Okay now moving away from the explicit connection between freedom and identity, we will now return to the subject of courage in Plato's Laches. Read up until p.43 or when Socrates begins to ask "What virtue is".
Here, in the first half of the text I want you to tell me who you agree with in the debate between Nicias and Laches. Is courage something that can be learned or do activities like training in arms (or other physical sports) only give one false confidence?
Cheers,
Dr. Layne
The issue that many soldiers face when they enter war is that there is no sufficient way to train them for war. The atmosphere of war can be duplicated in an army camp, but it is not until actual combat that soldiers actually face death. The realization of one's mortality completely changes his mindset. A soldier would have no problem performing a task at camp, but when the soldier is faced with legitimate danger, he is more likely to avoid taking risks or performing tasks. In this sense, training in arms only creates a false sense of confidence.
ReplyDeleteIn the context of the story, Nicias and Laches are discussing the way for boys to become men, either with or without training in arms. I agree with Laches that training in arms is not really necessary. In the end, will the boys really need to know how to fight, or will education in other disciplines be more important?
In my opinion, courage is not a virtue that can be taught. It is not some concept, or knowledge, that can be grasped. It is something that is either instilled in someone, or not. I think that is why it is held in such high regard.
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between a man in an army, who says and fights after months of training, vs. a man who goes into the line of fire with no preparation. How do we know that a man who stays, and fights in battle, is at all courageous? What if he simply stays and fights because he is afraid to run and be ridiculed? However, the man who stays and fights with no training, also has not been put in a position of expectations, therefore we know he truly stays and fights with courage. My point is, courage is not learned, if forced upon a person, like a trained solider, it is not truly courage, the person has simply been placed in a situation where they may fear not reaching expectations.
Between the two men, I think Laches shows the most wisdom. I'm not agreeing with him completely, I just think that out of the two, he is at least asking the right questions. He questions wether fighting with armor is a true knowledge. Does such a thing truly help build courage? Or does it train one to be a coward? The answers to these questions are what the discussion should be based off of.
I do not believe true courage can be taught. Courage in and of itself, is a rare virtue that shows an internal strength of an individual to stand against opposing forces. I do not believe that "training in arms" and learning the art of war can produce such a transformation in an individual that they suddenly become a courageous solider. While I believe that if someone is going to be fighting in a war, then yes, they must have training with their weapons and the armor they would be using, and so forth, that training does not necessarily develop courage in an individual. It gives them knowledge, but not virtue, in many cases.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if one considers the highly educational movie, 300, it seems that the Spartans were seemingly able to breed courage and perfect six-pack abs. So, this brings up the question, if courage cannot be taught by "training in armor," can it be taught through an environment or a series of circumstances that require courage in order to survive? Or, to make the question a bit more universal, "Are we products of our environment?" I'm not convinced the answer is yes, because I think that perspective has a lot to do with our environment and how we interact with it, but it is none the less an interesting question that, for me, this text raises.
Courage is an innate trait of an individual. A characteristic that is more nature than nurture. People handle fear in different ways, some people can think calmly under immense stress while others panic and think irrationally or freeze up. People who are not good under stress can be trained to be a bit better, but they will almost never be as good as someone who is innately capable of thinking under stress. However, training can definitely create an increase in morale; morale can best be described as the all-encompassing result of things like courage, training, circumstance, and leadership. One who may not be all that courageous might continue fighting if they are an elite soldier under good command fighting a successfull battle; this is because they have high morale, but morale is tentative. The standing of nations in a battle can quickly change, leading to a drastic drop in morale. Courage, however, does not disappear under different circumstances. A brave individual will remain brave. So things like training will definitely not give false confidence (indeed, that confidence is deserved), they will surely be useful in many situations and they can help make up for a lack of courage, but training cannot create courage.
ReplyDeleteCourage to me is a very complex virtue that I am struggling to find one universal definition that applies in all situations. I would like to believe that it is a trait that a person can learn but then that gives the impression that when you learn how to be courageous you become inherently a courageous person. This is not necessarily true. Now you may be confused by this but just consider my point. I would describe a person as courageous not because they had a good advisor in learning the virtue of courage but more of an intrinsic reaction to daunting circumstances; a strength that comes from within.
