What is Courage?

[coberst]

What is Courage?

Courage has two components; the ontological (body in action) and the conceptual (mind in action).

Paul Tillich, “Apostle to the intellectuals”, attempts to provide a new theological vocabulary by which modern wo/man might deal with the human situation. Tillich informs us that “Few concepts are as useful for the analysis of the human situation” as the concept of courage.

In his acclaimed book The Courage to Be Tillich sees courage as an “ethical reality”, i.e. courage is foremost a conceptual reality, which is rooted in the whole gestalt of human existence and “ultimately in the structure of being itself. It must be considered ontologically in order to be understood ethically”.

When one speaks of mind almost everyone thinks of a stand alone entity functioning in a logical manner in which the body is merely a house for its place of habitation until death, at which time it, sometimes called the soul, floats away to a spiritual kingdom. I wish to correct that erroneous idea.

I have coined the word body-mind, which I first discovered by reading Mark Johnson’s book The Meaning of the Body, because [b]I wish the reader to think not of the mind as a separate entity residing in the body but because I want the reader to think of a body-mind gestalt. That is to say that the mind is an embodied mind, which cannot stand alone just as the heart cannot stand alone with the body bracketed.

Quickie from Wiki: “The psychologist, Carl Jung, who studied archetypes, proposed an alternative definition of symbol, distinguishing it from the term "sign". In Jung's view, a sign stands for something known, as a word stands for its referent. He contrasted this with symbol, which he used to stand for something that is unknown and that cannot be made clear or precise.”

In accordance with Carl Jung I would say that the term “body-mind” is a symbol.

Humans, when they became conscious of their mortality, became overly anxious upon discovering their forthcoming death and they conceptualized the soul, which over millions of years morphed into monotheism and religion. Religion became the promise of life everlasting and thus assuaged the anxiety of death.

This anxiety over mortality caused a self-critical humanity to develop the mind/body dichotomy. This dichotomy leads to the idea that there is an essential difference between body and mind. But SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) informs us that we have a body-mind, that is to say that we are a gestalt, not two parts working separately but an integrated functioning whole. The body and mind works as a single unit. The body in action and the mind in action make the human being in action with a constant interrelationship between these two aspects of the gestalt.

Tillich informs us that the human act of courage is fundamentally a body-mind action driven by an ethical concept. “The courage to be is the ethical act in which man affirms his own being in spite of those elements of his existence which conflict with his essential self-affirmation.”

[billl]

Tillich informs us that the human act of courage is fundamentally a body-mind action driven by an ethical concept. “The courage to be is the ethical act in which man affirms his own being in spite of those elements of his existence which conflict with his essential self-affirmation.”


survival, and "the courage to be"
There is a famous photo of a Vietnamese monk burning himself to death with gasoline during the time of the U.S.-Vietnam War. I think it would be fair (to say the least) to call such an act courageous. I think that reconciling such an act with the phrase "courage to be" requires some hedging, if Tillich or one of his followers would want to view it as being courageous, though. It is fair to say that such actions might be of great benefit to others (in the case of the monk, his sacrifice was witnessed worldwide).

I also think that a consideration of the experiences of prisoners at extermination and reeducation camps reveals a slightly different, but related case, which also makes it difficult to define courage precisely in this way. In order to physically survive (to continue to be), prisoners would sometimes have to choose against the more difficult act of self-affirmation (e.g. by working with or allying oneself with one's oppressors or torturers). To say that those who turned aside such opportunities lacked courage seems unfair--although it would sometimes obviously mean their death. To apply Tillich's definition fairly to such individuals, I think one has to expand "courage to be" to even include a resistance against "those elements of his existence which conflict with his essential self-affirmation,” with one of those elements being the survival instinct, in such cases.

Limiting courage to ethics
Also, I think it is difficult to inextricably connect courage to ethics. Sometimes people think of courage as simply "Physical Courage." What of Rock Climbers? Can they be called courageous? What about criminals who perform some dangerous but 'unethical' task, in order to prove themselves to other gang members? What about those who stick a needle in their arm because their friends have done so? While the OP seems to refer exclusively to something else (a Moral Courage, I think), I think the idea of mind-body makes it worth making the distinction.


So I think "What is Courage" is maybe a controversial title for this thread (and might lead some less than careful readers to post replies that might not directly relate to the OP and Tillich's ideas). If the question really is meant to be a sort of existential one, about "What is the courage to be?" then I think Tillich provides an inspiring reminder of how we must sometimes make compromises, in consideration of the challenging, surprising, and imperfect world around us--but I think that the world is too complicated for the definition to be fairly applied in all cases, and that it seems to maybe downplay (unintentionally, perhaps) resistance to "those elements of [our] existence which conflict with his essential self-affirmation."

Although my earlier examples (of the monk, and reeducation camps, etc.) were extreme, I think they are only the end-points of a slippery slope on which fair debate might occur between resistance and toleration of harmful and dehumanizng elements--and perhaps illuminate how the phrase "in spite of" is not so precise, and might represent "resistance to oppression or environmental challenge," or might instead refer to "acceptance."

[coberst]

Bill

The virtue we call courage is a very important virtue and you have given it a fair shake. I have just started reading Tillich and I find his work to be of great depth and understanding.

The following is the begining of a new thread I am preparing for this subject.

Wisdom or Courage, Which the Greater Virtue?

Plato informs us that the armed aristocracy is the representative of what is noble and graceful. “Out of them the bearers of wisdom arise, adding wisdom to courage.”

Aristotle informs us that the courageous man acts “for the sake of what is noble, for that is the aim of virtue.” The noble is understood by Aristotle as being the beautiful, in contrast to the ugly or base.

Self-actualization is the pinnacle of Maslow’s hierarchy and represents the affirmation of one’s essential nature. “Courage is the affirmation of one’s essential nature, one’s inner aim or entelechy, but it is an affirmation which has in itself the character of “in spite of”.

