About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Post 40

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 5:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This is my definition of fear, courage,and heroism.
Fear is a response to that which threatens our values.
We need values in order to live. With out values life would be miserable . Living miserable causes us pain, and suffering, and that shortens our life. Fear then, at the end, is a treat to life, not to a value it self. The courageous man then, is not afraid to loose a value, because he thinks that he can replace his lost values with new ones. The hero instead,put his life at stake.
The difference between the courageous man, and the Hero, is that the courageous man  is not afraid to loose his values.
The Hero instead, is not afraid to loose his life.
 


(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/29, 2:45pm)


Post 41

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 5:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Katherine,
Contradictions do not exist! lol

Michael, fear is the guardian of our body, that's all.
People should learn how to master the symptoms of fear- not fear itself. 
We are so ignorant of our body!

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/29, 11:01am)

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/29, 11:36am)


Post 42

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 10:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro,

A Brazilian author, Nuno Cobra, says that courage without a good dose of fear is not courage. It is irresponsibility.

This is a lesson I am still trying to learn. I'm getting better, though. I'm awfully tired of getting banged up, squashed, cut to pieces, etc.

Michael


Post 43

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 12:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

A Brazilian author, Nuno Cobra, says that courage without a good dose of fear is not courage. It is irresponsibility.

Aristotle said something on this:

What is terrible is not the same for all men; but we say there are things terrible even beyond human strength. These, then, are terrible to every one -- at least to every sensible man; but the terrible things that are not beyond human strength differ in magnitude and degree, and so too do the things that inspire confidence. Now the brave man is as dauntless as man may be. Therefore, while he will fear even the things that are not beyond human strength, he will face them as he ought and as the rule directs, for honour's sake; for this is the end of virtue. But it is possible to fear these more, or less, and again to fear things that are not terrible as if they were. Of the faults that are committed one consists in fearing what one should not, another in fearing as we should not, another in fearing when we should not, and so on; and so too with respect to the things that inspire confidence. The man, then, who faces and who fears the right things and from the right motive, in the right way and from the right time, and who feels confidence under the corresponding conditions, is brave; for the brave man feels and acts according to the merits of the case and in whatever way the rule directs. Now the end of every activity is conformity to the corresponding state of character. This is true, therefore, of the brave man as well as of others. But courage is noble. Therefore the end also is noble; for each thing is defined by its end. Therefore it is for a noble end that the brave man endures and acts as courage directs.

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, neither earthquakes nor the waves, as they say the Celts do not; while the man who exceeds in confidence about what really is terrible is rash. The rash man, however, is also thought to be boastful and only a pretender to courage; at all events, as the brave man is with regard to what is terrible, so the rash man wishes to appear; and so he imitates him in situations where he can. Hence also most of them are a mixture of rashness and cowardice; for, while in these situations they display confidence, they do not hold their ground against what is really terrible. The man who exceeds in fear is a coward; for he fears both what he ought not and as he ought not, and all the similar characterizations attach to him. He is lacking also in confidence; but he is more conspicuous for his excess of fear in painful situations. The coward, then, is a despairing sort of person; for he fears everything. The brave man, on the other hand, has the opposite disposition; for confidence is the mark of a hopeful disposition. The coward, the rash man, and the brave man, then, are concerned with the same objects but are differently disposed towards them; for the first two exceed and fall short, while the third holds the middle, which is the right, position; and rash men are precipitate, and wish for dangers beforehand but draw back when they are in them, while brave men are keen in the moment of action, but quiet beforehand.

from - http://www.constitution.org/ari/ethic_03.htm#3.7

Regards,

Michael F Dickey


Post 44

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 2:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro-

How is it that contradictions do not exist?


Post 45

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 2:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
contradictions can only exist between wrong and wrong, not between wright  and wrong.

Post 46

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 2:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Katherine or to better state it
contradictions cannot exist between what is and what is not.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/29, 4:44pm)


Post 47

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 4:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro,

Have you read any Ayn Rand? You are very inconsistent as well.

Katherine,
Contradictions do not exist! lol
followed by:


 
contradictions can only exist between wrong and wrong
lmfao, you just contradicted yourself. First you say that there are no contradictions. Then there are, but only between two wrongs. Which is it? Do they exist or not?

not between wright  and wrong.
Just never mind, you obviously do not think about what you say. I just really hope you're not out there giving advice to people. And if you are, I hope they're not listening.

-William Bardel



Post 48

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 7:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Katherine, do you think contradictions exist?  If so, I bet you're just using a different definition of "contradiction" than the definition most Objectivists use.

Objectivists always make a big point of saying "contradictions don't exist" and "A is A".  But does anyone really disagree with these things?  Does anyone ever really need to be reminded of this?


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 49

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 9:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Daniel, a post-Marxist econ professor of mine once asserted that "contradictions can exist" in a class of mine. He also had a lot of silly things to say about the "holographic" nature of humans' relations with the universe -- that is, he held that each of us contains the entire universe within himself -- and he was quite proud that a body of leading Marxist scholars had approved this metaphysical theory of his and thought it synched up nicely with Marxist doctrine.

It seems impossible, but there are people who believe this stuff. The ones who believe in redistribution of wealth while decrying production of wealth believe in a contradiction of a less obvious kind than "A is not A."


Post 50

Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 10:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It seems impossible, but there are people who believe this stuff.

Invariably academics!

Post 51

Friday, September 30, 2005 - 7:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Marxist professor figures, then, that if he control himself, he can control the universe. I suggest micromanagement.
 
each of us contains the entire universe within himself

That sounds like a operations/logistics  nightmare waiting to happen. I pass.

This is an example of contemplative metaphors going horribly wrong. Somewhere,  someone was studying eastern mysticism and got things all cocked up.

The least he could've done is gone the Taoist route and talked about being one with the universe. Fuck, even David Carradine was able to handle that.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 9/30, 7:03am)


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Friday, September 30, 2005 - 8:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I understood what Ciro meant about contradictions. I think it was Francisco D'Anconia in Atlas Shrugged who said there is no conflict of interest between rational men...if there appears to be a conflict, you need to check your premises. Ciro's comments reminded me of this.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.