|
|
|
| Salaris Vorn wrote: |
I didn't say I thought it was honorable, I said that's what the Samurai believe. Don't twist my words. What I did say was that using an approach of Relativism I could understand this and realize that in the cultural context this wasn't seen as evil behavior even though my inclination as a Westerner would be to have this initial interpretation. Importantly I could conclude (but don't have to under the "Methodological (Descriptive) Relativism" approach) that while this cultural behavior was different from mine it was not necessarily evil and thus not behavior I needed to change to be in conformity with my own. |
Actually you kind of are saying it's honourable or at least that it's not unhonourable (is that better?  ). Where we differ is that while you can understand where they're coming from and, thus deem ritual suicide acceptable, I see where they're coming from but I also don't think its acceptable. If morality is objective, the same rules apply whether you are an ancient Japanese Samurai or a modern American fry cook.
| Salaris Vorn wrote: |
Ok then basically that means any behavior you disagree with is not a product of cultural values (in the case of Samurai) but is malicious brain-washing like the Nazis. So now I can argue that your disagreement with gays is a result of you being brainwashed. Your beliefs result in behavior I find objectionable therefore it is brainwashing (malicious) and not simply a product of how you were raised. You believe your way is just, I think your way is not just. By your own standard that means I can validly say you have been brainwashed because you have been and I know you have been because I find your behavior objectionable. This is the standard you apply to the Samurai so all I’m doing is applying it to you.
|
I never said the Samurai were malicious brain-washers, but hey are fully capable of indoctrination. Indoctrination doesn't have to come from an evil mastermind, it can come from someone who honestly believes the subject of the indoctrination to be a good thing.
And I believe what I believe because they are sourced from a, I believe, God-given source. That's a pretty legitimate reason to follow a morality. I wasn't just brain-washed with random morality picked by yours truly because it feels good to me. I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, just that thereotically, if the Bible is truly God-inspired, it would be best followed.
| Salaris Vorn wrote: |
I argue that it simply means that without being humble you're liable to do something stupid that gets you or others killed unintentionally because you are courageous but too overconfident in yourself to fully appreciate the danger of a situation.
Humble = not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive;
Now let us take the definition apart: Proud = feeling or showing pride, having or displaying excessive self-esteem; (Haughty is blatantly or disdainfully proud); Arrogant = exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance; Assertive = disposed to or characterized by bold or confident statements and behavior
So someone who is not humble will have an overinflated impression of themselves, will likely have an exaggerated opinion of their abilities in relation to anothers abilities, will act with great confidence and will inflate their own worth when interacting with others.
Now having done this lets reexamine the quote:
Without humility, courage...
Ok now we establish two things here: the individual referred to is not humble but is acting with courage. Importantly this means that some danger is already present or imminent that results in the individual needing courage.
is a dangerous game
Ok now we establish that non-humble courage results in danger. Worth noting this danger must be different from the initial thing requiring courage and the danger is the result of acts of courage. (it would be illogical to argue that you can act with courage when there is no threat and that courage then produces a threat).
(Game is clearly being used here as “a procedure or strategy for gaining an end” rather than “activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.” The latter has nothing to do with courage as one doesn’t act with courage with the purpose of diversion or amusement but one does act with courage as part of a strategy or procedure to gain an end).
Now then who does this danger created by courage threaten? Well we can rule out the initial thing causing danger as otherwise this is a statement of the obvious that contributes nothing. Therefore that leaves us with two groups: the courageous individual and any allies or unaffiliated bystanders. Critically here we can assume that this means the danger caused by courage is unintentional. One can assume logically that acts of courage are done with the intention of getting oneself or others out of danger not creating even more danger. The deliberate intention of creating even more danger for yourself and/or others would come under the heading of “suicidal” or “masochism” as you are not mastering your fear of pain or death but are rather seeking it out because of some desire for it, most likely to to some sort of psychological problem/condition.
