When a sick man gets a sudden burst of strength from his illness, that strength doesn't last and isn't healthy. It's only strong enough to destroy itself. So don't think I'm wasting time attacking anger as if everyone already agrees it's bad. There's actually a famous philosopher who thinks anger has its uses. He says it gives us energy for battles, for handling business, and for anything that needs to be done with passion.
The strength which a sick man owes to a paroxysm of disease is neither lasting nor wholesome, and is strong only to its own destruction. You need not, therefore, imagine that I am wasting time over a useless task in defaming anger, as though men had not made up their minds about it, when there is some one, and he, too, an illustrious philosopher, who assigns it services to perform, and speaks of it as useful and supplying energy for battles, for the management of business, and indeed for everything which requires to be conducted with spirit.