2
Definition of Courage by Socrates and Nicias
Courage is one of the primary virtues whose presence is visible in people's lives. In
Plato's dialogue, Nicias and Socrates engage in a philosophical discourse about the definition and
nature of courage (Laches 190e). Nicias shares his thoughts on what courage means, while
Laches and Socrates question his reasoning (Laches 194d). Their conversation offers valuable
insights into the complexity of the word courage. Nicias attempts to define courage, and Socrates
dissects the definition by providing counterarguments that refute Nicias' claims. In this essay, I
will explain how Nicias conceives courage and discuss Socrates' claims that find Nicias'
definition unsatisfactory. Similarly, I will evaluate Socrates' statements and argue that his
position is strong with limited flaws.
Nicias provides a definition that resonates around a specific disposition of the soul.
According to Nicias, courage is a type of wisdom. In other words, courage is the knowledge
based on hope and fear. He says that "everyone…is good...to that…he is wise and bad…he is
ignorant" (William, 194d). Nicias continues, "If a man is…courageous…he is wise " (Laches
194d). He claims that courage is the knowledge that inspires confidence or fear in many things
like war (Laches 195a). It is worth noting that Nicias' conception of courage assumes that
courage is itself a type of understanding or knowledge (199b). In this light, Socrates refutes this
claim, saying Nicias' definition does not explain the origin of the initial version or knowledge
about courage. Nicias believes that courage constitutes enduring physical or emotional pain and
facing danger. Therefore, a courageous individual can endure pain and pleasure with moderation.
This definition is different from Lache's view of courage, that courage entails facing
danger without retreating. Nicias' view introduces courage as being fearless and enduring pain
and pleasure correctly (Laches 197b). True courage is possessing a rational understanding or
3
knowledge of the dangers or threatening circumstances worthy of confronting or avoiding. Only
a courageous person can maintain a balance between pleasure and pain. As argued by Nicias,
animals or wild beasts are fearless rather than bold (Laches 197a). They are brave because they
are not knowledgeable and lack understanding of what to hope for and fear. I Strongly disagree
with this definition because it has a general or broad meaning. Socrates responded to Nicias'
description, arguing it is deficient, vague and does not consider every instance of courage. He
mentions that Nicias' position would consider some irrational actions like the drunkenness of a
solder courageous if they could rely on an individual's judgement and knowledge.
According to Socrates, Nicias' definition fails to recognize and acknowledge courageous
animals, such as lions and boars, who lack knowledge (Laches 196e, 197a). Nicias defends his
position by distinguishing fearlessness and courage as a form of wisdom. Meanwhile, Socrates
refutes Nicias' argument from a different angle, commenting that his definition of courage as
knowledge alone cannot satisfy what courage means (Laches 196d). He implies that even wise or
knowledgeable people can make mistakes in judgment. They can make the wrong call. People
can be knowledgeable and still act cowardly, making Nicias' argument unsatisfactory. According
to Nicias, courageous individuals know threats and what not to fear (Laches 198b). This claim
receives Socrates' criticism that individuals can know what to fear and what not to fear and still
get afraid when faced with danger (Laches 198b-c). Therefore, being knowledgeable does not
guarantee courageous acts.
At the same time, the definition of knowledge based on hope and fear only accounts for
future courage and disregards the present and past. Nevertheless, Nicias elaborates his
perspective by including the past, future, present and all evil and good things (Laches 198d).
Socrates intervenes and responds that anyone knowing all bad and good things would embody all
4
virtues rather than courage alone (Laches 199e). He introduces the emotional aspect, arguing that
courage encompasses suppressing or controlling fear.
While Nicias considers courage as some sort of wisdom, Socrates refutes this stand,
emphasizing that Nicias failed to include the emotional aspect of courage. According to Socrates,
courage is all about managing or controlling one's fear or other emotions, which Nicias fails to
incorporate in his definition. In other words, people might be knowledgeable but overwhelmed
or overcome by fear due to emotional states, prompting them to act bravely (Laches 199c).
Socrates adds that Nicias' definition is shallow and does not provide a sufficient understanding of
courage. Although endurance is central to courageous people, Socrates comments that true
courage requires perseverance and discernment. He disagrees with Nicias' claim that courage is
the absence of fear and mentions that courage is the ability to channel fear appropriately (Laches
198b-c). He attacks Nicias' claim by suggesting that there are circumstances in which people
might knowingly confront danger without caution, making them brave but reckless.
Furthermore, Socrates presents a counterargument that refutes Nicias' conception. He
suggests that sometimes, ignorance translates to courage. An example is when people who
underestimate the danger ahead face it without knowledge and fear (Laches 195d). Socrates'
counterarguments and disagreements with Nicias' definition of courage question the relationship
between courage, emotions, knowledge and rationality. Nonetheless, Socrates refutes Nicias'
explanation, arguing it lacks a straightforward approach to determining what constitutes true or
correct understanding. He notes that courage entails knowledge, determination, and willingness
to confront fear (Laches 197a-b). Additionally, knowing what to fear is insufficient to consider
an individual courageous. According to Socrates, true courage facilitates internal strength that
5
compels people to act bravely rather than succumb to fear. This argument challenges Nicias'
definition that does not feature the motivation aspect of courage.
Although Socrates effectively challenges Nicias' position, he does not give a transparent
and inclusive alternative meaning of courage. Nevertheless, Socrates' argument is ambiguous yet
reasonable because he fails to clarify how rationality and emotions interact in courageous acts.
I feel Socrates' argument is strong because it correctly reveals that knowledge is subjective and
the definition of courage is open to interpretation. Socrates acknowledges that individuals may
perceive or interpret knowledge differently. For this reason, defining courage cannot not rely on
an individual’s knowledge alone. Socrates’ argument is strong because courage and fear coexist,
such that being courageous happens in the presence of fear.
Coexistence means that courage is staying in a situation that alleviates fear in people even
when they feel they should fear and flee. Most importantly, Socrates' argument is strong in its
practical relevance, logical consistency and nuanced understanding of virtue. His argument
supports the definition that courage entails selfless acts even in circumstances people deem
dangerous. It refutes the meaning of courage: knowing what to hope for and fear. While
challenging the view of Nicias and Laches, Socrates' arguments rely on thought-provoking
examples rather than speculations. For instance, Socrates cites soldiers acting unafraid in
combat, inspired by their spiritedness rather than careful judgment. He successfully dissects
Nicias' definition, and his objections are not easily dismissed but used to gain a deeper
understanding of ethics and virtues. I would support Socrates' argument that courage is less
valuable in the absence of fear. His argument exposes the limitations of definitions shared by
Nicias and Laches, acknowledging the multifaced nature of courage.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
