The Stoic theory of psychology, which is in line with modern cognitive behavioural science, is that emotions have a cognitive component. Which means that, contrary to popular misunderstandings, emotions and reasons are inextricably intertwined, and both Plato and Freud were wrong.

What happens when you get angry

Consider, for instance, what happens when you get angry because someone insulted you. You may get angry. If I ask you why you are angry, you are perfectly capable of providing me with a narrative explanation, something along the lines of: “He said I was an idiot, and I’m not. It is offensive to be called an idiot. That’s why I’m angry.”
But in fact you can challenge that explanation, particularly the notion that we ought to be offended, and then angry, at a perceived sleight. Why? Why not ignore the offense instead? After all, presumably what the other person wants is precisely to rile you up, to make you angry, to push you emotionally off balance. If you do get angry you are simply playing into their expectations.

We have a choice

Emotional responses are not inevitable. They are a choice we make. Often that choice is by default, because we grew up in an environment in which if someone says something offensive you are expected to get upset. But it is perfectly possible to train oneself to respond differently. Imagine how disappointed the other person will be when you simply shrug your shoulders and move on. They didn’t get what they wanted, because you didn’t fall into their trap.

A doormat if you don’t get angry?

You may object that by not reacting you are behaving like a doormat, allowing the other person to walk all over you. But that interpretation is, again, the result of societal expectations. Why is it that not reacting to a provocation is a sign of weakness rather than strength?

Is it good to vent your anger?

Isn’t it good to vent anger, or other strong emotions, once in a while? Isn’t it the case that if we bottle it up at some point later on we’ll explode, with far worse consequences? No, it is not the case. This kind of reasoning assumes the so-called “hydraulic” model of emotions, which treats them as akin to gases that can build pressure on the conduits of our nervous system, and which need “valves” to release them and lower the pressure from time to time. Freud proposed the hydraulic model, and it is nonsense on stilts. That’s just not how emotions work.

How about injustice?

Okay, you may continue, but sometimes there are good reasons to be angry. For instance if we have witnessed an injustice, such as an act of discrimination, or an episode of brutality. Again, no. What is both understandable and actually useful is to allow yourself to feel indignation, a signal that a wrong has been done and that justice demands it to be corrected. But anger is destructive, of self and of others, and thus an unhealthy emotion.

What’s unhealthy about it? It temporarily overrides reason, which means that we act guided not by the most refined faculty that evolution has given us, but blindly, driven by rage. Moreover, anger undermines our character: the more we indulge in it the worse a person we become, getting into the habit of cultivating revenge and possibly hatred rather than compassion and understanding.

You don’t need anger to be effective

This is not to say that anger cannot be effective. Of course it can. It may motivate people to act and to stand up for their rights or those of others. But if you need to feel anger in order to do the right thing you are like someone who needs a crutch in order to walk: you won’t be able to do it as well. Moreover, even when your anger appears to be justified you may overreact and undermine your own objectives, because you have allowed your reasoning faculty to be overpowered.

Some wise men have called anger a brief madness. … To understand that those in the grips of anger are not sane, look at how they present themselves. … Their eyes burn and flash, their whole face reddens with blood that boils up from their innermost organs, their lips tremble, their teeth clench, their hair bristles and stands on end, their breath becomes labored and gasping. - Seneca, On Anger, 1.1

Anger is temporary madness. And sure enough, people in the throes of anger look crazy. Stoic psychology recognizes two fundamental classes of emotions: healthy ones and unhealthy ones. What distinguishes the two is whether they are aligned with or in opposition to reason. Love (of the proper kind), joy (for the proper things), and a sense of justice are healthy. Anger, fear, and hatred are unhealthy.

You may object that even the supposedly unhealthy emotions are still natural, so they must have evolved for a reason. But not every evolved characteristic of human beings is good for us. For instance, walking erect causes all sorts of vascular, nerve, and bone issues. These issues are a byproduct of the evolution of bipedalism, but they are not, in their own right, good.

Or consider fear, especially fear of things to come, like our own mortality. It hardly does any good, other than causing anxiety and potentially paralyzing us, getting in the way of enjoying our life and rationally planning ahead for our future.

---