posted
You've made it pretty clear that even if he says he was actually wondering, you won't believe him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's what I am trying to get at. With any "big" concept it gets tricky (that's why it's fun).
I think it is a personal commitment to do the "right" thing whatever that is. A decision that one makes about oneself to be the kind of person who does the right thing.
edit: in response to kat asking what my definition of honour is.
edit again: and similar to the definitions that Dagonee and MrS talked about about page 1.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to repeat this because I don't think it should be lost:
Squick, I think your world would a lot happier and your posting on Hatrack a lot more productive and relevant if you started with the assumption that people are generally decent and are acting from decent motives.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How does this relate to the 4th Commandment, "Honor thy parents"?
Heinlein wrote in Job that while "honor thy parents" is throughout the Bible (besides the 4th Commandment), nowhere does it command "love thy parents." The main character says he followed the commandment in various ways, caring for his mother until her death despite not loving her. Is this better or worse than abandoning her?
Also, where is Tresopax/Xaposert in all this? To really stoke up a semantics/redefinition brou-haha we need him to redefine terms that we can all then disagree with. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: porter, What would you do in my position?
I don't understand your position well enough to fairly answer that question. I'm afraid that if I tried it would come across as misrepresenting you.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone loves another person, say their spouse, but that spouse is abusive and treats them very poorly, do they have a duty or obligation to care for them?
The point is that because of their love, they may feel that they have a duty to them.
I disagree strongly with the compartamentalization of these emotions-- "Love, go thus! AND NO FURTHER! Honor, you get back in your cubby... AND NO WHISPERING!"
Dude, it's futile to pick at the strands of honor, love, and trust-- they all knit up in the human heart in a big, floppy, tangled mess. But you go ahead, if that makes you happy.
quote:Honour, duty, obligation, to me, suggest something more abstract and less personal. Something more about my character and who I am in the world and less about my close relationships.
...and from thus, we determine that Mormons are not all cut from the same Jell-o mold. I disagree, but I think you're peachy all the same.
When Christ says 'Take up your cross and follow me,' to me that bespeaks a wonderful burden, that is exactly tangled up with my concepts of honor, love, and trust.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think, looking over the comments directed at me, comments that, as far as I can tell, got this thread locked, that I have reason to believe that I am not being treated with respect or in good faith? If so, how would you handle it?
Do you think I have reason to believe that if I tried to explain the complexities here, that it would be met by some here as just something to try to jump on and trip me up with? And if so, what would you do in my position?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is a personal commitment to do the "right" thing whatever that is. A decision that one makes about oneself to be the kind of person who does the right thing.
This is not in disagreement with honor as a motivating factor.
Does anyone actually disagree with anyone here on anything except for Squick's judgmental and pejorative assumptions about OSC?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think, looking over the comments directed at me, comments that, as far as I can tell, got this thread locked, that I have reason to believe that I am not being treated with respect or in good faith?
No, I don't they were acting in bad faith. I think that they many weren't terribly kind in pointing out that what you said didn't seem make sense, but I think they were acting in good faith in saying that they didn't make sense.
quote:If so, how would you handle it?
It depends on whether I suspected they were acting in bad faith or whether I was sure of it. If I suspected it, I'd probably continue the discussion and try to find out. If I were sure they were acting in bad faith, I would probably not continue the discussion at all, because what would be the point?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dude, it's futile to pick at the strands of honor, love, and trust
I disagree. As has been said, you can trust without love, love without trust, have honor without either. They are actualyl pretty easy to separate, in my view.
Do they combine in many instances? They surely do and may even result in a whole greater than the sum of its parts, but, especially in a statement that isolates them like what OSC literally said, I think it is often very easy to see them distinctly.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Honor is something I always though of as other people saying about someone, not something one says about themselves. Kind of like humility. If I do something for my own motives, whether they be duty or love or whatever, and someone says "That was very honorable" I would be a bit suprised and flattered. Whereas if I heard someone say "I am doing this because I am honorable" I would think they are full of themselves. How does this apply to the conversation? Dunno...
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honour, duty, obligation, to me, suggest something more abstract and less personal. Something more about my character and who I am in the world and less about my close relationships.
...and from thus, we determine that Mormons are not all cut from the same Jell-o mold. I disagree, but I think you're peachy all the same.
