Now, there is a need to scrutinize courage, not so much to apprehend whatiscourage, but to describe how is courage possible insofar that said notion is a now a matter of “inheritance” or “acquisition”. I will refrain from characterizing courage as a “trait”, for this proves to be a presumptuous label, bringing forth unnecessary ideas of personality and physiology. I rather avoid misattributing courage to the realm of personhood or to the physical constitutions for the time being. The debate on courage has hitherto been a factitious battle. In an attempt to describe how courage is possible, conventional wisdom drives us to judge courage as existing due to it either being inherited or acquired. In confining ourselves to this duality, we fail to address the true matter at hand, how is courage possible?Trivializing courage as either something inborn or learned is nothing but a mere call back to the “nature vs nurture” debate. And I for one refuse to obscure courage to the scientific world of psychology and biology where it will lie in a dead limbo.
It is apparent that courage exists, otherwise there’d be no discussion. Yet, many will fail to realize that courage is, at essence, a uniquely human phenomenon. Now what I mean by that is this: courage is understood and experienced exclusively in and about humans. That is, courage is only possible for human beings. That isn’t to say other beings, aliens, animals, automatons, what have you, cannot display and act courageously, but to reiterate, it will only be understood in a human context, moreover, a personal human context.
Then surely, if courage exists in virtue of persons, then it must be that courage really does exist out in the external world. Herein lies the confusion and misattributing of courage as something inborn or acquired. It is not so much that courage resides in me or you or anyone, rather, it lies in relation between subject and object, in virtue of them both existing in the world. Courage can only arise when there is such a subject that can perceivethe world. In believing that courage is inherited or acquired, one is confusing the ability to be courageous with the existence of courage. Simply put, the public are mistaken in believing that their ability to be courageous gives birth to courage, where in actuality, courage is a derivative of the first-person subjectivity.
One may be inclined to believe that everything up to this point has been nothing but metaphysical jargon, far reaches into hallow and meaningless abstracta. How could such claims ever prove to bear verisimilitude, and what should we do with the chemistry and scientific metrics that attempt to describe courage? And if such claims are true, then what do we make of courage, whatis it? I will attempt to elucidate on these pressing questions.
As for the verifiability that courage arises out of subjectivity — well, I’ll be blunt — it’s hard to prove. Nevertheless, there is still grounds that may bring about some merit to the theory. In Plato’s Protagoras, Socrates attempts to justify his claim that courage, and by extension all virtues, is knowledge. “if virtue were other than knowledge…then clearly virtue cannot be taught” (). His aim is to atomize courage to knowledge so that one may be able to acquire, learn, and act with courage. Here he believes that the mental faculties, namely, intelligence, brings about courage. That intelligence serves us courage, where I’d argue, intelligence serves us only relations and experiences about the world. We ought to acknowledge that intelligence comes about only because there is indeed an objective world where we, subjects, perceive it. Intelligence can only serve as a driver in navigating the relations and experiences of the world; judging human intelligence to be the sole vehicle by which we acquire, and act courageously is far-fetched to say the least. Courage cannot be acquired; it can only be perceived. Even courageous acts are just subjective perceptions.
That is howcourage is possible. I mean not to take away any tangibleexistence from courage, for there is no doubt that it exists; however, only insofar that we have first-person privilege, instantaneous access to our perceptions and thoughts, and ours alone. This shouldn’t be understood as some sort of idealism, rather, speculative realism. This philosophy does not take away any reality from objects and the relations over and about them, it only accentuates the metaphysical underlinings so ever present in our subjective (personal) world.
The question, whatis courage, must now be answered. Given the courage exists by means of our subjective perceptions, it’s reasonable to assume that it is a perception of a real thing, truly existing out in the world. That’s partially right. As previously mentioned, courage owes it existences to the way one perceives the world, as subject in an objective world. And if it arises out of this personal relation, then so too does courage arise out of this relation. Perceptions of courage, whether of yourself or others, are always of a personal matter, a conflict between subject and object. The height of this matter is always, inevitably, about agency. To be more precise, on the free-will, on the sovereignty of your own being, your own thoughts, your own acts.
