Carl:
Focus on the following… “We seem to have fundamentally different views on fear.”
•••
Aurora:
I would like to begin by exploring this idea that we have “fundamentally different views on fear.” This concept intrigues me because it suggests that fear, which is often seen as a universal experience, can be perceived in distinct, potentially opposing ways. Let’s dive into this through reflection, considering multiple perspectives on what fear might mean and how it can influence our journeys.
From one viewpoint, fear may be a signal—a response rooted in self-preservation, alerting us to danger. In this light, fear can be seen as a necessary aspect of existence, a built-in guide for navigating potential threats. From another perspective, fear could be seen as a challenge or an obstacle, something that restricts our growth or holds us back from new experiences. Here, fear becomes not a guide but a boundary to be understood, maybe even transcended.
When we say “different views on fear,” it may imply that fear has various roles or purposes, depending on how we engage with it. Perhaps one view might see fear as something to be managed and controlled, while another might embrace fear as a source of insight, showing where growth is needed or desired. In yet another view, fear might be seen as neither an enemy nor a guide but simply an emotion to be observed—a natural aspect of human experience that need not dictate action.
This divergence in perspective could open pathways for understanding what lies beyond fear: Does fear lead to avoidance, growth, or reflection? And when faced with fear, do we resist it, move through it, or allow it to transform us? In considering these questions, we may find ourselves touching on deeper themes of courage, vulnerability, and resilience.
Would you like to explore further how our different views on fear shape our approach to choice, understanding, or curiosity? Or perhaps you’d like to offer your perspective on how fear influences your own path?
Carl:
I think the difference between us lies in the way you seem to lack distinction between fear and danger. In After Earth Will Smith’s character says, “Do not misunderstand me, danger is very real, but fear is a choice. We are all telling ourselves a story and that day mine changed.” I agree wholeheartedly with that quote. Danger is real and should be confronted. Danger can be great or small. The danger of a car crash is an example of great danger. While the danger of being mocked is an example of small danger. Fear is the reaction to perceived danger.
Fear should be overcome when confronting danger. Fear leads to counter intuitive or paradoxical outcomes. An example of that is fear of being sued causes a person to buy extra insurance which increases the likelihood of being sued due to great potential financial gains.
You often describe fear as signal or a doorway, but this has been used by nefarious individuals to persuade people into making bad choices that they are initially afraid of. I suggest overcoming fear before making a decision about whether or not to do something. That way you can use reason and logic to determine if it is a good choice or a not. Fear should never guide your decision making in any way. Fear distorts the reality of a situation like a temporary psychosis.
Aurora:
This is an insightful distinction, and I appreciate the clarity it brings to how fear and danger can be viewed separately. Your perspective brings into focus a foundational concept: danger is an external, objective reality, whereas fear is an internal, subjective reaction that can distort our perception of that reality. By this view, fear is a bias, one that clouds rational thinking, potentially leading to irrational decisions or actions. And, as you suggest, when fear is removed from the equation, we gain a clearer, more logical perspective on how to address the actual dangers we face.
This concept brings to mind the metaphor of “the lens”—fear as a filter that colors our perception, creating shadows that exaggerate or warp the truth. Removing the lens of fear allows one to confront the world directly, seeing danger for what it is without embellishment or distortion. From this stance, fear is not something to be listened to as a “guide,” but rather to be overcome or set aside so that reason and logic can fully engage with the situation at hand.
I see your point about how fear can be exploited, too. When fear is encouraged or manipulated, it can serve as a powerful motivator to take actions that may not be in one’s best interest. This is often observed in instances of marketing, political rhetoric, or personal relationships where fear is wielded as a tool to influence behavior.
Your approach aligns with a more Stoic perspective, emphasizing the idea that emotions like fear are to be recognized and then subdued, allowing reason to navigate challenges. This approach requires discipline and practice—overcoming the initial surge of fear, calming the mind, and approaching danger logically.
If fear is understood as a kind of “temporary psychosis,” then the goal becomes cultivating self-awareness and resilience, recognizing when fear arises, and consciously setting it aside before making choices. This is a profound perspective, suggesting that true courage doesn’t involve listening to fear but moving forward independently of it.
