On Anger, Book 1, Section 8 — In Plain English

Seneca — The Senator

"But," our opponent argues, "some people control themselves when they're angry." Do they control themselves so well that they do nothing anger tells them to do? Or do they still do some of what anger demands? If they do nothing that anger dictates, then it's clear that anger isn't necessary for handling business — even though your school claims anger is stronger than reason. Finally, let me ask you this: is anger stronger than reason, or weaker? If it's stronger, how can reason control it at all? Only weaker forces obey stronger ones. But if anger is weaker than reason, then reason can accomplish its goals without anger's help. It doesn't need assistance from something less powerful.

Seneca — The Senator Original

"But," argues our adversary, "some men when in anger control themselves." Do they so far control themselves that they do nothing which anger dictates, or some what? If they do nothing thereof, it becomes evident that anger is not essential to the conduct of affairs, although your sect advocated it as possessing greater strength than reason . . . . Finally, I ask, is anger stronger or weaker than reason? If stronger, how can reason impose any check upon it, since it is only the less powerful that obey: if weaker, then reason is competent to effect its ends without anger, and does not need the help of a less powerful quality.