A Philosophy of Fear

Book 11 of the Iliad includes this testosterone soaked wisdom, worthy to be included in the lyrics of a Rocky theme:

Now Odysseus the fine spearman was alone, abandoned by the panic-stricken Argives. Perturbed yet proud, he asked himself: ‘What now? Shame if I flee in fear of enemy numbers but worse to be cut off, since Zeus has routed the rest of the Danaans. But why think of that? Only cowards run from battle, a true warrior stands his ground, to kill or die.’

Which is kind of odd, because three books earlier, we saw Odysseus doing just that, running from battle: 

And now old Nestor would have lost his life, had not Diomedes of the loud war-cry seen them, He called to Odysseus, with a dreadful cry, to urge him forward: ‘Wily Odysseus, Zeus-born son of Laertes, where are you off to with your shield at your back, like a coward in the crowd? Mind no one plants a spear in your back as you run. Now hold your ground, so we may keep this wild man from old Nestor.' 

He called, but noble long-enduring Odysseus failed to hear, as he ran for the hollow ships of the Achaeans.

     This second passage, showing Odysseus behaving cowardly was first brought to my attention as an example of Aristotle's philosophy of courage. It is also sometimes called bravery. I think another good term is confidence. However, I think that these passages are about something slightly different. Fear.
     While explaining the virtue of bravery in book 3 of the Nicomachean Ethics, a virtue he sees as important enough to discuss first, Aristotle has to explain what fear is. And, since whole books have written about bravery, I am going to focus on just that explanation.

     Actually, it was difficult to focus just on that. Aristotle's explanation is dense, often leading into important digressions. And, in order to stick to fear, I'll have to leave out several topics which may actually be more interesting. Nevertheless, I think there is something useful to say about this.
     From time to time, through facebook or at work, or in any of a number of different social settings, I have tried to explain, when some acquaintance or old friend has found him or herself in the precarious situation of dealing with fear, why it is acceptable to be afraid. This has never once gone well. I'm not sure why. My point is, at least I think it is, easily understood and widely accepted by everyone. But there is this impulse, this need, when dealing with fear, to find courage. To be brave. But there is something to be said about fear that needs to be understood before can really be brave.
     Everybody already knows that you can't really be brave without having fear. That's pretty low-level stuff. It is what you tell children in order to make their fears acceptable to them. Rarely would we explain that to someone who is without fear. Though, that is exactly what I am trying to say we should do. "He would be some sort of madman, or incapable of feeling distress, if he feared nothing, neither earthquake nor waves," or so says Aristotle in book 3 chapter 7.
     Before you begin wondering if I am embracing cowardice (I really hope you haven't already begun wondering that), I'll make it clear that I think it is praiseworthy to be brave, even to the point of self-sacrifice. Moreover, I am not trying to argue for some highly rationalized bravery or fear, where we calculate what the most reasonable action is, and follow it regardless of whether or not it seems courageous or cowardly. That is, as I recall, how the Odysseus passage was explained to me. The mastermind knew when to fight and when to run, because he thought it through. But I don't really think such things are plausible, few people really think well when they think quickly, nor is this what is described in the Iliad. After all, just after Odysseus does his best Stallone impression in the first passage, he does fight, against impossible odds, and without the protection of Athena, he would have died. So what was his calculus? Why would he cut and run, then three books later, lay it all out on the battlefield?
     Without making too much out of Odysseus's example, I think it is fair to say that he may have stayed on the battlefield because he didn't have much choice this time. And I think this is really what the issue boils down to. Choice. The power to do something about what you are afraid of. In the second passage, Odysseus runs away. He makes a choice. A rational choice. The sense in not staying to fight when it would do nothing to advance your cause and it may cost you dearly is clear. I don't want to dwell on whether or not being a coward is the smart thing to do sometimes, because it is beside the point. 
    "What we fear, clearly, is what is frightening, and such things are, speaking without qualification, bad things; hence people define fear as expectation of something bad," (Aristotle, book 3 chapter 6). Notice that, in defining fear, Aristotle doesn't explain actions we take or choices we make. Often, we don't have any power to do something about that which we are afraid of. Yet, it is just as clear to us that something bad is possible. It may even be something we expect to happen. So what is left to us in these circumstances? Do we abandon our fear and act bravely? This seems to be the conventional wisdom that people want to hear. If you disagree, try to tell someone that fear is acceptable at times when they don't have any options.
     But fear is more than just a warning label. It is not just there to keep us from sticking cutlery into power sockets, or from walking too closely to the edge of tall buildings. "For fear of some bad things, such as bad reputation, is actually right and fine, and lack of fear is shameful; for if someone fears bad reputation, he is decent and properly prone to shame, and if he has not fear of it, he has no feeling of disgrace," (Ibid.)
      We need fear. And not just to keep us physically safe. We need it to keep us good. Fear is the appropriate response when, say, a company is laying off workers. If you did not fear losing your job, what would keep you from simply quitting any time it was unpleasant. Chances are, if you are afraid of something, there is a reason for it. You wouldn't be afraid of losing your job if you didn't have responsibilities that your job enables you to meet. And if you do have responsibilities, being afraid at those times is really just a sign that you take them seriously, which is a good thing.
     "Hence whoever stands firm against the right things and fears the right things, for the right end, in the right way, at the right time, and is correspondingly confident, is the braver person," (Idem., chapter 7). So that is the point. Cowardice isn't fear, it is fearing the wrong things.

