King Arthur contradicts Steve Pavlina
 

Steve Pavlina, correct me if I'm wrong, claims that it would be ideal to fear nothing at all, or at least act in spite of your fears.

In the movie The First Knight, King Arthur says "a man who fears nothing is a man who loves nothing. And if you love nothing, what joy is there in your life?"

Admittedly the king adds "I may be wrong".

Is he?

This is the best thread title ever. And on that note, I love this title, but I don't fear it, and it brings me joy right now :p

I don't know anyone who fears nothing :p Maybe it means being enlightened? Maybe you could better say "a man who fears nothing loves everything"? In any case, though, the question is probably not a practical one to make. There's no point in fighting the fact we have fears, because that doesn't make them go away. I think it's best to be honest with our fears, and transform them as we find the resources to do so.

Your title is incorrect. King Arthur is in agreement with Steve Pavlina.

A better question- who would win in a fight, King arthur or Steve Pavlina?

My vote, sadly, goes with king arthur because, well, he had a sword.

Not just any sword -- EXCALIBUR!

Okay, I lol'd at this thread title. But yeah, when did Steve say that it would be ideal to fear nothing?

He was also played by Sean Connery.

Source

Steve should fight Eckhart Tolle to see who really has the power of now

Open up a can of organic, raw whoopass...

But Steve has raw organic pumpkin pie! How can Excalibur possibly compete with that?

I don't know who said what, because I've read rather little of Steve (sorry, Steve), and I haven't seen the movie, but assuming that the quotes are correct, I'm going to respond to this seriously, because I find the subject matter interesting.

First of all, I'd have to disagree with Steve's ideal of fearing nothing at all (again, sorry, Steve). Fear is something to be transcended, and that we fear anything is, I argue, the very reason we have this physical existence on planet Earth. I would agree that I think it would be nice to not have to deal with fears, but, then, unless I traverse the deepest valleys, I would likely not appreciate as much the highest peaks.

I had to ponder the King Arthur quote for a bit, in order to discern a meaning, which, I can only assume, is that one who loves, fears for what (or whom) they love, while one who doesn't (or can't) love, is not afraid. This actually mirrors my own sentiment above, about valleys and peaks. Fear vs. Love (or Joy). I get it.

But, I don't agree with it completely. I mean, whose to say that a person can't love everything, and have no fear? Of course, aside from Jesus or the Buddha, I can't think of anyone who would fit that description, but, well, the point is made.

First of all: Good post Solipsist.

Now, king Arthur was not specific enough when he was talking about fears. We define fear waaay to broad and words make reality seem waaay to linear. Yep.

Now, what is fear? It's fear when anxiety overcomes one in conversation, talking to a beautifull boy or girl. It's fear when you are pushed of the building and looking at the pavement coming at you those last seconds. And then there is fear for losing your loved ones.

These are very different. Very. Actually all are different. If u fear public speaking today, then the fear you feel tomorrow will be different. In reality, things aren't so lineair and convenient as in language. It's fluent and scaled. Words are in a different language than reality. So let's not try to focus on such seemingly paradoxical bullshize, aight?

Uhm I'm straying a bit here. So yes, you have your info twisted. Uhm but I think you don't need to feel fear in order to love, but often it is a by-product. Eliminate the by-product and you might end up eliminating your love.

blub ;) no need to think about it, you'll never figure it out or you'll fool yourself into thinking that your right but your actually wrong. sojustdowhateverthefukfeelsinspiredtodo. sorry for off topic garbage.

I was re-listening to Steve's podcast on Overcoming Fear, and he does say in that podcast that fear is a mistake, if we're afraid at all, we're deluded. He goes on and on about Buddha, too. I think what he's saying is that all fear except for fear of physical pain should be transcended so as not to exist at all.

I believe that it is not a bad thing to have a fear. But it is a bad thing if you let that fear control your life to any major degree.

If we lived without any fears we would put ourselves in danger of finding out what the limits are the hard way.