It occurred to me some time ago that fear is the result of a lack of control, and try as I might I cannot conceive fear existing without this vacancy. Looked at from the other direction, in a situation where you feel completely in control is it possible to still be afraid?

Furthermore, a lack of control is not always accompanied by fear. Fear appears to be a secondary, distinct response that may or may not occur as a result of a lack of control. We must be able to say this because there are a great many situations where people experience a lack of control but do not exhibit a fear response.

Lastly remains what one does when one loses control. Quite logically, most of us try to remedy it by gaining control, whether through fleeing the situation ("flight") or action ("fight"). I suppose no response (completely breaking down in fear) is also a possibility. I thus propose the following model of fear:

lack of control → desire for control [+/- fear] → action

I haven't really taken this model to any depth yet, though. Which philosopher's have written about fear? Where would be a good start to read about the philosophy of fear?

UPDATE:

It seems to me that the concept of fear is intimately connected with the concept of causal determinism. Lack of control is caused by uncertainty, and uncertainty comes when you are concerned that things may not go the way you want them to.

I have been trying to think of other ways fear might come about in an organism, but no despite my efforts they all seem to boil down to uncertainty about the future.

A King Cobra is 3 feet from me. I am afraid. Why? Because I may or may not survive the next few moments of my life. In other words, my future is uncertain.

I am doing my first solo parachute dive. I am slightly anxious (anxiousness is categorically the same as fear in psychology; in general usage, "to be anxious" is just to be "slightly fearful"). Why am I anxious? Because maybe this one time my parachute will not open properly and I'll fall to my death. My future, thus, is uncertain.

It is not merely a coincidence that you often here the saying "Mankind has always feared what it does not understand". Not understanding something is uncertainty; when that uncertainty potentially could have a negative impact on your future, that can lead to fear. Note that I said "can lead to fear", and not "always leads to fear". It is, as I mentioned, possible to not be afraid when you encounter an uncertain future. But it does not seem possible to me that—when you actually are afraid—your fear is being caused by anything else than an uncertain future (feel free to try and think of a working counter-example!).

Since—in a causal system—the future is very much determined, theoretically it is foreknowledge which grants feelings of security. That is, people who aren't afraid are either:

  1. certain that their future will go the way they want (or falsely certain)
  2. somehow have psychologically overcome their need to exhibit a fear response
    • i.e. through not placing any "superficial" ("special") value on their existence
    • and other techniques (See Buddhism, Stoicism, REBT)

These ideas I bring up here, they are very much philosophical, but for a relatively in-depth look at the neurobiology behind it, Edit my post and look into the HTML comment I placed their originally. I left it out of my post because it's not useful at this level of investigation, but some people might be curious.

link|improve this question

50% accept rate
2  
How is this not a psychology question, or alternatively, what does a philosophical viewpoint have to add here without starting from a deep knowledge of the biology and/or psychology involved? (For instance, wouldn't your model be tested by psychological experiments?) – Rex Kerr Nov 7 '11 at 20:21
@Rex Kerr: Because Psychology doesn't address the question from the approach "Why do people have fear? What really is the fear response based on?" Psychology simply addresses "What are the neurological/biological underpinnings of a fear response? What are the ways in which we can reduce or mediate fear?" Psychological experiments could conceivably help, but it's not clear that they would be necessary. – stoicfury Nov 7 '11 at 21:02
The "Psychology of fear" = Little Albert + classical conditioning + a neurobiological explanation. If you go ahead and edit my question you'll notice I put an in-depth description of the psychology of fear within an html comment, anticipating someone might ask about the neurobiology behind it. :P – stoicfury Nov 7 '11 at 21:04
1  
@RexKerr: yes, at some point this kind of question is scientific about how individuals process fear. But such a scientific pursuit is helped out by inquiring about the definitions and relations of things so that one can make coherent hypotheses. – Mitch Nov 7 '11 at 22:01
1  
@Rex Kerr: And to create a hypothesis you need a philosophical basis for such an idea. :P However you slice it, psychologists start with theories which are philosophical in nature and use these ideas to build behavioral experiments. And that's exactly why I got a degree in both! So that I could obtain a profound understanding of the the philosophy of science and how science is able to come to conclusions that have any real bearing on the nature of reality as opposed to merely testing the observable. Tying the unobservable with the observable - that is the philosophy of science. – stoicfury Nov 8 '11 at 18:28
show 6 more comments
feedback

3 Answers

You may find in recent philosophical letters (e.g., Collapse, in particular vol. 4) a pronounced focus on horror, to the point sometimes where it is even presented as a kind of ontological principle. Many of the works which I might identify as participating in this turn will offer readings of "Weird" literature, like Lovecraft or Mieville.

In terms of philosophers to investigate, I might suggest a few potential jumping-off points.

Reza Negarestani may merit some attention with respect to this problem. The work I would point you to would be Cyclonopedia. To my mind he most directly answers to the terms of your question.

Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling may be of some interest in this context as well.

More broadly, I might suggest that Deleuze and Guattari, as well as philosophers like Nietzsche and Spinoza, might have a lot to offer here given their concern with psychology and emotions.

