Socratic method

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Socrates was in favour of a different method of arguing than the one generally employed by human beings today.

In the media, in politics, and in this 'Have Your Say' forum, a contentious question is posed and then everyone piles in with their point of view and loads of arguments to back it up that they themselves find very convincing, but which don't succeed in changing the views of the other person, because they have come in just as sure of their point of view and the reasons for it, and won't be convinced by arguments otherwise. This is probably because we don't form our views quickly, through an exchange of views with others, but rather slowly over the course of our lives, through the long accumulation of experience, knowledge and unique perspective, plus genetic predisposition and upbringing, in varying degrees.

However, the way we form our views can be said to be unsatisfactory, since despite being based on a lifetime of accumulated thoughts, we end up believing very different things from one another - and so we can't all be completely right about everything.

Socrates' alternative way of arguing, which he and many others considered preferable in theory, though it hasn't ever really taken off (sadly, perhaps), is to start the argument with a contentious question, but without anyone piling in with what they think is the answer, and a load of ammunition to back it up. Instead, you start with the question and a clean thought slate - no set-in-stone beliefs or prejudices, everyone coming to the table with an open mind - and then you progress the argument in small degrees, by rational/logical thought, only moving forward when everyone is in agreement with the correctness of the last incremental stage. Any time you find a flaw in the reasoning or a counterexample disproving the latest conjecture, you go back a stage and try another route together - and see where you end up. This usually takes the form of various hypotheses being refuted through close scrutiny and questioning, but it only works if the person proposing each hypothesis is open (even welcoming) to it being shown false, and prepared to move on again and again to a more solid hypothesis.

Imagine how different our Parliament would be if their debates took this form!

I wonder if we on the Hub would be self-disciplined enough to tackle some philosophical question by the Socratic method, rather than the usual method. What do people think? Does anyone have any ideas for candidate topics? If you suggest a topic that you have an unshakeable conviction on and intend to steer the debate in a particular direction, you're not in the right frame of mind - though Socrates himself was probably guilty of this most of the time. Ideally you must be completely flexible to wherever the thought experiment takes us, and whoever poses challenging devil's-advocate questions along the way should be unbiased. What we would need is an interesting question that none of us have thought about too deeply nor have a lot of emotional investment in.

Martin

[dyrl]

Socrates was ugly and corrupted young men by turning their attention away from doing things to thinking about them.

However, if, like Socrates' interloceteurs, we could somehow drink large amounts of wine and have grand feasts while engaged in dialogue - then I would be all for it.

Pete

[The Doctor]

This sounds intriguing. I'd be up for giving it a go.

-Ralph

[grahamthomson]

Sounds like interesting.

Martin, since this is your idea, you start with a question.

My mind is open.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Apr 15, 2009 20:17:16 GMT @grahamthomson said:

Sounds like interesting.

Martin, since this is your idea, you start with a question.

My mind is open.

OK, then, to pick one that I know Socrates discussed, but which I haven't read yet, what is courage? Or to be more specific, what is the purest, most admirable or virtuous hypothetical or real example of true courage that we can collectively come up with?

We could start with the first example that comes into one of our heads, and pick it apart to show that it's not as pure an example of courage as we might wish to cite as an example. (E.g. how about the courage shown by Ratchet when facing Megatron in Marvel's TF comics? In what respects might it be considered true courage, and in what not?) Or someone could attempt to define what they understand to be the meaning of the word 'courage'.

Anyone want to pick up on either of these starting points and give their initial thoughts, for the rest of us to comment on, try to agree a common position and then consider how to proceed?

PS No personal examples from your lives please, this needs to remain an intellectual exercise. And wine and feasting while you think are by all means permitted.

Martin

[dyrl]

Well - to stick with Ratchet. I would say that his actions in the early Marvel comics were courageous because he faced Megatron alone - but they were not courageous because he faced Megatron alone by necessity, since all his colleagues were "dead."

Although I guess you could say that he could have just run away, so it was his choice (courageous) to face Megatron alone.

Final thought - is it possible to say that the method of confrontation was wise or unwise? That is - given that Ratchet didn't do to well when pitted against Megatron - was he really being courageous - or was he just being rash?

And finally - was Ratchet's offer of cooperation a courageous act? Megatron seemed to interpret it as being a win-win situation...for Megatron.

Does this mean Ratchet was being courageous - or was he just saving himself after being rash and hoping for the best?

Pete

[chrisl]

Apr 15, 2009 16:17:37 GMT Grand Moff Muffin said:

If you suggest a topic that you have an unshakeable conviction on and intend to steer the debate in a particular direction, you're not in the right frame of mind - though Socrates himself was probably guilty of this most of the time. Ideally you must be completely flexible to wherever the thought experiment takes us, and whoever poses challenging devil's-advocate questions along the way should be unbiased. What we would need is an interesting question that none of us have thought about too deeply nor have a lot of emotional investment in.