ReplyDeleteI am not entirely disagreeing with Nicias as I do believe that “fighting in armor” does in fact equip a soldier with the necessary skills for battle, “firing ambition” and maybe in some instances a “courageous career.” However is this truly courage or just physical prowess? It is here that I believe Laches brings up some interesting points and therefore tend to agree with his argument more. Laches uses an analogy of all the soldiers who were taught to fight in armor but did not actually display courage on the battlefield. So to answer your question Dr. Layne, yes this may actually just create a false sense of confidence. Courage is in fact a virtue that can be acquired overtime but involves something much deeper than learning how to fight. Therefore I agree with Laches that while “fighting in armor” is still knowledge it may not necessarily be “valuable” in our quest for true courage and it is interesting that Laches has the wisdom to understand this.
I'd have to say that I agree with both gentlemen. Both have valid points, and I agree with pieces of their arguments. The debate between Nicias and Laetes brings up a very interesting point--what is the value of humility in combat or the arts? The same question can be applied to courage. While I view courage as an absolute value (at any single point, an individual has a set amount of courage--whether he or she chooses to apply that courage is situational and up to the individual), I do believe that one's courage can increase through activities such as taking risks. Like Nicias, I agree that courage can be increased.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do agree with Laetes's point of view when he says that individuals can take on a false sense of confidence that hurts their abilities rather than helps them. To a certain extent, pride can help and individual exhibit his or her courage. But the quality of humility comes in when individuals begin to mistake pride as courage, thus displaying arrogance, a quality which is useful to no one.
The ideal for courage, then, would be to continue taking risks (hopefully healthy) to build on one's courage and to also keep a balance of pride--enough pride to make courageous decisions but enough humility to keep from arrogance.
I do believe that courage is something that can be learned. A person who behaves cowardly may take note and be inspired by a person who is courageous. That cowardly person may decide to develop a bit of courage themselves, and with each act, become less cowardly. But on that note, I have to agree with Kristi-Marie that courage is a complex virtue. I am not sure whether there is a concrete definition of courage and I suspect that Socrates, Laches, and Nicias will also have a hard time agreeing on one.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, activities like training in arms do not equip an individual with courage but with confidence. Anytime someone consistently practices an activity, they begin to gain a confidence in their ability. This is why Laches is correct in saying that sometimes these activities create false confidence. However, confidence and courage are two very separate things. A person who is truly confident may not be courageous at all. Likewise, a person who has false confidence may be courageous. I have a point here, but I'm not sure I'm conveying it in the way I want to. So I will just wrap it up by saying that training in arms does not produce courage.
Courage is a virtue that needs to be fostered so that it will grow, but it cannot be taught. I believe that both Laches and Nicias are wrong to think that any aspect of courage can be taught but right in concluding that courage is something that can help make a successful man. Everyone has courage but what makes courage notable is the way it is displayed. For example, during the civil rights movement white Americans discriminated against black americans despite well documented opposition, one could say they were courageous. Even so, rosa parks opposition is the courage that we remember and respect. white discriminators were taught, or trained, since birth to have courage in opposing a change in their way of life, but to rosa parks fighting for a change was a relatively new concept. Like the 'training' in courage for the discriminators the training in arms is useless and gives one a false sense of rightness. it is not courageous to use ones power in arms to crush opposition, it's courageous think through the reasons for displaying your power and then proceeding. courage can't be learned, and training in arms may not make the difference expected because it's not creating courage it's just em pressing an idea of what courage should be like on an individual without dealing with the ethics and individualism it takes to truly be courageous.
ReplyDeleteI think that Nicias and Laches both bring up good points. While I do think that courage can be cultivated, I do not believe that courage can be taught through training in arms, since I also believe that courage is an innate virtue. Courage cannot be shown on the battlefield by someone who has had training in arms since their decision to fight is more influenced by their competency in fighting more than anything other reason. This is not true in someone who decides to fight even though he has not had any training. In that case, I think I have to agree with Laches since training in any physical activity can give someone a false sense of confidence.
