5 philosophers on anger - Delaney Thull

譯者: 麗玲 辛 審譯者: SF Huang

Anger is a complicated emotion.

憤怒是一種複雜的情緒。

It can feel reasonable and righteous or impulsive and uncontrollable.

它可以是合理且正當 或衝動且難以控制的感覺。

But is it ever morally right to be angry? And if so, when?

但憤怒到底有無道德上的正當性？ 如果有，什麼時候才算是？

One of the most foundational understandings of anger

對憤怒最基本的認知之一，

comes from the Greek philosopher Aristotle

是由希臘哲學家亞里斯多德

who proposed an idea called “the doctrine of the mean.”

所提出的一個理念， 叫做「中庸之道」。

In this model, there’s a sweet spot for our actions and emotional reactions,

在這個模型中，我們的行為 和情緒反應都有一個甜蜜點，

and it's up to you to develop practical wisdom about when you should feel what

你需要發展出實踐智慧 來決定何時該有什麼感受，

and how strongly to feel it.

以及該感受的強烈程度。

For example, let’s say you’re going to sleep early

例如，假設你因為明天有個重要會議

because you have an important meeting tomorrow

而早早上床睡覺，

and your neighbor just started blasting music.

但鄰居突然開始大聲放送音樂。

If you can’t sleep, you might botch your meeting,

如果你無法入睡，你可能會搞砸會議，

so feeling angry is definitely understandable.

此時生氣是完全可以理解的。

But how much anger should you feel? And what actions, if any, should you take?

但你應該有多生氣呢？ 如果要採取行動，你應該做什麼？

To answer these questions, Aristotle would need to know more details.

為了回答這些問題， 亞里斯多德需要知道更多的細節。

Have you previously talked to your neighbor about this issue?

你之前是否與鄰居談過這個問題？

Is it a reasonable time to be playing music?

現在是放音樂的合理時間嗎？

Is your neighbor trying to antagonize you, or are they just enjoying their evening?

你的鄰居是在故意激怒你， 或只是單純在享受他們的夜晚？

Relying on practical wisdom in Aristotle’s case-by-case approach

仰賴亞里斯多德個案處理的實踐智慧

makes a lot of sense for navigating interpersonal conflicts.

來調節人際衝突是很有合理的。

But what about when there’s no one to blame for your anger?

但如果你的憤怒沒有合適的宣洩對象呢？

Imagine a tornado completely destroys your house

想像一下，一場龍捲風 把你的房子全毀了，

while your neighbor’s home is untouched.

而你的鄰居的房子卻安然無恙。

No amount of anger can undo the disaster,

再多的憤怒也無法改變災難的事實，

and there isn’t really a suitable target for your frustration.

而且你的憤怒也沒有 真正合適的發洩對象。

Yet for the ancient Stoics,

然而，對於古代斯多葛派來說，

the tornado and the noisy neighbor are basically identical.

龍捲風和吵鬧的鄰居基本上是一樣的。

The Stoics believed life is like an uncontrollable cart we’re all tied to,

斯多葛派認為生活就像一輛失控的車， 我們都被綁在上面，

and we can either learn to go with the flow

我們可以選擇學著隨遇而安，

or hurt ourselves fighting its momentum.

或者抗拒形勢而受傷。

In their logic, we all live at the whims of fate,

按照斯多葛派的邏輯， 我們都生活在命運的擺布之下，

and our actions can never actually change things—

我們的行動永遠無法 真正改變事情的發生——

whether it's a natural disaster or how others act towards us.

無論是自然災害， 還是他人對我們的行為。

So Stoics believe anger is always wrong,

所以斯多葛派認為憤怒是錯的，

since it causes pain and is ultimately futile.

因為它會帶來痛苦， 而且最終是徒勞的。

The 8th century Indian Buddhist philosopher Śāntideva

印度八世紀佛教哲學家 寂天（Śāntideva）

also questioned our free will and the value of anger,

也質疑我們的自由意志和憤怒的價值，

arguing that because people often lack rational control over their emotions,

他認為因為人們往往無法 理性控制自己的情緒，

we should endeavor not to let their anger and cruelty spread to us.

我們應該努力不要讓他人的 憤怒和殘酷蔓延到自身。

But even if it’s hard for us to control our anger,

但即使我們很難控制自己的憤怒，

there might be something we can learn from it.

我們也許能從中學到一些東西。

Philosopher PF Strawson’s theory of reactive attitudes

哲學家斯特勞森的反應態度理論認為，

suggests that experiencing anger is a natural part of human psychology

憤怒是人類心理的自然部分，

that helps us communicate blame and hold each other accountable.

它有助於我們溝通責備並讓彼此負責。

In this model, anger can be an important part

在這個模型中，憤怒可以讓我們知道

of letting us know when something immoral is happening,

不道德的事情正在發生，

so removing it would impair our social lives and moral communities.

所以消除憤怒會妨害 我們的社會生活和社群道德。

But finding the right response to those psychological alarm bells can be tricky.

但我們可能很難找到 對這些心理警報的正確反應。

For instance, if you were supervising cruel, disrespectful young children,

例如，你在管教那些刻薄、 無理的小孩時，

it might be natural to feel anger,

自然會感到憤怒，

but it would be wrong to treat their moral mistakes

但在處置他們的道德錯誤時， 不該和處置成人時一樣。

like those of fully formed adults.

So when should you act on anger?

那麼，何時該義憤填膺而有所作為？

And can it ever help change things for the better?

發怒能否改善情況？

Let's imagine your community is experiencing serious health issues

想像你的社區因為附近 一家工廠非法污染水源

because a nearby factory is illegally polluting the water supply.

而面臨嚴重的健康問題。

A long tradition in political philosophy argues that the righteous anger

政治哲學長久以來的傳統認為，

目睹這種不公所喚起的正義憤怒，

often invoked by witnessing this kind of injustice

can be invaluable for fueling change and motivating community action.

對推動變革和激勵社區行動是寶貴的。

In unjust situations like this,

在這種不公正的情況下，

it could be a moral mistake to suppress your anger,

壓抑你的憤怒可能是一種道德錯誤，

instead of channeling it into positive action.

應該將其轉化為積極的行動。

But other philosophers argue that anger has an inherent negative element

但是，其他哲學家認為憤怒本身 有一種內在的負面因素，

that limits its transformative power.

會限制它的變革力量。

Philosopher Martha Nussbaum pointed out that famous civil rights activists

哲學家瑪莎‧努斯鮑姆指出，

著名的民權活動家如甘地、 曼德拉和金恩博士警告我們，

such as Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr

warned that giving yourself over to even the most righteous anger

即使你的怒火是最正義的怒火

can lead one to become bitter, vengeful, or hateful of others.

也會導致你對人刻薄、心生報復 或憎恨他人。

They cautioned that we should carefully calibrate our emotional responses

他們告誡我們應該 仔細調整我們的情緒反應，

to ensure that we see others not as enemies

以確保我們不會將彼此視為敵人，

but as community members with whom we must learn to coexist,

而是我們必須學會 與之共存的社區成員，

regardless of our ever-changing emotions.

不論我們的情緒如何變化。