Courage, Bravery - Considering Nicomachean Ethics

...the end which courage sets before itself would seem to be pleasant, but to be concealed by the attending circumstances, as happens also in athletic contests; for the end at which boxers aim is pleasant—the crown and the honours—but the blows they take are sitressing to flesh and blood, and painful, and so is their whole exertion; and because the blows and the exertions are many the end, which is but small, appears to have nothing pleasant about it. And so, if the case of courage is similar, death and wounds will be painful to the brave man and against his will, but he will face them because it is noble to do so or because it is base not to do so.  And the more he is possessed of virtue in its entirety and the happier he is, the more he will be pained at the thought of death; for life is best worth living for such a man, and he is knowingly losing the greatest goods, and this is painful.

- The Nichomachean Ethics of Aristotle, translated by Sir David Ross

Yet ironically courage makes you willing to die, so courage being the road to happiness cannot mean a happiness that requires still being alive. It must be a happiness that is looking beyond this life.

So the point of courage is to bear the most fearsome and painful things well, and the most frightening thing to us is death, the ultimate thing that courage does for us, so to speak, is to make us still capable in the face of death; to allow us our faculties and wherewithal when we could give up. But then, if its most ultimate use is in the face of nonexistence, so to speak, what is the point of it at all? If it led us to accept death, and we did die, it would in a sense be some horrible, crude joke- a thing promising good but instead bringing nothing at all- even our own annihilation.

So if the goal of life is to live, what is the value of virtue if such a virtue as courage so to speak leads to death? If it is a virtue in the face of pain and ultimately death, what is the point of it? Those who dismiss needing to be virtuous because we all die would then be right- there would be no point to be courageous in the face of death; it would perhaps be more ‘virtuous’, if virtue were the road to the happy life, to avoid death; to live a life of caution and safety, avoidance of ills and pain (which I think we have actually come to).

The irony in this idea that we should avoid evils is that to really have a chance at avoiding illness and pain, it seems we first must bear it; we do not become stronger and more capable of defending ourselves except in going through pain and thus fortifying ourselves against it, like the immune system does, and our bodies do not become stronger and more able to withstand injury and illness except by being put through the very things that cause it pain (though perhaps in a more controlled way). So the way nature works, it seems that courage in the face of pain is rewarded, and those who are Christians believe that courage in the face of death is rewarded. Perhaps this is to come later in Nicomachean Ethics that living here cannot be the reward for the virtuous man, but I don’t know what his answer could be, then, except some belief in the Halls of our Fathers after we die. But I don’t know much about the Greeks’ worldview(s).

Submission

Submission to truth is harder for people than any other submission, and until you will submit to truth, you cannot have peace anywhere else.

It is those who submit to truth who are really happy. No one who does not submit to truth is ever really happy. It is impossible to be happy if you refuse to live in reality. True joy comes from the love of truth- how could you be joyous if you were incongruent with reality? Things would be chafing constantly; reality bumping uncomfortably up against us. It is like being the right shape, or the wrong shape. Either you fit reality's shape, or you don't.

Far better to learn Reality's shape and fit with it than to doom yourself to the misery of having to manipulate your perception of reality.

Furthermore, we cannot learn to submit to structures we are inclined to dislike until we learn that we can be the wrong shape, which is in a reverse way realising that there is such a thing as Truth. A student does not submit to teaching unless he is willing to conceive he needs to learn something. Even harder, a student will not submit to giving a subject a chance to grow on him unless he believes it is possibly a worthwhile or lovely thing since others think it is worthwhile and lovely. You give other things a chance to be for you what they are for others. This is, I believe, a great deal of the Christian walk.

At any rate, what I really want to say is that we don't even consider submitting to 'lower authority' if we do not believe in truth. It is those that consider they may not be right who actually consider, really think about, whether they should submit to something or not. Unless you believe in truth, you will not let yourself think outside of the box to find out why one might submit to something.

Pursuit of Truth, Goodness and Beauty is Mere Opinion

According to modern relativism, values and meaning in the world are at most cultural fabrications, perhaps evolving in a culture as a best method. In a sense that sounds like you can interpret experiences (including sense experience) in any way you wish so long as it works for you. To posit that what works for you is objectively useful (true) is something that it seems modern society practically doesn't believe. It's hard to get rid of any form of objective meaning, though- I think that's because it is necessary for thinking at all, and especially for communicating.