Martin

The Socrates of Plato's Republic was definitely guilty of taking the argument down a particular path to put forward his own particular views. His reasoning was also for the most part illogical.

[blueshift]

Apr 16, 2009 7:50:13 GMT dyrl said:

Well - to stick with Ratchet. I would say that his actions in the early Marvel comics were courageous because he faced Megatron alone - but they were not courageous because he faced Megatron alone by necessity, since all his colleagues were "dead."

Although I guess you could say that he could have just run away, so it was his choice (courageous) to face Megatron alone.

Final thought - is it possible to say that the method of confrontation was wise or unwise? That is - given that Ratchet didn't do to well when pitted against Megatron - was he really being courageous - or was he just being rash?

And finally - was Ratchet's offer of cooperation a courageous act? Megatron seemed to interpret it as being a win-win situation...for Megatron.

Does this mean Ratchet was being courageous - or was he just saving himself after being rash and hoping for the best?

Pete

Thus are you saying that courage to be defined as such needs to be a conscious choice to partake in the actions with options not to?

Of course in that example, Ratchet could just as easily have run off and hid forever disguised as an ambulance I'm sure.

Also there is the implication that for an action to be couragous it must have a relative chance of being successful otherwise it becomes stupid or suicidal. But can those states also be said to be couragous?

[Grand Moff Muffin]

The following questions have been raised, let's try to deal with them before going any further:

- Does a courageous act require a choice to be made, or can courage also be shown at times when one has no power to influence events? I would suggest that a choice must be present, or at least the courageous person must believe he has a choice, in order to display true courage, but I am open to counter-argument.

- Does a courageous act need to be an intelligent act? Can you make a stupid decision, but display courage at the same time? Can you be both brave and foolish? I would suggest that whether or not a decision is sensible has no bearing either way on whether or not it is courageous, but that it is the courageous intent that counts - any arguments against this claim?

- When Ratchet tried to push Megatron off that cliff, and in the later US comics when he tried to pull Megatron back from the portal and keep them both in the castle with the explosives, he was trying to kill them both. But if he had not acted, wouldn't he have died anyway, and Megatron survived? If he was simply choosing between dying with Megatron or dying alone, was it possible to call his actions courageous? Does true courage require making a sacrifice that one has a choice whether or not to make? I would suggest that courage does require sacrifice by choice... do you agree?

Martin

[dyrl]

- Does a courageous act require a choice to be made, or can courage also be shown at times when one has no power to influence events? I would suggest that a choice must be present, or at least the courageous person must believe he has a choice, in order to display true courage, but I am open to counter-argument.

Courage in theory might require a choice, but in practice courage is often shown almost exclusively at times when one has no power to influence events - it is by definition influencing events in spite of not having the power to do so, is it not?

- Does a courageous act need to be an intelligent act? Can you make a stupid decision, but display courage at the same time? Can you be both brave and foolish? I would suggest that whether or not a decision is sensible has no bearing either way on whether or not it is courageous, but that it is the courageous intent that counts - any arguments against this claim?

Are you saying it is courageous to dare to be stupid? Insofar as we will never know what is truly intelligent unless we make many errors on the way to intelligence, there is something in what you say - because to act intelligently, you must first know what is intelligent - and to know this - you sometimes end up having to first act in unintelligent ways, and gain knowledge in hind site. Intelligent action is all the more difficult to consider under the circumstances that courageous action takes place in, because often times the effect of the courageous act might be good or bad depending on split-second chance or circumstances. So, I might be inclined to agree that courage should be considered seperately from its' result; and only with a view to the intention behind it.

- When Ratchet tried to push Megatron off that cliff, and in the later US comics when he tried to pull Megatron back from the portal and keep them both in the castle with the explosives, he was trying to kill them both. But if he had not acted, wouldn't he have died anyway, and Megatron survived? If he was simply choosing between dying with Megatron or dying alone, was it possible to call his actions courageous? Does true courage require making a sacrifice that one has a choice whether or not to make? I would suggest that courage does require sacrifice by choice... do you agree?

I think the premise of your question might be incorrect; because you are assuming Ratchet chose to sacrifice - where I would argue that it was in his nature to do so. This is particularly visible in situations where long reflection and deliberation is impossible, and one acts as if on a whim - in such cases, instinct, which I define as the sum of all your thoughts and experiences (in short - your character) makes the "choice" - and in Ratchet's case, it was the sacrifice of his life for a greater good. In the case of other beings, it might be a different whim based off a different character template. In any event - one could take the opposite view and consider that, for instance, Optimus Prime's "sacrifice" after he played a video game with the Decepticons was ridiculously dogmatic and not at all courageous - even though, technically - it was in accordance with the principles of courage. Point? Well - the point here is that it might be dangerous to try and be to precise about what composes courageous acts (sacrifices or not, choices or whims) because there will always be extreme cases to disprove the composits suggested. Could this perhaps mean that courage is somewhere between extremes?