“There is a tendency to use the term ‘virtue’ in an abstract “moralistic” sense—a way that makes it almost Pharisaic in character.”--John Dewey My first thought after reading this and ‘looking up’ the word ‘Pharisaic’ (self-righteous) turns to William Bennett, gambler, ideologue, czar, and author of “The Book of Virtues”.

John Dewey wrote the above quote about virtue in his book “Ethics”. He further identifies the concept ‘virtue’ to mean a talent turned toward enhancing social values. Dewey says “every natural capacity, every talent or ability, whether of inquiring mind, of gentle affection, or of executive skill, becomes a virtue when it is turned to account in supporting or extending the fabric of social values.”

[dizzydoll]

I enjoyed reading both of your views. A fireman is courageous, I dont think I am courageous. :wink5:

[billl]

There's lots of interesting ideas in that latest post, coberst. I look forward to the post you're working on about wisdom and courage. And thanks for the Dewey perspective on virtue. It looks like it does a good job of recognizing a lot of things.

[PierreGringoire]

“Courage is the affirmation of one’s essential nature, one’s inner aim or entelechy, but it is an affirmation which has in itself the character of “in spite of”.

That is a beautiful quote. Can you expand more on "it has in itself the charachter "of in spite of"?

“Ethics”. He further identifies the concept ‘virtue’ to mean a talent turned toward enhancing social values. Dewey says “every natural capacity, every talent or ability, whether of inquiring mind, of gentle affection, or of executive skill, becomes a virtue when it is turned to account in supporting or extending the fabric of social values.”

So it that. Can it be argued that if you are "self righteous" you basically believe your actions accomplish this anyway?

Also, can courage be redefined on "willingness to take on risk?" Or is courage exclusively "doing what is necessary for the benefit of society?"

Basically, can you reword what you wrote so it can be simpler to understand. Its hard to understand what you mean by a lot of your words because you don't go into enough detail....or I'm just reading this too late

Thank you

[coberst]

That is a beautiful quote. Can you expand more on "it has in itself the charachter "of in spite of"?



Thank you


Conceptual courage is necessary for an individual to become a Critical Thinking self-actualizing self-learning individual, which means that one has sailed constantly against the prevailing cultural winds of society.

Our(American) culture is ani-intellectual so to develop an intellectual life is to constantly follow your star despite the fact that most of your fellows find you to be a bit rediculous.

Generally we judge the quality of our life from what others think of us. We find comfort in surrounding our self in the comfortable embrace of our fellows. We find comfort in the group.

Humans seek to be more than animals. We seek to be gods or at least propagate that level above animal and below God.

That which promotes life is good that which promotes death is evil. “Evil lies not in the hearts of men but in the social arrangements that men take for granted.”

Wo/man lives a debased life under tyranny and self delusion because s/he does not comprehend the conditions of natural freedom. Sapiens need hope and belief in themselves; thus illusion is necessary if it is creative for life, but is evil if it promotes death.

A psychodynamic analysis of history displays saga of death, destruction, and coercion from the outside while inside we see self-delusion and self enslavement. We seek mystification. We seek transference; we seek hypnotists as our chosen leaders.

We seek the power to ward off big evil by reflexively embracing small terrors and small fascinations in the place of overwhelming ones.

Courage is the fundamental qualifying quality for being a hero. So, why are we all so naturally cowardly? Our goal is to be a hero and we lack the courage to be so.

We constantly struggle for a life that has meaning. All meaning for us is associated with that which comes to us from the outside. Our sense of self is derived by looking at others for determining who and what we are. “Our whole world of right and wrong, good and bad, our name, precisely who we are, is grafted into us; and we never feel we have authority to offer things on our own…we feel ourselves in many ways guilty and beholden to others…indebted to them for our very birth.”

Abraham Maslow spoke of our being fearful of standing alone. We fear actualizing our potential. We have the urge to ‘be all we can be’ but we fear to attempt the fulfillment of this urge. “We fear our highest possibility…we even thrill to the godlike possibilities we see in our self…yet we simultaneously shiver with weakness.” Maslow coined the phrase ‘Jonah Syndrome’ to mean the evasion of the full intensity of life.

The Jonah Syndrome is a justified fear of losing control and being torn apart—to even being killed by the experience of being all we can be. Otto Rank spoke of our natural feeling of inferiority in the face of the transcendence of life and creation.

Quotes from The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker

[dizzydoll]

We fear actualizing our potential. We have the urge to ‘be all we can be’ but we fear to attempt the fulfillment of this urge. “We fear our highest possibility…we even thrill to the godlike possibilities we see in our self…yet we simultaneously shiver with weakness.”

Otto Rank spoke of our natural feeling of inferiority in the face of the transcendence of life and creation.

I'm gradually awaking from this deep sleep, thanks for putting the light on. :idea:

Good post as usual.

[JuniperWoolf]

I've been thinking about this for a while.

What if it's a bad thing to try to talk people out of superstition? What if that's the only thing that allows them to function? They might need that belief in an afterlife. Nothingness is a horrifying concept for a lot of people. The idea that you will NEVER see your loved ones after one of you dies, it's very sad. People with sick family members pray, and so they feel like they're helping. When the sick loved one dies, they comfort themselves with their idea of an afterlife. I don't think that's cowardly, it's just human. If we argue in favour of atheism, and somehow manage to convince people that there is no afterlife, are we causing harm? If so, isn't it better to just let people think whatever they want no matter how silly or unfounded it is as long as it helps them to get through the day?

[coberst]

I've been thinking about this for a while.

What if it's a bad thing to try to talk people out of superstition? What if that's the only thing that allows them to function? They might need that belief in an afterlife. Nothingness is a horrifying concept for a lot of people. The idea that you will NEVER see your loved ones after one of you dies, it's very sad. People with sick family members pray, and so they feel like they're helping. When the sick loved one dies, they comfort themselves with their idea of an afterlife. I don't think that's cowardly, it's just human. If we argue in favour of atheism, and somehow manage to convince people that there is no afterlife, are we causing harm? If so, isn't it better to just let people think whatever they want no matter how silly or unfounded it is as long as it helps them to get through the day?