Therefore the contemplation and pursuit of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful (the Transcendentals) is only at best a matter of private belief and personal preference, and at worst it is silly and a waste of time because the Transcendentals claim to be objective when objectivity in spiritual matters doesn't exist (note that belief in that is claiming a one truth, though). If it were worthwhile for, say, me to pursue the Transcendentals, it would not be a personal matter any longer- we would be entering value judgement and the question of whether something is good for anyone at all. I am assuming that if you ask if something is good for you, you must consider that it could be good for other people like you, for situations like yours. Otherwise you have no information to consider, if you have never done this thing before. Therefore, even to ask the question of whether it is good for us is assuming the Transcendentals, and if you ask that question, or any other question of whether something is good or bad for us, you are treading the dangerous territory of Objective Morality which is in direct opposition to the pursuit of license (not happiness) in our culture.

Relativism seems, perhaps, to derive from Positivism that meaning and values cannot exist (though it could come from an earlier idea?); you have the idea Lewis talks about in the Abolition of Man that the idea that a waterfall is sublime is someone describing their feelings about a waterfall, not describing the waterfall. The idea that feelings can't be correct about the world around us seems to imply there could be no objective meaning that an object can convey, but I'd have to explain further why I get there and it's pretty hard to phrase. We shall see.

A Bit of Ruminating, High School Times

Many times every day I think about what has happened with education. I don't know as much myself; people I know have said a great deal over the years of its decline. In a need to keep things balanced, I have been acting devil's advocate to the idea of the decline of education in my own head at least, but I do wonder, because I see what I think is a decline. Either I'm way too idealistic, or there has been one.

Reading Scholars Online's site again reacquainted me with my thoughts as a teenager under Dr. McMenomy's tutelage (I don't think I was a good student, but I loved those years). I got to join with my siblings a forum, back in those days, which students who knew each other well chatted about whatever. The other students knew each other before my family joined the online schools (we took classes on Regina Coeli Academy as was; I don't know what it's called now), so we joined into a group of friendly folks who debated theology and other things and fell on swords like good bad Romans.

There was a sense of striving for excellence among us, a sense I have not felt since in any other place. Maybe there is striving-for-excellence-lite in other areas of my life, but I have not felt that good pressure of challenge since, and it hasn't really been good that I've lost it. It was a very good thing for me. I pushed myself to become a virtuous person, in a sense I did not want to be ashamed, but I could distinguish between the bad shames and the necessary shames.

I remembered today that education can push one to a virtuous life. There is such a thing as rigour- oh, how I miss it! High school students studying college texts? Crunchable. I learned from these friends because many of them were better at some things than I was. I learned that I was, at least then, inferior in some ways merely because I wasn't willing to try- I was lazy. I insist that it is probably still so, but in the places I am now, it seems almost normal to be this lazy, in the name of following your dreams, being authentic. I would never try the things I do now if I had not had the pressure I had then. I loved that pressure... a lovely constant hum of desire to be better, and the constant improvement of my soul. If I envy anyone, I envy my past self.

Nothing can possibly be better than being pressed by the excellence of your fellows (whom I keenly felt were my superiors in some ways at least) to be better yourself. The love of truth, the love of truly doing right, the love of excellence... nothing can compare. It was a taste of the Best. Perhaps I most saw the good in it, and there was plenty of bad, but after reading Scholars Online's site again, I realise that I wasn't dreaming. It is out there, in some places. I want to find it and amplify it.

I do need to remember the good and apply it now. I have lost touch with the excellence that is possible because I am afraid of setting high hopes; I have killed the sense that this is real. I don't know if it is a threat to society now, but it feels that believing in these deeper, Greater somethings is a threat now.

Link to a Discussion of the Meaning of 'Meek' from the Bible

I found this post (if you can read only one, read this as it's shorter and less convoluted) and this thread talking about the word 'meek', as I ran into some of the writings of objectivists online and had a feeling they misinterpreted the idea of 'the meek shall inherit the earth.' I had heard from source forgotten that 'meek' has a different meaning than how we think of it now- submissive, weak, gullible, and perhaps more positively in the word humble. From my fading memory of that source, I think they were posing it much more on the side of strength than even this thread does.

