What is courage?

[Nungali]

28 minutes ago, dwai said:

I’m a father, if that counts.  

The fear for someone, especially an offspring, is also rooted in fear of death. Children are, what is considered the greatest immortality projects, by some thinkers — the logic being, we live through our offspring, and so on. 

 

Please don’t consider what I’m writing here as in any way intended to insult or hurt feelings — I’m being pragmatic about the topic. 

 

 

That made me think about the unreasonable fear that seized me  after I bonded with the twins .   So this is 'parenthood'   ... or a taste of it (since I wasnt their father ) . But it wasnt about death , more about   'arrested ' or 'interfered with '  development .

 

But , they are strong little spirits and  survived all sorts  of stuff  ..... not much is going to change them , they are 'triumphing'    against the  attempts !

 

 

- just like me !     

 

 

 

[Taomeow]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

I’m a father, if that counts.  

 

 

I don't know if that counts, I've never been a father.  If I were to judge by my own father's approach, and by that of the father of my children, I'd say it's different.  (Of course there's different kinds of mothers too.  Some are unfit.)  

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

The fear for someone, especially an offspring, is also rooted in fear of death. Children are, what is considered the greatest immortality projects, by some thinkers — the logic being, we live through our offspring, and so on. 

 

Definitely not where it's at for the "real" mother who, if she's not thwarted (like most "civilized" mothers are), embodies tao, The Great Mother.  The Great Mother does not view her children as immortality projects.  She nourishes them and protects them because it's her inherent nature.  Fear does not dictate this behavior.  What does then?  Integrity.  AKA "te" ("de") to a taoist.  InTEgrity.     How does that translate into mother "fearing" for her child?  It has something to do with selflessness, the very state all those spiritual gurus aspire to acquire (and I doubt most will, if any, because it is acquired via a great sacrifice that greatly benefits someone.  I don't believe there's any other way.)  But one has to have been there...  I keep looking for words and I realize that they can't even draw a map, much less be the territory.   

[freeform]

21 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

selflessness, the very state all those spiritual gurus aspire to acquire (and I doubt most will, if any, because it is acquired via a great sacrifice that greatly benefits someone.

I had a Buddhist teacher that claimed that most ‘normal’ lives tend towards generating negative karma overall - and it’s the selflessness inherent in raising children that generates the majority of people’s merit in a lifetime...

 

Completely selfless action is one of the hardest things to achieve. And yet the most natural when it comes to ones children.

 

Someone asked me if there’s a completely ‘safe’ and simple spiritual path... leading a life of truly selfless service is it. It’s probably the simplest, yet most difficult paths around...

[dwai]

2 hours ago, freeform said:

Who is the I that thinks this? 
 

(joking! 😜)

 

Not in my experience... I’ve known people for whom the idea of non-existence is comforting... they’re more afraid of pain - mental, emotional and so on. 
 

If non-existence was the main fear you wouldn’t see the many thousands of atheists opting for euthanasia for instance...

I don’t doubt you’ve met such people, but do you really expect anyone to believe that a majority of people go about life eager to die? I can tell you as someone who’s lived on two continents for almost equal amount of time (more than 2 decades each) that I’ve not seen that to be the case. 
 

Unless someone is suffering so badly that they can’t handle the pain (in whatever form it might be), seeking to end their life is not a trivial thing people consider. In fact, most modern people try to avoid thinking of death entirely, until it comes and smacks them in the face via some mishap in their close circles or some catastrophic happenstance.

 

 

 

[dwai]

2 hours ago, Taomeow said:

Definitely not where it's at for the "real" mother who, if she's not thwarted (like most "civilized" mothers are), embodies tao, The Great Mother.  The Great Mother does not view her children as immortality projects.  She nourishes them and protects them because it's her inherent nature.  Fear does not dictate this behavior.  What does then?  Integrity.  AKA "te" ("de") to a taoist.  InTEgrity.     How does that translate into mother "fearing" for her child?  It has something to do with selflessness, the very state all those spiritual gurus aspire to acquire (and I doubt most will, if any, because it is acquired via a great sacrifice that greatly benefits someone.  I don't believe there's any other way.)  But one has to have been there...  I keep looking for words and I realize that they can't even draw a map, much less be the territory.   

That Mother doesn’t fear for her children for she IS all her “children”.  
 

I would say, She is the very Self of all beings  

If anything can be ascribed vis-a-vis intent of the Mother, it is Love, not virtue. But this love is not personality/personal love. 