We all do look inward and unfortunately one of the first things we see is that we are mortal. This becomes so anxiety producing that almost everything that we do is a result of this first inward glance. First we created soul, then gods, then God, then religion in our search for life everlasting.

[lavendar1]

Hemingway's definition: Courage is grace under pressure.

[lavendar1]

And yet another definition, by Marianne Moore:

What Are Years?


by Marianne Moore

What is our innocence,
what is our guilt? All are
naked, none is safe. And whence
is courage: the unanswered question,
the resolute doubt, -
dumbly calling, deafly listening-that
in misfortune, even death,
encourages others
and in its defeat, stirs

the soul to be strong? He
sees deep and is glad, who
accedes to mortality
and in his imprisonment rises
upon himself as
the sea in a chasm, struggling to be
free and unable to be,
in its surrendering
finds its continuing.

So he who strongly feels,
behaves. The very bird,
grown taller as he sings, steels
his form straight up. Though he is captive,
his mighty singing
says, satisfaction is a lowly
thing, how pure a thing is joy.
This is mortality,
this is eternity.

[JuniperWoolf]

We all do look inward and unfortunately one of the first things we see is that we are mortal. This becomes so anxiety producing that almost everything that we do is a result of this first inward glance. First we created soul, then gods, then God, then religion in our search for life everlasting.

Yeah, but so what? I mean, if it abates the anxiety, what's wrong with that?

[dizzydoll]

Yeah, but so what? I mean, if it abates the anxiety, what's wrong with that?

:thumbsup: Agreed.

[coberst]

Yeah, but so what? I mean, if it abates the anxiety, what's wrong with that?


What is wrong with religion? That is a BIG question! What is good with religion? That is another BIG question!

If we placed on one side of a balance scale the good from religion and on the other side the bad from religion, which way would the balance go?

[JuniperWoolf]

What is wrong with religion? That is a BIG question! What is good with religion? That is another BIG question!

If we placed on one side of a balance scale the good from religion and on the other side the bad from religion, which way would the balance go?

You're right, this is a very big, long, complicate, subjective, mind-****ing question...

Let's just leave it on an individual personal basis, and talk about religion as a way to face death. The concept of death is horrifying, yes. The ability to face it and come to the conclusion that there is likely nothing afterwards takes a lot of courage, this is true. BUT this is rare. The majority of people don't have that kind of courage. So what's wrong with them entertaining the idea that there might be an afterlife (the audacities committed by religious groups that succumb to groupthink aside; after all, it doesn't take religion to formulate people into groups. Nationality is another institution which could incite the kinds of illogical behaviour that has historically been committed by religious groups). We’re just talking one person’s struggle with their own mortality. They aren’t cowards, they’re just human. They can’t face the idea of becoming nothing. That’s okay with me, I think that’s fine.

[blazeofglory]

What is wrong with religion? That is a BIG question! What is good with religion? That is another BIG question!

If we placed on one side of a balance scale the good from religion and on the other side the bad from religion, which way would the balance go?

This is a great though indeed and we have not been able to answer some of the questions building around religions. Many times I feel religion is not needed and other times I cannot think about the world without religions to return to savageries, or to the brutal jungle dynastic idea where might is right. I know religions are man –made ideas and imaginations but yet I feel religion has integrated us to some extent. Man's virtues, altruisms come from religions. Once we wipe out religiosity we will be back to brutal state

[caesar]

What is courage?

The question had plagued me for a long time. When I rationally analyzed some of the stories of courageous men from history, I felt that, in many a case, the word "courageous" was misplaced. I couldn't tell exactly why until I read a quote attributed to Mark Twain - "Courage is not the lack of fear, but it is the mastery over it" . Then I began to see the difference between foolhardiness and courage.

But I admire foolhardiness as much as I admire courage as long as the intentions are good.

[coberst]

Personal heroism by means of individualism is a task requiring courage and self-confidence. Courage and self-confidence are characteristics of few sapiens, young or old. It is a path less traveled because it imposes terrifying burdens; these burdens display themselves by isolation from the common herd. “This move exposes the person to the sense of being completely crushed and annihilated because he sticks out so much, has to carry so much in himself.”

Personal heroism demands that one exposes her self, i.e. s/he sticks out dramatically from the herd. Those creative types who expose themselves so must create their own justification. Herein we find something that may seem illogical “the more you develop as a distinctive free and critical human being, the more guilt you have. Your very work accuses you; it makes you feel inferior. What right do you have to play God?” By what authority do you presume to introduce new meaning into the world?

Otto Rank was a colleague of Freud and, like Jung, carried theories far beyond those which Freud created. “Freud’s reality psychology emphasized essentially the influence of outer factor, of the outer milieu, upon the development of the individual and the formation of character,…I [was] opposed to this biological principle, the spiritual principle which alone is meaningful in the development of the essentially human.”

For Freud the id is the nucleus of being and it, the id, is subject to the natural laws. In such a frame the personality consists of layers of identification that “form the basis of the parental super-ego.” This might be properly considered to be the spiritual structure of the average individual, i.e. the average personality results from the natural influences developed against the naturally evolved super-ego.

Such a theory accounts for the average but does not account for the two creative extremes: the creative type and the so-called “neurotic” type. I would label the average personality to be a reactive individual; an individual who goes with the flow.

There are two personality types that make up the proactive personality: one creative type squeezes him or her self into a tight ball in reaction to the inner and outer milieu, i.e. the so-called “neurotic” and the second creative type who creates a personality wherein the ego “is strong just in the degree to which it [i]is[i] the representative of this primal force and the strength of this force represented in the individual we call will.”

This second creative type, which Rank identifies as the creative type while he identifies the other creative type as the “neurotic”, creates “voluntarily from the impulsive elements and moreover to develop his standards beyond the identifications of the super-ego morality to an ideal formation which consciously guides and rules this creative will in terms of the personality.”

