On fear...

[alexpgp]

Fellow LJer bsgi observed, regarding a previous post:

...to believe in something unseen and unexperienced, instead of guts, one may only need a lot of fear.

Interesting point, but I believe this blurs the distinction between motivation and belief. The former is a prerequisite for the latter, I think.

No doubt, fear is certainly a motivator. Throughout history, it has been ubiquitous in that role, ever-popular among many parents, teachers, governments, and employers. Responding to fear can cause you to decide to do things you never otherwise would have believed you could do.

But while fear is a motivator, it is not the only one, nor does it necessarily provide superior results, much less guaranteed ones.

During my stint with the Marines, there came a point during basic training when recruits who had repeatedly failed to finish the morning P.T. run were assembled together and told, "Fall out during tomorrow's run, and you'll be sent back to repeat the last three weeks of basic training." Some of that group buckled down and finished the run; then again, some others didn't.

Conceivably, similar (or even better) results could have been obtained by promising a reward instead of a punishment, but in either case, what ultimately allowed the finishers to succeed was their ability to change their beliefs (from "I can't run 3 miles," to "I can run 3 miles").

One of my favorite passages on the subject of fear comes from Frank Herbert, writing in his Dune mode:

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit to to pass over me and through me.
And when it is gone past me I will turn to see fear's path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

Cheers...

Comments

[bsgi.livejournal.com]

I do not disagree with a word that you have said. I only meant to expand on what you said: that fear is one reason (of many) to believe (in something). My point about belief was simply to say that "guts" was not the only reason that a person could have for forming a belief.

For instance, fear of the unknown is often the reason that primitive man created gods -- to explain the unknown and make it "acceptable." It did not change their basic fear but it gave them a way of living their lives with the unknown and may, in some instances, have provided a motivation to finding ways to try to change the unknown -- i.e., sacrifices and other, less violent forms of worship.

No doubt, fear is also a motivator -- sometimes for the positive and sometimes for the negative, as can be belief in something. So too is the need for food, clothing, shelter and a mate. You can state any of those in postive or negative terms. Either way would be equally valid. You can also say that those are motivations in and of themselves and be just as correct. However, there are both positive and negative aspects to the motivations for feeding, clothing, sheltering, and mating -- depending upon the specific individual's outlook on that particlular aspect of life and other factors that affect them at any given time..

The need to defend oneself is a motivator -- though that can be a function of the fear of one's own death. Protecting another is not a function of fear for one's safety but for the consequences that may befall the one being protected. Risking one's own life for another, no matter who that other is, is a matter of guts (if you will) over-riding one's fear for one's own (possibly eminent) death.

Belief can also be a function of habit or need. Habits that lead to belief are the result of being told something so many times that one believes that "truth" to be correct. That is how "brain washing" works. Similarly, propaganda and advertsing, in part, are acceptance of beliefs. We "want" to believe that someone would tell us the truth, so we accept what they tell us as truth without question. In effect we believe what they say because we want to believe in them. As a result, we suspend disbelief and accept what is said without question, completely, to the point of sometimes disputing the real truth, in spite of what we may actually perceive or experience.

Further, Rene Descartes "proved" his existence simply by saying "I think, therefore I am." His statement should rightfully be extended to say "I (believe I) think, therefore I am." There is no other way to "prove" the existence of his thinking than for him or any of us to believe. Neither fear nor guts bring us to to that point of belief.

As you noted, the collective experience of others are a reason for believing. Why else would I believe it to be true that Descartes a) made this statement and b) that he existed. Even physical evidence would not be proof enough. The insane may not believe their own eyes and ears that something exists or does not exist. For me, someone else could have claimed to be Descartes, forged his writings, etc. In that case, I would only believe that those writings existed and that there was in fact a person claiming to be Descartes. (Assuming I actually saw such a person.) I would have to accept, on face, that the person was who he said he was and that he actually wrote the writings as claimed. Belief in those truths does not necessarily take guts and is not necessarily grounded in fear. Belief simply requires the suspension of disbelief and the acceptance of those "facts" as being true.

Again, thanks for making me think. I welcome the dialog and the opportunity to exercise what is left of my mind.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

In general, I don't disagree with what you say, either. However, your statement,

My point about belief was simply to say that "guts" was not the only reason that a person could have for forming a belief.
tells me we may be speaking about different things entirely.

Whatever the motivator - fear, conscience, something lofty or something base - ultimately, it takes an act of will (perhaps the word "guts" is a bit too colloquial for this context) to believe in something when one lacks the conventional supports for that belief.

Someday, I will have to expand on that previous post. Most certainly so.

Cheers...

Re:

[bsgi.livejournal.com]

I think that we found common ground. You may well be right about us talking about different things. Maybe we are actually looking at the same thing from different viewpoints -- much like the description of an elephant by different blind men.

I agree that a conscios act, will if you will, is necessary to accept something when one's rational senses do not support acceptance otherwise.

Thanks for the dialog. Have a safe trip home to Colorado.