"Usually when people are sad, they don’t do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change."
At first glance, this seems to make sense. We can all agree that when we show an increased degree of assertive/aggressive emotion, we tend to take action. Is it accurate to say this quote compares sadness with anger? By the author's definition, what makes them different?
The author implies that sadness renders us inactive while anger drives us to take the lead. So let's take a look into our past and choose a time when we remember feeling very sad, and ponder that experience for a moment. Did our sadness render us immobile or move us into action? Chances are, sadness made us feel weak. In this light, does sadness equal weakness while anger equals strength?
Does the author suggest that sadness cripples us, while anger strengthens us?
Since anger, most of the time, is a result of losing one's sense of intellectual capacity for understanding the whole picture, I may not agree that anger is a basis for strength. That being said, allowing anger to be the driving force behind change does not necessarily make it worthy of anything more than a reactive response with an unstable outcome because extreme emotions tend to lack logical reasoning.
Setting anger aside, let's look at sadness. What is sadness and what is its function? Is it the equivalent of feeling pain from a flesh wound? If so, then we should first evaluate how to deal with the pain before we can move in a forward direction. A wound needs treatment, so whether it is physical or emotional, retreating to a safe haven is the only natural thing to do. Does this define sadness as a weakness or a gravitation toward self preservation? Does this represent an incapacity or does it represent intellectual reasoning? If it is intellectual reasoning, then sadness boils down to an absorption of unwelcome input. It is not a fragility at all.
We instinctively know not to take action until our wounds are tended to, which means we wait until we grow stronger. At this point, it is healthier not to allow anger alone to motivate us toward making change, but the acceptance of reality. A good dose of self honesty can move us into a powerful type of action. Honesty and the acknowledgement of principles, which I believe are reason without dependance on emotion; truth that stands alone without need for condemnation. Principles are the perception of what is right, without the reliance on anger. Actions based on principles are more deliberate in nature and generally have a stable outcome because they have been thought out more carefully. So quite possibly, change takes place as a desire to heal wounds, rather than being motivated by anger.