Edited January 3, 2021 by dwai

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

I don't know if that counts, I've never been a father.  If I were to judge by my own father's approach, and by that of the father of my children, I'd say it's different.  (Of course there's different kinds of mothers too.  Some are unfit.)  

 

 

Definitely not where it's at for the "real" mother who, if she's not thwarted (like most "civilized" mothers are), embodies tao, The Great Mother.  The Great Mother does not view her children as immortality projects.  She nourishes them and protects them because it's her inherent nature.  Fear does not dictate this behavior.  What does then?  Integrity.  AKA "te" ("de") to a taoist.  InTEgrity.     How does that translate into mother "fearing" for her child?  It has something to do with selflessness, the very state all those spiritual gurus aspire to acquire (and I doubt most will, if any, because it is acquired via a great sacrifice that greatly benefits someone.  I don't believe there's any other way.)  But one has to have been there...  I keep looking for words and I realize that they can't even draw a map, much less be the territory.   

 

 

 

'Great Mother' made 'The Garden of Eden'  for 'the People' .

 

 All you need is a log and some sticks and stones , the rest 'provided'   ( by Mum ) .

 

 

 

She never kicked no one out though !

 

( Although some people did break in and fuck it right up .)

[old3bob]

there really is no "non-being" per-se, thus I'd say the term is often misunderstood.  But there is no-thing which is not nothing...anyway mind can not wrap itself around no-thing because mind is a thing.

[freeform]

On 03/01/2021 at 1:04 AM, dwai said:

do you really expect anyone to believe that a majority of people go about life eager to die?

No - I’m just disagreeing with your previous statement.
 

You say that death (or non existence) is the ultimate fear.

 

I’m saying that this over-simplification simply doesn’t fit reality - because thousands of people commit suicide every day.
 

That tells me that these people are a lot more afraid of further pain and suffering than of death.

 

Similarly people are willing to go to war, or risk their life to defend their families - and so on.

 

So no - I’m afraid your statement doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

 

Of course fear of death is a big one. But it’s one of many. And it’s certainly not the ultimate fear.

Edited January 4, 2021 by freeform

[old3bob]

To fail in certain ways, of which there are many possible, can be a major fear;  thus the sayings, "die trying" , "die hard", "do or die", or "no turning back" may come into play to combat failure.  (and the feelings it may bring like  hopelessness)

 

[dwai]

5 hours ago, freeform said:

No - I’m just disagreeing with your previous statement.
 

You say that death (or non existence) is the ultimate fear.

 

I’m saying that this over-simplification simply doesn’t fit reality - because thousands of people commit suicide every day.
 

That tells me that these people are a lot more afraid of further pain and suffering than of death.

 

Similarly people are willing to go to war, or risk their life to defend their families - and so on.

 

So no - I’m afraid your statement doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

 

Of course fear of death is a big one. But it’s one of many. And it’s certainly not the ultimate fear.

It means you missed the entire point of what I’ve been saying — all fear derives from the fear of death. Pain, suffering - the aversion to these is also derived from the fear of death. 
 

In fact, I’m willing to state that your analysis is what is at fault here. That people go to war for their nation or family is no indication that they are not afraid of death, but rather that they transcend the fear of death by putting others above themselves (a momentary suspension of the ego).

Edited January 4, 2021 by dwai

[freeform]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

It means you missed the entire point of what I’ve been saying — all fear derives from the fear of death. Pain, suffering - the aversion to these is also derived from the fear of death.

No - I got what you’re saying - I’m just saying you’re wrong.
 

If you’re averse to the cold, you don’t jump into an ice bath to avoid a cool breeze in the air.

 

PS. I have no interest in flogging this dead horse any further 😬

Edited January 4, 2021 by freeform

[ilumairen]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

It means you missed the entire point of what I’ve been saying — all fear derives from the fear of death. Pain, suffering - the aversion to these is also derived from the fear of death. 

 

 

What is your reasoning for this belief?

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

That people go to war for their nation or family is no indication that they are not afraid of death, but rather that they transcend the fear of death by putting others above themselves (a momentary suspension of the ego).

 

Why would this automatically indicate a momentary suspension of the ego, and not something like an expanded ego which includes family/nation (whatever one is warring over)?

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

It means you missed the entire point of what I’ve been saying — all fear derives from the fear of death. Pain, suffering - the aversion to these is also derived from the fear of death. 
 

