“Courage is the first of human virtues
because it makes all others possible.”
Aristotle
Z. S. Andrew Demirdjian
If one were to delve into the field of Platonic scholarship, one would encounter paradoxes and controversies pertaining to facts of life. To characterize the essence of Socrates, Plato presents his beloved teacher as the paragon of the philosophic life, “the antithesis of which he famously rejects as unlivable.”
The laches (laekiz) is a Socratic dialogue written by his student Plato. Basically, the Laches is a dialogue concerned with the virtue of courage. Throughout the dialogue, two distinguished generals, Nicias and Laches take turns attempting to define the nature of courage while Socrates mediates and responds.
For the sake of brevity, only Laches’ definition of courage will be addressed in this article to see if we could learn a few things about the sad and happy situation with the Artsakh war. Additionally, we want to analyze the situation to find out if our leaders were cowards or courageous heroes to stop the war with Azerbaijan at a great loss.
The two general participants in the discourse present competing definitions of the concept of courage. Laches attempts to provide Socrates with his complete definition of courage by stating that all cases of courage are “a sort of endurance of the soul.” Socrates, however, disagrees and says that not every kind of endurance seems to be courage.
Laches maintains that courage is seen in the brave (e.g., a soldier, a general, etc.) who stands in battle, by facing up to the enemy and not fleeing. Then Socrates asks if it is not possible to show courage in retreating, as the
Spartans once did against the Persians, and that, at times, by not fleeing in battles one shows not courage but foolishness.
At the end of the dialogue, Socrates defeats each of the arguments by the generals and proves to them that they cannot say what the nature of courage is because they do not know it. Despite the fact that Socrates, Nicias, and Laches are all examples of courageous men, not one of them succeeds in defining courage. They lack comprehensive knowledge of it. In the end, Socrates suggests that the whole company should go back to school again and that he will also do so himself.
We, the Armenians around the world, should go back to “school” as well.
When I read about the violence against the government of Prime Minister Pashinyan, the wise Socratic definition of courage resonated when he said that, at times, when not fleeing in battles one shows not courage but foolishness. The enemy proved to be superior and the fate of the Republic of Artsakh was in the balance for being completely swallowed up.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan decided to sign an unfavorably lopsided agreement for the sake of peace to reduce further loses by agreeing to give most of the Azerbaijani regions including part of the historical territories belonging to Armenians recaptured by the blood of Armenian soldiers on the battlefield during the 1991-1994 war with Azerbaijan. Altogether, 30 percent of Nagorno-Karabakh of some 12,000 square kilometers (4,600 sq. m.), 300 out of 900 rural settlements were lost including the crown jewel city of Sushi.
Some will consider the act to be of cowardice; others, may look upon it as courage and prudence since the enemy was bigger and stronger the Armenian brave soldiers had to face. The enemy was big for it consisted of Azerbaijan, Turkey, jihadist mercenaries, and Israeli-made weapons and advisors including the petro dollars of the adversary.
The enemy was stronger for its arsenal of warfare consisted of cutting edge of military weapons and equipment whereas Armenian soldiers were armed with vintage Soviet Union era weapons suitable for a traditional face-to-face combat rather than conducting war from a distance, such as by using unmanned drones, which played havoc for our brave soldiers.
Besides, our centuries-old friend, Russia, stood on the sideline when the Armenians were outnumbered, outgunned and pretended to have the morality of neutrality. Russia failed to come to the rescue when Armenia was subjected to a lot of injustices, to a lot of illegal acts of crimes of aggression such as the enemy shelling and bombing civilian targets and their infrastructure.
The enemy also attacked the Republic of Armenia and yet Moscow-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), of which Armenia is a member, pretended to look the other way. In July of 2020, Tavush province (marz) of the Republic of Armenia was shelled; again on September 27, 2020 Vardenis (a town in the Republic of Armenia) was shelled. President Vladimir Putin hid behind lame excuses for not upholding the mission of CSTO to protect a member of the pact when it is attacked by external enemy forces.
Under the dire circumstances, PM Pashinyan did the right thing; instead of being foolishly courageous to stand and fight to the last Armenian solider and thus compromise the chance to come back and defeat the enemy at a later date.
According to one of history’s brightest minds the world has ever known (i.e., Socrates), Mr. Pashinyan did the right move to stop the hemorrhage of the Armenian soldiers fighting, albeit valiantly, a distant warfare with proverbial sticks and stones.
Facing a superior enemy in terms of distant warfare is hard to manage, maneuver, and overcome. It is like fighting in the dark without knowing from which angle the enemy will strike you.