“The essential point in this process is the fact that he evolves his ego ideal from himself, not merely on the ground of the given but also of self-chosen factors which he strives after consciously.”

Quotes from Will Therapy and Truth and Reality by Otto Rank

[PierreGringoire]

"Personal heroism demands that one exposes her self, i.e. s/he sticks out dramatically from the herd. Those creative types who expose themselves so must create their own justification. Herein we find something that may seem illogical “the more you develop as a distinctive free and critical human being, the more guilt you have. Your very work accuses you; it makes you feel inferior. What right do you have to play God?” By what authority do you presume to introduce new meaning into the world?"

A lot more than this in your previous posts are very interesting.

First let's ask a stupid man's questions:
1) Even if you do actively form yourself you are forever linked to social standards because it was the social standard that taught you to behave the way you behave....All the "new meaning" you introduce into the world is tightly influenced/limited by observed social norms.
2) What if that "intense" feeling of life that you know you are capable of feeling comes partially from pride. Therefore, although the majority of the motive is good and done from well thought out pure thoughts, hidden motives.... hidden insecurities drive you to behave as a standout where if you were to act "purely logical"/ "purely rational" you would do things differently.

Is it acting out of logic or is it acting out of courage that is most important?

Courage to me implies a strain of "reckless passion" or "childish pride."

I'll continue...

I believe we are inescapabably cowards. I believe man to be a coward no matter what path he takes. The emotions are so volatile and hard to control, so hard to tame that they control us. You can plan to a degree in order to keep them at steady manageable burn. But without planning it will do anything to please itself. The more risk you take on. The more you stick out. The more dangerous to yourself and the world you become. You loose your way when you are far along the process of "acutalization"-- the more of a threat you become to the rest of the world. Why do you become more of a threat to the rest of the world? Because your emotional intelligence increases. When your emotional intelligence increases, your influence increases. From there, your power increases. You can choose any human life to trust you (and out of deception) destroy them whether it be for their money or to eliminate their influence.

But is it admirable courage? Or is it rational precaution? that ultimately drives every one of us. I believe its rational precaution. Some people are just a little less rational than others. You can teach rationality. But rationality isn't admirable. You never thank a man for being rational. Entrust a man with with your family and money. Go on a trip. Come back and thank him for not raping your spouse and thank him for not stealing your money? That would be silly. Rationality is an end in and of itself.

I think rationality is teachable because I believe there to be a proper "way." I believe in a priori principles. Someone cannot define the world purely from an existentialist position. You cannot reinvent the wheel. But REASON is tricky to trap in a bottle. I think it stems from hard work (labor/academic/job) motivated by genuine care for friends.

I have nothing really "intelligent" to say. I know a lot of this missed it mark. Just look at it as a page of perspective. I'm Kantian if its not obvious...

[blazeofglory]

Courage? To me it means a lot. And of course there are things I do not agree to, and I am told to accept as true, and I do so out of the customs I am in; I am coerced to abide by them unquestioningly. I am told for instance love is the greatest virtue. I was taught before I was in school that God made all of us. I was conditioned to think that having an affair within next of kin is incestuous. I have to acquiesce in what I was lectured by our teachers and our answers must be framed within their parameters. I was trained to think that life must be confined to family structures and to go beyond these boundaries and set values is courage

[dosamantes]

. . .

Humans seek to be more than animals. We seek to be gods or at least propagate that level above animal and below God.

. . .

Courage is the fundamental qualifying quality for being a hero. So, why are we all so naturally cowardly? Our goal is to be a hero and we lack the courage to be so.

. . .

I guess I'm too deeply wedded to Aristotle to get far away from the notion that man is by nature the middle beast, below God, but above animal, and by definition is "more than animal." Comparing ourselves to animals, the lower animals, seems just a way to describe or comment on our behavior, either specifically or generally depending on context.

As for cowardice, it is our nature to want to preserve our lives. So we run in the face of physical danger. But the curious thing about man is that we will sometimes engage danger to save another person, even a stranger, and even when we know it could cost us our lives. Save yourself, or save Jane Doe? That is a moral decision and in my experience from reading literally 1,000's of police reports I've found that as cowardly as man can be, he can be just as courageous, and more often than not, very courageous.

I haven't read much beyond Aristotle and some of the political philosophers, but tend to agree that courage lies somewhere between foolhardiness and cowardice. So the monk who immolates himself in protest to a political regime is not courageous. Same goes for current day "suicide" bombers. The monk is foolhardy and the "suicide" bomber a murderer, and I don't think I could be persuaded to think otherwise.

Very intriguing thread. Very enjoyable reading.

[billl]

What is foolhardy about what the self-immolating monk did? It was most certainly deliberate, and was executed with astounding composure. I think, in retrospect, his act even had the effect that he intended. Is it foolhardy that he died? What about other cases in which people have sacrificed themselves for others, or for their beliefs in a struggle?

If courage is contingent on one's survival as an individual (and this is ridiculous), then I think we could call the monk foolhardy. I can't think of any other reason for calling him so, without making questionable claims about the inefficacy or value of his sacrifice. But I think that it is pretty obvious that people are generally living according to more elevated terms than mere survival, and I think it is understandable that a human being might choose to die, rather than tolerate the destruction of their values. I certainly wouldn't call it foolhardy, or place it in the same sentence with suicide bombers (generally understood to be killers of innocents).

And, really, would it be fair to say it had been "foolhardy" if it hadn't worked? Does our courage at some point in time actually hinge on unknown outcomes? I think that the word "foolhardy" might apply in some cases of "failed courage". But what of the person who dives into the frigid waters, to save others, but fails, and dies as well. Foolhardy, because of variables unknown at the time of his/her decision?

[dosamantes]

What is foolhardy about what the self-immolating monk did? It was most certainly deliberate, and was executed with astounding composure. I think, in retrospect, his act even had the effect that he intended. Is it foolhardy that he died? What about other cases in which people have sacrificed themselves for others, or for their beliefs in a struggle?
. . .

