I think anger expresses an intensity of feeling. We are all in some sort of mood all the time, we feel: happy, sad, fearful, indifferent, anxious, angry...these moods can be in response to something that we experience or simply the way we feel at the time. I think that the higher the intensity of feeling the more likely that these feelings become intentional; with things we can identify as objects of these feelings. I suppose a person could be just angry (as a personality trait), but I think more generally someone who is angry is angry at something or someone for a reason.

I do think anger is a natural part of our nature as animals, which we learn how to express, learn how to behave, control which becomes part of how we construct our self. Animal aggression may have territorial roots where survival involved establishing a certain space or area of operation, where unfamiliar intruders particularly of the same species are challenged or feared for a variety of reasons.

Wrath, I think is more intensive and more directed than anger, as in the wrath of God, or of the just. It seems more principled in some manner than anger, a direct and reasoned response to some transgression, where the expression of anger become the medium of response.

Also rage seems to be extremely intensive, suggesting irrationality at its apex, as in a blind rage. I think rage is a temporary state that 'normal' persons might experience, but I cannot envision someone being in a 'normal' state of rage.

Let me see if I can sum up our conversation so far. Don't let me put any words in your mouth, if I get anything wrong, please correct me.

Me: It seems to me that if anger is defined as: the desire to hurt someone else in retaliation, then it is not necessary.
Sapientia: That's not a good definition
Me: How are you defining anger?
S: The usual way, Google it. If you had Googled it, you would have seen for yourself.
Me: How do you decide which definition among those Googled, to use?
S: Online dictionaries are useful.... I use the online dictionary definition (notice the shifting from Google to online dictionary....)
S: I just use the first definition that agrees with the way I define anger. — anonymous66

It's not so much that you're putting words in my mouth, but that you're taking what I said out of context with your little cut-and-paste job, and I do object to that.

I also object to the misleading implication in your annotated comment. There is no sneaky, dubious shift going on which warrants any criticism. Obviously the purpose of googling it is to bring up definitions from online dictionaries. That's obvious, and I wasn't trying to hide that, nor was I moving the goalposts in any way.

I suggest you stop wasting time with this summation and cut straight to the point, if you have one.

Martha Nussbaum is a bit of a Stoic about anger. She has a recent book on the subject. There's an interview in The Atlantic with a potted version of her views, sorry I'm on my tablet so cant link it. She's too patrician for me but she's a good thinker so the case is well made.

I think you should be able to link it with a tablet. What happens if you put your finger on the url for a couple of seconds?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/martha-nussbaum-anger/481464/

Thanks :)

Here's a well reasoned article that expresses the idea that it's not actually anger that is the problem, it's aggression. — anonymous66

There's only one evil, ignorance.

And that's what Americans.. no, everyone should manage! Not anger or aggression, those are reasonable in the right context. But, of course, ignorance can obscure the right context and that's why Socrates is so wise.

This article from Psychology Today was in my inbox today....
5 Ways Anger is Not Like Other Emotions

• It’s Motivating: Anger’s purpose is to push you to protect yourself. Anger gives you energy. It’s activating, and it drives you to engage, not withdraw, as most other emotions do.
• It Never Stands Alone: Anger is always a result of feeling something else. You feel hurt, marginalized, overlooked, targeted, mistreated or vulnerable. Anger isn’t just an emotion, it’s a constellation of emotions. There are always layers of feelings underneath it, feeding it.
• It Seeks a Target: Other emotions can simply be. Anger cannot. Like an arrow shot from the bow, it looks for a target. This is what makes anger so easy to misdirect. It may erupt at the wrong person, in the wrong way and at the wrong time so very easily.
• It Can Be Turned Inward or Outward: Sometimes directing our anger at its true target can be acutely uncomfortable, and sometimes we aren’t aware of the true target. This is when we are at risk for turning our anger inward, directing it at ourselves.
• It’s Capable of Damaging Your Health: Research has shown that anger prone individuals and people who express their anger as rage are more at risk for heart attacks and cancer.

How to Start Using Your Anger in a Helpful Way

Make an effort to become aware of the moment you feel anger. Usually, your heart rate will speed, your face may feel hot, and you will feel a surge of energy. The sooner you notice your anger, the sooner and better you can take control of it, and use it in a healthy way. The key is to know that you’re angry when it’s small instead of after it’s already intense.
Regard your anger as a helpful message from your body, and put energy into figuring out its proper target, and what its message is. It may be saying, “Watch out for this person,” “Speak up,” “Protect yourself,” “This is an unfair situation,” “You are being hurt right now,” or an infinite number of different things. Listen to your anger, and it will inform you.
Learn the skills of assertiveness. The skills are: being aware of your anger and why you’re feeling it (our first two bullet points); managing the anger so that it doesn’t come out excessively; and identifying the right words and tone to express the feeling to its proper target. These are the skills of assertiveness. And you can learn them!