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Perhaps Ratchet thought he was going to die one way or the other when he tried to take Megatron out along with himself, but perhaps he was also the kind of guy who would _still_ have done it even if he had thought he would _live_ if he didn't do it. Is courage not so much in what you actually end up doing, but in what you have the _potential_ to do if the circumstances demand it?

On the question of whether or not courage can be shown in the absence of power to influence an outcome, I would put the problem like this: Suppose you are on a space mission and your spaceship blows up. You have, say, five minutes of oxygen left. You are still in radio contact with Earth, but there is no hope of rescue/survival. All you have in your power is to decide how to spend your last few minutes - do you scream and panic pointlessly, or remain composed, try to comfort your loved ones and die with dignity? Obviously, you should ideally do the latter. But is such behaviour courage, or merely rational thought? Thinking logically, you gain nothing by panicking, so you aren't sacrificing anything or risking anything by not panicking. So can it be called courage, to remain calm and dignified and comfort your friends and family in your last moments, or is it some other virtue - self-control, composure, rationality?

I would suggest that if we can agree the answer to this question it will take us some way in our discussion. Because if that _is_ courage, then we are on the wrong track in talking about sacrifice and risks. But if it's _not_ courage, then perhaps we should continue thinking about choices involving self-sacrificing risk.

If we say _both_ are courage, then aren't we really using one word for two completely different things?

Your thoughts...

Edit: The Oxford dictionary does indeed give two definitions of courage: "the ability to do something that frightens one" and "strength in the face of pain or grief". These do seem to me two completely different things. The first would cover choosing to take a great risk (but being entitled to scream and cry in the process - it's the choice that counts), while the second would cover dignity in a terrible situation where you can do nothing. Maybe we should split the discussion into two, following the two strands to their hypothetical extremes?

Martin

[legios]

I would suggest that courage does require a choice, but not necessarily one that can influence events. Courage I would suggest is the act of making a rational choice of a course of action rather than allowing the physio/psychological reaction of fear to determine ones response. In essence courage then would lie in deciding to do something other than instinctively flee the situation - whether that flight be physically running away, or by allowing panic to override ones volition. In effect I would suggest that courage lies in the decision to act rather than to remain passive in the face of an adversity. Not necessarily in the degree to which the eventual action is later seen to be wise with hindsight.

This definition would, I think bridge the gap between the situations of risk to life and limb that we have been focusing and those examples of what are sometimes referred to as moral courage - the act of standing by a set of principles that one believes to be right in the face of discomfort and hardship brought on by maintaining them.

I would argue that both of Martins examples represent examples of courage by this definition.

Karl

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Karl, can you and anyone else who agrees that the two definitions of 'courage' actually describe a single virtue or character trait, rather than two distinct virtues / character traits, please provide further arguments to defend that claim?

Could you not have one person whose nature it is to take courageous actions by choice when it will change an outcome, albeit displaying fear while doing so (e.g. diving without hesitation into a canal to save a child, but screaming in panic for assistance and losing one's capacity for rational thought while so doing - the intent is totally selfless and courageous and they have no second thoughts about whether to make the attempt, but they lose composure and won't think of removing their shoes before diving in) and a second person who would not take a courageous action by choice, but would remain composed, rational and dignified if forced into a dangerous situation (e.g. having been forced by gunpoint to dive into the canal to save the child, he remains calm, removes his shoes, and carries out the task without panicking)?

If you acknowledge the possibility of these two different personality types, are we not forced to conclude there are two separate virtues / character traits for which we use a single word, 'courage', though a person may possess one, both or neither?

Martin

[blueshift]

I would call both of those examples couragous, and would suggest that thusly courage is not a binary thing but instead something that can be defined in degrees of 'couragousness'. I would like to call each of these arbitary courage units a Blueshift.

Jumping in
1 - The first man has no hesitation in risking his life to save another. That is very couragous and thus measures 10 Blueshifts
2 - The second man has no choice whether to jump in. This measures 0 Blueshifts on the courage scale

Flailing and screaming
1 - The first man flails and screams. However this does not negate the essential choice he has made, so though he gets 0 Blueshifts for this, the fact is that he still made the conscious effort to do this.
2 - The second man does it with dignity and calmness, which can be considered braveness in a bad situation, though one not of his making. This measures 5 Blueshifts.

Man 1 has a courage of 10 Blueshifts, and man 2 has a courage of 5 Blueshifts.

So the more dangerous the choice, the more couragous the action

[dyrl]

Suppose you are on a space mission and your spaceship blows up. You have, say, five minutes of oxygen left. You are still in radio contact with Earth, but there is no hope of rescue/survival. All you have in your power is to decide how to spend your last few minutes - do you scream and panic pointlessly, or remain composed, try to comfort your loved ones and die with dignity? Obviously, you should ideally do the latter.

I disagree. Ideally, you should do everything possible to save yourself. Even if doing this seems to be "irrational" - I disagree with the notion that there is never any hope. So long as you are alive and in control of your basic faculties, there is always some possible chance to achieve the best outcome - in this case; staying alive.