There was no other way to express extreme moral objection to the South Vietnam regime in order to change it? Really? Really? I vote for Gandhi's approach, and life. Would Martin Luther King, Jr. have been more effective, and achieved his goals more quickly, had he done something like what the monks did?
My point was that from a philosophical point of view I think Aristotle would have disagreed with the monks' choice. Could be wrong. I'd love to hear from someone who knows the "Ethics," better than I do, which includes about everyone else other than me. And I would like to see the empirical evidence that quantifies the extent to which the monks' suicides toppled that regime.

[billl]

Well, you won't get empirical evidence about that, of course, beyond looking at the behavior of various governments and events before and after the self-immolation. (I am referring to a particular monk, Thích Quảng Ðức)

-----

Revisiting Aristotle, it seems to me that the monk's act would be regarded either as a Noble death, or as an act in a category without a word for it. In cases where one shows no fear at all, in spite of great and even mortal danger, Aristotle places the individual in an unnamed category, separate from Rashness and Cowardice--though he can only think that such an individual would be either mad or insensible.


Of those who go to excess he who exceeds in fearlessness has no name (we have said previously that many states of character have no names), but he would be a sort of madman or insensible person if he feared nothing...
[from Nicomachean Ethics, Book 3, Chapter 7] (http://nothingistic.org/library/aristotle/nicomachean/nicomachean18.html)

-----
Discussing the relation of courage to pain and pleasure, there is another interesting and potentially relevant bit:


And so, if the case of courage is similar, death and wounds will be painful to the brave man and against his will, but he will face them because it is noble to do so or because it is base not to do so. And the more he is possessed of virtue in its entirety and the happier he is, the more he will be pained at the thought of death; for life is best worth living for such a man, and he is knowingly losing the greatest goods, and this is painful. But he is none the less brave, and perhaps all the more so, because he chooses noble deeds of war at that cost. It is not the case, then, with all the virtues that the exercise of them is pleasant, except in so far as it reaches its end. [from Nicomachean Ethics, Book 3, Chapter 9 (http://nothingistic.org/library/aristotle/nicomachean/nicomachean20.html)]

As to whether the deliberate act of self-immolation should be considered an act that is NOT "against his will", I think there is certainly a sense in which it was not. It was certainly an act of free will. Of course, the monk would have rather it been a situation where this action wouldn't have been called for (in his estimation), and so I'm not sure that this is a good way of reading Aristotle here.

Because: I think that Aristotle, when he writes, "...death and wounds will be painful to the brave man and against his will..." is trying to indicate that the individual would not be 'rash/foolhardy', or crazy, or a sadist, etc. I don't think it is meant as a disqualifier for the monk, or a soldier throwing his body on a grenade, etc. In the end, I think that in most respects, the composure and dignity exhibited by the monk resembles what is described in the beginning of this same section of the Ethics:


Though courage is concerned with feelings of confidence and of fear, it is not concerned with both alike, but more with the things that inspire fear; for he who is undisturbed in face of these and bears himself as he should towards these is more truly brave than the man who does so towards the things that inspire confidence. [from Nicomachean Ethics, Book 3, Chapter 9 (http://nothingistic.org/library/aristotle/nicomachean/nicomachean20.html)]

Still, even in this latest quote, we come face-to-face with what separates the monk from what Aristotle likely was familiar with. That is, an Eastern culture in which physical and mental self-control is sometimes developed to a very great degree, as part of a "religion" or approach to life. I am not qualified to write up a good summary, nor is this the best place for it--but this sort of self-control is not regarded as madness or insensibility, it is a technique that helps one better navigate life without being misled by passions. Indeed, the monk's ability to face the terrible physical suffering that would accompany the act was most certainly due to his highly-developed confidence in his ability to attain and maintain calm, and peacefulness. I should point out, however, that self-immolation is not thought as "correct" behavior by all Buddhist sects, though I doubt any would regard it as madness.


There was no other way to express extreme moral objection to the South Vietnam regime in order to change it? Really? Really? I vote for Gandhi's approach, and life. Would Martin Luther King, Jr. have been more effective, and achieved his goals more quickly, had he done something like what the monks did?

Of course, self-immolation would not be an action lightly taken. Only a week prior to the event, peaceful protesters had dangerous chemicals poured on them. The government was corrupt and was systematically discriminating against and converting Buddhists in a country that was majority-Buddhist by a large margin. It is a different culture from that in the U.S., and it might not be fair to compare it to British-ruled India, or the U.S. If MLK had done such a thing, it most likely would have been counter-productive. It certainly would've called his dedication to the Bible in question.

In Vietnam, however, I think there is reason to believe that the monk Thích Quảng Ðức's self-immolation did help to speed things up. I admit to relying on Wikipedia for this assessment, and, given the astonishing act and the circumstances surrounding it, there might be some exaggeration of the role that this particular self-immolation played. However, many do feel that it was a pivotal moment. The then head of the CIA is quoted as saying that the act cemented the demise of the corrupt government. In any case, we should assume that, in the monk's mind, it was the best course of action, and that he was right to expect that it would have an important effect. Here is a link to the Wikipedia coverage of its impact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Quảng_Đức#Political_and_media_impact

Really, it is an extraordinary thing, and I think it is an act of self-sacrifice and courage that breaks out of Aristotle's discussion, which is basically built around the idea of behavior in battle. This is a case of protest, carried out by a peaceful man, against a government that was using military force against its own people, in an attempt to undermine the established culture of the majority. I think that the manner in which Thích Quảng Ðức' died is not at all well-described as "foolhardy" (a word which I think is better applied to a foolish risk in battle) and the deliberation of the act makes it seem less than "rash".

Perhaps there was more time, though, and a chance that regular peaceful protests might eventually accomplish more than they initially seemed capable of. I'm not urging self-immolation on any activist group, here, certainly not. But I think that the monk's sacrifice resembles the soldier putting his body over a grenade, more than it does a teenager charging the cavalry with a sword.

