Book 4 / Chapter 5
Paragraph 5 - The Complexity of Anger and the Middle State
Explanation - Part By Part
"What we have said in our earlier treatment of the subject is plain also from what we are now saying; viz. that it is not easy to define how, with whom, at what, and how long one should be angry, and at what point right action ceases and wrong begins."
Aristotle is saying that it's difficult to pin down exact rules about anger—questions like "Who should we be angry at?" "What should we be angry about?" "How long should we stay angry?" and "When does appropriate anger cross into something harmful?" don't have clear-cut answers. The complexity of human emotions means that there is no universal formula or absolute boundary to define when anger is justified and when it becomes excessive or inappropriate. It's a nuanced, situational matter that isn't easy to standardize.
"For the man who strays a little from the path, either towards the more or towards the less, is not blamed; since sometimes we praise those who exhibit the deficiency, and call them good-tempered, and sometimes we call angry people manly, as being capable of ruling."
Aristotle is examining how people deviate from the ideal or "middle" state of emotional response, particularly regarding anger. He points out that minor deviations—being a little too lenient (deficient in anger) or a little too fiery (excessive in anger)—are generally not condemned. In fact, society often praises these slight deviations in certain contexts, framing them as virtues.
For example, someone who exhibits a lack of anger might be seen as "good-tempered," a person who remains calm and easygoing, which is often admired. On the other hand, a person who displays a controlled form of anger or assertiveness might be called "manly" (in Aristotle's time, this meant strong, courageous, or authoritative), as society sometimes values the ability to channel anger to pursue justice, enforce rules, or lead decisively.
Essentially, Aristotle is showing that the context and degree of deviation matter. Small departures from the ideal balance can sometimes be seen positively, depending on the circumstances and cultural values. However, he's also setting the stage to argue that the true virtue still lies in mastering the "middle state," where anger is applied at the right time, with the right intensity, and for the right reasons.
"How far, therefore, and how a man must stray before he becomes blameworthy, it is not easy to state in words; for the decision depends on the particular facts and on perception."
Aristotle is acknowledging here that it’s extremely difficult to pinpoint an exact line where someone's behavior stops being acceptable and starts being blameworthy. This is because such judgments depend heavily on the specific circumstances of each situation (the particular facts) and the observer’s ability to discern and interpret them (perception). In essence, there isn’t a strict rule or formula for determining what counts as "too much" or "too little" anger—context and individual understanding are crucial to making this call.
"But so much at least is plain, that the middle state is praiseworthy- that in virtue of which we are angry with the right people, at the right things, in the right way, and so on, while the excesses and defects are blameworthy- slightly so if they are present in a low degree, more if in a higher degree, and very much if in a high degree."
Aristotle is saying that the "middle state," or the balance in how we express anger, is what deserves praise. This means feeling and showing anger when it’s justified—toward the right people, for the right reasons, and in an appropriate manner. On the other hand, straying too far in either direction—whether expressing too much anger (excess) or too little (deficiency)—is considered a flaw. The blame for these flaws varies in intensity: it might be mild if the imbalance is small, worse if it’s greater, and extremely bad when the extremes are severe. Essentially, Aristotle emphasizes the importance of moderation—finding a balanced, thoughtful response to anger instead of letting it veer out of control or suppressing it entirely.
"Evidently, then, we must cling to the middle state.- Enough of the states relative to anger."
Aristotle is concluding his discussion on anger by emphasizing the importance of balance, or the "middle state," in managing this emotion. He believes that the key to virtuous behavior lies in finding a balance—being angry with the right people, for the right reasons, in the right way, and to the right degree. This balanced state is the one to strive for, as extremes—whether excessive anger or too little anger—are flawed and blameworthy. With this statement, he wraps up his analysis of anger and its related virtues and vices.