I was told today that there are two types of anger, by my barber.
“What, righteous anger?” I suggested and he reiterated “yes there is a right time for anger and a wrong time”.
I told him that if he really thinks that, that he was setting himself up as a God, in my view.
That is, a law unto himself, as he gets to decide what and when his anger is right and can justify just about any of his anger and condemn anyone else’s.
In other words his anger can be okay but other people’s is not.
I think that all anger is understandable but not acceptable. I don’t think that I can ever justify my anger, though I do believe that it is possible to understand it.
I would be interested if anyone could argue against this statement?
i think the way one can ‘try’ make anger acceptable “in their own minds”, is to excuse it! i.e. “I was justified in getting angry, coz you made me angry”.
When we make excuses, I think its an indulgence (like an alibi). However when both parties play the game that way, I guess it’s understandable that its so prevalent. I prefer the game of understandable though not acceptable (as the best way).
That was my favourite book when I was a kid Alibi and the Forty Thieves! 🙂