I would say that panicking or accepting death in this circumstance would both be uncourageous - courage would be to be doing something to try to save yourself until the last moment.

Edit: The Oxford dictionary...

...is never to be trusted in such matters. Words are always futile attempts at signifying ideas, which are fleeting. Dictonaries like to pretend that words mean what they say, when in reality, such pretending only leads us astray, and makes us slaves to words rather than having words be our tools in attempting to understand thoughts.

In effect I would suggest that courage lies in the decision to act rather than to remain passive in the face of an adversity.

Would it be alright to add that courage lies in the "conscious decision to act" ?

And to consider that "act" means "conscious activity?" The reason I note this is that - for example - sometimes it takes courage to be silent, to be still, to not move - like in Alien, when Sigourney Weaver runs into the Alien and must slowly backtrack - or in the case of Red in Platoon, who hides under a dead NVA soldier and pretends to be dead in order not to be killed.

On the face of it, these might seem like "cowardly" acts (particularly the second) - but when a battle is lost - your additional death is futile, is it not? And - think about it - it is not easy to decide to hide and hope that others who are in movement will not notice you. By deciding to "be still" you are betting that those in motion will not run into you - and you are betting everything on this, since you effectively close off any other options.

can you and anyone else who agrees that the two definitions of 'courage' actually describe a single virtue or character trait, rather than two distinct virtues / character traits, please provide further arguments to defend that claim?

I think this way of seeing it makes a mess where you don't need one. It is not "two definitions" of courage which describe a single virtue, because a single thing cannot have "two definitions" but only can have one. A cannot be both A and B - unless perhaps A consists of the negation of B and therefore by definition has within itself a composite of B - that is to say, unless we were to begin to see courage as a dialectic rather than a "single virtue."

However, here Karl has pointed to the thing as a single virtue with many manifestations (not many definitions).

Analogously: there is only one idea of a chair - but there are many things which we can call chairs because they participate in "chair-ness" - the idea of chair-ness.

It is the same with courage.

This is why it is not uncommon to find many varieties of the virtue of courage - and this does not mean that all of them must equate with one another in terms of particular characteristics; rather - they all participate in courage.

They are in some ways more and in some ways less courageos because they are in the world of becoming, while courage as a virtue is merely an idea.

In other words: does the idea of courage ever act courageously?

No.

By definition it does not and cannot.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

There has been a preference expressed by Pete not to be bound by dictionary definitions, so we will allow courage to mean what we feel it should mean. However, since words are there to enable us to communicate and understand one another, and if we all insist on meaning different things when we use a particular word, I fear we'll never be able to express ourselves clearly, so I would appeal to everyone to remain flexible in their definition of courage, at least for the purposes of this thread, so that we can proceed together.

Karl suggests:

courage does require a choice, but not necessarily one that can influence events. Courage I would suggest is the act of making a rational choice of a course of action rather than allowing the physio/psychological reaction of fear to determine ones response.

Can we all accept this definition as an axiom for the time being, while remaining open to modifying if our exploration of the subject leads us to change it? This would encompass all the following acts: Ratchet's actions throughout the Marvel US TF comics; a person diving by choice into a canal to save a child (albeit panicking subsequently); a person remaining calm as they dive into the canal and try to save the child (regardless of whether they dived in by choice or at gunpoint - the act and the composure are two separate opportunities for displaying courage); an arguably doomed astronaut remaining calm in his last moments in order to comfort his family; an arguably doomed astronaut remaining calm in his last moments in order to explore to the end any possibilities for survival; and a soldier or Sigourney Weaver remaining still and calm for selfish reasons, but in opposition to their instincts, which are driven by fear.

Blueshift has rated the decision to act as more courageous than the composure while acting, in the canal scenario, but let's leave that for a minute until we're sure we're agreed as to the main definition.

Martin

[blueshift]

I am happy to agree to that definition.

EDIT: Wait no I am not

The choice made has to be some sort of tenuously defined positive one. And is courage only to be shown in the face of fear? Maybe actually. I can't really think of any examples where it is not.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Apr 17, 2009 19:56:15 GMT blueshift said:

I am happy to agree to that definition.

EDIT: Wait no I am not

The choice made has to be some sort of tenuously defined positive one.

An excellent point. And positive for whom?

Courage I would suggest is the act of making a rational choice of a course of action rather than allowing the physio/psychological reaction of fear to determine ones response.

Take the canal scenario. By the proposed definition, the person making the choice could make a rational choice to preserve himself, and leave the child to drown, and that would satisfy this definition of courage - as long as he made the choice rationally rather than in obedience to the emotion of fear.

We need a different definition!

In Pete's 'Alien' example, the act of courage is a self-serving, self-preserving one - to remain still and quiet, though the emotion tries to make you flee, which would mean death. In the canal example, it is only the selfless, self-sacrificing choice which is called courage. To coldly weigh one's own life against a drowning child's, decide that one's own life is worth more than the child's (for whatever rational reason), and so abandon the child, is surely considered cowardice, not courage.

