quote:It is honor that holds parents to their responsibility to their children, sacrificing much so their children can thrive. It is honor that makes adult children care for their aging parents to the grave.
For myself, I shudder to think of the family in which it takes honor to drive these things.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops. I must have wiped that part out when I posted the quote. It's from the newest OSC essay that I mistakenly thought people were talking about in the Public Education thread.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Is it possible, Squick, for honor to contribute to a behavior, but for it not to be the only factor contributing to that behavior?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bit that stood out for me as something resembling a clearly falsifiable assertion -- as opposed to an opinion I don't share -- is this one:
quote:But in all the world, only two nations that can be called major powers are known to stand by their word no matter what the cost: The United States of America, and Great Britain.
We are held to a higher standard because we hold ourselves to that standard....Part of the reason we are a great power is that we are known as keepers of our word, relentless defenders of freedom and human rights....
We lost our honor once, when we withdrew from Vietnam with promises....
The idea that America stood alone -- even prior to Vietnam -- in keeping its promises is absolutely baffling to me. Practically the first major American political event revolved around our decision to screw over France. We aren't famous for keeping our treaties with the Indian nations. And I don't see how anyone can possibly call our involvement in Panama or the Philippines "honorable."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:For myself, I shudder to think of the family in which it takes honor to drive these things.
well, it could be any number of things.
Guilt. Expectations. Love. Reputation. Pride. The selfishness of whatever reward you gain out of doing those things. An unquestioning idea of how things should be, or conversely an intellectual position reached through thought and logic on how families should interact. Probably some more too. Honor is just one reason. Equally valid.
Also, it's been pointed out, the term is ambiguous and can mean any number of specific things.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I shudder to think of the family which doesn't have the honor to drive such things.
Is this just a random observation or is it meant to address what I said? edit: If the latter, could you elaborate as to how you felt it touches on what I said?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, the definition of "honor" I typically use doesn't cover many of those situations at first glance, either. Or, rather, I consider other motivations to typically be so much more important as to overwhelm honor as a motivating force in such things.
But if I look at honor as "the desire to perform one's moral obligations even at cost to oneself or in the face of temptation to shirk them," then I see honor coming into play at those times when the other motivations aren't strong enough to naturally compel us.
I more naturally think of this as "fortitude" based on my Catholic education, but I can see it being thought of as honor as well.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if I look at honor as "the desire to perform one's moral obligations even at cost to oneself or in the face of temptation to shirk them," then I see honor coming into play at those times when the other motivations aren't strong enough to naturally compel us.
That would be close to the definition that I was using.
The idea that, without honor, the people in a family wouldn't take care of each other is a horrifying one to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take back what I said. This is falsifiable, too:
quote:Congress absolutely ratified the waging of the Iraq Campaign. Those who say that the ratification was based on deception are the liars -- no one knew more than we were told about what was going on in Iraq, and when they say otherwise, they know they have no evidence and are making a false and dishonorable charge in order to achieve their political purpose.
Congress authorized the use of force. They did not declare war; no treaty needs to be signed to end hostilities. It is perfectly within their power and their province to confront a president not willing to cease using force to simply withhold funding for the hostilities they previously authorized.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this just a random observation or is it meant to address what I said?
From my perspective, it seems that Porter is responding to you the same way you responded to OSC, to encourage you to take a second look at your assumptions.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it's almost impossible to be a good spouse and parent without falling back on honor or duty.
I do not always feel like doing my duty to my family. I don't always feel an overflowing of love for them. There are times where I do what I should merely because I should. That's what I understand the word honor to be in this context.
I think that anybody who does not have the honor to do so even when they don't feel like it is going to fail in their duties.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Oh, it's OSC? Huh.
Is it possible, Squick, for honor to contribute to a behavior, but for it not to be the only factor contributing to that behavior?
I might be wrong, but that could be at the very heart of Mr Squicky's argument against what was said in his quoted text.
What you said would certainly have been my response to someone telling me the things Mr Squicky quoted.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you read the article through, you'll see that OSC relates honor to trust.
I shudder to think of the family that's trying to make it in the world without trusting one another.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if I look at honor as "the desire to perform one's moral obligations even at cost to oneself or in the face of temptation to shirk them," then I see honor coming into play at those times when the other motivations aren't strong enough to naturally compel us.
That would be close to the definition that I was using.
The idea that, without honor, the people in a family wouldn't take care of each other is a horrifying one to me.
I can think of few people who would always do what's best for their families without honor in this sense. Heck, there are few people who always do the best for their families now.
