can be distinguished by the courage 'imprudence? When you can define a courageous person? When he has contempt for danger? When not afraid of a certain event that may cause damage to more or less serious?
One could go on for pages, and the difference between bold and reckless would not be so great. In general
can say that a man is courageous if he can do things in the surrounding where most crashes.
course from 'the other hand, at this point there could be panic, the fear is so uncontrolled that makes you stop and make powerless. But you can not say that what is able to do something brave, just because his actions could be moved dall'imprudenza, lack of understanding of the danger.
Equally it can not be certain to declare a cowardly man who is not considered a risky thing, this may in fact choose not to do it because he knows for sure, or at least has a strong probability of failure.
I do not know why this has occurred. But following this reasoning, arriving at this conclusion. The courage ultimately does not exist. There is only what a man can or can not do.
If I can do it, and then in the eyes of one who can not do it step by coroggioso. But then for me it is a calculated risk, where I know almost certainly succeed. As if one tries to do something that can not do it because it is not in Acquaintances of his own limitations and then you go to imprudence.
Here I refer of course to "hazardous conditions" and not to say ordinary conditions, in which those who can not do a thing but tries is a man of strong will.
fact ... who is good at what it takes to make a risk simply because for him there are risks.
A bit presumptuous, but in twenty lines have "destroyed" most of the classical literature that is based on the heroic deeds of the leaders.
A bit presumptuous, but in twenty lines have "destroyed" most of the classical literature that is based on the heroic deeds of the leaders.
0 comments:
Post a Comment