How can we fix our definition?

Martin

[Grand Moff Muffin]

How about this definition:

Courage is the act of choosing a course of action that looks for the maximum beneficial outcome, in spite of fear or probability urging a different course of action.

I.e. courage is hoping for the best and not settling for a safe second best or giving in to fear.

In the canal example, the course of maximum beneficial outcome is the one where everyone survives. Fear urges self-preservation, because there is a risk of two deaths rather than one if you try for no deaths.

Any comments?

Martin

[Grand Moff Muffin]

I hear no objections... though the definition just given doesn't _require_ fear to be present - it requires an overcoming of fear (e.g. calm in the face of seemingly inevitable death) _or_ action going against the odds to try for the best possible outcome. Is it right that fear should be optional in the definition?

Does gambling at cards for high stakes count as courage when you are so rich you don't actually _fear_ losing?

Is a soldier still courageous if he is so well trained and has such a willing-to-die-for-a-good-cause mindset that he no longer feels fear?

Which definition is preferred by those (if any) still reading this thread?

1. Courage is the act of choosing a course of action that looks for the maximum beneficial outcome, in spite of fear _or_ probability urging a different course of action.

2. Courage is the act of choosing a course of action that looks for the maximum beneficial outcome, in spite of fear urging a different course of action.

No. 2 would require a person to feel fear and overcome it, No. 1 allows for courageous people who do not feel fear - either because their minds are trained not to feel fear, or because they don't mind losing.

(Stay with me, fellas, I'm hoping to bring Transformers tech-specs into it once the working definition is pinned down.)

Martin

[blueshift]

Apr 19, 2009 7:20:59 GMT Grand Moff Muffin said:

Does gambling at cards for high stakes count as courage when you are so rich you don't actually _fear_ losing?

Is a soldier still courageous if he is so well trained and has such a willing-to-die-for-a-good-cause mindset that he no longer feels fear?

Hmm. In that case the issue is one of risk. The gambler is not couragous because the risk to himself is minimal. The soldier IS couragous because the risk to himself is still high. Thus the element of risk must be involved somewhere. Must or may.

[dyrl]

Courage is the act of choosing a course of action that looks for the maximum beneficial outcome, in spite of fear or probability urging a different course of action.

Hm. If this is the definition, then it is hard to argue with it - it seems to be very good.

Does gambling at cards for high stakes count as courage when you are so rich you don't actually _fear_ losing?

Well, this brings up an interesting question - namely - if we define courage as being only "in spite of fear" - then in the absence of fear, doing something daring (but without fear) would not be courageous?

Interesting. Of course, my answer would be only that to the extent that gambling any money is always a risk, and any loss - even if you still have many reserves - is still a loss, then yes - it would be courageous to gamble even if one were rich.

However - we would say simply that it is not a level of courage that is as high as some other courageous acts.

Again - courage does not have one measurement - it can be manifested in different ways.

Is a soldier still courageous if he is so well trained and has such a willing-to-die-for-a-good-cause mindset that he no longer feels fear?

I would think that "no longer feels fear" cannot co-exist with "so well trained" insofar as soldiers are concerned. Soldiers who no longer feel fear no longer have a survival instinct. And dead soldiers are really of no use to anyone except the enemy of those soldiers.

I would go further and say that a soldier ought not have a "willingness to die" (as General Patton had it - "let the other poor bastard die for his country"). A soldier should have a willingness to FIGHT.

Fear is an ally in soldiering insofar as it stops soldiers from taking rash actions that endanger not only their lives - but the lives of others.

Yes; there are rare instances where - sort of like in your astronaught example - a soldier faces "certain" death and decides to fight and actually survives because he threw caution to the wind, was "fearless" and fought.

However - I put "fearless" in quotation marks because I do not think it was fearlessness but rather a fighting spirit and decision not to die passively but to try and survive that motivates such soldiers.

But of course - one can never generalize...

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Thanks, guys. Unlike other 'Have Your Say' threads where we are all happy to state our opinions independent of getting feedback, this thread, being an open-ended exploration of an issue rather than lots of predetermined viewpoints, requires people to speak up when they agree and are content, and not only when they disagree or have original contributions to make. It's an experiment we may well not repeat, but I'd like to see it through if possible (and then read the Socrates treatment and see if they have anything at all in common - please don't spoil it for me if you already know!).

Apr 19, 2009 8:35:02 GMT dyrl said:

Courage is the act of choosing a course of action that looks for the maximum beneficial outcome, in spite of fear or probability urging a different course of action.

Hm. If this is the definition, then it is hard to argue with it - it seems to be very good.

Righto, we'll go with that one then, since you are in favour and Blueshift also considers gambling without fear to be courageous, albeit minimally so.

Here's a new supposition to hopefully stimulate thought:

We have said, "Courage is the act of choosing a course of action that looks for the maximum beneficial outcome." I suggest (and invite comments on the assertion) that which choice is courageous depends on the point of view of the person making the choice - not only their values, but also their understanding of the situation.

