Cowards can never be moral.
Author: Mahatma Gandhi
Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free! If you are a member, please log in.
Search found 17 matches
Return to: Live as a coward or die as a hero?
August 9th, 2009, 8:54 pm
I88-And where are the monuments to those individuals?
How is bravery remembered is it by the act or the life? Do we not recognize the flaws of men and champion to rise above those flaws? Is it not bravery when they do?
Bravery is one who rises above those flaws which cripple many men at the time when selflessness is most needed.
Gandhi was a war hero and most likely never drew even a fist in anger against another man. Do we only build monuments to war heroes? Or do we build monuments to ordinary men who have performed extraordinary deeds. And some who were just men who deserve lasting honor, respect and remembrance.
One of my heroes is Ronald McNair. An ordinary man who died just wanting to be the best he could be and despite all his accomplishments in life just wanted to be the first to play music in space.
How is bravery remembered is it by the act or the life? Do we not recognize the flaws of men and champion to rise above those flaws? Is it not bravery when they do?
Bravery is one who rises above those flaws which cripple many men at the time when selflessness is most needed.
Gandhi was a war hero and most likely never drew even a fist in anger against another man. Do we only build monuments to war heroes? Or do we build monuments to ordinary men who have performed extraordinary deeds. And some who were just men who deserve lasting honor, respect and remembrance.
One of my heroes is Ronald McNair. An ordinary man who died just wanting to be the best he could be and despite all his accomplishments in life just wanted to be the first to play music in space.
August 10th, 2009, 5:19 pm
HP-There is an underlying history of Gandhi many would be unwilling to except let alone understand. The consciousness created by Gandhi was raised 100 fold by King.
Both men had a platform on which they knew their ideology would work. The base of that ideology does not exist in all instances and cannot exist unless the framework for that ideology has been established. The accomplishments of both men has its foundation in successful violent struggle.
As such the works of these men can be easily destroyed unless a willingness to fortify those gains are continuously and vigorously defended.
Both men had a platform on which they knew their ideology would work. The base of that ideology does not exist in all instances and cannot exist unless the framework for that ideology has been established. The accomplishments of both men has its foundation in successful violent struggle.
As such the works of these men can be easily destroyed unless a willingness to fortify those gains are continuously and vigorously defended.
August 11th, 2009, 2:39 am
HP-Good now we are engaging! 
What needs to be understood here is that before Gandhi became the person many try to emulate he was an ordinary man who actually supported the British position during the "Boer War". A careful study of his position at the time can be argued to be racist. Subsequently his position in India was based on a strong sense of nationalism and Indian pride. More over what he understood was English idealism and those ideas could be transcended by his non- violent approach to Indian independence. His comments about Jews during WW2 can also be argued to be racist and in fact Jews have a low opinion of him as a result.
For King what he understood was the Declaration of Independence and as follows Gandhi's non violent success. US independence was gained in violent struggle and as such so was black emancipation. What king understood was that the segregation and separation of blacks could not hold under the weight of that document and its ideas for long and still be valued and valid.
Both men understood that armed conflict against their oppressors would only lead to more oppression as a matter of law as we see in the struggles in South Africa. Not to say that they would support aggression but as is the natural right of the individual to want and struggle to be free.
In a free society no man or group can be oppressed and still be considered a free society and what needs to be guarded and defended is that freedom and as long as one society or nation allows oppression and denies the individual authority over his own will then no society or nation is free. And as history shows freedom is a condition which needs to be fought for and defended.
What needs to be understood here is that before Gandhi became the person many try to emulate he was an ordinary man who actually supported the British position during the "Boer War". A careful study of his position at the time can be argued to be racist. Subsequently his position in India was based on a strong sense of nationalism and Indian pride. More over what he understood was English idealism and those ideas could be transcended by his non- violent approach to Indian independence. His comments about Jews during WW2 can also be argued to be racist and in fact Jews have a low opinion of him as a result.
For King what he understood was the Declaration of Independence and as follows Gandhi's non violent success. US independence was gained in violent struggle and as such so was black emancipation. What king understood was that the segregation and separation of blacks could not hold under the weight of that document and its ideas for long and still be valued and valid.