ReplyDeleteI also like to make to a comment about Socrates’ thinking in this on subject because I totally agree with his statement that people should listen to the advice of those who have expertise on that subject. Even today, that is we are asked to do when we have to make decision. Even though some choose to ignore that advice, I believe that the best decisions, such as the choice of what the children should learn, can only be made once a person has sought out advice from an expert and seriously considering it even though it may go against that person’s beliefs.
When I first read the selection for this class, I agreed with Nicias wholeheartedly. It was simple: knowledge provides confidence. If one takes the time to learn a skill, to develop and hone it, then a certainty how to use that skill comes as well. However, in a further examination of the text, I found myself acknowledging what Laches had to say. What really caught me about his argument were his examples. That he cites how those who fight in armor regard Lacedaemon as “forbidden ground” strengthens his argument, for Lacedaemon is the dominant military power of ancient Greece. He states that no one trained in armor fighting has ever become renowned in war. His story of the soldier who only made a fool out himself while fighting with weapons further articulates this point.
ReplyDeleteWhile I still agree with Nicias argument and follow it completely, it seems as though for this case of armor-fighting Laches has observed the real application of such techniques and noted the flaws. One must not only know the art of fighting with armor but also be skilled in other arts. In different ways, I agree with both men. I do believe that knowledge can provide confidence. Additionally, for practically all occupations, I would agree that it is beneficial, if not necessary, to be skilled in other areas. A well-rounded individual can better handle many situations. However, I would also argue that in some skills, extensive training and knowledge is crucial to succeed.
I still maintain that courage is restricted to decisions made at a particular instant, and that no one can truly be defined as "courageous" or "cowardly" except in the sense that they generally perform acts that are one more than the other.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think that the argument between Nicias and Laches is one of practicality more than it is one of courage. Perhaps I completely misread the text, but my interpretation is that Lysimachus and Melesias wish to know if there is ANY benefit to training in arms, and both Nicias and Laches - being generals - respond mostly with regards to the practical application in war. Laches does mention that one who is well trained in fighting ("a brave man") can do nothing better than match the expectations put upon him, while one who is not ("a cowardly man") can surprise those who doubt him. (p. 669) But, by and large, it sounds to me like Laches doesn't think that training in armor with advanced weapons is necessary, so long as one knows how to fight and is willing to do so. "If there were anything in it," he says, "it would not have escaped the attention of the Lacedaemonians, who have no other concern in life than to look for and engage in whatever studies and pursuits will increase their superiority in war." (p. 668)
But now I feel as though I've gotten far off track. So to answer your question, Dr. Layne, I agree more with Nicias than with Laches. Regardless of whether or not it is of use in actual battle, it is still good exercise and balances a life of intellectual study well. Courage, in my opinion cannot be learned, only its value can be learned - or, rather, a sense of it developed through various life influences. Nor do I think that training in arms necessarily gives one false confidence. If the training is useless in actual battle, then it does. But if it makes one a better fighter, then the confidence is justified, because they do indeed have a higher probability of defeating their opponent.
Courage can be learned. Courage is begotten from wisdom. Acting wisely, in a situation where an unwise individual would be subject to fear, is how one appears courageous. And since no individual is born a sage, we are all on a constant journey towards becoming a sage, then clearly it is possible to learn to be courageous.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of military exercises is that one learns that they are a part of a greater whole. Acknowledging one's relationship to the whole, as well as one's duty to their country as a citizen of said country, and to their army as a solider, one will hopefully act more wisely and more courageously. So, in that respect, military exercises do increase the courage of an individual, assuming they carry these lessons to the rest of their life; most do.
