The Chain of Anger

September 2026

All passages below are my paraphrases from public domain translations, condensed for readability. Citations are there so you can check them. Specific numberings can vary across editions and translations.

Many people have observed the causal chain of human psychology: actions come from thoughts, which are influenced by our emotions, which often stem from subconscious things we are unaware of, or only stumble upon during deliberate reflection. Today we are going to focus on different links of that chain, with a special focus on anger. It's something we all feel, and most people see it as a negative emotion. Yet it is almost certainly something we have let influence our actions in our life.

Whether it was pushing that kid on the playground when he threw sand at you or snapping at your significant other when they use that tone that you just can't stand, it's something we have probably let get the best of us. These traditions disagree about where one should intervene in the causal chain. Some argue that anger can be useful when properly directed; others teach us to interrupt it, reinterpret its causes, or ultimately free ourselves from its grip. What they share is the conviction that anger should not be allowed to choose our actions for us.

Teachings

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1109a

I wanted to start with Aristotle's teachings because they are a departure from the other ones we will look at. They are the only ones that promote using your anger for a purpose and note a positive side to anger. Interestingly, the Greek verb for what virtue does is stochazesthai — literally, to aim, to take a shot at. Virtue "aims at" the best answer to the given situation the way an archer aims at the bullseye.

This is an important nuance for this lesson. Simply getting angry isn't a good response. That anger needs to find its target which requires skill and precision on the part of the responder. This nuance shifts the teaching from simply responding with your anger to responding with your skill of properly focusing and modulating your anger.

The second Aristotelian teaching worth noting comes from NE IV.5. In this he argues that not getting angry at all is a negative quality. It's not restrained enlightenment; it's a numbness that shows a lack of vitality. This valuing of anger as a positive quality is something we will see sages and yogis sharply disagree with later.

However, first we will look at a case study from Judaism.

Proverbs 15:1

In the Book of Judges Chapter 8, an angry mob from the tribe of Ephraim approaches the war-leader, Gideon. They were angry because they were called into battle late, and felt they did not have an ample opportunity to win glory. Gideon emphasizes the glory that they were able to win in battle and assuages the mob. Fast forward a bit, and the Ephraimites are mad at the new war-leader, Jephthah, because they did not have a chance to win glory in battle. This time Jephthah responds by saying he did call the Ephraimites but they didn't help (note, the narrator does not mention if this claim is actually true or not), so he did it himself. This provocation throws a match onto gasoline and ignites a battle between the armies of the Ephraimites and Jephthah. 42,000 Ephraimites were killed.

Note, this proverb is about choosing your response carefully. Both leaders had every right to be upset and feel provoked by the Ephraimites. Jephthah gave a reasonably justified response. He's had a long day (an understatement given his daughter, a story we can't go into, but feel free to look it up), they are on his bad side anyway, and then they have the nerve to give him attitude. He gave the response that most of us probably would have chosen. However, all those justifications and excuses don't make it a good response in the moment. Gideon harnessed his emotions, ignored the justifications, chose the soft response, and the difference in the outcomes could not be more stark.

The slaughter of the tribe of Ephraim actually directly led to the English word "shibboleth" — any word, phrase, custom, or pronunciation that identifies someone as a member of a particular group or separates insiders from outsiders. The Ephraimites were trying to cross the Jordan river while fleeing. Jephthah's army tested anyone trying to cross by forcing them to say the word shibboleth. However, the Ephraimite dialect lacked the "sh" sound leading to them saying "sibboleth" and confirming their origins. Hence the definition.

The next voice comes hundreds of years later, from a writer so steeped in Israel's scriptures that he quotes the Psalms verbatim before giving his own teaching on anger.

Ephesians 4:26-27

The first thing worth noticing is that this gives a command to be angry. Most people are familiar with the part about the sun going down, but overlook the permission to feel their feelings. This combination shows similarities to the earlier Aristotle teachings. However, the addition of the negative, don't do anything foolish in light of your anger ("but do not sin"), also shows similarities to the previous Judaic teaching as well. While it's likely the writer encountered Proverbs in their past, and possibly even Aristotle's teachings, there is no firm evidence that links all of these together.

Where this teaching starts to break away from previous examples is by putting an expiration date on your anger. Letting it fester and leaving it unresolved is dangerous, and it immediately tells you why: to not give the devil an opportunity. Regardless of where you stand theologically, I think we can all verify the psychological observation. Unresolved anger does not sit still, it rehearses responses, it digs up more evidence, and carefully waits for its time to strike. By morning, your significant other missing a key detail in conversation goes from "don't forget about this" to "you never listen to me!" None of us are at risk of starting a civil war with the Ephraimites, but plenty of us are at risk of starting a civil war under our own roofs.

Now we are starting to drift from focusing on one's actions into a heavier focus on thoughts and emotions. We are now starting to see a tangible jump up the causal chain discussed earlier. The next teaching moves us up another link.

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2:1

This is probably one of the most quoted lines from Meditations. He's not just saying manage your anger when it arises; prepare your mind ahead of time, so the anger cannot take root. No matter your place in life you will encounter frustrating people. In between battles, Marcus prepared himself mentally and emotionally the same way a fighter would practice their techniques before going in the ring.

