just wondering.

Is it logical to say that flight is comparable, not contrary to fight? 

If both are natural responses to fear and courage is not the absence of fear but rather what you do in-spite of it. Then couldn't it be construed that flight is another form of courage?

I suppose it all depends on the circumstances, but circumstances are open to interpretation, and the variable of interpretation is the human perspective.

It makes me think of one of my favorite songs by Kenny Rogers called Coward of the County. In the chorus the dad says to his son " Promise me son not to do the things I've done. Walk away from trouble if you can, it won't mean your weak if you turn the other cheek. I hope you're old enough to understand, son you don't have to fight to be a man. "

Though this circumstance is not typical, it does speak to the possibility of flight being an act of courage. If you have never heard the song, you might not know that it ends in the contrary. The son Tommy, who at his father's behest chooses flight for the majority of his life, one day chose to fight, in large part, to defend the woman he loves. 

However, the story in its entirety also brings to question the actions of the father, who, to his own detriment, chose to fight. Was he courageous by definition or was Tommy? 

And thus, my question; Is it logical to say that flight is comparable, not contrary to fight with regards to fear and courage? 

Honestly, at least as it applies to this particular story, I am inclined to believe that flight was the definition of courage. Because at the heart of Tommy's human perspective, he bore the weight of the consequences of his father's actions.

Maybe that's a stretch, but then again, maybe not.

What's your perspective?

D.V.

9.5.2026