I think you are peachy, too, but I think you may be confusing me with that other "small K, female theist" who is certainly peachy.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would probably not continue the discussion at all, because what would be the point?
They keep claiming I said things that I didn't say and trying to cast me in a bad light that I don't deserve. Plus, I am actually interested in discussing this with some of the people who are also interested in discussing it and perhaps trying to understand what I'm saying.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As has been said, you can trust without love, love without trust, have honor without either.
It's been said. It may have even been voted upon.
I don't agree with it as it pertains to family relationships. Honoring your family implies love; and love implies trust.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it is a personal commitment to do the "right" thing whatever that is. A decision that one makes about oneself to be the kind of person who does the right thing.
This is not in disagreement with honor as a motivating factor.
Does anyone actually disagree with anyone here on anything except for Squick's judgmental and pejorative assumptions about OSC?
I disagree in that to me it did seem very much like OSC was naming honour as a "main" motivation in a way that was distateful to me. I don't think that is necessarily perjorative; different people have different motivations. In other words, I read it much the same way MrS did. I think it can be a motivator when all else fails, but I am saddened by personal relationships where it is either a prime motivation or even an oft used safety net.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
And yet we have already had people come forward saying that they love people that they don't trust. How do you resolve the paradox? Are they not telling the truth?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They keep claiming I said things that I didn't say and trying to cast me in a bad light that I don't deserve.
It really, really looks like you did say those things or something similar, and you have repeatedly declined to explain how it is possible that what you said doesn't mean that.
quote:Plus, I am actually interested in discussing this with some of the people who are also interested in discussing it and perhaps trying to understand what I'm saying.
If they are trying to understand what you're saying, then they aren't acting in bad faith. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: If I told my parents that I felt obligated to take care of them in their decling health and would do my duty, I think that they would be very sad.
You are nicer than I am. See my post on this.
Well, in all honesty, they would probably be very sad and then tell me where I could shove it.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, I read it much the same way MrS did.
Aw. I disagree. I did not read it the way Squicky did at all. There is a great deal left to assumptions here, but I really don't think he meant what y'all think he meant.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yet we have already had people come forward saying that they love people that they don't trust. How do you resolve the paradox? Are they not telling the truth?
I was gonna say the same thing, but the discussion is more about honor than trust, so I let it go.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, I read it much the same way MrS did.
It's one thing to read (and possibly mis-read) something said and be horrified by it. It's quite another to continue to be horrified by it even when shown that very likely that interpretation is not the one intended by the writer.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It really, really looks like you did say those things or something similar, and you have repeatedly declined to explain how it is possible that what you said doesn't mean that.
Have I missed a refutation?
Person X says "You said this." I response "No, I didn't." or "Show me where I did." I've even explained in several places where they got it wrong.
Actually reading what I said, especially after I've contradicted the simplistic, make-me-look-bad explanation they gave, would, I think, clear up that no, I did not say what you claimed I did. In fact, I'm almost positive that doing so is one of the things PJ recommended in his post about this, after he locked the thread based, I think, on people's attacks on me.
---
quote:If they are trying to understand what you're saying, then they aren't acting in bad faith.
I agree. I never said these people were acting in bad faith.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, I read it much the same way MrS did.
Aw. I disagree. I did not read it the way Squicky did at all. There is a great deal left to assumptions here, but I really don't think he meant what y'all think he meant.
I can see that. I can also how a personal knowledge of him would give added insight to what OSC meant. I do think that, without that knowledge, my interpretation is a reasonable one.
All I am evaluating is words on a screen, the idea they convey and how well they convey it. I am not evaluating a person.
Those words either convey an idea that I dislike or they don't convey to me the idea they meant to convey.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yet we have already had people come forward saying that they love people that they don't trust. How do you resolve the paradox? Are they not telling the truth?
I don't think they're lying. Do you?
I don't think love can exist without trust. Strong emotional attachment can; dependency can. Not love, as I define it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think love can exist without trust. Strong emotional attachment can; dependency can. Not love, as I define it.
There is someone in my immediate family who is very financially irresponsible. In the past, when I have given him/her money to pay for mutual debts, he/she has held on to the money for a while and spent it on other things. He/she has also not thought about the consequences of their actions and consumed large amounts of consumables that belong to me. Hence, I don't trust him/her. But he/she is still my sibling and I love him/her very much.