It's not so much that you're putting words in my mouth, but that you're taking what I said out of context with your little cut-and-paste job, and I do object to that.

I also object to the misleading implication in your annotated comment. There is no sneaky, dubious shift going on which warrants any criticism. Obviously the purpose of googling it is to bring up definitions from online dictionaries. — Sapientia

Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this... This is your chance to set things right...

Assume that I'm asking you, "How would you define anger?" How would you respond?
Would your answer be
1. I would use Google
2. I would use an online dictionary
or 3. I would look online and use the definition that agrees with what I already had in mind

Or is there some other way you'd answer the question?

My point? It seems to me that some are of the opinion that there is some obvious, agreed upon definition of anger. If that is the case, then I'd like to know what that definition is, and just what it is about that definition that makes it obvious.

My criticism is constructive. — Sapientia

Your criticism is not constructive, it is snotty and condescending. Which would be ok, I guess, if it were helpful and responsive, but it's not. Most of what you have had to say is about why you don't need to define "anger" and why you should never have to define anything and why people are unreasonable for wanting or expecting you to.

My point? It seems to me that some are of the opinion that there is some obvious, agreed upon definition of anger. If that is the case, then I'd like to know what that definition is, and just what it is about that definition that makes it obvious. — anonymous66

I went on line. Here are five definitions of “anger” I found on dictionary sites and Wikipedia:

[1] A strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility.
[2] A strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism
[3] The feeling people get when something unfair, painful, or bad happens:
[4] The strong emotion that you feel when you think that someone has behaved in an unfair, cruel, or unacceptable way.
[5]An emotion that involves a strong uncomfortable and emotional response to a perceived provocation, hurt or threat.

These are all pretty consistent, although some have different emphases. One thing they agree on is that anger is an emotion. That's it. It's not an action, an intention, or a desire. It's not about doing harm to someone or getting revenge.

Is that obvious? I think it is always a good idea to define important terms at the beginning of a discussion. Getting all highfalutin and insulting when asked to do that is discourteous and unreasonable. Unreasonable in the sense that it is not consistent with the application of reason to a question.

Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this... This is your chance to set things right...

Assume that I'm asking you, "How would you define anger?" How would you respond?
Would your answer be
1. I would use Google
2. I would use an online dictionary
or 3. I would look online and use the definition that agrees with what I already had in mind

Or is there some other way you'd answer the question?

My point? It seems to me that some are of the opinion that there is some obvious, agreed upon definition of anger. If that is the case, then I'd like to know what that definition is, and just what it is about that definition that makes it obvious. — anonymous66

Your first, second and third options each form part of my answer. And there is an obvious, widely understood meaning to the word "anger" and many other words like it. That's how language works. How else could you understand a single word that I'm saying? Clarification in such cases is for purposes of precision, not complete ignorance, and I think that you know this and should therefore agree.

Your criticism is not constructive, it is snotty and condescending. Which would be ok, I guess, if it were helpful and responsive, but it's not. Most of what you have had to say is about why you don't need to define "anger" and why you should never have to define anything and why people are unreasonable for wanting or expecting you to. — T Clark

You're simply wrong on that one. I've explained how my criticism is constructive, and I can explain why your reply above is not. Criticism doesn't have to be coated in sugar in order to be constructive, as the misleading juxtaposition in your first sentence seems to suggest. My criticism identifies a problem, explains why it's a problem, and points to solutions to rectify the problem. No amount of ad hominem will change that. And for the record, I never actually said those things that you have falsely associated with my comments in this discussion in your paragraph above. You've either misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting me.

I went on line. Here are five definitions of “anger” I found on dictionary sites and Wikipedia:

[1] A strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility.
[2] A strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism
[3] The feeling people get when something unfair, painful, or bad happens:
[4] The strong emotion that you feel when you think that someone has behaved in an unfair, cruel, or unacceptable way.
[5]An emotion that involves a strong uncomfortable and emotional response to a perceived provocation, hurt or threat.

These are all pretty consistent, although some have different emphases. One thing they agree on is that anger is an emotion. That's it. It's not an action, an intention, or a desire. It's not about doing harm to someone or getting revenge.

Is that obvious? — T Clark

Yes. Children learn that anger is an emotion, as well as the key differences between actions and feelings, from a young age.