The thread, especially, reminded me of studying languages and finding out the nuances of the meaning of Old English or Latin words, even to their roots in Proto-Indo-European. Lots of fun nuggets. For some reason learning these things seemed to give me more understanding of how to use words in English better, or that was the sense I got- I feel like my writing flourished when I was studying these things years ago, and I felt more attuned to the careful, thoughtful use of words to really illustrate a particular flavour of a certain topic. For a really general illustration, you can use more English words, or you can use more Latin words, to talk about some topics, and either you choose will give a different flavour to that topic. Gabriel Wyner of Fluent Forever talks about how some topics are better spoken in French than in English- the language is suited to certain topics. If you speak with more English-root than Latin-root words, I feel that there is more of a practical groundedness, like everyday folks doing their business in the English countryside.

So when writing, the use of a word is very important, and in the writing of the Bible I am guessing (at least I would love to think) that there is the same care as to what words were chosen. Besides, I love to think that God is the Lord of Excellence and that His written Word was engineered skillfully and fluidly to properly transmit its meaning.

Since I feel I'm just beginning on the topic of the definition of 'meek', if I had written my own post on it, I would probably have taken quotes bits from these two sources instead of writing my own- perhaps someday I will yet do it, but it would be confusing if I had to keep sourcing bits, especially from a thread written by multiple people.

I could write more about how I see the practical meaning of the passages relating to this, though, because this idea of meekness has been in my head since I was a child, even if I didn't know that it tied to that specific word. It is the beautiful picture of wise, noble Saints.

Fear of God and His Glory

Is our fear of God about His glory? Are we terrified of the expansiveness and greatness of His glory, His beauty? Are we terrified of encountering the True One, the only Person who is Perfect and True, the only One with integrity, the only One who is consistent, the only One who cannot lie, and to Whom all lies are the greatest affront? Are we terrified of seeing our depravity thrown naked by seeing the perfectness of Him? The contrast between Him and our state would humble us. We do not like really to be told we are wrong. It’s a little easier to bear being shown wrong by imperfect humans; there we have the gratification of knowing that they’re not all they’re cracked up to be, either- in them we see ourselves, which is perhaps one reason why when they show themselves better than we ourselves, we are resentful of it, and angry at ourselves- they shouldn’t be any better than we are. But when we are faced with the Perfect, we have no escape in judging that One, except in a rebellious, temperamental fit.

We can try to show Him that He should have made a better world, a world where no evil can be (but then we would have no free will, which we’d mind if we hadn’t lost our free will in that world). We try to judge Him- we try to say, why does He allow evil? Why did He do this to me? Why is my life a horror? But it seems all that we want to do is to find something that can humble Him so that He seems less of a contrast with ourselves. We just want to find out that He is not worthy of praise- He is not actually Beauty and Goodness.

Of course this comes from a Christian who believes that we are always trying to resist God in a desire to preserve our high view of ourselves. It all sounds very judgemental of our resistance of Him, as if it is wrong to ask the question of why there is evil, but that is not what I mean- there is a difference between asking that question, and acting like a spoilt child where the existence of evil is an affront against you alone.

Epektasis, Desire of Beauty

Here is my attempt to summarise this idea which I have just been exposed to in reading the book quoted below by Stephen Turley:

Epektasis is from Paul in Philippians 3:13 (translated ‘reaching’ in some versions), the idea seemingly developed by Gregory of Nyssa to describe our desire (reaching) to be filled with God’s infinite, unceasing beauty (glory, perhaps one could say light or brightness as well?), therefore for that desire to be fulfilled in God, and the fulfillment of the soul’s desire for perfection (?). After the soul is filled with some of this glory, the satisfaction draws us to desire even more of it (since God’s glory is infinite, it can do this), and we keep desiring, hoping, in a constant eros for God, a desire for union with Him Who is the Giver of our being and beauty, and the Giver of the being and beauty of all of creation. We want to be united with the Source, to gloriously enjoy the richness, comfort, excitement of that Source.

Hence, for Gregory, this epektasis, this eternal traversing of God’s infinity, involves an eternal communion with the God revealed in Christ, who is the self-replenishing fountain of love and delight, an infinite sea of absolute Beauty.

- from Awakening Wonder: A Classical Guide to Truth, Goodness and Beauty by Stephen R. Turley, PhD

This is the thing I have felt as desiring to get into beauty (I believe I got this phrase from C. S. Lewis's The Weight of Glory), to somehow pass through that barrier between the tantalising experience of something beautiful and the actual beauty itself.