I think you're reading too much into the statement - I don't think OSC meant "without honor, no one would take care of their family at all." I think he meant "honor is one of the things that make people take care of their family in situations where they would be inclined to do otherwise."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:From my perspective, it seems that Porter is responding to you the same way you responded to OSC, to encourage you to take a second look at your assumptions.
Bingo.
quote:The idea that, without honor, the people in a family wouldn't take care of each other is a horrifying one to me.
I think it's obviously true. Not that they wouldn't ever take care of each other, but that they wouldn't do it enough.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue here boils down to the different ways "honor" is being used in this discussion -- and even within OSC's column. A family cannot survive without trust. A family can survive without traditions of "face" and "duty" that mandate specific behaviors to retain status.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that, without honor, the people in a family wouldn't take care of each other is a horrifying one to me.
Squick, if you can find where OSC made this statement, then maybe we'll have a discussion.
He already showed you. It is in the first post in this thread. What you want Mr Squicky to do is show you where that exact phrase was used, because you know that we could argue until we are blue in the face about the implications behind the words. Saying "it is <insert trait> that makes us <insert action>" is a statement that implies either a singular or at least the most significant motivator for an action as fact. It does not post it as a possibility, it does not state explicitly that there may be other factors. It states one factor as the motivator in an absolute statement. Sure, it is a heavily rhetorical statement, but all of our rhetoric should be scrutinized, no?
I found this troubling:
quote:They believe this because it has been true for fifteen years. Honor is something Republicans believe in, so it can be used to destroy them. But because the elitists who run the Democratic Party don't care about honor, it costs the Democrats nothing to break their word.
I could have sworn Mr. Card was a Democrat. I suppose I was wrong.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that anybody who does not have the honor to do so even when they don't feel like it is going to fail in their duties.
I have no recollection of a time in my adult life where I needed honor as a prod or reinforcement to take care of the people I love.
It's not a matter of not having it. It's a matter of being horrified at the idea that all the other things that, in my opinion, should drive this behavior aren't there or are insufficient.
When my parents get old and need taking care of, I'll do it but not because honor demands that I take care of them as onerous obligations.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would have read what MrSquicky quoted the same way he did.
"It is honor that..." seems to me to imply that honor is at least the primary, if not the only, actor.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have no recollection of a time in my adult life where I needed honor as a prod or reinforcement to take care of the people I love.
I have many recollections of such times in my adult life -- any time when I didn't feel like doing my duty. Heck -- just last night I really didn't want to put the kids down to bed.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a matter of being horrified at the idea that all the other things that, in my opinion, should drive this behavior aren't there or are insufficient.
But it's clear that those other things AREN'T there or are insufficient in humanity on a not infrequent basis.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jutsa, I was pointing out that Squick was reading OSC's statement in the most literal, absolute possible way, and was reacting to things that OSC was clearly not trying to assert. I mean, do you honestly believe that OSC is trying to communicate the idea that love is not a motivating factor for family members to care for each other? That is what Squick is arguing, and it's absurd.
Squick, maybe your misreading of this statement (which for now, I'll judge to be unintentional, giving you the benefit of the doubt), is based on a misunderstanding of the way OSC views honor. To him, doing something for honor can easily be a pleasurable, kind, loving act — it is not required to be onerous. In cases like taking care of family, love and honor can be intertwined, motivating you simultaneously.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it's clear that those other things AREN'T there or are insufficient in humanity on a not infrequent basis.
Yeah, I get that. Which, to me, is awful.
I'm reminded of OSC's, in his anti-gay marriage column, to me, horifying description of marriage as something that we need to trick people into as opposed to the great boon that, if people understood, most people would really want that I see it as.
I get that the world is far from perfect, but I don't think that comes into play when we're describing the way thigns are across all cases or should be in the normative case.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
But isn't it good that there's something there to pick up the slack when other motivations break down?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: doing something for honor can easily be a pleasurable, kind, loving act — it is not required to be onerous. In cases like taking care of family, love and honor can be intertwined, motivating you simultaneously.
I agree. I think that love and honor reinforce and strengthen each other -- acting out of honor for my family increases my love for them, and the more I love them, the more I will feel honor-bound to do my duty to them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Squick, I think I'm having trouble understanding your position. Are you saying that OSC is wrong to assert that honor should matter to families as they determine how to care for each other during the worst of times? Are you saying that he really thinks caring for family is an onerous obligation that only honor could possibly motivate? I'm just trying to figure out where your awful reaction is coming from.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, If that's not the way it was meant, then great. I can only respond to what is written though, and the literal meaning of what is written horrifyies me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think that love and honor reinforce and strengthen each other -- acting out of honor for my family increases my love for them, and the more I love them, the more I will feel honor-bound to do my duty to them.
