious and exact measure for the purpose you desire, behold, there is nothing good in desiring evil for evil's sake, another's pain on a mere whim, uncontrolled revenge.
תגובות