“…is worthless if what it is can and does change not only from sociaty to sociaty, nor individual to individual but also family to family. I mean I can't seen any worth in such a fluid idea….” – lee
Lee, while in many ways I agree with you, IF one’s criteria of ‘worth’ requires total consistency and identity from culture to culture as well as from family to family and even perhaps person to person, no idea is worth anything! From culture to culture, the language is different, let alone the associations involved. From family to family, concepts differ based upon their immediate environment as well as each person’s individual experiences. This is why I say that ALL words and language are relative/subjective. I don’t go as far as saying they are worthless for this reason, however, none of them are objective/ absolute, so in any ultimate sense, since they are not permanent, they are of little value. On Sep 28, 6:14 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Then I guess I have to belive that honour is worthless if what it is > can and does change not only from sociaty to sociaty, nor individual > to individual but also family to family. I mean I can't seen any > worth in such a fluid idea. > > What if the son has a differant sense of honour from the father, what > actions are both honour bound to take, can there be reconsiliation I > wonder? > > On 28 Sep, 14:08, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, Lee, it involves the same of what I've said earlier : > > > " ( Family ) Honour is what you feel when you look at yourself and > > feel your commitment to all the duties ( ethics ) and morals you ( and > > your family traditionally ) identify with." > > > On Sep 28, 2:02 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Okay Vam so it seems that you see things slightly differant from Pat > > > and stress instead of social ethics personal morality and the will to > > > 'walk the walk' as it where. That is intersting and marries up with > > > what I was speaking of a few weeks back about living the non- > > > hypocritical life. > > > > This is intersing as one of the things I am confussed about is family > > > honour, I don't even really know what is meant when I hear that. Any > > > thoughts on that one Vam? > > > > On 25 Sep, 17:30, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If you spare me from your subsequent grilling, Lee, here it is : > > > > > Honour is what you feel when you look at yourself and feel your > > > > commitment to all the duties ( ethics ) and morals you identify with. > > > > > Post facto, honour is the feeling that arises when you judge your > > > > actual conduct in thought, speech or deed, in the light of your those > > > > very commitment to such duties or ethics and morals as are pertinent > > > > ( to the conduct under your own judgement ). > > > > > On Sep 25, 8:47 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Umm interesting Pat, I mean the way you see ethics and morality. I > > > > > ways though that Morality was subjective both on a personal level and > > > > > a social level, whilst ethics was confined to 'doing that which is > > > > > right' > > > > > > So Morality is the 'thought' of right and wrong, whilst ethics is the > > > > > 'action' of doing right? > > > > > > What say others about that one? > > > > > > On 25 Sep, 16:27, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 25 Sep, 13:55, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Umm 'doing the right thing' and 'more to do with ethics than > > > > > > > morals' > > > > > > > would suggest that Honour is bound up in ethics. Just an aside > > > > > > > then > > > > > > > if ethics is concerend with doing what is right, and morals are > > > > > > > concerned with questions of what is right or wrong, then can it be > > > > > > > true that ethics are as subjective as morality? > > > > > > > As I've said before, ethics is a societal thing and morals are > > > > > > personal. Ethics are subjective to a society and morals are > > > > > > subjective to an individual. Right and wrong, whether perceived by > > > > > > a > > > > > > society or an individual are still just perceptions based on a > > > > > > profound lack of information (in that every act we perform has > > > > > > reactions that carry on from that point forward and, as we have no > > > > > > access to the future, we should endeavour to ensure that our actions > > > > > > should lead to predominately positive results.). And, it might seem > > > > > > contradictory in light of our free will conversations, but, I think > > > > > > that, if the person about to commit an honour killing has the > > > > > > opportunity to speculate that they don't HAVE to kill, then they > > > > > > should feel obliged NOT to, if for no other reason than that they > > > > > > may > > > > > > not know the full circumstances regarding the original killing > > > > > > (which > > > > > > MAY have been in self-defense) and are, by taking up their 'right', > > > > > > may, actually, be giving the other family the true 'right' to return > > > > > > like for like. And the cycle continues. It's for reasons like THIS > > > > > > that I feel the ability (and opportunity) to speculate about an > > > > > > unknown future is just as important (and still makes us liable) as > > > > > > having free will in its usual sense. > > > > > > > > Aside over. > > > > > > > > More I need more people, I'm trying to understand this concept of > > > > > > > honour. Honour killings for example strike me as well not really > > > > > > > honourable at all, the honour of the family, what does that > > > > > > > actualy > > > > > > > mean? > > > > > > > Honour killings were based on the old 'Eye for an Eye' rule, > > > > > > which, of course, meant not more than an eye for an eye... So, if > > > > > > someone killed a member of your family, the code allowed the injured > > > > > > family to kill a member of the originally offending family to offset > > > > > > their murder. However, to those that abide by that code, I would > > > > > > remind them that "'Vengeance is mine', saith the Lord" and let God > > > > > > deal with it, as only He has access to ALL the information regarding > > > > > > it. So, whilst the law (or code) may permit the retaliation, it > > > > > > would > > > > > > be more 'Godlike' if the offended family acted more godly and > > > > > > exercised their mercy and let God dole out the judgements, rather > > > > > > than > > > > > > assume that their retaliation IS God's judgement. > > > > > > > > On 25 Sep, 13:32, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well, an individual must abide by the code of his/her culture > > > > > > > > although > > > > > > > > one can walk away from dishonour and generally pay a steep > > > > > > > > price for > > > > > > > > it. I think it means doing the right thing despite the cost. > > > > > > > > > On Sep 25, 6:48 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 25 Sep, 12:13, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It seems an easy enough question. What is it, what does it > > > > > > > > > > mean to > > > > > > > > > > have it, what acts are honourable and what not? > > > > > > > > > > It mostly depends on culture. It was honourable to the > > > > > > > > > Aztecs to be > > > > > > > > > sacrificed to Quetzalcoatl, I doubt many today would feel the > > > > > > > > > same. > > > > > > > > > Thieves, at one time, had a code of conduct, making some > > > > > > > > > theiving > > > > > > > > > honourable and other thieving not honourable. Seppuku > > > > > > > > > (harakiri) is > > > > > > > > > considered honourable in Japanese culture, but viewed as > > > > > > > > > simple > > > > > > > > > suicide and damnable by the West. Roughly, honour (like good > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > evil) is, like its opposite, shame, an opinion/perception and > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > relative.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
