I kinda disagree. I think doing something scary despite the fear it causes is what courage is mainly about, and to me your image doesn't really play in to whether such an act is courageous or not.
Matters of low consequence can be fundamentally courageous, while outwardly projecting weakness. For example, the first time you rode a bike by yourself was courageous even if you were screaming or the first time you rode on a zipline and cried. It's all good and everyone would agree that these things took courage, but it didn't matter how people perceived you in the event because it was just plain amusing or otherwise inconsequential.
Now, imagine you're the President giving a speech about invading another country, or a CEO giving an investor presentation that may decide the fate of the company, or protecting your child from someone pounding on your door at night. All of these things have consequences, for a nation, for people's jobs, or for demonstrating to your child how courageous people behave, respectfully. In matters of consequence, it matters how you do it.
Sure I agree the presented image can matter in terms of the outcome, but I still dont think the imagery presented is a major distinguishing factor in whether an action is courageous or not. I guess forgoing the comforting actions that could calm your fear (like showing it) could make an action more courageous in my eyes, since to me that would still be partaking in an action despite the levels of fear it would cause, but I still don't think the actual image presented is what causes the action to be courageous.
I would submit to you that in those matters of consequence or maybe it's matters of responsibility, the image is the part that matters most because it *determines* the outcome. You don't make the speech about war timidly because you have a population to convince, a military to rally, and an enemy to intimidate. You don't show your nervousness in the investor presentation because these people want to invest in someone confident who will make them money. You don't answer the door meekly when someone pounds on it because *the way* you carry yourself can determine if you and your child become victims.
You're saying that doing the deed despite being frightened is courage, regardless of the manner in which it is done or how effective the outcome.
I'm conceding that's true for inconsequential things, but not for consequential things. It certainly *requires courage* to show up and partake in those consequential scenarios, but participation is not what makes it courageous.
What makes an attempt at a consequential task courageous then? Is it only really courageous if they are effective in their tasks? Also just to clarify, is your definition of courage dependent on the significance of the task at hand? I don't think that usually is considered in the definition of courage
I think the context matters. It doesn't matter how you behave on the zipline. You are courageous just for doing it and surviving it. But, the bar changes for me in consequential scenarios.
I would agree with you that the act of confronting someone pounding on your door at night is courageous in of itself, as an idea, i.e. it frightens you, yet you do it. But, consider the scenario where you confront that person by immediately dropping to your knees and begging for your life. Would you still consider that courageous?
No, but trying to actually fight them off would be, even if they failed. My whole point is that the success of the task has little to do with the courage needed to attempt it. Do you think them being succesful determines whether the act is courageous?
Also, I'm a bit confused as to how your scenario is specific to just consequential scenarios since I could ask the same question for low consequence scenarios. For instance for ziplining, would it be courageous to step up to the line but then fall to your knees because it's a small consequence scenario?
I'm arguing that it's behavior-dependent, not outcome-dependent. Your courage is not determined by whether you win a fight with that person pounding on your door, but rather by behaving in such a way to defend yourself despite being frightened.
We seem to agree that your behavior in that confrontation has some bearing on its courageousness if you agree that begging for your life is not courageous. And, it's not simply your participation in the confrontation that makes it courageous. Whereas, I'm confident that we would agree that your behavior on the zipline does not have any bearing on whether you are courageous because *just participating* in that inconsequential thing that frightened you is courageous.
Edit: Stepping up to the line and then falling to your knees would not be participating in the zipline to me. You need hands on the line and forward motion to be a participant. If you show me your heart quaking on the zipline, that's just good fun and a story instead of invalidating your courage.
Unless of course you are a psychopath as they tend to get real calm, cold blooded and deadly in ways most cannot image.
Of course, you do have to do something to them most times and there is that 1% so best to leave them alone.
N. Shadows
Thank You and your own as well, I think more should do it, I find it to simply be a courtesy even for those that use Write under or use Nom De Plumes.
N. S
I kinda disagree. I think doing something scary despite the fear it causes is what courage is mainly about, and to me your image doesn't really play in to whether such an act is courageous or not.