In fact, I’m willing to state that your analysis is what is at fault here. That people go to war for their nation or family is no indication that they are not afraid of death, but rather that they transcend the fear of death by putting others above themselves (a momentary suspension of the ego).

 

that might be further qualified as fearing loss of one's soul  (or the loss of one's inner quintessential self  besides physical death.  (with accompanying forms of madness and or panic)

Edited January 4, 2021 by old3bob

[Cleansox]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

That people go to war for their nation or family is no indication that they are not afraid of death, but rather that they transcend the fear of death by putting others above themselves (a momentary suspension of the ego).

Young males do stupid things for many reasons. 

 

In the days, my favourite martial arts teacher brought in Marc "Animal" McYoung to enhance our skill in doing nasty. 

 

He talked a lot about "Male Pride Syndrome", where young males do stupid things basically to avoid shame, especially if young females are present. 

 

So, we might transcend fear of death when the imminent threat of shame is more real than the possibility of being killed. 

 

Or, the prefrontal cortex is poorly developed in young males, thus reason doesn't interfer with impulse. 

 

Or something, just rambling severely here because I felt that the thread turned so blood existential philosophic that it missed that many of us do stupid things for stupid reasons, and the true consequences might be beyond our grasping in that moment of previous stupidity. 

 

Or was that just me, between the ages of 14 to 30?

Edited January 4, 2021 by Cleansox
Spelling

[Taomeow]

43 minutes ago, Cleansox said:

 

Or something, just rambling severely here because I felt that the thread turned so blood existential philosophic that it missed that many of us do stupid things for stupid reasons, and the true consequences might be beyond our grasping in that moment of previous stupidity. 

 

The thread was actually conceived of by the OP as at least somewhat philosophical, and drawing the demarcation line between courage and stupidity was one of the tentative goals.  

 

43 minutes ago, Cleansox said:

Or was that just me, between the ages of 14 to 30?

 

Now I understand why you were talking about "young males doing stupid things" while leaving out young females doing stupid things: must have something to do with the rate of emotional maturation of both sexes.  The ages you cite is when I mostly stopped doing stupid things for stupid reasons (like proving my "fearlessness" at the unnecessary risk of harm to self, and seeking rather than avoiding danger.)  But between 7 and 14...  oh boy.  Or rather, oh girl.  

 

I miss that devil-may-care state of consciousness though.  Perhaps its attractiveness lies in the fact that, without constituting true courage, it is, in some respects, courage's distant cousin, or training polygon, or what not.  "Uncivilized" humans are naturally courageous, and losing that venue of expression of one's humanity hurts the soul as much as any other kind of repression...  perhaps more.  

Edited January 4, 2021 by Taomeow

[Wilhelm]

11 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

I miss that devil-may-care state of consciousness though.  Perhaps its attractiveness lies in the fact that, without constituting true courage, it is, in some respects, courage's distant cousin, or training polygon, or what not.  "Uncivilized" humans are naturally courageous, and losing that venue of expression of one's humanity hurts the soul as much as any other kind of repression...  perhaps more.  

Courage in the sense of the young naive anime protagonist - not knowing or not caring enough to be afraid, but becoming admired because it always works out well in the end for cartoon characters 

 

Someone said that the difference between brave and stupid is the brave person's plan worked on some level (obviously not universally applicable, just adding to the point).

Edited January 4, 2021 by Wilhelm

[Cleansox]

@TaomeowI can only really talk from my own perspective, so I refrain from discussing stupidity from a female perspective.

I also avoid discussing from the perspective of Wisdom @dwai since that perspective isn't shared by that many. 

[Taomeow]

1 minute ago, Cleansox said:

@TaomeowI can only really talk from my own perspective, so I refrain from discussing stupidity from a female perspective.

I also avoid discussing from the perspective of Wisdom @dwai since that perspective isn't shared by that many. 

 

Well, if you've given any thought to what courage is from your perspective, I'd like to hear that.

[Cleansox]

In my language, courage is defined as when we overcome fear and act in a risky situation. 

 

No fear, no courage. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Cleansox

[dwai]

50 minutes ago, Cleansox said:

@TaomeowI can only really talk from my own perspective, so I refrain from discussing stupidity from a female perspective.

I also avoid discussing from the perspective of Wisdom @dwai since that perspective isn't shared by that many. 

True on the wisdom perspective. Yet it is the more correct and refined perspective imho.  