I would argue that courage, like all virtue, cannot be taught, but can be learned. It is a habit, and must be formed as such. To that end, I would argue that arms training is essential for two reasons. For one, as Plato would later argue, a truly educated person must cultivate both the body and the mind- Arms training certainly does that; it helps cultivate the whole person.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, but relatedly, I have personal experience with a modern equivalent- weight lifting. Although it has absolutely no practical use, it is healthy in that the physical endurance required translates into mental endurance- the strength I gain physically translates into mental power that allows me to do work I don't want to, but need to. So yet, I would argue that physical labor is helpful to cultivate in any fully formed human.
When thinking about this question, at first I agreed with the bulk of the answers in that courage can sometimes give false hope, such as Laches stated in his answer. But then something occurred to me. How does one gain courage, then? Is it instilled in the marrow of your bones when you are born? Are people simply courageous, or simply not? I had a hard time seeing it from this aspect. When dwelling on this, I decided to agree with Nicias. Courage is a skill can be learned.
ReplyDeleteLaches has some truth in his statement about how "training in false arms" can be hazardous to one's psyche and give them false hope. But, I believe that training serves another purpose. It gives the soldier a proper taste of what he will soon be dealing with. Even though it is true that nothing can properly prepare a soldier for the harsh reality of war, should we just nix training in general to stop production of false hope? I don't think so. Courage is gained through experience, in my opinion. One can be courageous from birth, I suppose, but I know I find myself most courageous when I know what I am up against. If I am not properly trained in something at all, that is when I feel most vulnerable. My courage is derived from my experience and training, and I agree with Nicias in that soldiers should be trained in arms; "false hope" or not, the preparation with build their courage in the long run.
The first thing to do is to separate true courage from bouts of bravery. The most cowardly man can learn to overcome his fear of heights and take an elevator, but he could never be truly courageous, to overcome all fear in sacrifice for a greater good. True courage is inherent, and for this reason I agree with Laches. He explains that courage is real, but in the presence of courage comes a sort of ignorance, a false sense of superiority, that can be dangerous. A courageous person who is too confident in their ability may fail, and the more courageous, or ignorant, a person gets, the more detrimental of an effect a mistake might have. Learning to fight without the will to fight is impossible, and just because the cowardly lion got a diploma stating he made it through the yellow brick road and the hardships that went along with it, does not mean that he will no longer be scared when he is alone again.
ReplyDeleteCourage, or the lack there of, is natural, and only growing as a person can change that.
Courage is a virtue that is instilled in all people. How it is refined is of the utmost importance; I agree with Nicias that the pursuit of some physical activity, be it a sport or military training, is vital. Courage is within us all in a "raw" form. In the same that strength is refined through proper training and learning of lifting techniques, courage can be refined. Noble, courageous pursuits are worthy of everyone's time and devotion. One can be courageous for the wrong reason, so Socrates' advice I believe is actually the most important. You must be sure to define exactly what is you seek in order to know what is proper in that field.
ReplyDeleteWhile both men bring up valid points, I don't believe that courage is something that can be taught to someone. Because it is a virtue which is so highly regarded in our society (and probably that of ancient times), I believe that it is something that someone is born with. It is understood that it is something that one is lucky to have. While it's not something (in my opinion) that can be taught, there are probably certain characteristics of courage that can be taught, like a random spell of bravery.
ReplyDeleteI don't think courage is something that can necessarily be taught, but I do believe that it is a quality that can be developed. I agree with Laches that the training is not necessary, and how it might give a false confidence. But I wouldnt say it's false confidence, because practicing any skill for a period of time gives a feeling of confidence. And a confident person would be more likely to act courageously than an insecure person. So to be honest, I do not necessarily agree with either.
