Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy  I have a bit of trouble seeing how there are rational reasons to fear something.
Example: take someone nearby a cliff. If they have no fears associated with the cliff, does that mean they'll carelessly walk to the edge, and jump off? They could simply decide, "Okay, there's a cliff here, however since I'd rather not injure myself, I'll take the necessary precautions not to fall over the edge." Fear doesn't have to be involved in this thought process, yet they're still able to protect themselves, using reason. So while I agree fear is more of a failsafe for preventing harm to oneself, the protective effects can be accomplished just as well by using our intelligence, not to mention that it also allows more conscious control of the situation which fear often "overrides." |
Well, fear evolved prior to intellect. So yes, fear doesn't
have to be involved anymore, but it was initially. Hence there are situations in which fear once played the part that our intellect can now perform better.
However 'rational fears' are fears regarding situations which, if the outcome we feared actually came to pass, it could truly harm us. The fear of falling off a cliff would be rational, because you would really get hurt, there's no way to avoid harm once you fall helplessly. The harm is certain hence the fear is reasonable. But the fear of rejection is irrational because rejection need not cause pain, only our irrational reaction to rejection causes pain. The pain is uncertain, the harm is arguable, the fear is unreasonable. It can be
rationalised but it's not rational.