[dosamantes]

. . .
Perhaps there was more time, though, and a chance that regular peaceful protests might eventually accomplish more than they initially seemed capable of. I'm not urging self-immolation on any activist group, here, certainly not. But I think that the monk's sacrifice resembles the soldier putting his body over a grenade, more than it does a teenager charging the cavalry with a sword.

bill, your post is why I joined the forum. I love to learn. And being challenged forces me to think and ultimately, I pray, to learn.

Cicero, if I recall correctly, said that Socrates called down philosophy from the heavens to inquire into the things of man. In my daily world of the worst, unimaginable kind of violence of man against man, life itself confuses me and philosophy helps me to try to sort it out.

I read about cowardice, courage, and the inexplicable every day, and perhaps try to hard to reduce the inexplicable to easily understood explanations. Aristotle's opinion that courage is found somewhere between foolhardy (my word) and cowardice appeals to me. It's almost a cost-benefit analysis, or on reflection that's the way it seemed to me.

I too last night thought about the soldier who would throw himself onto a grenade to save the life of a comrade. That to me is courageous, to give your life to save another. That desire to save life, that end is right there before the soldier. That moral decision seems entirely rational to me.

What I can't quite wrap my mind around is what circumstances would have to exist to justify the monk's action. Must the facts be objectively agreed upon? Or does the subjective belief of the monk suffice to provide the justification for suicide?

I remember a movie with Gregory Peck, "Pork Chop Hill." In the end it became apparent that the Chinese military was willing to expend human life to make a point, and the U.S. responded with the expenditure of human life - merely to make a similar point. Were those courageous decisions? Perhaps so, but I think I would still want to know that in giving up my life some good would come from it. It seems beyond crass to demand an identifiable benefit, but that's where I am right now. If it all goes into the blender is the cocktail that comes out merely subjective? I'm hoping that philosophy can tell me it's not.

[billl]

Aristotle's opinion that courage is found somewhere between foolhardy (my word) and cowardice appeals to me. It's almost a cost-benefit analysis, or on reflection that's the way it seemed to me.

I too last night thought about the soldier who would throw himself onto a grenade to save the life of a comrade. That to me is courageous, to give your life to save another. That desire to save life, that end is right there before the soldier. That moral decision seems entirely rational to me.

What I can't quite wrap my mind around is what circumstances would have to exist to justify the monk's action. Must the facts be objectively agreed upon? Or does the subjective belief of the monk suffice to provide the justification for suicide?


Thanks for the discussion--it was a treat to go back and look at Aristotle, and maybe understand it better than I had back some years ago...

A soldier throwing himself on a grenade is certainly acting on a clearer cost-benefits calculation. What I think is interesting about other, less concrete, cases involving self-sacrifice, however, is that they sort of illuminate the need to let some subjectivity into the process (of recognizing courage). An overconfident, or a panicked warrior might enter battle and try unrealistic things, and thus die from them. However, by chance, such a warrior might survive. Such men might soon be chastised by more experienced comrades. Similarly, a trained lifeguard might dive into frigid waters to save a pair of children, with a very good chance of success--yet there is no certainty of success in many cases of courageous action.

I think that Aristotle is right to point to the differences between courage and other states, such as cowardice, ignorance of danger, etc., and to try and apply his Doctrine of the Mean to this particular aspect. Cowardice would seem to be too much caution, in the face of risk or certainty of suffering. And, certainly, the distinction between courage and "rashness" or "foolhardiness" is an important one, and it does seem to depend in large part on the individual's ability to make the correct calculation. Still, I think that Aristotle intended to allow for risk, in the making of these calculations. In the end, some who are courageous end up dying, sometimes for a lost cause. To me, it seems that courage is not just about the endurance of pain (although that might certainly be enough to qualify as physical courage), it is about performance in a risky situation--one in which pain might even be avoided entirely. Tests of courage commonly involve such risk, and the completely objective calculation could usually only be made with complete certainty after the fact. I don't think courage should only be judged in retrospect, but rather as the state that accompanies the decisions and conduct, as they happen.

In the case of the monk, I think he expected good might come of it, but I don't think he could've been certain of its ultimate efficacy. I can't say, of course, exactly what he was thinking, but I am pretty sure he would've felt it was the best that he could do. And his cause was more important to him than his survival. To present another example, those who died at the Alamo couldn't have been completely certain (in an objective sense) that their sacrifice would have been enough to allow their cause to prevail. But their dedication to their cause (over their very own lives) could fairly be called courageous, I think--even if it had ultimately been to no avail.

Sorry for just giving more examples (that are probably obvious to you). I just wanted to point to how risk seems inextricably tied to the subject of courage, and how dedication to a cause can sometimes trump survival. I am not familiar with the Pork Chop Hill example, but it sounds like a terrible thing. Perhaps something along the lines of what the monk did, but with questions about duty as a soldier, and the decisions of the generals and politicians involved.

In any case, thanks again for the discussion. I don't think we'll get much further on this right now, and so I'm going to just let the subject stand for a while, as I feel altogether too humbled by the topic and the examples to just sort of tread water on it.

[Lionheart]

What is wrong with religion? That is a BIG question! What is good with religion? That is another BIG question!

If we placed on one side of a balance scale the good from religion and on the other side the bad from religion, which way would the balance go?

It would be determined by asking, what is good and what is bad? It would depend on what we assertained was good or bad about religion and where we align ourselves philosophically and ideologically with our respective conclusions.

[whathappened]

Does Buddhism lack courage? For the moment I suspect so.

[Lionheart]

Does Buddhism lack courage? For the moment I suspect so.

Are you saying that because they believe that the world is suffering that they are admitting defeat to the powers that be? Or are you saying that they lack courage because they don't want to come back in the life stream to suffer the same punishment or lack of action they incur here as they did before?

The Hindus want to come back to experience more, in your view does that make them far more courageous?