The 17 political organizations, storming the Armenian parliament and trying to oust the Prime Minster, our leader, in the midst of war is not only shortsighted, but it also lacks patriotism to show solidarity to win the war. Incidentally, most of those who complained about the Prime Minister were of young age. Why were they not in the army to defend the motherland if they wanted to continue with the war? Why not go to the front and fight the enemy instead of fighting your own people?
Those 17 political organizations should also go back to school for they do not know what courage means. Too often, people mistakenly assume courage is pursuing the enemy or something without fear. Courage is not the absence of fear. As Socrates implies, courage is acknowledging fear and going forward with your eyes open. If you find the enemy overwhelming, do not get massacred. Retreat, regroup, re-strike when the time is right.
There are too many faces of courage, but we often break down courage into two types. The first type is the situational or circumstantial type of courage. When faced with a situation where there is one action that is universally agreed to be courageous, one can, if he is made of strong enough stuff, demonstrate courage in reacting to the situation correctly such as firing back or repelling the enemy. For example, let us assume you as the captain, if your regiment about to charge onto a battlefield, you can demonstrate situational courage by joining the charge or by demonstrating situational cowardice by staying and hiding in the trenches when your soldiers face the enemy. Often, the situationally courageous hero will receive rewards and medals.
The second type of courage is moral courage. When faced with a situation where he is morally uncomfortable, the morally courageous hero speaks his or her mind about this, no matter what risks he puts himself at by doing so. For example, if there is a war going on, and you hold a leadership position (e.g., a prime minister) you can demonstrate moral courage by giving the order to stop the conflict when you see the enemy has the upper hand. On the other hand, you can demonstrate moral cowardice (i.e., apathy) by not stopping the killing of your soldiers by a superior enemy for fear of criticism from the opposition.
It is worth noting that the results of demonstrating moral courage are not nearly as favorable as those of demonstrating situational courage are. Very often, the morally courageous hero will make people uncomfortable. These agitated people will react with insults, derision, and threats if the morally courageous hero refuses to abdicate. As a result, while the situational hero is universally praised by the people, the moral hero is often rejected as a scoundrel coward. The moral hero often finds himself in tension with the opinions of others. So does Pashinyan find himself in conflict with other political parties after signing to stop the war. According to Socrates definition of courage, both PM Pashinyan and President Arayik Harutyunyan are moral heroes.
In everyday life, courage can show up in many ways. We can see courage in physical, social, intellectual and emotional situation. In other words, there are many faces of courage. Poets are perennially focused on the subject of courage because it touches us at our deepest core, moving us to the very essence of what it means to be alive.
Requiring the resignation of the nation’s leader is adding insult to injury. A lot is lost to the enemy. We do not want them to enjoy another loss from an implosion from within by creating a chaos to the stability of Armenia.
A strong coalition of Armenia, Artsakh and Diaspora does not exist nor does a world organization representing the Armenian Diaspora. We have only to blame ourselves for lack of preparedness for such an onslaught of military push against the Republic of Artsakh. Azerbaijan has given us ample warnings of their preparedness, of their resolve to take over Nagorno-Karabakh, of their border clashes –and yet, the Armenians kept their complacency based on their victory of the 1994 war.
As you well know, ideas have changed the world; here are some ideas to alleviate the situation for the Republic of Armenia and for the Republic of Artsakh, to put us on the road to recovery. We all want to see the Phoenix bird fly again, and so here are some food for thought, not in any order of importance:
It is better to go back to “school” and correct our mistakes.
Let this be a great lesson for us to prepare us for the future.
It is better to lose some than the whole.
It is better to retreat than be completely defeated or destroyed.
It is better to lose part than to lose the whole.
Retreat is not defeat.
We need to regroup.
Form a defense fund.
Learn to use mercenaries.
We need to produce arms.
The struggle is not over.
We have still part of Artsakh, the capital city of Stepanakert.
We are lucky to have a courageous prime minister, Mr. Nikol Pashinyan.
We are equally happy to have a heroic president of Artsakh, Mr. Arayik Harutyunyan.
It is better to go back to regroup than face the enemy unprepared (like the Spartans did against the Persians).
Work on recognition of Artsakh.
Stop wasting our time and energy on scapegoating.
Most importantly, let us thank the families of our fallen soldiers.
And show our appreciation of our war heroes for many years to come.
There are two sides to a story: sad side to learn from mistakes and happy side to celebrate and plan for the future to win. Let us be happy that we can still salvage the integrity of Artsakh in due time.
Courage is not all risky actions. It is the result of measured, timely, and appropriate actions. Each one of us can make a great difference. At times, it is very hard to see whether we are pursuing something with heroism versus reckless abandon. Let us consider ourselves courageous to face the future, to see the whole of Artsakh again as the beautiful garden of the Armenian nation with the blessing of Shushi overlooking Stepanakert from the top of the mountain.