In passing, note that Freud has a lot to say about fear and anxiety, but the presentation is decidedly more 'enclosed' than those of the aforementioned writers.

link|improve this answer
feedback

I think that it is possible to refine things a bit more.

First: fear is not always related to uncertainty-- if I jump out of an airplane without a parachute, I will likely be afraid on the way down, and quite certain that I am going to die.

This brings us back to "lack of control", which I would argue is epiphenomenal to the situation. The key factor in fear, it seems to me, is the belief that something negative will happen. Obviously, if we can control the situation we can ensure that the negative thing does not happen, but this is secondary.

What is primary, (it seems to me) is that for there to be fear, there must be a belief (warranted or otherwise; but we are not afraid of things we don't believe will occur) that something negative (necessarily negative; we aren't afraid of good things) may occur (in the unfolding present or future; we are not afraid of the past) to us (directly, or to someone/somethings we care about).

link|improve this answer
After some thought, I think your main point is correct, and I would do well to clarify that in my post. I wrote a lot about uncertainty as the cause of fear, but I should remind readers as you point out that it is not merely uncertainty, but uncertainty about something negative that might occur. This is what I was referring to when I wrote "uncertainty comes when you are concerned that things may not go the way you want them to.", but I somewhat lost sight of that as I progressed further. I'll update my post to reflect this point. Thanks! :) – stoicfury Nov 18 '11 at 17:37
@stoicfury: Happy to help. I'm still not convinced that uncertainty is a necessary condition of fear; let us take the case of someone who is afraid of the dentist. They visit the dentist, who begins to drill a tooth, and then pauses before drilling again. Can we rule out the possibility that they would be afraid at this point, even though they are certain of exactly what is to come, having experienced it only moments earlier? If not, where is the uncertainty in this case? – Michael Dorfman Nov 18 '11 at 20:38
Uncertainty still allows for a very strong probability that some event will occur in the future (say, a 99.99% chance), but the future is never certain so that's why I feel the need to stick with this notion. People have survived falls from aircraft before and with the dentist, well maybe the power will go out because of a storm, forcing them to postpone the appointment. Nothing is certain! :) I think it might be possible to experience fear without uncertainty, but in experience they always come paired. – stoicfury Nov 20 '11 at 2:46
It's not clear we can know for sure either way though. Perhaps if one's future was totally certain, completely written in stone, we wouldn't fear it, because it'd be inevitable, unavoidable, so no reason to struggle against it. We will probably never be able to answer such a question because we will always be biased in not knowing the future for certain. But I think maybe what could be at the root of fear is the comparison of what good thing could happen (possibility of surviving and living on) vs. what bad thing that could happen (death, pain, etc.), and that is what causes the fear. – stoicfury Nov 20 '11 at 2:49
feedback

I don't have the rep to comment yet, but I'd like to point out that Fear is by no means predicated solely on a lack of control (though that's definitely a large part of it); it's also closely related to a negative perception of future events. This is the root of anxiety (low-level, sustained expectation of negative events).

Furthermore, "What really is the fear response based on?" is essentially the same question as "What are the neurological/biological underpinnings of a fear response?. The problem is that we're still working on understanding the mind-body connection, so this question may not even have an answer...

link|improve this answer
"a negative perception of future events" - to me that's exactly a lack of control. When you are uncertain about the future, you do not feel in control. E.G. When you are in an airplane in heavy turbulence you don't feel in control, but that's not because of how strong the turbulence is or how sudden the gusts are, but because you are uncertain of the future. If you were in an uncrashable plane that was piloted by the best pilot in the world, the same turbulence wouldn't phase you at all because you know your future is safe. Foreknowledge is control; uncertainty is lack of control. – stoicfury Nov 8 '11 at 18:35
The two questions in your final paragraph are very distinct since one is philosophical in nature. My theory of a lack of control is wholly different than the biological underpinnings. You could easily test my theory in an experiment (put people in situations where they have no control) and see if it generates fear, without having to look at the biological underpinnings at all. It's a completely different level of explanation. Just like there are physics explanations which explain the atomic interactions, then chemistry explanations which explain the neurotransmitter and hormonal reactions, etc – stoicfury Nov 8 '11 at 18:41
An expectation of events occuring (certainty about the future) elicits a potentially-instinctual value/outcome judgement; many factors go in to this, including past experience, current environment, and level of personal control over the subsequent events (i.e. the future). So I agree with your model, but I also think you're stopping a little short in terms of completeness. (no judgement or maliciousness meant! just talking... :) ) – ZeeKay Nov 8 '11 at 19:28
I guess I don't see the difference in the wording between the two questions, and that's my fault, sorry. In what sense are you asking "What really is the fear response based on?", if you do not desire an answer predicated on physiology? – ZeeKay Nov 8 '11 at 19:29
@stoicfury. Compare these two sentences: "Just like there are physics explanations which explain the atomic interactions..." and "...uncertainty is lack of control." If the latter statement is true, then particle physicists don't have control of their experiments or explanations [?]. The "testability" of your theory seems quite open to interpretations, and depending on the interpretations, it could be said the entire experiment begs the question (which really would be a result of the subjective nature of your premises--as in they're one-dimensional). – Jon Nov 8 '11 at 20:37
feedback

Your Answer

 
or
required, but never shown

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.