As I understand honour, it should be independent of how much I love somebody.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Geoff, If that's not the way it was meant, then great. I can only respond to what is written though, and the literal meaning of what is written horrifyies me.
Perhaps you should give OSC the benefit you demand from other people, and when you read an assertion of his that, at its most literal, seems to be untenable by any but the most terrible human being, you ought to assume that you're misinterpreting him.
quote: I can only respond to what is written though, and the literal meaning of what is written horrifyies me.
That's not all you can do.
You've got several people telling you they don't interpret it the way you do. Your choices are: 1) to be horrified based on your interpretation, 2) to accept, even if you don't quite see how, that it is very likely that OSC meant something very different than what you think he did.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Jutsa, I was pointing out that Squick was reading OSC's statement in the most literal, absolute possible way, and was reacting to things that OSC was clearly not trying to assert. I mean, do you honestly believe that OSC is trying to communicate the idea that love is not a motivating factor for family members to care for each other? That is what Squick is arguing, and it's absurd.
Do I honestly believe that Mr. Card was speaking in absolutist terms throughout his article? Absolutely. He intentionally disregarded the finer details that would have muddied his points on several occasions, and this could certainly be counted as one of them. You might think that what Mr Squicky is arguing is absurd, but you might be reading the text with some assumptions of Mr. Card's understanding of the finer details of his points that others might not.
Frankly, I think you are being overly defensive.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: =You've got several people telling you they don't interpret it the way you do. Your choices are: 1) to be horrified based on your interpretation,
That seems to be par for the course when the premise goes against your (general 'you') beliefs.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(To be clear, I actually don't think that the burden typically falls upon the reader to assume that the writer always has good intentions. I'm only suggesting that to Squick, because it is a benefit he demands from other posters.)
(My true opinion is similar to Dagonee's ... that people should draw from a variety of sources and circumstances to derive their interpretations, and should not willfully hold themselves to the specific letter of the original statement, just because their argument evaporates if they don't.)
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if independent, they are not incompatible.
Right, but when you are saying it is X that makes someone do something, you are elevating it above all other concerns.
I've got no problem with honor being one of the forces that helps bind families together. Saying that it is what makes people do things for people is what I had a problem with.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is fine, Puppy. However, based on the rest of that article, I tend to agree that the intent behind the statements was closer to the way Mr Squicky portrayed it. The article contained a lot of statements that were absolutist in nature that were either far too simplified or outright false. I am not trying to assume the worst, but when something is consistent throughout the article the benefit of the doubt gets stretched a bit thin.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Frankly, I think you are being overly defensive.
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that this is something that needs to be defended I'm mostly just staring dumbfounded at my screen, trying to come up with ways to defend against an attack that seems to come completely out of nowhere, based apparently on a willfull hyperliteral interpretation of OSC's statements.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I ate salad last night because we had it in our fridge.
Porter, I think it's AWFUL that someone would eat salad just because it's there, when there are obvious health benefits to doing so! What a terrible world you must live in, where no one even cares about their own well-being!
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Frankly, I think you are being overly defensive.
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that this is something that needs to be defended I'm mostly just staring dumbfounded at my screen, trying to come up with ways to defend against an attack that seems to come completely out of nowhere, based apparently on a willfull hyperliteral interpretation of OSC's statements.
Well, that is just it: I don't believe it was a hyperliteral interpretation. Or, if it was, it is based on the absolutist nature of the rest of the rant in that article. That article tends to paint everything black and white, good and bad, honorable or not. Within that context, I can see how an interpretation like Mr Squicky's has merit. You, I assume, do not. I am not defending Mr Squicky's being horrified at the statement, I am just saying that comparing the different interpretations given thus far by those in this thread, his is the one that seemed to be more like the tenor of the rest of the article.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It was salad that I ate last night", does not lead one to infer that you also ate a bunch of other things.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right, but when you are saying it is X that makes someone do something, you are elevating it above all other concerns.
I've got no problem with honor being one of the forces that helps bind families together. Saying that it is what makes people do things for people is what I had a problem with.
I think he said "It is honor that holds parents to their responsibility to their children" to specify it as part of a package of motivations and to give an indication of the time when that motivation is most useful - when one is tempted to stray. The second sentence, with "make," was, to my eye, meant to continue the same connotation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm mostly just staring dumbfounded at my screen, trying to come up with ways to defend against an attack that seems to come completely out of nowhere, based apparently on a willfull hyperliteral interpretation of OSC's statements.