Both men understood that armed conflict against their oppressors would only lead to more oppression as a matter of law as we see in the struggles in South Africa. Not to say that they would support aggression but as is the natural right of the individual to want and struggle to be free.
In a free society no man or group can be oppressed and still be considered a free society and what needs to be guarded and defended is that freedom and as long as one society or nation allows oppression and denies the individual authority over his own will then no society or nation is free. And as history shows freedom is a condition which needs to be fought for and defended.
August 14th, 2009, 12:19 am
Rudyard Kipling "Gunga Dinn"
'E carried me away
To where a dooli lay,
An' a bullet come an' drilled the beggar clean. 70
'E put me safe inside,
An' just before 'e died:
"I 'ope you liked your drink," sez Gunga Din.
So I'll meet 'im later on
In the place where 'e is gone— 75
Where it's always double drill and no canteen;
'E'll be squattin' on the coals
Givin' drink to pore damned souls,
An' I'll get a swig in Hell from Gunga Din!
Din! Din! Din! 80
You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
For the rest; http://www.bartleby.com/103/48.html
From WS "Henry V"
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
El Cordobes
“Bravery is believing in yourself, and that thing nobody can teach you.”
In the aftermath of 911, before even the dust had settled, I knew that those who were trapped could do nothing more than be brave. One young woman who had called a 911 operator and asked that the woman on the other end stay with her as the heat from the blaze cooked her skin off her bones never once asked for mercy, never once did she beg to die, she only prayed with a an unknown voice on the other end. And as it became clear that the buildings would collapse these firemen kept climbing up and up trying to reach a voice people they never knew and died for the futility of the effort.
Yes a fantasy, a voice, tired steps, a falling man. Who cares what they were in life since the end of it is just that, the end of it.
August 14th, 2009, 2:55 pm
I88- To make statements with any providing justification renders any concept without substance and rejectable. A coward in one deed or act is a coward until such time as he is redeemed. A brave individual is inspired to such from inspiration and as such will not commit a cowardly deed.
No offered proofs for any contentions are rejectable.
Please explain this brute fact.
No offered proofs for any contentions are rejectable.
Please explain this brute fact.
August 15th, 2009, 9:03 am
I88-So someone can be an anticoward or antibrave and as such be those things by degree or levels? And how is that decided?
There is something radical about what you are saying from your original postings.
Niel Armstrong is a brave man by all accounts what would make him a coward by your standards?
There is something radical about what you are saying from your original postings.
Niel Armstrong is a brave man by all accounts what would make him a coward by your standards?
August 15th, 2009, 9:25 am
I88-No if someone is inherently a coward as the word is defined then they are not brave.
Although I understand if what you are saying as far as "labeling" may be concerned but it still does not negate a characteristic that can be determined if observed.
My original post here concerned monuments and to whom monuments are built would you see a monument of Niel Armstrong and consider him partly coward and by what standard would he be considered as such?
Consider not only Armstrong's accomplishment in space and war but also his desire to live his life in quite academia. Would not a monument to such a man inspire others towards a life lived in brave excellence to serve humanity?
Although I understand if what you are saying as far as "labeling" may be concerned but it still does not negate a characteristic that can be determined if observed.
My original post here concerned monuments and to whom monuments are built would you see a monument of Niel Armstrong and consider him partly coward and by what standard would he be considered as such?
Consider not only Armstrong's accomplishment in space and war but also his desire to live his life in quite academia. Would not a monument to such a man inspire others towards a life lived in brave excellence to serve humanity?
August 17th, 2009, 11:03 pm
I88-We have a language barrier here.
I submit that there are brave people and cowards. There are brave acts and cowardly acts.
Monuments are created to celebrate either a brave act or a brave individual. Would you deny a monument Marie Curie? I could not find an ounce of cowardice in her life.
I submit that there are brave people and cowards. There are brave acts and cowardly acts.
