Maybe anger isn't natural, but shouldn't we still use it because it's often helpful? It stirs up our spirit and gets us excited. Courage can't do anything great in war without anger — unless that flame comes from this source. This is what pushes brave people forward and sends them into danger. So some people think it's best to control anger, not get rid of it completely. They say we should just cut off the excessive parts and force it to stay within useful limits. That way we keep the part we need — because without it, our actions become weak and all our mental strength and energy dies away.
May it not be that, although anger be not natural, it may be right to adopt it, because it often proves useful? It rouses the spirit and excites it; and courage does nothing grand in war without it, unless its flame be supplied from this source; this is the goad which stirs up bold men and sends them to encounter perils. Some therefore consider it to be best to control anger, not to banish it utterly, but to cut off its extravagances, and force it to keep within useful bounds, so as to retain that part of it without which action will become languid and all strength and activity of mind will die away.