[dafydd manton]

I can assure that very few military aviators are religious - indeed quite the reverse - yet I have seen some pretty startling acts of courage. Courage is based largely on the fear of letting your mates down. They are, without doubt, the most important people in your life, especially when the going gets a bit hairy, so therefore some amazing things get done, so as not to look like a failure in their eyes. Unfortunately, this isn't a theory, this is based on many years experience of military flying, in some fairly troubled times. Colleagues in the Army have told me exactly the same thing. it isn;t some abstract concept to analyse and spout about, it is a simple, cold, hard and indisputable fact, in that particular environment.

[Lionheart]

I can assure that very few military aviators are religious - indeed quite the reverse - yet I have seen some pretty startling acts of courage.

I guess that dispels the old adage that there are no atheists in the foxholes.

[dafydd manton]

Well, like many aphorisms, that does have its limitations. Many men who have no beliefs will pray, selfishly, but continue thereafter to have no firm belief. Rather like "any port in a storm", really

[whathappened]

Buddhists seem to think that what we see, taste, hear and touch mostly bring desires that can cause suffering, so they do not want to see, taste, hear or touch much.

[Lionheart]

Buddhists seem to think that what we see, taste, hear and touch mostly bring desires that can cause suffering, so they do not want to see, taste, hear or touch much.

Ah to avoid the suffering of desire, so you are saying that those that don't taste the bitterest wine don't learn from their experience; however, those that do have the ample courage to strike off and forged ahead of that which stopped the Buddhist. In this argument I see your point and agree, at this time.

[whathappened]

Yeah the problem is I think that the buddhists do not taste much wine at all, but not that they have not tasted the bitterest, for people become buddhists due to bitter suffering in the first place... they just learned way too much. Strange thing is, they actually did learn much about suffering and human psyche, and this knowledge would give them an edge at anything they taste, yet what you know. Shaoling monks do wonders with their zen kungfu, you can imagine what more would happen had the zen monks tried anything else. They do not try much else, perhaps out of fear for becoming the very money-carrying tourists that vist their monastery. I would think that this fear is irrational for them, because if not, nobody else would have escaped the lures.

btw there seems to be a (ex) shaolin monk living in downtown New York... into rap and stuff. I would luv to meet da man

[Cunninglinguist]

The desire to have no desires can be interpreted as a type of depression. If you think about it in a certain way, suicide comes from the desire to have no desires.

[Cunninglinguist]

I can assure that very few military aviators are religious - indeed quite the reverse - yet I have seen some pretty startling acts of courage. Courage is based largely on the fear of letting your mates down. They are, without doubt, the most important people in your life, especially when the going gets a bit hairy, so therefore some amazing things get done, so as not to look like a failure in their eyes. Unfortunately, this isn't a theory, this is based on many years experience of military flying, in some fairly troubled times. Colleagues in the Army have told me exactly the same thing. it isn;t some abstract concept to analyse and spout about, it is a simple, cold, hard and indisputable fact, in that particular environment.

I like this.

[Cunninglinguist]

Yeah, but so what? I mean, if it abates the anxiety, what's wrong with that?

If your method of abation has adverse effects either on your own self or others I would argue that there is something wrong with it.

[whathappened]

Cunninglinguist: "The desire to have no desires can be interpreted as a type of depression. If you think about it in a certain way, suicide comes from the desire to have no desires. "

The heavily depressed does not seem to desire no desires, but simply cannot desire much even if wanted to. Suicide seems to come from suffering combined with hopelessness.

The desire to have no desires might well be a buddhist idea that explains the buddhist lack of activity, but it is not explained by depression. The idea is probably explained by a mistake in thought that has to do with lack of courage. This is a big probably, though, in theory the buddhists should be very cool.

[Cunninglinguist]

Cunninglinguist: "The desire to have no desires can be interpreted as a type of depression. If you think about it in a certain way, suicide comes from the desire to have no desires. "

The heavily depressed does not seem to desire no desires, but simply cannot desire much even if wanted to. Suicide seems to come from suffering combined with hopelessness.

The desire to have no desires might well be a buddhist idea that explains the buddhist lack of activity, but it is not explained by depression. The idea is probably explained by a mistake in thought that has to do with lack of courage. This is a big probably, though, in theory the buddhists should be very cool.

It heavily depends on interpretation, in my experience. The heavily depressed are depressed because they have certain desires that have gone unmet (hence they exhibit what you've called suffering). I suppose I should have clarified that desiring to have no desires is not a type of depression, but symptomatic of a type of depression.
People ultimately commit suicide, one can say, because they do not want the burden these unmet desires cause them any longer. Hence the desire to not have desires.

It is not hard to imagine that a man may also be inclined towards buddhism because it seems to offer him the promise that it can shed his burden of unmet desires, too.

[whathappened]

I thought depression is that one has unmet desires hence suffers, in time subconsciously becomes rejective of desires in general to avoid further suffering due to unable to meet desires, as an irrational defense mechanism. Even if the mechanism is welcome to her consciousness, this does not make her a buddhist, who does not have the mechanism at work hence often needs to fight desires. For the latter it is a choice out of an idea, showing great self-control.

Cunninglinguist: "People ultimately commit suicide, one can say, because they do not want the burden these unmet desires cause them any longer. Hence the desire to not have desires."

The ultimate cause of suicide seems to be suffering.

Cunninglinguist: "It is not hard to imagine that a man may also be inclined towards buddhism because it seems to offer him the promise that it can shed his burden of unmet desires, too."

But it is hard to imagine that the depressed needs buddhism. The disappointed might do.

[Cunninglinguist]

I thought depression is that one has unmet desires hence suffers, in time subconsciously becomes rejective of desires in general to avoid further suffering due to unable to meet desires, as an irrational defense mechanism. Even if the mechanism is welcome to her consciousness, this does not make her a buddhist, who does not have the mechanism at work hence often needs to fight desires. For the latter it is a choice out of an idea, showing great self-control.

Cunninglinguist: "People ultimately commit suicide, one can say, because they do not want the burden these unmet desires cause them any longer. Hence the desire to not have desires."