You're simply wrong on that one. I've explained how my criticism is constructive, and I can explain why your reply above is not. Criticism doesn't have to be coated in sugar in order to be constructive, as the misleading juxtaposition in your first sentence seems to suggest.. — Sapientia

Let's see. So. Are you saying that criticism that is snotty and condescending can still be constructive?

My criticism identifies a problem, explains why it's a problem, and points to solutions to rectify the problem. No amount of ad hominem will change that. — Sapientia

There was no ad hominem attack in my post. I said your criticism is snotty and condescending, not that you are.

Let's see. So. Are you saying that criticism that is snotty and condescending can still be constructive? — T Clark

Yes, and, believe it or not, some people are capable of looking past that kind of thing.

There was no ad hominem attack in my post. I said your criticism is snotty and condescending, not that you are. — T Clark

Right. So you expect me to believe the two can be isolated just like that? It was indirectly a personal accusation, about my attitude, and it focussed on the tone and style, rather than the substance. Playing the man, not the ball.

Right. So you expect me to believe the two can be isolated just like that? It was indirectly a personal accusation, about my attitude, and it focussed on the tone and style, rather than the substance. Playing the man, not the ball. — Sapientia

It is not a matter of what I expect you to believe, it is a matter of the actual meaning of the phrase "ad hominem." What I said was in no way, directly or indirectly, a personal accusation. You may not like what I said, but that's not the same thing.

It is not a matter of what I expect you to believe, it is a matter of the actual meaning of the phrase "ad hominem." What I said was in no way, directly or indirectly, a personal accusation. You may not like what I said, but that's not the same thing. — T Clark

It is a matter of what you expect me to believe. Presumably, you expect me to believe what you're saying - and what you're saying has implications. You were denying that your ad hominem was an ad hominem on the basis of a superficial distinction. The words "snotty" and "condescending" are about attitude, and attitude is personal. They have negative connotations. You made a personal accusation - indirectly, and in no unsubtle terms - and instead of owning up to it, you're trying to wriggle out of it.

But whatever. This is off-topic and unproductive, which is where comments of that sort tend to lead. So I should probably refrain from dragging this one out.

I've been reading a lot of the primary texts of Stoicism, and I also started listening to Martha Nussbaum talk about the subject (youtube) and I bought her book Anger and Forgiveness a few weeks ago, and just started reading it. From the introduction:

At the heart of my argument is an analysis of anger, which I present in chapter 2. Concurring with a long philosophical tradition that includes Aristotle, the Greek and Roman Stoics, and Bishop Butler, I argue that anger includes, conceptually, not only the idea of a serious wrong done to someone or something of significance, but also the idea that it would be a good thing if the wrongdoer suffered some bad consequences somehow. Each of these thoughts must be qualified in complex ways, but that's the essence of the analysis. I then argue that anger, so understood, is always normatively problematic in one or the other of two possible ways.

The first way is what she calls the "road of payback". It is mistaken because it includes the belief that the suffering of the wrongdoer somehow restores the important thing that was damaged. She labels this as false and incoherent, but nevertheless points out that it is a very common belief. "But the wrongdoer's suffering does not bring back the person or valued item that was damaged."

The second way is the "road of status". And this one makes sense to Nussbaum. If the victim sees the injury as a down-ranking of their own status, then payback makes sense in that if a victim is able to humiliate the wrongdoer, then the victim's status becomes relatively higher. "But then there is a different problem; it is normatively problematic to focus exclusively on relative status, and that type of obsessive narrow-mindedness, though common enough, is something we ought to discourage in both self an others."
Edited to add
".... but of course, all these ideas must be unpacked and defended. Anger may still have some limited usefulness as a signal to tell self and/or others that wrongdoing has taken place, as a source of motivations to address it, and as a deterrent to others, discouraging their aggression. Its core ideas however, are profoundly flawed; either incoherent in the first case, or normatively ugly in the second."
She goes on to add,
"Most average people get angry. But often, noting the normative irrationality of anger, particularly in its payback mode, a reasonable person shifts off the terrain of anger toward more productive forward-looking thoughts, asking what can actually be done to increase either personal or social welfare. I explore the course of reflection that leads to this future-directed thinking, which I prefer."

I see she's also confusing anger with vengefulness. Seems to be a common misconception for some reason.

Thanks for the link to the Atlantic article. Here's a quote from that article:

The last thing—and this is the crucial one, I think: Aristotle, and every other philosopher known to me who writes about anger, says that part of anger itself is a desire for payback. Without that desire, it’s not really anger—it’s something else.

