Temperance

Okay so it is established that Aristotle believes virtue to be a mean between two extremes, and temperance is a virtue. The question begs, what two extremes does temperance lie between. On one hand you have un justified anger. Unjustified anger is anger either at an inappropriate amount, at the wrong time, for the wrong reason, invoked too quickly, or a combination of all of these. Aristotle seems to think that this is the most common extreme in respect to temperance, and I would have to agree with him because anger is so easily and quickly invoked it often fails to do so by reason. On the other hand there are people who do not even get angry for the reasons. Aristotle describes these people sort of as push overs saying they, "seem to be insensible and to feel no pain, and because he does not get angry, not the sort to stick up for himself; and its is slavish to put up with being insulted oneself or to over look insults to those close to one. " It seems like justified anger in this sense is stemmed from having an appropriate amount of respect for things. You should not be a push over and let injustices go by, but at the same time have a sense of humor and don't give things too much reverence when they are not deserved.

To be honest when I chose "Anger" as my virtue I thought I was choosing passion or spirit. I am actually somewhat disappointed (but not unreasonably disappointed of course). The word θυμός means anger, passion, spirit, heart, and in the case of Parmenides "longing". Aristotle does talk about θυμός, but unfortunately  it is in respect to courage. What I find interesting about passion is that it carries us to do things that perhaps under normal circumstances we might not be able to do. Passionate people generally able to overcome obstacles, to make sacrifices easier than reason would allow us to permit. The challenge of passion is to not let it make sacrifices that are too large.

Zip it up and zip it out