Let us just revisit the definition of courage to illustrate this: mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty (taken from Merriam-Webster online dictionary). To help clarify: Venture = to expose to hazard; Persevere = to persist in a state, enterprise, or undertaking in spite of counterinfluences, opposition, or discouragement ; Withstand = to stand up against : oppose with firm determination; especially : to resist successfully . Now critically “persevere” and “withstand” convey that the outcome desired is survival (you cannot persevere if you are dead and you cannot oppose or resist danger, fear or difficultly if you are dead). Therefore someone seeking death (or pain), while not having fear of death, is also not acting with courage because the desired outcome is death not survival.
Continuing on let us put the quote back into the context it came from: the plot synopsis for the episode reads as follows “Ahsoka finds herself trapped on a Trandoshan moon, prey in an elaborate and cruel hunt.”
This further indicates that what is intended in the quote is to convey that a lack of humility will result in courageous actions that expose the individual, their allies or innocent bystanders to further danger because of an overestimation of the individuals abilities or an underestimation of the abilities of the enemies.
Given this there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the quote is being used to indicate that a non-humble person will be more disposed to commit atrocities through courage. However, it is quite likely that a non-humble person will be more likely to act courageously but get themselves or others killed unintentionally due to overconfidence in their abilities or a lack of value in someone else's ability to perform as well under identical circumstances. I fail to see how the quote supports your point. |
Haha. I think you got me here. The phrase could support my position if it was given a different context.
| Salaris Vorn wrote: |
Ok to clear up the reason I am referred to your Christian view as Western culture is because Christianity was a founding part of Western cultures (Western morals are based on the Christian tradition) and not the cultures of some other geographic location. Where it was actually written doesn't really matter as it doesn't change the fact that the cultures it took hold in and defined were European (what is known as "the West"). Simply it is a Western religion because it took hold in the West and was a primary foundation stone to modern Western cultures and not another culture such as China. Ergo to put your religion as superior to all others is to say that the basics of Western cultures are superior to all others.
To illustrate this point: in New York there are the Native American nations of the Iroquois Confederacy. Now there are some who are racially Indian but are Christians, culturally they are Western, not Iroquois. To be Iroquois means embracing their traditional religion as you cannot detach the culture of their ancestors from the religion. They cannot be Christian and still part of the traditional Iroquois cultures because they will have abandoned the world view that is essential to their traditional culture. This is not to say that a Christian Indian cannot appreciate the past or put value on it, but culturally they are Westerners who are a minority racial population they are not a separate cultural group by virtue of their genealogy. This also does not mean that they could not be members of the Indian nations recognized by the American or Canadian government but again that doesn't mean that they are a part of their traditional culture and not a Western based one.
So by placing your religion as totally superior to all others (and therefore the basics of Western cultures) it argues for a homogeneous religion and associated Western based world culture. Even if we detach Christianity from Western culture for the sake of argument your still encouraging a situation that leads to exactly what happened at the time of colonization (it was ok to slaughter Indians and take their land because they were not Christian).
I would ask you this in closing: are you willing to accept that your religion and culture is superior to all others and that ultimately everyone must change to be like you and that means that all non-conformists will be relegated to being second class citizens? Whether that is personally what you want to have happen doesn't matter as that is exactly what WILL happen because that position you support is the one taken during the colonization of the New World and was used as the justification for all the evils done to Native Americans that have only begun to be redressed in the last fifty years or so. Worth noting the reason that things are now being redressed is because we are not accepting that Native American religions/cultures are inferior to our own and are instead treating them as equal albeit different.
|
I have never said, and never will, that my culture is superior to all others. But of course I believe my religion is superior to all others. I'd be a pretty bad Christian if I thought Buddhism held the same amount of truth as Christianity. Just as if, if I was a Buddhist, I would be a bad Buddhist if I believed Christianity held as much truth. Do I want everyone to be like me? Heck no! Or even do I want all Christians to be the same? Also heck no! Christianity teaches unity through diversity. As in everyone should have their own interests skills and gifts. It draws the line at morality though, stating that morality is objective. I disagree with the bad treatment of Native Americans simply because it isn't Christian behaviour (Christian not Churchian fyi). I may disagree with Native American philosophy but, and I have Scripture backing me up here, I should still treat a Native American with respect and grace. I don't think the Church should control the state either so...
_________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.
Last edited by Reepicheep on Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:37 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