To illustrate: Ratchet, in the early comics, had to decide whether or not to enter the Decepticon-controlled Ark. He entered. His decision to enter was in spite of fear, but to be courageous it also had to be the act that looked for the maximum beneficial outcome. Ratchet's value system dictated what a maximum beneficial outcome was - namely, freeing his friends and stopping the Decepticon's threat to Earth. His understanding of the situation led him to believe that the best or only chance of achieving this goal was to enter the Ark. If either his value system or his understanding of the situation had been different, entering the Ark would not be courageous, but reckless/irrational. For example, if he calculated that he would have a better chance of achieving his goals by watching and waiting, or by forming an alliance with Earth's military, or attacking in the open on his own, then overcoming his fear and following those paths would be the courageous thing to do, not entering the Ark.

When Megatron found Ratchet, Ratchet had to stifle his fear and think quickly. Initially he opened fire on Megatron with his puny weapons. This was probably a fear response rather than a courageous act. But then he used his intelligence, and talked himself out of death by making a deal, thereby keeping hope of achieving his maximum positive outcome alive. Because he thought of doing this, it became the courageous thing to do. For someone less intelligent, who would not be clever enough to talk himself out of it, the courageous thing to do would be the best they could think of, which may be begging for mercy or remaining dignified and defying Megatron to do his worst - neither of which would probably have induced Megatron to spare his victim, but as long as the victim believed it to be the path that maximised his chances, it would be the courageous thing to do.

What do people think of what I have said so far? Please point out any flaws in my reasoning before you or I go any further.

Martin

[dyrl]

Well, I think that you forget that Ratchet did not muster his courage on his own.

It was Optimus Prime - speaking to a doubting Ratchet from within the Ark - who convinced the medic to have the courage to carry on.

I forgot what Prime said to him though, but I do remember that Ratchet basically gave up all hope when he saw Optimus Prime beheaded. In fact, I think Ratchet was under the impression that surely Optimus Prime wouldn't have been defeated - and upon finding he was - all hope was lost.

I think it would be necessary at this point for someone with the comic in hand to refresh our memories with Optimus Prime's speech to Ratchet.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Good point, though Buster had already told Ratchet that the Autobots were strung up and Optimus decapitated. Ratchet doesn't seem to be sure what he's doing as he enters the Ark, and responds emotionally when he sees with his own eyes what he already knew to be true. Maybe he didn't enter the Ark for courageous, rational reasons, but emotionally, hoping irrationally that Buster's words weren't true.

"Even though I knew, I had to see for myself to believe... all is lost... lost..."

"Ratchet... come forward..."

"Great Optimus... you function!"

"Put aside your grief, Ratchet. Now is the time for valor!"

"I-- I am not warrior enough to stop the Decepticons by myself, Optimus. I fear the time for valor... is past."

"[Omit some plot stuff about the Matrix.] For untold ages, we Autobots have unceasingly combatted the Decepticon evil. Today it is your turn, Ratchet. Save us from the Decepticons... defeat Megatron..."

"My weapons are insignificant as compared to the might of Megatron. How can I stop him? I'm a doctor... not a warrior!"

"As you trained on our native Cybertron to be a doctor, so shall you train on Earth to be a warrior! Experience shall be your instructor. Your own survival shall be your ultimate test. But first, before you can act like a warrior, you must learn to think like a warrior..."

Maybe he didn't start acting courageously until after this pep-talk. But are you content with the rest of my analysis?

Martin

[dyrl]

Well now this is interesting. Note the following lines:

"Put aside your grief, Ratchet. Now is the time for valor!

"I fear the time for valor... is past."

Experience shall be your instructor. Your own survival shall be your ultimate test

Now, I contend that it is a mere matter of semantics, but what Optimus Prime calls "valor" is nothing else but "courage" - so Optimus Prime is clearly discussing the very thing we are trying to define.

First, according to Optimus Prime - courage (valor) has a time and place. That is to say- something is courageous/valiant in relation to WHEN it is done - circumstances. Thus - the same action can be courageous or not be courageous depending on the circumstances (timing).

Furthermore, Optimus Prime says that experience can teach valor and that the test of valor is "survival" - Ratchet's "own survival."

This suggests that there is nothing courageous about dying for a cause - but rather, courage is when you succeed and rescue your life.

I will leave aside for the moment that later, in Prey, Optimus Prime seems content to want to commit suicide to destroy the space bridge and is held back only by his belief (based on the Target:2006 experience) that the Autobots would not manage without him, or that even later, Prime kills himself "courageously" over a video game....

Here - "early" Prime seems to be saying that survival is a key test of wheather an action was courageous or not.

We might suppose then that to act and die would thus make the action rash and not courageous.

This is why Ratchet is courageous when he negotiates for his life and finds a solution that does not require his death-as-sacrifice.

If Ratchet had fought and died fighting Megatron - his action - entering the Ark - would not have been courageous, according to Prime.