The ultimate cause of suicide seems to be suffering.

Cunninglinguist: "It is not hard to imagine that a man may also be inclined towards buddhism because it seems to offer him the promise that it can shed his burden of unmet desires, too."

But it is hard to imagine that the depressed needs buddhism. The disappointed might do.

Hmmm... I think I dissent on your contention as to why people choose buddhism. I have hitherto not found one good argument supporting the principle belief of buddhism, i.e. that true freedom is freedom from desires themselves. The reasoning goes: Desires control me, and I desire not to be controlled, therefore, out of my desire for freedom, let me abstain from my desires. Thus your life is controlled by the desire to not be controlled. Where does true liberty lie in this then? I do believe that there are some desires one ought to abstain from, but not all of them.

To be perfidiously technical, suffering cannot directly cause suicide; it is the desire to not longer suffer that causes suicide. I would contend that most people who are attracted to buddhism are so because they also have this desire.

[whathappened]

Cunninglinguist: ‘The reasoning goes…’

Then ‘desire’ does not seem to be a great translation. Do not need ‘the desire not to be controlled’ to see that. ‘The desire to have no desires’ suffices.

Cunninglinguist: ‘I do believe that there are some desires one ought to abstain from, but not all of them.’

Buddhists may add that there are desires that one simply cannot abstain from. I find baffling that the Buddhists, despite being masters of desires, stand clear from many pursuits.

Cunninglinguist: ‘suffering cannot directly cause suicide; it is the desire to not longer suffer that causes suicide.’

Did not say that suffering can directly cause suicide, but I understand that you are into contentions. Here is one, ‘the desire to not longer suffer’ cannot directly cause suicide. Bon chance.

Cunninglinguist: ‘I would contend that most people who are attracted to buddhism are so because they also have this desire.’

Yep, and they are not thereby depressed. You originally hinted, at least to me, that depression instead of lack of courage might explain Buddhist lack of activity. I still think lack of courage, for what it worths.

[Cunninglinguist]

Then ‘desire’ does not seem to be a great translation. Do not need ‘the desire not to be controlled’ to see that. ‘The desire to have no desires’ suffices.

The desire not to be controlled controls you; the hypocrisy is so blatantly apparent.



Did not say that suffering can directly cause suicide, but I understand that you are into contentions. Here is one, ‘the desire to not longer suffer’ cannot directly cause suicide. Bon chance.


Alright, if you want me to be even more perfidious, the desire to no longer suffer is a more direct cause of suicide than just 'suffering,' therefore I was justified in asserting that your point was inadequate, and also the use of the word "ultimate" rather misplaced. If you want to get into a debate about direct and indirect causes and consequences we ought not do it here.



Yep, and they are not thereby depressed. You originally hinted, at least to me, that depression instead of lack of courage might explain Buddhist lack of activity. I still think lack of courage, for what it worths.


By saying "yep" you have agreed that people who are attracted to buddhism wish to no longer suffer. I do not see how this helps your argument. I am curious though, please define courage and explicitly clarify how lacking it invokes buddhist behavior and I'll see if I disagree.

[whathappened]

the hypocrisy is so blatantly apparent.

This is evidence that 'desire' is not a great translation of the Buddhist concept.


the desire to no longer suffer is a more direct cause of suicide than just 'suffering,'

Sometimes.


therefore I was justified in asserting that your point was inadequate, and also the use of the word "ultimate" rather misplaced

You misunderstood my 'ultimate'. But the word is ambiguous.


If you want to get into a debate about direct and indirect causes and consequences we ought not do it here.

Seems that YOU wanted to say something about this. Which could be why you misunderstood my 'ultimate'.


please define courage and explicitly clarify how lacking it invokes buddhist behavior

What I find baffling is that Buddhists, despite being masters of desires, stand clear from many pursuits that can make people healthy and happy... Need more be said? Sure, and this is the point where I hope the discussion would take off.

[andrewparkin]

Courage is an admirable quality in a person to be strong mentally & physically against all odds. A one who has lots of self-esteem, perseverance, will-power & self-confidence in him or her is said to be brave. The popular synonyms for bravery are bravery, resolute, spirited, valiant, gutsy, fortitude, dauntless, strong-willed etc.

Bravery can be divided in to physical bravery (bravery) & moral bravery. A brave soldier who is determined to fight his foes for the sake of his motherland is an example of physical bravery. An act of moral bravery is to stand up for one's convictions irrespective of any hindrance. For example, Mahatma Gandhi believed in the congruence of his beliefs & was brave to make use of non-violent means of struggle to free his country.....:smilewinkgrin:

[Patrick_Bateman]

I analysed this very thing while studying Plato for University.

Yes this is my entire input into this discussion :)

[Propter W.]

Hmmm... I think I dissent on your contention as to why people choose buddhism. I have hitherto not found one good argument supporting the principle belief of buddhism, i.e. that true freedom is freedom from desires themselves. The reasoning goes: Desires control me, and I desire not to be controlled, therefore, out of my desire for freedom, let me abstain from my desires. Thus your life is controlled by the desire to not be controlled. Where does true liberty lie in this then? I do believe that there are some desires one ought to abstain from, but not all of them.

To be perfidiously technical, suffering cannot directly cause suicide; it is the desire to not longer suffer that causes suicide. I would contend that most people who are attracted to buddhism are so because they also have this desire.

That's not how the reasoning goes. Any buddhist would tell you that the desire to be free from desires (or the desire to reach Nirvana) is as futile and as likely to cause suffering as any other desire. If you desire Nirvana, you will never attain it.

edit: I found an analogy online that might explain it a little better:

"For the seasoned practitioner, even the Dharma (teachings of the Buddha) must not become an attachment. As an analogy, to clean one's shirt, it is necessary to use soap. However, if the soap is not then rinsed out, the garment will not be truly clean. Similarly, the practitioner's mind will not be fully liberated until he severs attachment to everything, including the Dharma itself."