In Aristotles Rhetoric I'm understanding him to equate anger with revenge. Is he saying revenge is good or bad

Answer 1

He sees anger as a desire for revenge. Positive emotion involves pleasure which we desire.

He says:

"Pleasure [and as a corollary, the avoidance of pain, which is antithetical to pleasure] is naturally desirable, because it perfects our energies, that is our life, in the continuance of which all delight. But whether life is desired for the sake of pleasure, or pleasure for the sake of life, needs not at present be examined; since these two seem so intimately combined as not to admit of separation. Pleasure, then, cannot exist without energy; and our energies are strengthened and perfected by the pleasures accompanying them"

Read more here:

Answer 2

I don't know what he said. But I'll tell you what I say. Anger is an in-built mechanism to claim justice. It is a 'enraged self righteousness' as someone put it. When someone encroaches beyond what you beleive is their right and does not pay you the correct respect. Your self-image is put in confusion, and your 'pride' as far as the encrouchment is confronted.

Situations are interpreted differently by a variety of people. The more reasonable, tend to view encroachments in a more balanced manner, and do not 'disturb their peace'.....the moment you get angry about something not getting worth angry about...you lose the battle, and end up looking like an ***...to be balanced, is the true mark of the sage..because you move the other, yet you control yourself...

to be still in a whirwind, is the true show of the lucidity of mind...because your mind transcends the enviroment.

This is why I think the saying 'when you control others, you are masterful, when you control yourself, you are fearless'..that little bit of the fearless movie at the beginning, whcih I only saw 30 seconds of..is more or less on the ball.

Furthermore, the lower brain mechanism that activates the anger, may be different to different people. They may interpret something as encroachment, and something as not depending on the person.

Those that are more wise, realize that certain things are not to get angry about, and there are times to put your foot down instead of keeping inside.


to engage in anger, if legitimate, is the purest form of justice.

However, the over-reaction, is the mark of an anxious, confused and insecure person.

Engaging in anger regularly in things that are ridiculous and iligitamite is the mark of the insecure and confused person. There is no justice here but the unbalanced emotions of the confused...a whirlwind of confusion seeking for stability. These people should be sat down and talked to; they need support to resolve their problems...

This does not only apply to anger, but all the emotions..

and so is the natural course of things.

Another bit of advice...if you are angry ,and you find the cause legitimate....your enraged righteousness should be balanced as well...There are many more wise and pertinent ways to get a point acrross a lot more efficiently and with a lot more depth besides acting like an outright monkey...calm but sharp...is better than over-reacting in anger and shouting insults in a rage..

It lowers you and makes you look unstable and insecure. To give into your emotion is bad. Sometimes a clam but very firm...sharp eyed contact is what is needed. Sometimes silence is best. Sometimes a clean fight.

And to answer your question. 'Revenge' is good or bad...depending on balance.

If a family member of yours is raped...it is GOOD for you to revenge. Again, it comes to legitimacy.

It is a balance....just as the sun comes up and down, so it comes down to an eye for an eye. If you don't do anything. They guy is going to take your other eye. and then another from another person...until none has any eyes.

You only prevent the guy from keeping taking eyes by taking his...

This is why nature designed it that way. Sometimes it can get out of hand...

Its all a balance. You don't go nuclear war, just as you don't, peacefully allow injustice, such as:

peacefully, let people take eyes out of your eye sockets, or peacefully let a bank take the shirt off your back, or, watch, peacefully and calmly as they beat to death a helpless old lady.

To beat the guy beating the old lady. To reprimand the bank, and make impotent those that can keep on harming society...

These things are not revenge. They are natural justice. This is what laws represent. To distinguish this difference, is to know truth.

Answer 3

I think he says that revenge out of anger is bad.

Answer 4

What now u finding better reasons?