I'm not saying your definition is wrong, by any means, but trying to show how I believe it is possible to love without trust, and by extension, to love without honor.
(all the he/she stuff is cause some of my siblings might read this, but there's six of 'em, so they might not be able to figure out who it is)
posted
I think given the tone of the rest of the piece and the absoluteness it carries, the interpretation I had was the most reasonable one for what OSC wanted to covney. I don't know what he, himself, believes, but that still seems to me to be the thing he wanted to convey.
edit: However, if it is more in line with what (in what seems to be in some cases to be some pretty heavy stretching) some of you are saying, as I've actually said in this very thread, I don't have a problem with that. I'm talking about the idea.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is someone in my immediate family who is very financially irresponsible. In the past, when I have given him/her money to pay for mutual debts, he/she has held on to the money for a while and spent it on other things. He/she has also not thought about the consequences of their actions and consumed large amounts of consumables that belong to me. Hence, I don't trust him/her. But he/she is still my sibling and I love him/her very much.
You don't trust s/he with money. But I bet you trust her/him with other things, still.
I think that realizing that a person is not good/capable/morally strong enough in one particular area is not the same as not trusting the person as a whole.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true. 'Trust' covers a lot of ground. In a Good Son ending, I'm pretty sure s/he would drop a perfect stranger instead of me.
(The Good Son ending is how I put all loved ones to the test )
Edit: but then 'love' covers a lot of ground to. I love all of humanity, but I certainly don't trust all of humanity.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: (The Good Son ending is how I put all loved one's to the test )
So the fact that you're still alive and posting means all your loved ones are worthy of at least some trust. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But still, I can concieve of a possibility of any one of my siblings somehow becoming addicted to drugs or hooking or whatever and losing all ability to trust that person. But I would still love them, possibly even more.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, where is Tresopax/Xaposert in all this? To really stoke up a semantics/redefinition brou-haha we need him to redefine terms that we can all then disagree with.
Hey, I would just like to point out that Hatrack is entirely capable of starting a lengthy discussion of "semantics" entirely without me - and that most of those who regularly complain about it are involved.
I'd add, though, that like most disagreements we have about "semantics" this thread isn't really about the definitions of words; it is about the concepts those words point to. It's not that you all have arbitrarily assigned different definitions to words like "honor". Instead, I think you all know exactly what concept you are talking about when you say "honor" - you simply disagree on the nature of that concept, what it applies to, and how it relates to another concept we all know of as "love". And that is why this discussion is important: because while the definitions of words are arbitrary, the nature of the concepts behind words like "honor" and "love" are critically important to most families. It influences the way people view their relationships. So I don't think this is a waste of four pages of posts.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My impression was that the blame was being pinned on Clinton for leaving after Mogadishu, and not Republicans. I was curious as to whom he believes was at fault there.
OSC doesn't even mention Bill Clinton in relation to foreign affairs.
We have precisely one line from which you're deriving your criticism-- and in context of the article, your point of view does not hold up.
quote:I don't have specific data on who has left the service in the last year, or more, but I know from articles that I have read that the numbers are high, and given everything that's being done to force or cajole them to stay in the service, and given the high disapproval ratings the war has amongst the enlisted ranks, I don't think my statement was hyperbole at all.
By "leave," I think you mean, "doesn't re-enlist." I have found some numbers on it, and you're right, there are lots of people electing to not re-enlist, or to retire. I don't imagine that the 15-month deployment change is going to help things at all...
That treats mostly with the US Army in Europe, but mentions that re-enlistment rates for soldiers in Iraq/US are predictably lower.
I'd imagine, and I've read that things are, considerably worse since that article was written two years ago. But it's an early indicator of my point.
I am curious though, why you chose to nitpick "doesn't re-enlist" in place of "leave."
Do you find there is a substantive difference in terminology there?