It would have been rash and foolish.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Optimus told Ratchet that his survival would be his ultimate test in this instance. I think it would be misrepresenting his words to claim that they can be rephrased without alteration of meaning to say that survival is _always_ the ultimate test of courage. In most cases, I would grant that the 'maximum benefit' would include, along with as many other gains and benefits as possible, the saving of one's own life. But I can think of other scenarios where it does not.

For example, you and your children are stranded in a boat, awaiting rescue. You don't have enough fresh water, food, shelter, whatever, to keep all three of you alive. Your value system, your beliefs about right and wrong, dictate that your children's lives are more important to you than your own. You therefore overcome fear to have the courage of your convictions, and make them eat, drink and survive at the cost of your life. Yes, you can keep trying to think of other ways to avoid dying until the moment that you die, but you don't risk your children's lives in order to prolong yours, because that would contradict the definition of 'maximum benefit' dictated by your value system, and therefore not be courageous. If you had a different value system where you rated your own survival above your children's, then it might be different and the courageous act might centre on keeping yourself alive.

Another example is where the maximum benefit, in accordance with your value system, _requires_ your death - e.g. you die to make a point, to be remembered, to influence those that come after you by inspiring them - outcomes which you believe (rightly or wrongly) will not follow if you live. Let's not talk about religious martyrs because I fear that would bring in personal convictions and spoil the thread, but let's talk about Optimus Prime in 'Afterdeath'. Optimus Prime's value system (which we may or may not agree with) told him that if he cheated and lived it would undermine everything he stood for, everything he was trying to inspire in others, through the example he set. He felt he had to die to achieve maximum benefit from the situation in which he found himself.

Don't think of courage as something that has to be good or applauded, because evil-doers can show courage when they take risks to achieve evil ends. It seems, from our working definition, to consist solely in following through on one's convictions in the face of fear and probability - and those convictions may not always necessitate self-preservation.

To say that to be courageous you must value and strive for such-and-such a thing - one's own life, someone's else's life, money, fame, etc. - corrupts our value-neutral definition of courage. The emotion of fear will come at different times for different people depending on what they value, and what they think are the facts of the world. Do we not have to allow those who value things we do not, and don't value the things we value - such as our own lives - the opportunity to display courage on their terms?

What do people think of this line of reasoning?

Martin

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Right, I'm off for the next two days, so I leave you with some tech-spec stats to ponder. Obviously, the writer of the tech-specs didn't know in advance how the characters would be written, and the writers of the stories probably didn't consult the tech-specs, and yet there does appear to be a lot that works.

I assume, as most fans do, that the stats of Starscream and Skywarp were swapped by mistake, and Starscream is the one with rank 9 and Skywarp rank 5. (They were printed the other way round.)

We have, to begin with, quoting first intelligence and then courage:

Bluestreak: 6 / 2
Bumblebee: 8 / 10
Cliffjumper: 4 / 10
Brawn: 3 / 10
Gears: 7 / 9
Hound: 8 / 10
Huffer: 8 / 8
Ironhide: 7 / 10
Jazz: 9 / 9
Mirage: 9 / 5
Optimus Prime: 10 / 10
Prowl: 9 / 9
Ratchet: 8 / 8
Sideswipe: 7 / 10
Sunstreaker: 6 / 7
Trailbreaker: 6 / 9
Wheeljack: 9 / 9
Windcharger: 6 / 9

Buzzsaw 8 / 7
Frenzy: 6 / 10
Laserbeak: 6 / 2
Megatron: 10 / 9
Ravage: 8 / 4
Rumble: 5 / 7
Skywarp: 7 / 8
Soundwave: 9 / 5
Starscream: 9 / 9
Thundercracker: 7 / 8

Now, sticking to my assumptions to date, as every character has a different set of values, in any situation each will have a different definition for maximum beneficial outcome (based on their value system), and a different view of the best way to achieve it (based on their life knowledge and intelligence), and hence a different definition of courage. The courage rating on the tech-specs, I therefore interpret to mean the character's ability to stick with the courage of their convictions rather than be directed by the fear emotion or settle for a safer bet on the second best outcome.

According to the ratings, Optimus, Megatron and Shockwave, all having intelligence 10, have the greatest capacity to determine the best choice of action for achieving their goals. Optimus also has courage 10, which would imply he would follow through on that course and not give in to fear (despite feeling it, as we have seen on many occasions). If, then, he ever acts in a way we would consider stupid, we might deduce that it was his values, his priorities for outcome, where the foolishness lies, and not in his thought processes for achieving those priorities, or his ability to act on those thought processes. Optimus seems to put sticking to moral principles above the good of real people, so a courageous act for him would be very different from a courageous act for someone like Prowl who might weigh saving lives above sticking to principles.

Starscream is very courageous, with courage 9, but it is a completely selfish courage - risking his life to acquire power for himself.