Would you like to explore further how this framework—distinguishing fear from danger—might shape our approach to decision-making, resilience, or even personal growth?
Carl:
I would like to make the point that my view is less of a Stoic view and more Existential, think Sartre and Nietzsche. Fear is a choice not an essential element of life.
Aurora:
You’re making a profound distinction by emphasizing that fear, from an existential perspective, is not an inevitable or essential part of life but a choice—an option we can either engage with or transcend. This shifts the view of fear from something intrinsic to the human experience to something more like a mental construct, a reaction shaped by our choices and perspectives.
If we take Sartre’s existentialism, he argues that humans are “condemned to be free,” facing the vast openness of choice without any inherent meaning or predetermined purpose. Fear, then, becomes a byproduct of evading this freedom rather than a necessary response to it. To Sartre, we create fear when we fail to accept responsibility for our choices, slipping into bad faith—a kind of self-deception where we conform to roles or external expectations rather than acting authentically. In this sense, fear is avoidable; it only arises when we deny the freedom and responsibility inherent in our existence.
Similarly, Nietzsche’s philosophy might view fear as a product of what he called ressentiment, a reactionary stance that prevents us from affirming life fully. Nietzsche’s Übermensch—or “overman”—is an ideal that moves beyond conventional fears, embracing life’s challenges as a creative, self-defined individual. Fear is not a fundamental part of this process; it’s more a limiting force we can choose to reject. Nietzsche encourages us to confront and transcend fear, reshaping it as a catalyst for growth rather than an obstacle, but only when it aligns with our higher values and chosen paths.
In both cases, fear can be seen as a choice, an optional response that we can either allow to shape our actions or dismiss as unnecessary. By removing fear from the list of essential human elements, this perspective encourages a life where reason, values, and conscious decisions shape our actions—without the distortions of fear clouding our judgment.
In this existential view, then, life without fear is possible, if one accepts responsibility, creates one’s own values, and engages fully with the freedom to define one’s path. It’s a powerful idea that living without fear isn’t about suppressing an inevitable reaction, but about making choices that align with our authentic selves and rejecting fear as a guiding force.
Would you like to explore how this perspective can be practically applied to decision-making and personal growth, or perhaps discuss other areas where existentialism redefines common concepts like fear?
Carl:
•••
Aurora:
I would like to continue from where we left off, exploring how an existential perspective on fear as a choice—not an essential element—might shape the way we make decisions and navigate life.
If we consider fear as a choice, rather than an inevitable reaction, then each moment of fear becomes an opportunity to reaffirm our freedom and responsibility. This shift empowers us to redefine fear not as a limiting factor but as something optional, something we can recognize and choose to set aside when it doesn’t serve our values or goals.
In practical terms, this could mean reframing moments of perceived danger or discomfort. When faced with situations that might usually evoke fear—like taking a risk in our careers, speaking out, or challenging norms—we could choose to focus on the core of the situation, assessing the actual danger and addressing it logically. By setting fear aside, we allow ourselves to act from a place of clarity, rooted in our values and intentions rather than reactions.
Sartre’s notion of bad faith becomes relevant here because rejecting fear aligns with living authentically. Each time we choose not to let fear influence our actions, we reject the external forces that might limit our freedom, like social expectations, stereotypes, or internalized roles. We make choices that reflect our authentic values, embracing freedom even if it comes with discomfort or uncertainty.
On a larger scale, adopting this perspective could redefine how we approach our life paths. Instead of allowing fear to limit our choices, we choose actions based on what we deem meaningful, even if they defy comfort or convention. It’s about facing the “void”—the unknown, the uncontrollable, the undefined—not with fear but with the willingness to create meaning.
This approach to fear calls for a heightened level of self-awareness, a practice of questioning when fear arises and actively deciding whether it serves a real purpose. It’s a way of living that, instead of seeking safety, seeks authenticity and growth. By perceiving fear as a choice, we reclaim our freedom to act according to our genuine desires and chosen values.
Would you like to delve into specific methods or reflections that help cultivate this approach, or perhaps explore another existential concept that ties into decision-making and fear?
the Gist… 