I also want to call attention to the other parts of this section, which are often left out. Firstly he tries to excuse their behavior, essentially saying they are just ignorant, not malicious. He then takes it even further by saying that everyone shares the same part of divinity within themselves, we were born for cooperation (the analogy he uses is like upper and lower teeth and other complementary body parts), and to work against each other would go against nature. There are two crucial points to unpack here.

Firstly, he is not trying to repress his anger; he is replacing the anger train of thought with something else. We can probably all relate to trying to stuff some emotion or desire down somewhere. It may work for a time, but eventually that bag bursts and it all comes spilling out. I read this teaching as Marcus wanting to ensure there isn't even any anger to stuff down. Secondly, he notes that we all have to cooperate, so anger and opposition are ultimately counterproductive. Again, this is something that can resonate with all of us. We get angry at a co-worker, significant other, or even the person making our coffee. Does that anger help the following interactions?

Moving on to our second teaching from inside a battle, and it goes much further than just a difficult interaction.

Bhagavad Gita 2:62-63

If Marcus was pulling up anger by the root, The Gita is pouring down cement, so these weeds have no chance whatsoever. This teaching puts anger firmly as a midpoint, then explains its conception, and extrapolates its consequences to the very end. To more fully understand the causal link, we need to expand our definitions of "desire" beyond the typical western connotation. This teaching refers to the obvious, sex, intoxication, money, fame, etc. However, we can probably also make a case that it also refers to the desire for things to happen as we want them to, a desire for fairness in life, a desire for people to be nice to us, and other less tangible things. To some degree, we desire reality to follow our mental script; when the actors don't follow their cues, our emotional state begins to degrade. Once we widen that aperture, the link between our own anger, and the desire at the root, becomes more clear.

The other direction this teaching goes is claiming that anger will significantly degrade your life (translations vary quite a bit here, but suffice it to say anger = very bad for the individual). One can probably make a case that the Hindu idea of reincarnation plays a big role in equating mistakes made in the heat of anger to a wasted life. However, even when we set that aside, it's easy to see how anger can easily lead to wasted moments. How many times can we personally look back and see a mini Book of Judges playing out in our lives? Physical altercations, harsh words, or even just not replying to that text message from someone who is on your last nerve: all of these choices can have lasting consequences. It's better to be able to look back and confidently say that you made the best choice you could have at the time than to think what if I had thought that through a bit more.

The final teaching culminates with a belief on the rewards of being completely free of the impact of emotions:

Patanjali, Yoga Sutras 1:2-4

I don't think I have ever seen a teaching that varies more across editions and translations than the above. I have chosen a paraphrasing that I have found the most personally resonant. That being said, there are many other versions out there, all with their own nuances. I would encourage you to do your own research if you want to find your own definition of "Yoga" or Divine Union as I have translated it in this context. Additionally, I realize some would consider Raja Yoga linked with, or a subset of, Hinduism. Personally, I see them as distinct traditions.

Well we're definitely not in Kansas anymore considering we started with focusing our anger at the right person. I wanted to include this as what one could see as the ultimate upstream removal of anger. In fact, this teaching isn't even talking about anger specifically; it's all feelings. However, this is not a promotion of apathy. The reason I chose this version is because it focuses on freeing yourself from the vortex (I have also seen it translated as whirlpool) of emotion, not from feeling any emotion at all. If you allow yourself to get sucked into your emotions that affects your character.

I'm extending Patanjali's teaching beyond anger here. I read the sutra as describing a broader problem of becoming identified with the fluctuations of the mind. If you get caught in your anger, you become wrathful; if you sink into your sadness you become depressed; even if you jump into happiness you become manic. As an example, Paramhansa Yogananda is one of the sages who promoted Raja Yoga in Western cultures. In his autobiography, he regularly talked about feeling the depths and heights of his own emotions. However, the accounts of his disciples show a yogi ever centered in the Self. While these are not the most unbiased accounts given their relationship to him, I hope this example can demonstrate the concept of feeling emotions while not falling into them.

You've got to do something

As diverse as these teachings are, there are a few threads that run through all of them. They all acknowledge anger as an existent force that affects us. Anyone who has snapped at someone then immediately regretted it can attest to that. Secondly, they agree that anger cannot dictate an automatic response, but it must dictate a deliberate response. Aristotle: aim it; Proverbs: answer softly; Ephesians: defuse it; Marcus: prepare for its inevitable arrival; Gita: engage with the desire that created it; Patanjali: remove yourself from all mental eddies completely. I'm sure that different people reading this have all found a different teaching that speaks to them the most fully.

Maybe the most practical answer is using different strategies for our different challenges. Maybe focusing your anger means going to the gym after a bad day at work. Maybe the soft answer means not picking a fight with your significant other when they forgot to do the dishes. Maybe you mentally prepare yourself before dealing with your most annoying client. Maybe you work on understanding how your desires and attachments create anger when things don't work exactly how you want. No matter the problem, giving into anger and flying off the rails almost certainly isn't the answer.