Throughout his book Considerations, author Colin Wright reflects ideas that align with stoicism, turning Considerations into a collection of essays on varying topics to slightly mirror Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations. A common theme between the two works is the focus on ideas of self awareness, self-control, and accepting that you do not understand everyone’s perspectives and thoughts. Commenting on ideas of self-awareness and self-control, Wright introduces an interesting idea about the way we think during times of passionate anger,
“On a personal level, outrage makes us feel superior. By becoming indignant, we’re drawing a line in the sand and declaring ourselves to be on the right side of a given issue. We’re saying, “How horrible this situation is, and how capable I am of declaring right and wrong, and passing judgment on those involved!””
Wright continues to explain that this type of outrage is nothing more than a self-esteem boost for ourselves because it raises us along a slope of moral righteousness from which we are able to display and pronounce our superiority over those in the “wrong” camp. Our ranting and explosive attitudes release energy and captivate the attention of others, giving us an additional boost by holding people’s attention. As this continues, being right or wrong does not matter, and we simply become outraged on moral issues so that we can continue to hold people’s attention and flatter ourselves. The more people pay attention to an outraged individual, whether they agree with them or just want to see someone exploding their beliefs, the more that individual feels supported. We reinforce our ideas and beliefs and risk polarizing ourselves through our thought process by creating an identity for ourselves that is holy and pure, while demonizing those with whom we disagree and view as being wrong.
I think that both Aurelius and Wright would argue that it is better to turn inside ourselves and reflect on that which drives us irate before making a public display of our feelings. By better understanding whatever it is, we can better react to it, and perhaps understand other perspectives surrounding that which angered us. Aurelius would certainly argue that nothing should push an individual to the point of outrage, since it is likely outside our control and influence, and since the thing itself likely does not make us any worse off, but rather our reactions to that thing makes us angry. Both authors would also argue that it is important to be able to understand why others think or behave in a way to us that seems completely backward and wrong. When we can focus and explore the behaviors and thoughts of others from their perspective we are able to grow as individuals and better connect with them. By connecting and sharing perspectives we are able to grow as individuals and as groups as opposed to creating divides within society that entrench us behind a personal moral facade of correctness.