ReplyDeleteCourage is in everyone. Whether or not someone tries to use their courage is up to them. Training will help you learn skills that can help you in combat but it won’t give you the guts to initiate a fight or be in the front line of a battle. Courage alone won’t help you win a fight or prepare you for war either. Therefore I believe you need both courage and training in order to be fully confident and successful. So, unless Nicias and Lysimachus compromise, I can’t agree with either of them.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure if I’ll lose points for this or something, but I can’t seem to choose a definitive side on this one. I was originally drawn to Nicias’ argument. He believes that training in armor builds physical strength and prepares the pupil for scenarios that they may encounter. Also, if one trains in armor, the next step is to learn as much as one can about tactics. This knowledge, giving the pupil a leg to stand on in a sense, will contribute to confidence when they face a real life situation. I, for one, would be bolder, have more courage perhaps, in a battle if I had trained and prepared for and envisioned myself in the situation. It does not give false courage; it is a courage-supplement.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I can’t say that COURAGE comes from practice alone. I agree with Laches as well: if courage could be taught, it would have been. There is no way of knowing if someone will be courageous until they are faced with the situation.
I would not describe courage as something that can be learned. However, I do think training for a situation makes it easier to behave correctly when the situation arrises. Training in fighting removes some of the fear inspired by it. If one never fights physically, fighting can be a daunting and terrifying prospect. But if one fights enough to remove the mystery and novelty, much of the associated fear is lost.
ReplyDeleteFighting, unlike courage, can be taught to almost anyone. Although some have more potential than others, just about everyone gets better with practice, and the better a fighter one becomes, the less one has to fear from battle. Although niether of these things actually increase courageousness, they have the appearance of doing so because those with less fear tend to be less guided by it.
The closest one can come to learning courage, is to practice taking courageous actions. Training frequently requires one to overcome their fear (act courageously) and thus can serve as a kind of courage practice.
The increase in preparedness decreases the risk of a negative outcome and the reasons for fear. The decrease in fear makes it easier to overcome, as does the practice in overcoming it. Therefore, I agree with Nicias and feel training in fighting is valuable for anyone who is lightly to have to face real battle. The points raised about breeding false confidence are valid, but I think training provides a net gain, especially since the process of training has so many fringe benefits.
As many have mentioned, we have to recognize that just because one engages in physical sports does not make him a courageous person. If I were to train in rugby, for example, and become a very skilled player, that wouldn't necessarily make me courageous; I might become the best rugby player the world has ever seen (although I highly doubt I could ever be given that honor), but that wouldn't necessarily make me courageous.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if courage can't be taught, how does one become courageous? Or rather, if courage can't be taught, why do some of us seem to have it any others don't? I think courage is a virtue that one develops over time through observation of the world around oneself and through the developing of one's personal morals. I'm going to go ahead and say that yes, courage is taught; however, it is a self-taught field, and if one wants to become courageous, one must be in the right mindset from the start.
I don't think that courage is something that can be learned because I believe that courage is something that stays latent within the individual until it is unleashed through a combination of fear and confidence. First, there needs to be fear present and then confidence to overcome that fear. In this sense, I believe that courage can be increased by battle training because training gives you confidence. This confidence, in turn, gives you the ability to overcome fear, thereby making you courageous.
ReplyDeleteCourage is a trait that is made up of two parts, one part inherent courage and one part learned courage. The inherent courage is always present no matter the situation. However, the learned courage is what sets an individual apart from others. For example, if you put an individual into combat who has had no combat training and compare it to an identical individual who has had prior training, a clear difference in their actions would be seen. Some would argue that this reflects skill and not courage, but although this may be true, their learned skill can cause their level of courage to increase as a result of increased confidence. Courage, after all, is best defined as a combination of traits including bravery, confidence, and many others. I agree with Laches and his argument that all knowledge is good, but there are varying degrees of quality regarding knowledge due to many available sources. Thus, as one’s education in a particular field increases, his level of courage (among other traits) also gains a boost relative to the quality of the knowledge attained.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nicias. I believe that training in armor requires courage in the first place. In engaging in the art of martial arts, you are entering a zone of personal risk; you train knowing that you are to face someone who is out to hurt you. Therefore, it is an act of courage to face this fact and to prepare, instead of marking yourself as someone who lets others fight for them. We must keep in mind the sometimes difficult-to-see line between courage and reckless abandon. If there is an alternative to putting one's self in danger and the act of putting one's self in danger has considerable odds in which the outcome includes serious injury or death, perhaps it is not courage to arm one's self. But in a war-like time, arming one's self is not false confidence; it is reasonable precaution and a healthy safe-guard designated for the protection of self and loved ones.