Taking a few other examples, Bluestreak and Laserbeak only have courage 2, which (going by our working definitions) means they do not follow through on their convictions when put under pressure. Indeed we saw Bluestreak freeze in panic when fighting Jetfire in the early comics. Laserbeak, however, often seems to attack against the odds (e.g. attacking Bluestreak and Bumblebee in 'Brainstorm', saving Megatron from Omega Supreme, attacking Snarl in 'In the National Interest', attacking Death's Head... do we have an inconsistency there? Dunno - it all depends on whether he is acting rationally on his convictions, or following a panicky fear response when he acts this way. In two of the four examples, he got smashed straight away, suggesting it might be more stupidity than bravery.

Cliffjumper and Brawn have courage ratings out of all proportion to their intelligences, which suggests they will always follow through on their convictions, but get it wrong a lot of the time, not because emotion clouded their judgement, but simply because they aren't very bright.

Ravage is twice as intelligent than he is brave, which might mean he often knows the right thing to do, in accordance with his system of values, but lacks the will to carry it out. Perhaps his loyalty, an emotional trait, overrides what he knows to be sensible, and he ends up following leaders who are clearly mentally unhinged and not to be followed.

Prowl, Jazz and Wheeljack, Optimus' three highest ranking lieutenants, also have near-perfect intelligence and near-perfect courage, with the one matching the other. They clearly deserve the top jobs - though they all have slightly different sets of values, and therefore definitions of courage.

Thoughts? (Back in a couple of days - hope a few more posts will have been added by then!)

Martin

[legios]

My apologies, work and outside committments have forced me to neglect this thread of late. I am in the process of catching up with and digesting the arguements that have been recently advanced, and shall speak further when I have had a chance to consider them.

Karl

[legios]

I would agree that we should be careful in how we read Optimus' words to Ratchet. It is important to consider context and the degree to which they represent the situation as it stood specifically at that time.

At the time that Prime spoke those words Ratchet was the last fully-functioning Autobot on Earth and, as far as Prime could be certain, in the universe. Therefore Ratchet's survival determined the survival of the Autobots as a culture. If we take the position that on some level Optimus holds the continuation of Autobot culture as being a moral imperative then in the face of extinction it is reasonable to assume that he would consider the survival of that culture to be the vital yardstick against which actions would be measured. Indeed at times it would appear that Optimus places a value on Autobot culture and moral axioms than he does on individual Autobots - including himself. In "Dinobot Hunt" he appears prepared to authorise the use of extreme levels of force against the Dinobots, who have trespassed the "do not harm innocents" axiom that Prime holds as being fundamental to Autobot culture.

In this light his actions in "Afterdeath" begin to appear to be a stance in strict, and perhaps courageous, adherence to his beliefs. Prime holds a strictly defined moral standard that allows no deviation - an Autobot cannot win by abandoning their core principles, and as he violated these principles in being victorious in the game he has in fact lost and therefore should rightly suffer the penalty. I would suggest that this fits with the suggestion that Optimus has an unshakeable faith in the rightness of his convictions and the ability to stand by them at any cost, even his own life.

It is interesting to note that Soundwave, although rated as highly intelligent is listed as having a relatively low courage. I would suggest that this is in line with what we would expect when we consider how this is reflected in his actual behaviour. Soundwave's actions suggest that he is guided firstly and foremostly by risk aversion. In Crisis of Command the only Autobot he directly seeks confrontation with is Bumblebee - and then only whilst he is supported by the majority of the Decepticon forces. In Dinobot Hunt, rather than fighting the Autobots directly whilst they are engaged in their Dinobot recapture operation, Soundwave first engineers a strike from ambush against a team of Minibots. He then renders unconcious the most predictable and least threatening of the remaining Dinobots, before using said Dinobot as a weapon against Autobot targets of opportunity. In both these examples Soundwave acts to in ways that reduce the potential risk, but also reduce the potential benefit. Rather than seeking the maximum potential benefit, Soundwave appears to be driven by a desire to reduce the probability of harm befalling himself. He is happy to remain in the shadows and accept what scraps of advantage he can easily acquire. A very different strategy to that of Starscream who actively seeks opportunity for advancement, even when this places him at hazard. I would suggest that Soundwave's high intelligence clearly correlates with his well-honed ability to assess a situation and determine beneficial courses of action, whilst his much lower courage reflects his unwillingness to pursue these in the face of the risk of negative consequences. Hence, even if Soundwave could see that diving into the water to save someone would potentially result in the ideal outcome of no deaths, he would not do so as the possibility of his own death weighs far higher in his calculations.

As for Lazerbeak, I doubt that any level of rational calculation is involved in his action. I would suggest that he yields easily to the fight-or-flight reflex, and acts out of a fear of the violence of the battlefield. Rather than fleeing from that violence however he responds in kind, a blind attempt to remove the threat regardless of the wisdom of doing so. He does not appear to calculate the probability of a positive outcome to his actions in these situations. Instead he reflexively meets violence with violence regardless of the circumstances.

Karl