I just came across this article by Martha Nussbaum today... she covers some of the same ground as she does in the book (and in the Atlantic article).

There’s no emotion we ought to think harder and more clearly about than anger. Anger greets most of us every day – in our personal relationships, in the workplace, on the highway, on airline trips – and, often, in our political lives as well. Anger is both poisonous and popular. Even when people acknowledge its destructive tendencies, they still so often cling to it, seeing it as a strong emotion, connected to self-respect and manliness (or, for women, to the vindication of equality). If you react to insults and wrongs without anger you’ll be seen as spineless and downtrodden. When people wrong you, says conventional wisdom, you should use justified rage to put them in their place, exact a penalty. We could call this football politics, but we’d have to acknowledge right away that athletes, whatever their rhetoric, have to be disciplined people who know how to transcend anger in pursuit of a team goal.

More controversial, perhaps, is [Aristotle's] idea (in which, however, all Western philosophers who write about anger concur) that the angry person wants some type of payback, and that this is a conceptual part of what anger is. In other words, if you don’t want some type of payback, your emotion is something else (grief, perhaps), but not really anger.

Here is how Aristotle defines anger in Rhetoric Book II chapter 2.

Anger may be defined as an impulse, accompanied by pain, to a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight directed without justification towards what concerns oneself or towards what concerns one's friends. If this is a proper definition of anger, it must always be felt towards some particular individual, e.g. Cleon, and not "man" in general. [1378b] It must be felt because the other has done or intended to do something to him or one of his friends. It must always be attended by a certain pleasure -- that which arises from the expectation of revenge. For since nobody aims at what he thinks he cannot attain, the angry man is aiming at what he can attain, and the belief that you will attain your aim is pleasant.

It's interesting that Seneca says that he doesn't define anger in the same way that Aristotle does...

Aristotle's definition differs little from mine; for he says that anger is the desire to repay suffering.

I also just noticed that Nussbaum has this to say in the Aeon article...

A good place to begin is Aristotle’s definition: not perfect, but useful, and a starting point for a long Western tradition of reflection.

I was assuming that the Stoics defined anger in the same way that Aristotle did (as a desire for payback- to return harm for perceived harm). But, Seneca says he doesn't go as far as Aristotle did, and yet he still thinks the emotion is always damaging, and believes it is something that humanity would be better off without.

Anger is ''natural'', yes, but is it reasonable? That's a question a thinking animal would ask. I say ''thinking animal'' because I've seen dogs not getting angry and I've seen people not thinking.

As far as humans are concerned we always(?) need a reason. Be it getting angry, what to wear or thinking about the universe itself. This also applies to emotions. So, in short, there's a reason for anger.

The OP's question is one I'd expect from a thinking animal (no offence intended). To answer I'd like to give is from a Buddhist perspective since it seems most apt to me.

The Buddhist doctrine of Impermanence inevitably results in a loss of attachment (to not only external objects but also of the self). Everything is subject to death and decay and this realization motivates the Buddhist to value each experience, each moment. From this perspective, any reason for anger fades into the night.

So, it's ''natural'' to feel anger but for the benefit of the thinking animal, there's no real reason to be angry at all.

I recently read Destructive Emotions: A Scientific Dialogue with the Dalai Lama...
From the book:

Buddhist philosophy tells us that all personal unhappiness and interpersonal conflict lie in the “three poisons”: craving, anger, and delusion. It also provides antidotes of astonishing psychological sophistication--which are now being confirmed by modern neuroscience. With new high-tech devices, scientists can peer inside the brain centers that calm the inner storms of rage and fear. They also can demonstrate that awareness-training strategies such as meditation strengthen emotional stability—and greatly enhance our positive moods.

It looks to me like the Buddhist view of anger is very similar to that of the ancient Stoics.

More controversial, perhaps, is [Aristotle's] idea (in which, however, all Western philosophers who write about anger concur) that the angry person wants some type of payback, and that this is a conceptual part of what anger is. In other words, if you don’t want some type of payback, your emotion is something else (grief, perhaps), but not really anger.

Aristotle's Challenge on Anger is pretty clear as to how proportionality is fundamental in how he approaches anger. Aristotle's challenge on Anger is that to become Angry is easy. But to be angry at the right person, at the right time, for the right reason, to the right degree, that is not so easy. So before one easily angers, it helps to put your reasons for the anger up to Aristotle's challenge and see if it passes. I have only once been able to satisfy Aristotle's challenge and allowed myself to be genuinely angry and I have yet to be able to or want to forgive that person.