ReplyDeleteCourage can be learned through military training, but I also think that much of the courage learned is false confidence. Many of the people training for combat will die in battle, and training can only help so much. Suppose someone trained his entire life for the military and then went to fight on a battlefield and got shot by a random arrow. That would be...unlucky. Since there are some things you can't be prepared for, it is important for the army as a whole to have a degree of false confidence so that there would be less deserting. The false confidence, which is the same to me as courage, is necessary for the warriors to do well in battle. It is a million times easier to do something if you believe you can do it, and that is why people must learn to be courageous in military training. I agree with Nicias because although military training might give its soldiers false confidence, that confidence is crucial in determining how well you can fight in combat.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nicias that courage can be learned. He points out that studying the art of fighting in armor can teach men to be good fighters, keep their heads in battle, and strike fear into the hearts of other fighters. He takes the view that training results in confidence, which results in courage. This same attitude can be seen in Nicias when he gives free permission to Socrates to correct and educate him- he sees himself as having the courage to be taught, which will give him more courage for the future.
ReplyDeleteLaches seems to take the view that education will do nothing- he believes that if swordfighting is not a true art, it would be a waste of time to learn it. He misses the value of developing courage by working at a difficult art. Granted, there are some men for whom the qualities highlighted by Nicias are innate, and Laches seems to consider himself one of these men, and perhaps has mostly dealt with such men, and therefore does not understand how others could be improved by working at something that is not necessary. I disagree with him entirely because he just seems lazy. He seems condescending because he is a naturally brave and powerful man, therefore he sneers at those who would bother to perfect swordfighting, but personally, I have more respect for the man who is naturally weak and takes on something extra to learn courage. If the already courageous man could lower himself to learn an unnecessary art, think how much more great he could become.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSooo, courage. I'm going to go ahead and not make a decision, at least not a general "this is how it is always" decision. I think there are people just born to be courageous, do courageous things, be inspirational, valiant members of society. Just as well, there are those (most of us) that have a few lessons to learn before we become brave, and its not as if this courage exists in our lives at all times. Whether failure or training brings about this bravery is also another variation on the ever ambiguous source of courage . Failure in the sense of learning from one's mistakes and training in the sense of Nicias and Laches' discussion.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to choose who i side with in this instance, as both make valid points. Training in armor may help one boy overcome his fear, leading him to be more courageous on the battlefield, yet another may cower from a challenge no matter how much training he receives. Every individual must be taken as such, the value of the training is dependent on all of the details (talent and knowledge of the teacher, etc.) in each case.
If courage were not able to be learned, words like encouragement would not exist. There would be no need for them because the action they're describing is not possible. However, encouragement and words like it are in the English vocabulary, and are commonly used. This, to me, points to the fact that courage can originate from someone or something else. I am also a fan of the confidence building courage argument. Not all people are strong enough (mentally or physically) to be able to stand up to greater odds all by themselves. Sometimes, that can even be the cowardly thing to do (like the argument that Hector was a coward for stubbornly standing up to Achilles when he didn't have to). Battle training is definitely a good form of positive encouragement to help give them confidence and become men instead of hoping it'll happen innately.
ReplyDelete*WAY TO DELETE YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT KEVIN COUGHCOUGHCOUGH T_____T*
ReplyDeleteI am personally in-between both characters' opinions of how to attain courage. I believe that in order to be courageous, one must be both mentally and physically prepared for the situation. The physical aspect of the preparation for courage is the physical training (Nicias' opinion of the origin of courage). Then, the obliviousness that comes with courage/confidence. It is the lack of knowledge of the coming threat that may give one confidence to approach the threat. Without knowledge of the threat, one may underestimate it, and therefore give oneself confidence (one may argue that this is false confidence, since it is confidence without knowledge. Or at least, that is how I define "false" confidence).
