The cold courage of a man like Noguchi who, though in failing health,
went into one of the unhealthiest parts of Africa to study a deadly
disease, could come only from a nature which was overwhelmingly
interested in objects outside itself. Noguchi must have known exactly
how dangerous it was for him to go to Africa, and exactly how horrible
was the disease to which he exposed himself. To have gone anyway is
really to have cared for science in a way which very few care for
anything so remote and impersonal. But even courage like Lindbergh’s
and Noguchi’s is more comprehensible than the kind of courage which
anonymous men have displayed. I am thinking of the four soldiers at
the Walter Reed Hospital who let themselves be used for the study
of typhoid fever. They did not even have Lindbergh’s interest in
performing a great feat or Noguchi’s interest in science to buoy them
up and carry them past the point where they might have faltered. Their
courage was as near to absolute courage as it is possible to imagine,
and I who think this cannot even recall their names.
To understand the inwardness of courage would be, I [p224] think, to
have understood almost all the other important virtues. It is “not only
the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver,” but it embodies
the principle of all virtue, which is to transcend the immediacy of
desire and to live for ends which are transpersonal. Virtuous action
is conduct which responds to situations that are more extensive,
more complicated, and take longer to reach their fulfillment, than
the situations to which we instinctively respond. An infant knows
neither vice nor virtue because it can respond only to what touches it
immediately. A man has virtue insofar as he can respond to a larger
situation.
He has honor if he holds himself to an ideal of conduct though it is
inconvenient, unprofitable, or dangerous to do so. He has veracity
if he says and believes what he thinks is true though it would be
easier to deceive others or himself. He is just if he acknowledges the
interests of all concerned in a transaction and not merely his own
apparent interest. He is temperate if, in the presence of temptation,
he can still prefer Philip sober to Philip drunk. He is magnanimous if,
as Aristotle says, he cares “more for truth than for opinion,” speaks
and acts openly, will not live at the will of another, except it be a
friend, does not recollect injuries, does not care that he should be
praised or that others should be blamed, does not complain or ask for
help in unavoidable or trifling calamities. For such a man, as the word
‘magnanimous’ itself implies, is “conversant with great matters.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account