3 ms·

I stopped reading as soon as the article said anger is an unhealthy emotion. That is such a damaging idea. Anger can be unhealthy, but so can many other emotion

I stopped reading as soon as the article said anger is an unhealthy emotion. That is such a damaging idea. Anger can be unhealthy, but so can many other emotions including shame (which is often the alternative to anger). Anger can also be healthy - it is a signal from deep within that something in our environment must change. Anger is often the catalyst for making necessary change. Now of course too much anger is damaging, no question. But the dose makes the poison. A little anger at the right time can be transformative and it can be super healthy.

1experience 6y ago
All emotions are theoretically beneficial to oneself (survive and reproduce), otherwise they would not have evolved and would not have persisted during evolution.
richardbrevig 6y ago
You may enjoy Plutchik's dyadic wheel of emotions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_connection#/media/File:Plutchik_Dyads.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_connection#/media/File:... In it, he lists anger as the opposite of fear. And shame is the combination of fear and disgust (the opposite of trust).
CarelessExpert 6y ago
> I stopped reading as soon as the article said anger is an unhealthy emotion. Anger not turned to constructive action is an unhealthy emotion. Unfortunately, that kind of nuance isn't gonna get captured in an intro to Stoicism blog post. Stoicism teaches that, in those moments where you feel that flash of anger, pause and ask yourself: what in this situation can I do that's in my control that can lead to a constructive outcome? If the answer is absolutely nothing, then the goal is to recognize that and let that anger subside because it's fruitless and harmful. This is the essence of the dichotomy of control: if you can't control something, then getting worked up about it only harms yourself. But it's very rare that we have absolutely no control in a situation, and in those cases where we have some measure of control, Stoicism as a philosophy challenges us to find the constructive action that lets us turn that challenge into an opportunity while allowing us to replace that anger with a sense of constructive purpose. And in fact choosing acceptance is an action itself, and therefore such situations become opportunities for personal growth that hopefully leads us to becoming a more kind, patient, humane individual. Anyway, that's not to say that Stoicism is a cure-all or that it's good for everyone. Maybe for you it's the wrong choice! But your comment is a perfect example of how people continuously misunderstand Stoic thought and then disregard it out of hand, which is precisely what this article is all about.
- bcatanzaro 6y ago
  I didn't misunderstand Stoic thought. Maybe the guy writing the article misrepresented Stoicism. "Work toward as serene a degree of acceptance as you can muster instead. This doesn’t mean suppressing emotions. Rather, it means shifting your emotional spectrum—away from unhealthy emotions like anger and toward the mindful embracing of healthy ones like joy—by working on consciously altering the way you think about yourself and the world." He's the one that said anger is an unhealthy emotion. So my comment may be a perfect example of people misunderstanding Stoicism, but I'm merely the messenger. The guy who wrote the article is the one that made the claim. By the way, I don't think this is a small or unimportant point. Suppressed anger is extraordinarily unhealthy. Telling people their anger is bad for them just makes the problem worse.
  - CarelessExpert 6y ago
    > Suppressed anger is extraordinarily unhealthy. Telling people their anger is bad for them just makes the problem worse. Well, good thing no one is telling folks they should suppress their anger, this article included. In fact, if I had to summarize the article in one sentence it would be "Despite what you might think, Stocism isn't about suppressing your emotions." It's like, practically the thesis of the piece. At this point I'm kinda wondering if you're reading your own biases into the text.
    - bcatanzaro 6y ago
      I'm sure we're all reading our own biases into the text. But all I said was that I stopped reading as soon as the author said anger is unhealthy. Which the author did. And I think is bad.
Matticus_Rex 6y ago
IMO most Stoics wouldn't disagree with the core of your statements, but we would term them differently. Seneca's discourse on anger defines it in a particular way, and no Stoics suggest completely ignoring the "proto-passions" such as the impulse to anger. Stoicism actually emphasizes practices that build the mindfulness to be able to notice that impulse and figure out what to do about it (e.g. make necessary change).

1experience 6y ago

All emotions are theoretically beneficial to oneself (survive and reproduce), otherwise they would not have evolved and would not have persisted during evolution.

richardbrevig 6y ago

You may enjoy Plutchik's dyadic wheel of emotions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_connection#/media/File:Plutchik_Dyads.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_connection#/media/File:... In it, he lists anger as the opposite of fear. And shame is the combination of fear and disgust (the opposite of trust).

CarelessExpert 6y ago

> I stopped reading as soon as the article said anger is an unhealthy emotion. Anger not turned to constructive action is an unhealthy emotion. Unfortunately, that kind of nuance isn't gonna get captured in an intro to Stoicism blog post. Stoicism teaches that, in those moments where you feel that flash of anger, pause and ask yourself: what in this situation can I do that's in my control that can lead to a constructive outcome? If the answer is absolutely nothing, then the goal is to recognize that and let that anger subside because it's fruitless and harmful. This is the essence of the dichotomy of control: if you can't control something, then getting worked up about it only harms yourself. But it's very rare that we have absolutely no control in a situation, and in those cases where we have some measure of control, Stoicism as a philosophy challenges us to find the constructive action that lets us turn that challenge into an opportunity while allowing us to replace that anger with a sense of constructive purpose. And in fact choosing acceptance is an action itself, and therefore such situations become opportunities for personal growth that hopefully leads us to becoming a more kind, patient, humane individual. Anyway, that's not to say that Stoicism is a cure-all or that it's good for everyone. Maybe for you it's the wrong choice! But your comment is a perfect example of how people continuously misunderstand Stoic thought and then disregard it out of hand, which is precisely what this article is all about.

bcatanzaro 6y ago
I didn't misunderstand Stoic thought. Maybe the guy writing the article misrepresented Stoicism. "Work toward as serene a degree of acceptance as you can muster instead. This doesn’t mean suppressing emotions. Rather, it means shifting your emotional spectrum—away from unhealthy emotions like anger and toward the mindful embracing of healthy ones like joy—by working on consciously altering the way you think about yourself and the world." He's the one that said anger is an unhealthy emotion. So my comment may be a perfect example of people misunderstanding Stoicism, but I'm merely the messenger. The guy who wrote the article is the one that made the claim. By the way, I don't think this is a small or unimportant point. Suppressed anger is extraordinarily unhealthy. Telling people their anger is bad for them just makes the problem worse.
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  > Suppressed anger is extraordinarily unhealthy. Telling people their anger is bad for them just makes the problem worse. Well, good thing no one is telling folks they should suppress their anger, this article included. In fact, if I had to summarize the article in one sentence it would be "Despite what you might think, Stocism isn't about suppressing your emotions." It's like, practically the thesis of the piece. At this point I'm kinda wondering if you're reading your own biases into the text.
  - bcatanzaro 6y ago
    I'm sure we're all reading our own biases into the text. But all I said was that I stopped reading as soon as the author said anger is unhealthy. Which the author did. And I think is bad.

Matticus_Rex 6y ago

IMO most Stoics wouldn't disagree with the core of your statements, but we would term them differently. Seneca's discourse on anger defines it in a particular way, and no Stoics suggest completely ignoring the "proto-passions" such as the impulse to anger. Stoicism actually emphasizes practices that build the mindfulness to be able to notice that impulse and figure out what to do about it (e.g. make necessary change).