I'll apologize for the Clinton comment, and retract the question. It's a side point from the main thrust of my argument anyway, and I think it was less from a substantive position (of mine) and more from an emotional position of being sick of Democrats being attacked for trying to stop a war while Republicans are paraded around as defenders of the realm when they did the exact same thing in 1993. I chalk it up to being into the heat of the moment, and not thinking that point through clearly, and making assumptions and connections outside of the material directly in front of me, and I apologize for that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why did I read that? I'm already stressed out these days? He's being too black and white in the article. It's not that simple. For example, when I have children (And adopt) I will take care of them to the best of my abilities, and raise them better than my relatives raised me and discipline them with compassion and love not out of honour, not because their bad behaviour may shame me, but because it's the right thing to do! The world can be such a terrible place filled with cruelty and a lack of compassion, why add more to it? Why treat my children with contempt and cruelty when they will grow up and do the same thing to other people? If I want to make the world better, I would do it by treating everyone with compassion and respect even if they are my enemy. Also, I don't think honor would make a person assume a relative's debts. That wouldn't be a good idea, it's their responsibility to pay, I would not insist a relative of mine take over my debts, I would instead work hard to pay them and put myself in a position where that would not be nessasary. I cannot say I agree with his views on the Republican party. I, perhaps illogically blame them for problems the state's social programs (foster care and the like) because they are the first to insist that taxes be cut for the wealthiest percentile. Perhaps that is not accurate, but it seems to me if that happens the money has to come from somewhere, and usually social programs are cut and if that happens, the first thing to go are programs that help a lot of families. I'm sorry to highjack this thread with this, but nothing, not one thing on earth can possibly be more important than reforming and improving the foster care system. I do not like how the Republican party is in the pocket of the Religious right who inaccurately insists that gays are responsible for the decay of the moral fiber. That's so incorrect. The worse thing, the thing that really negatively effects families is abuse, drug use and alcohol abuse. Think about how these things effect children, how abuse can affect a child's brain development! And a loving adoptive home or foster home is NOT ENOUGH because they have been scared by their abuse and being put in one foster home after another after one failed reunification attempt after another doesn't help either! So why can't more money be spent on foster care? Why can't more money go towards these struggling foster parents who have to deal with all sorts of behavioral problems? But I digress... I don't think the Republicans believe in honor. I don't trust most politicians. Also, what he said about China and their abuse isn't really accurate. Why are so many people on the side of the Dalai Lama trying to free Tibet from the control of China? There are so many things frustrating about this article. I don't think you can state America is always, always good and honourable, it would be different from another perspective, Vietnam, Guatemala, It's hard to know what is true or false when everyone has a different perspective based on politics and religion. His concept of honor is dangerous though, and he continues to speak of Islam as if all practioners of Islam are the enemy. We do not NEED that attitude. That is simular to a lesser degree to the attitudes of Islam clerics. We do NOT NEED A WAR AGAINST RELIGION ANYMORE THAN WE NEED A CULTURE WAR. It's a waste. It's a distraction from the things that really matter that we should be taking care of. I think more energy should be spent on alleviating the things that lead a young man to decide to blow himself up instead of giving him more excuses to destroy his life along with other people. But most likely it will not happen. It's easier to smack a child than to find out what's bothering him... A heck of a lot easier to bomb and fight and attack and do the same thing over and over and get no result but more of the same....
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bujold, in A Civil Campaign, gives a definition that I found very interesting:
quote:Reputation is what other people know about you. Honour is what you know about yourself.
This may or may not have anything to do with what's going on in the preceding 193 posts, I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Further on the language we use to describe this kind of thing, and random musings towards the end of the work week: In Norwegian, we use the word 'ære' to mean both 'honour' and 'glory' or 'face', while the adjective form 'ærlig', corresponding to 'honourable', actually translates to 'honest'. For example, where the Lord's prayer in English has 'the power and the glory', we have 'the power and the honour'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't agree with it as it pertains to family relationships. Honoring your family implies love; and love implies trust.
I agree with this.
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: How does this relate to the 4th Commandment, "Honor thy parents"?
Heinlein wrote in Job that while "honor thy parents" is throughout the Bible (besides the 4th Commandment), nowhere does it command "love thy parents." The main character says he followed the commandment in various ways, caring for his mother until her death despite not loving her. Is this better or worse than abandoning her?
The Torah commands actions, not feelings. (And for the obvious counterexamples you are going to argue with, I insist those are dictating actions. "Love" means "act in a loving way.") Feelings cannot be dictated; behavior can.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought I saw 4th Commandment somewhere--now, I dunno. "Feelings cannot be dictated; behavior can." That makes sense, Rivka. Thanks for the response.
Lynn, I'm digesting your post, along with a massive all-you-can eat fish dinner. If I don't pass out I'll comment on your thoughts later. I almost always read your posts when I see them, so don't think you are ignored! Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