Monuments are created to celebrate either a brave act or a brave individual. Would you deny a monument Marie Curie? I could not find an ounce of cowardice in her life.
August 19th, 2009, 11:27 pm
I88-The entire premise is non-sequitur fallacy.
If I say that I have never committed a cowardly act. The response will be that I have since "everyone" commits a cowardly acts. And furthermore if some can be described as brave that description is false since the person purposing that description did not know the person and could not possible know if that person ever committed a cowardly act.
But, the rational is that since no one can know another person then no one can know whether or not that person has ever committed a brave or cowardly act as applicable to any and all persons.
Therefore the only person who can describe anyone as brave or cowardly is a person who has direct knowledge of that persons action every second of his existence which the person themself falls into that category.
So, you don't know me and I do and I say that I have never committed a cowardly act which by your standard is enough since you don't know me and I do.
If I say that I have never committed a cowardly act. The response will be that I have since "everyone" commits a cowardly acts. And furthermore if some can be described as brave that description is false since the person purposing that description did not know the person and could not possible know if that person ever committed a cowardly act.
But, the rational is that since no one can know another person then no one can know whether or not that person has ever committed a brave or cowardly act as applicable to any and all persons.
Therefore the only person who can describe anyone as brave or cowardly is a person who has direct knowledge of that persons action every second of his existence which the person themself falls into that category.
So, you don't know me and I do and I say that I have never committed a cowardly act which by your standard is enough since you don't know me and I do.
August 20th, 2009, 12:17 pm
HP+boagie-My response was a critique of I88' assertion that no one can be described as brave or cowardly since one does not have access to the entirety of that persons experience and everyone commits brave and cowardly acts. My point is that both conditions are subjective evaluation by others who set a subjective criteria for each therefore to impose any concrete standard and to make a clause which cannot be realistically validated is fallacious.
I wish that I could set a standard for myself that others have bestowed on me. Trying to even imagine or live up to what I have witnessed and experienced myself of what a human being is capable of so far in my life is daunting to say the least and I have no clue what tomorrow will bring.
I can tell you that I have some pretty well written citations which grace my "I love me wall" I remember when they were read during ceremonies, and although I was filed with pride at being recognized, I don't remember what I felt or thought at the time of the action only that I did what was needed to be done, what I was trained to do and accepted responsibility for doing. I don't remember thinking of myself they way I am described in those citations. I like to think that I did what every human being would do to the best of their abilities given any circumstance.
To be honest I have been in some harrowing circumstances and don't remember being fearful for myself but more fearful of not doing something right or doing the wrong thing which might cause harm. Thinking about it now is it possible that I was selfish by not wanting to appear inadequate or incompetent? Is that cowardly?
I guess or suppose that I assisted in saving lives with God's help. I get Christmas cards every year from these people. The most remarkable thing is how they tell me as much about their lives for that year as possible in a few short paragraphs. I save those too and even thinking about it now tears me up and I don't know why that should be.
I wish that I could set a standard for myself that others have bestowed on me. Trying to even imagine or live up to what I have witnessed and experienced myself of what a human being is capable of so far in my life is daunting to say the least and I have no clue what tomorrow will bring.
I can tell you that I have some pretty well written citations which grace my "I love me wall" I remember when they were read during ceremonies, and although I was filed with pride at being recognized, I don't remember what I felt or thought at the time of the action only that I did what was needed to be done, what I was trained to do and accepted responsibility for doing. I don't remember thinking of myself they way I am described in those citations. I like to think that I did what every human being would do to the best of their abilities given any circumstance.
To be honest I have been in some harrowing circumstances and don't remember being fearful for myself but more fearful of not doing something right or doing the wrong thing which might cause harm. Thinking about it now is it possible that I was selfish by not wanting to appear inadequate or incompetent? Is that cowardly?
I guess or suppose that I assisted in saving lives with God's help. I get Christmas cards every year from these people. The most remarkable thing is how they tell me as much about their lives for that year as possible in a few short paragraphs. I save those too and even thinking about it now tears me up and I don't know why that should be.
- Search found 17 matches • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to: Live as a coward or die as a hero?