(And I duck the brickbats) 

[dwai]

2 hours ago, Cleansox said:

Young males do stupid things for many reasons. 

 

In the days, my favourite martial arts teacher brought in Marc "Animal" McYoung to enhance our skill in doing nasty. 

 

He talked a lot about "Male Pride Syndrome", where young males do stupid things basically to avoid shame, especially if young females are present. 

 

So, we might transcend fear of death when the imminent threat of shame is more real than the possibility of being killed. 

 

Or, the prefrontal cortex is poorly developed in young males, thus reason doesn't interfer with impulse. 

 

Or something, just rambling severely here because I felt that the thread turned so blood existential philosophic that it missed that many of us do stupid things for stupid reasons, and the true consequences might be beyond our grasping in that moment of previous stupidity. 

 

Or was that just me, between the ages of 14 to 30?

 

Let us examine the “shame” aspect. What is shame? Is it not a “loss of face”? What does this “face” represent? A story we tell ourselves and project outward — a persona to uphold. Isn’t the fear of loss of that face also a fear of (ego) death (in terms of that narrative)? 

Ultimately, fear of death operates at various layers depending on how deep one is able to go. For the ego, the ultimate death is the death of the body. But it will fight like crazy to protect all the other identities it affixes upon the self. 
 

Let’s take courage for the sake of protecting one’s property. Is that not a result of an identification of said property with the self? A story we tell ourselves. That too is a sort of ego-death. 
Aversion of, and the desire to cling to (identity, property, ideas, notion) is all rooted in the fear of (ego) death. Drill down deep enough, it is always aversion to death (of the ego) that drives fear and what one would consider ‘courage’ in the transactional sense. But that ‘courage’ is not real courage, because to become fearless, one must first realize one’s true nature. Once true nature is known, fear disappears. There is no need for artificial “courage” any longer. 

@ilumairen — see above for your answer. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by dwai

[Cleansox]

Just for the sake of the argument "if there is no fear there is no courage". 

Without fear, we have "recklessness" or "just doing that which needed to be done", or another term that describes the situation without inserting the word courage. 

 

This is why we have a large vocabulary, so that we can differentiate between meanings. 

 

I am aware though that this distinction might not be valid in all languages. 

[dwai]

4 minutes ago, Cleansox said:

Just for the sake of the argument "if there is no fear there is no courage". 

Without fear, we have "recklessness" or "just doing that which needed to be done", or another term that describes the situation without inserting the word courage. 

 

This is why we have a large vocabulary, so that we can differentiate between meanings. 

 

I am aware though that this distinction might not be valid in all languages. 

Why should lack of fear give rise to recklessness? Reckless implies, “consequences be damned, I will do what I want”. The primary assumption is that “fear” here implies “fear of consequences”.
 

But consequences are results of actions. What one sows, so shall they reap. Why would “reckless behavior” not result in appropriate consequences?

 

I would say that fearlessness simply eliminates the psychological barriers that prevent pure/perfect action — the action that arises from innate goodness, perfection that is the Self of everyone. 

[Taomeow]

5 minutes ago, Cleansox said:

Just for the sake of the argument "if there is no fear there is no courage". 

Without fear, we have "recklessness" or "just doing that which needed to be done", or another term that describes the situation without inserting the word courage. 

 

This is why we have a large vocabulary, so that we can differentiate between meanings. 

 

I am aware though that this distinction might not be valid in all languages. 

 

It's interesting to observe how the meaning of the same word might change in a different language.  E.g., the English "courage" is the same as the French "courage" (far as I can tell -- I know very little French), but into Russian it got borrowed from French with the same pronunciation but with the meaning closer to "recklessness."  Whereas the native Russian word for "courage" is derived from "man" -- literally meaning "manliness."  There's a few gender neutral synonyms though, but the closest one to "courage" seems to assume that it's a man's virtue which is not expected of a woman.  So "a courageous woman" would literally be rendered as "a manly woman."  

 

Our languages reveal the history of our psyche if one looks closely enough.   

[liminal_luke]

I think what passes for "manly" courage is often anything but.  Recklessness can be a kind of armoring, a shield used to protect against vulnerability: I´m afraid of death so I act recklessly to convince myself of my immortality.  True courage, to my mind, is a stereotypically feminine virtue.  It takes courage to be soft in a hard world, courage to acknowledge and live from one´s feeling heart, courage to be open.

Edited January 5, 2021 by liminal_luke