Right in the middle! This is the place Aristotle respects. In the book Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle does his best to explain what the many virtues of the world are. To Aristotle, the virtue courage is "a mean with respect to fear and confidence"(68), but more specifically, "a man who fearlessly faces a noble death and any situations that bring a sudden death"(69-70). This is certainly consistent with his philosophy that all virtues are simply the correct middle between any excess and deficiency. There do, however, arise many complications with the definition of courage. What may seem like courage might not be. Consequently, Aristotle sets the bounds that courage must result from reason, must not be confused with duty, and is only measurable in unexpected situations. If outside these bounds, then actions cannot be classified courageous. Though I feel that Aristotle has for the most part hit true courage on the button, he is wrong to label no action courageous if it is not in his bounds. The trouble with Aristotle's analysis is that it destroys courage by ruling out any situation where it possibly could exist, by not considering different degrees of emotions that lead to different human decisions, and by not allowing for any form of partial courage.
             Aristotle sufficiently argues that the qualities similar to courage aren't true courage. Duty of citizens is the first of Aristotle's criticisms. Citizen soldiers are prompted by a "sense of shame"(72) or "a sense of fear"(72) and fight either because "their laws and customs will stigmatize them"(72) or "they are forced by their superiors"(72). Next, experience is criticized because experienced soldiers "give the impression of being courageous to others who do not know what is happening,...but when they are inferior in men and equipment,...they are the first to run away&quo
             ...