The Cognitive Architecture of Courage, Glenn Geher.
I wonder if courage is quite the same word here as what we usually think of, but I think the idea is defensible, and thus worth reading.
Importantly, this piece is actually not about what Joe should do. Rather, the point here is to get the reader to think that courageous decision-making (such as the kind of processing that Joe is going through in the example) is a highly cognitive endeavor. In this way, courage deviates from boldness in important ways.
The idea is to first count the cost (as Jesus said) before deciding. That is certainly wiser than mere boldness. There's still something I'm not completely sold on in calling it courage. Perhaps it doesn't matter. The idea is good.
4 comments:
The classical treatment is that rashness is actually one of the opposites of courage; courage is thought of as a kind of balancing point on a scale, with rashness/fearlessness on one side and cowardice on the other. In its truest form, it is said to be about facing death in a noble cause, and pursuing that which is noble in spite of the danger.
Other cases are analogical. Aristotle mentions the citizen-soldier, who faces death in a noble cause but not because it is noble, but because there are regulations that punish him if he doesn't, or provide honors if he does. He does the same thing as the courageous man, but his reasoning differs: he is not concerned with what is most noble, but with rewards and punishments, social encouragements or shames, etc. This is closest to true courage, Aristotle says, but still distinct.
Perhaps that's the distinction this article is missing. It's identified something close to true courage, but because it's motivated to the same end by lesser things, it's not quite the true virtue. In the example the motivations aren't a concern with what is noble, but a sense of injustice at being underpaid while the boss' kin gets away with murder for more money. There's an aspect of jealousy, an aspect of personal irritation, an aspect of genuine injustice, a sense of loyalty to the corporation rather than the family that owns it (for whom loyalty to family is plainly more important), a lot of things that aren't quite the right kind of concern.
I thought Ruxandra Teslo's substack post of courage..especially intellectual courage..was worthwhile, and liked her distinction between courage that has an upside for the individual and courage that does not.
https://www.writingruxandrabio.com/p/intellectual-courage-as-the-scarcest
Ok, have to comment, I've been thinking too much about this. The example isn't courage. What would speaking out accomplish? Does Joe think speaking up about his complaints about his rival would change anything? Does he think the company owners don't know about their relative's shortcomings?
Prudence is also a virtue. It's old-fashioned, which means it was documented before the Era of Psychologists. It would take courage to find another job, with better management. Unlike a plant, an American citizen can change jobs, move to another town, change careers. There's nothing that requires him to be trapped in a dilemma.
Intellectual courage is different. Sometimes, it takes courage to state the obvious. Note that in the Emperor's New Clothes, the child (who has no status to lose) is free to speak. Speaking up often leads to a loss of status or career. However, any group is better for the presence of people who will speak up, because it can diffuse nonsense. And in the long run, compromising one's morals for advancement is more corrosive than speaking the truth.
I think you are correct that it's not courage. It uses some of the same emotional muscles as courage, but it is not identical - and seeking another job is more courageous, usually.
Post a Comment