     Fear the right things.

     But it is more than just that. Because often we just don't have a choice. And that is what I really think is going on in Homer. Directly before Odysseus decides that today is a good day to be the last known survivor, he saves Diomede's life and dignity. Diomedes, the soldier who had been crying out for help from him as he ran away three books earlier. Paris had just fastened him to ground with an arrow through his foot when Diomedes tries to claim it was only a scratch and that cowards like Paris couldn't really kill real men. At this point, Odysseus showed up:

As [Diomedes] spoke, Odysseus the spearman stepped up to give him cover. Then Diomedes sat to the rear and agony shot through him, as he pulled the arrowhead from his foot. Mounting his chariot then, in pain, he ordered his charioteer to head for the hollow ships.

Could those be the same hollow ships that Odysseus ran off to earlier? I think so.
     So I think the better demonstration of the philosophy of fear is not Odysseus, but Diomedes. He had accused Odysseus of cowardice, only to face the same need to flee himself. He would have died claiming that no real man would die in such circumstances if it weren't for Odysseus.
     We don't have control over what happens in the world. We may not have to face decade long wars in foreign lands (or maybe we do), like in the Iliad. But we do have our own troubles and challenges. Virtue is supposed to guide us through these. What is the guidance we get from bravery? Is bravery only a lack of fear? Aristotle says it is, sort of. But I think there is a distinction between bravery, or confidence, or courage, which always involves facing frightening things, and fear. Lack of fear doesn't necessarily imply brave actions. It is, after all, possible to be totally not afraid, but decide to run anyway, because doing so leads to an advantage or is otherwise advisable. Is that still cowardice?
      This is where it gets confusing. Bravery can be an act, or a lack of fear. Fear can be an expectation, or an act. It goes round and round. In my limited experience, we can't be like Odysseus, the mastermind. He can see the ends of things. He knows what the fearful act is, and the brave act is, and he knows which is the smart choice, as he makes it. We are like Diomedes, who wanted to protect Nestor, do the right thing. But he did not know when to fight, and when to run. He needed fear.
      It turns out well for him. He saves Nestor, and is saved by Odysseus. We might survive what we are most afraid of. But we don't know what will come next. In a world like ours, only a fool would be without fear.
     Now, I've made my point. And I would love to argue it with someone. What do you think? Am I wrong about fear? Is it all a matter of calculation?

     Of all the things I have not said about fear, there is only one I really think I need to. Fearing the right things does not justify paranoia. We live in a time where fear is one of the major selling techniques of our consumer driven society. We are told to be afraid of just about everything. And, there is always someone around to say you are a fool if you aren't afraid. Fear is a political tool also. Fearing the right things should be an argument against such things, not for them.