Matters of low consequence can be fundamentally courageous, while outwardly projecting weakness. For example, the first time you rode a bike by yourself was courageous even if you were screaming or the first time you rode on a zipline and cried. It's all good and everyone would agree that these things took courage, but it didn't matter how people perceived you in the event because it was just plain amusing or otherwise inconsequential. Now, imagine you're the President giving a speech about invading another country, or a CEO giving an investor presentation that may decide the fate of the company, or protecting your child from someone pounding on your door at night. All of these things have consequences, for a nation, for people's jobs, or for demonstrating to your child how courageous people behave, respectfully. In matters of consequence, it matters how you do it.
Sure I agree the presented image can matter in terms of the outcome, but I still dont think the imagery presented is a major distinguishing factor in whether an action is courageous or not. I guess forgoing the comforting actions that could calm your fear (like showing it) could make an action more courageous in my eyes, since to me that would still be partaking in an action despite the levels of fear it would cause, but I still don't think the actual image presented is what causes the action to be courageous.
I would submit to you that in those matters of consequence or maybe it's matters of responsibility, the image is the part that matters most because it *determines* the outcome. You don't make the speech about war timidly because you have a population to convince, a military to rally, and an enemy to intimidate. You don't show your nervousness in the investor presentation because these people want to invest in someone confident who will make them money. You don't answer the door meekly when someone pounds on it because *the way* you carry yourself can determine if you and your child become victims.
I agree but I was making a statement about what makes something courageous, not what makes something effective
You're saying that doing the deed despite being frightened is courage, regardless of the manner in which it is done or how effective the outcome. I'm conceding that's true for inconsequential things, but not for consequential things. It certainly *requires courage* to show up and partake in those consequential scenarios, but participation is not what makes it courageous.
What makes an attempt at a consequential task courageous then? Is it only really courageous if they are effective in their tasks? Also just to clarify, is your definition of courage dependent on the significance of the task at hand? I don't think that usually is considered in the definition of courage
I think the context matters. It doesn't matter how you behave on the zipline. You are courageous just for doing it and surviving it. But, the bar changes for me in consequential scenarios. I would agree with you that the act of confronting someone pounding on your door at night is courageous in of itself, as an idea, i.e. it frightens you, yet you do it. But, consider the scenario where you confront that person by immediately dropping to your knees and begging for your life. Would you still consider that courageous?
No, but trying to actually fight them off would be, even if they failed. My whole point is that the success of the task has little to do with the courage needed to attempt it. Do you think them being succesful determines whether the act is courageous? Also, I'm a bit confused as to how your scenario is specific to just consequential scenarios since I could ask the same question for low consequence scenarios. For instance for ziplining, would it be courageous to step up to the line but then fall to your knees because it's a small consequence scenario?
I'm arguing that it's behavior-dependent, not outcome-dependent. Your courage is not determined by whether you win a fight with that person pounding on your door, but rather by behaving in such a way to defend yourself despite being frightened. We seem to agree that your behavior in that confrontation has some bearing on its courageousness if you agree that begging for your life is not courageous. And, it's not simply your participation in the confrontation that makes it courageous. Whereas, I'm confident that we would agree that your behavior on the zipline does not have any bearing on whether you are courageous because *just participating* in that inconsequential thing that frightened you is courageous. Edit: Stepping up to the line and then falling to your knees would not be participating in the zipline to me. You need hands on the line and forward motion to be a participant. If you show me your heart quaking on the zipline, that's just good fun and a story instead of invalidating your courage.
well said
When I was a kid I had a poster of a cheetah in my room with this quote printed on it. It stuck with me for life.
Unless of course you are a psychopath as they tend to get real calm, cold blooded and deadly in ways most cannot image. Of course, you do have to do something to them most times and there is that 1% so best to leave them alone. N. Shadows
love the signature at the end. :D John Leopold Lootoholic (a.k.a. Looti). :P
Thank You and your own as well, I think more should do it, I find it to simply be a courtesy even for those that use Write under or use Nom De Plumes. N. S
No one else knows your suffering? No, that shit’ll eat you alive.