Therefore, I believe that in order to have this courage or confidence to face a threat (even if one may argue that it is false, it is confidence nonetheless), one must believe in one's ability to face the threat. It is a mixture of mental (the (false) confidence) and physical (the training) preparation. Although in the end, there is no objective way of attaining courage as per a method. It is attained when the situation allows and when various factors are met (as in having confidence in oneself, or the physical prowess to accomplish the goal, for example).
Firstly, I agree with Laches's side of the argument. For one, I agree with him that it is not necessary to have training in arms because who knows if they will necessarily become soldiers? They might go the other way and decide to become scholars. In this case, knowing how to fight might not be exactly essential.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that courage can be learned. For example, someone might enter into a fight to the death, and that person might feel superior and powerful. In reality, that person might not have had a a real fight to the death. Therefore, he would have "false" courage and through the fight learn what true courage actually is. Courage, in my opinion, has to be earned through a revelation and being able to admit to one's own fear.
In context of the plot, the children could train all day and all night, but until they are thrown into the front lines and experience death around them, they are naive. Sure, training will help them be more prepared, but in reality, until they face an opponent in battle, they have a false sense of confidence.
A modern day example would be if you stayed at home and played a video game for years without challenging yourself to someone else. You think that you are good at the game, but the fact is that in life, there is always someone better than you at SOMETHING. This almost seems to be the moral of this plot so far in my opinion.
I honestly think that courage is an innate thing. I don't think that training like a manly-man can necessarily make you a more fortified person. Physical acts cannot make someone more emotionally stable – there's no direct connection between the two. Unless a physical act can trigger an emotional response, there will be no lasting effect on the person. (Just a little psychology side note.) Sure. You can train for all of you life and be an equal to Hercules (as portrayed by Disney) or Achilles (without the heel) but it still wouldn't necessarily make you courageous. Fearless, maybe, but not courageous. Courage requires virtue, which cant be obtained solely from beating things to death with weapons.
ReplyDeleteUsing this as my argument, Laches is correct in this dialogue.
Courage can most definately be learned. Some people may be born with more potential to become brave, and some may have more difficulty becoming brave than others, but I believe that everyone can learn to be brave. I don't know a whole lot about the chemical properties and make up of the brain, but I think that genetics may have something to do with bravery. However, I think that by overcoming one's fears, you can become more brave. I'm not sure if there's a big difference between fear of physical or emotional pain, but both types of fear can be overcome to some degree. It seems that some people struggle all their lives with anxiety and fear; going to therapy, reading self-help books, hypnotism, and some never get over their fears, but others do. I'm not sure if I depends on your genes or circumstances or life experiences, but I believe that courage can be learned.
ReplyDeleteCourage can be fostered in a person like in a boy who jumps over a ditch a thousand times; the first couple times this giant ditch with the mud and hidden snakes slithering in it, might make him terrified that he might fall, but once he gets the distance measured, knows where to jump from, how much to bend his knees, those snakes aren't a bother. Later, in a seafight, as he jumps from his ship to the foe's, the sea salt won't slip him and break his neck since he, an expert jumper, will be confident he can bridge the gap.
ReplyDeleteNot facing his foes directly, a man in this armor training might, dropping his shield, run screaming from the field when a real enemy army comes charging at him. Like Laches said, this armor training sounds to be a bad, artless training, only producing puffed-up fools with "singular" ideas.
Sports can make you sure of yourself and so that you know what you're doing. If I picked up a pen now without knowledge of reading and writing, it'd be a false confidence that'd make me think I could write someone a letter in the conventional alphabet; but years of scribbling have trained me how to write so I can take up a pen pretty sure of myself.
Laches is probably right in this case because armor training, being the first object of their scrutiny, seems like a pretty lame training. But Nicias is right in that doing things (training) does lend you the courage to do them again, then again, so that they become natural to you.
Once natural,it doesn't need to be called courage, but gymnastics (though not a poor program of armor training) for instance takes courage at least the first few months (especially to come up against a competitor to win or lose) to join in. But the courage is in going out and making these things natural to you; a slob with soft skin from days in heated baths, at least in athletic terms, is a coward compared to the boys in the gymnasium.