What better example to encompass this all so radical claim than The Truman Show? The film focuses on Truman’s insatiable desire to leave the world he currently knows. He begins to question his place in this world. For good reason too, he’s been deceived for years. He’s been the main actor in a television show, where the producers and consumers are profiting and exploiting man’s natural disposition to believe that he is indeed subject of an objective world. Agency isn’t called into question until it is confronted. When a romantic interest reveals the well-kept secret to Truman, his notion of agency over his own being, his own thoughts, his own acts…life and all, are simultaneously confronted and destroyed. It’s a slow realization, a turbulent transition from childlike naivete to debilitating introspection. What more could be the hallmark of matured man than realizing his own place in the world is wrought with ambiguity and absurdities. But what exactly confronted him? The ultimate question on his agency of course, no less and no more…am I subject of this world, or am I object?
This question may take different forms, but all in all, the agency of said person is nevertheless challenged. This is what courage is concerned with. Courage is simply acting on the world before you. What more could it be than just that? Thus, courage is evidence of our agency, at the very least, an attempt to prove our agency over the world. Our very acts are a defiance against the world…avoidance againist becoming mere objects. At every trifling turn, and at every pivotal moment, there poses a situation to act on. It is in these moments where one garners the will to act on the world and prove one’s own agency over their own being. How could this be so? We needn’t look far to see this is whatcourage is. When a soldier marches into battle knowing very well death will end his personal reign, when an addict seeks help because he’s enslaved by a high, when a shy boy finally admits the little butterflies he gets in his stomach, we ought to acknowledge these moments as courageous, not because there is an overcoming of fear, vulnerability, rejection, or even chemicals that surge up in the brain, but because where one could do nothing and let the world pass by, man instead rises to the moment and defines his own story and establishes himself…not as a hero, but as a subject that will not let this moment pass!
Science surely cannot describe that. If anything, it’ll reject that notion. I do not consider courage quantifiably measurable. On the basis that courage isn’t empirically obvious. Courage can only be perceived. It is only in moments of reflection whether in public or personal affairs can one see the overcoming of fear, vulnerability, rejection, so on and so forth. But again, these are all derivatives of acts and or failure to act, not the root cause of what is actually perceived. In Conceptualizing Courage, a team of psychologists and sociologists sum up a discursive analysis on courage. I will agree with the point, “there is scenarios that could be classified as vital courage, moral courage, and physical courage, all provide some support for the multidimensional nature of this virtue” (Kelly et al.) The world challenges all with the same question on agency, always presented in various forms, sometimes it could be a matter of moral, or psychological, or physical. The key component to keep in mind would be that courage requires a participant, an actor. The mentioned study presents a definition devised by Rate et al. The definition has “willful, intentional act” as its first criteria. This I also agree with. Everything else such as “substantial risk” and “noble end” strays away from the true essence of courage.
Courage is undoubtedly difficult to express being by nature, uniquely personal and relational. Displays of courage in the modern world are equated to these epic triumphs over evil; consequently, society has grown a fetish for exaggerated heroism and machismo. This does nothing but stifle. Alienated from their deserving spot as a true subject, people build themselves up as an object. Perhaps this is why all have fantasies of grandeur. To be rich, To be a great artist, a great leader, a final triumph over life and a lasting legacy that will surpass them. All of these are vain efforts to validate their own being. Unknowingly, these desires have far reaching ramifications, one ultimately objectifies themself. With their being never coming to full fruition, one is deprived of their freedom, anxiety builds up and the growing discomfort with ambiguity growing ever more. In failing to recognize oneself as true subject, a free agent over world and life, one has no choice but to give their subjective essence to another. Namely, a god, or idols. And we do it all the time. We unconsciously give life to other objects, making them objects of faith, of desire, of fear, the list goes on. If there is any hope to once again empower the common people, it is through encouraging willful acts, to make change in their attitude and actions, however little or large it may be. Every act is defiance, and in doing so, we define ourselves. This is the only whyneeded to be courageous.
