Manly men

[UntoldGlory]

Oooh, well said Andrew.

I would say honor and and worth are *often* related, but not intrinsically linked. For instance a criminal informant has value, but perhaps no honor. A mercenary might have value, but no honor. On the flip side, an undercover agent may have both honor and value, or a principled warrior. Both of those *in general* have a much greater value than the previous examples, but there are times when the first two examples might be more valuable in a certain situation.

I was going to say that I have a lot of non-poly friends that love Firefly, but they're also the friends who are supportive of us and poly, so it tracks. Theresa hasn't actually seen it yet, so I'm very excited to get to introduce it to her!

 

[Slumberfreeze]

- and they actually showed it in order in NZ.

You know, in the thread where we were discussing whether or not America was babylon, I posed a question to the effect of "Is New Zealand the true gathering point of the saints of God?" or something like that. For some reason, you did not include this very powerful and moving piece of information, which argues very strongly that New Zealand is where the order of heaven still holds sway. I've been such a fool not to have seen it before.

I see honor a lot in terms of "dignity proceeding from worth, perceived or otherwise",

... and cash money, obviously.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Honor means there is a right way to act in any given circumstance and you can expect a man with honor to behave that way no matter the consequences.

 

[andrew]

I see honor a lot in terms of "dignity proceeding from worth, perceived or otherwise"....

Yeah, Webster's says "esteem due or paid to worth", so maybe "honor is what worth is due" or "honor is the recognition of worth", so not quite the same thing, but one is the thing and the other is the apprehension of the thing.

 

[UntoldGlory]

Hmmm. I didn't even look at Webster's, and I'm fine with not going with their definition really.

And Zec I would kiiiiinda disagree that the "honorable way" and the "right way" are not 100% the same thing. I'm specifically thinking about samurai. They are "honorable", but I would not say that everything they do is "right". Basically something can be disagreed with but still be worthy of honor. That make sense?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Hmmm. I didn't even look at Webster's, and I'm fine with not going with their definition really.

And Zec I would kiiiiinda disagree that the "honorable way" and the "right way" are not 100% the same thing. I'm specifically thinking about samurai. They are "honorable", but I would not say that everything they do is "right". Basically something can be disagreed with but still be worthy of honor. That make sense?

No. I would definitely draw a line of distinction between Oriental concepts of honor and western ones.

Oriental honor is more about how the individual functions inside his designated role and adheres to the arbitrary rules associated with it.

In Oriental honor someone can do everything correctly and still be dishonored. That wouldn't happen in western concepts of honor.

 

[andrew]

Hmmm. I didn't even look at Webster's, and I'm fine with not going with their definition really.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

I'm all for creativity and spontaneity, but in matters of communication it's probably best that we have some kind of standard for basic word meanings. Doesn't have to be Webster's, but there needs to be some way to verify that we all have the same concepts in mind when we use particular words.

Meanwhile, UG, I really liked your examples of informant/agent and merc/warrior. There may be something worth exploring in the way you switched from worth to value (are those exactly the same thing or almost the same thing?...), but I think for purposes of the illustration it works. That raises another question....

Is honor situation- or observer-specific? Is it something intrinsic in us or something others give us (such as, say, trust)? Value and worth appear to be 'in the eye of the beholder'. Is honor something in us waiting to be recognized, or is it only after enough people honor us (whatever that means) that we can claim to be 'honorable men'?

Meanwhile, I'd add courage to strength as something definitively masculine. The ability to suppress fear—and its companion piece, the ability to stay calm in the midst of chaos or in the presence of a threat—seem to me at least to be correlated with manliness pretty closely. Women can be brave, and women can be strong, but they are not thought of as "more feminine" for being so. Men, on the other hand, are traditionally (sad that I have to use that qualifier, isn't it?) expected to be strong and brave, just to be thought of as 'real men', and below a certain threshold, a man who is physically or mentally weak or timid or a crybaby could expect to have his manhood questioned. Anybody besides me feel that?

 

[UntoldGlory]

I definitely am against the notion that honor is observer-specific. People can have different opinions of whether someone is honorable or not, but it's entirely possible for some to act in an honorable manner and be reviled for it.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Ah Lewis Carroll In a discussion of manliness, only on Biblical Families.

 

[aineo]

Is honor situation- or observer-specific? Is it something intrinsic in us or something others give us (such as, say, trust)? Value and worth appear to be 'in the eye of the beholder'. Is honor something in us waiting to be recognized, or is it only after enough people honor us (whatever that means) that we can claim to be 'honorable men'?

I do think honorable acts can be situation specific, but I don't know that someone who does an honorable act can be defined as an honorable person. For example, it is honorable to stand up for those who are being taken advantage of an unable to defend themselves, and a person may do this, but the same person who does this may be dishonorable in other ways that would make you cringe.

I do not think true honor is observer specific, but I think that is debatable, as a slightly different perception on the definition could make one think of an act as honorable and another think of it as dishonorable.

Finally, does being honored by enough people make us honorable? I don't think so. We are commanded to honor our parents in Exodus 20:12 and Matthew 15:4, but nowhere does it say to only do this if they are honorable. The action of honoring is one of bestowing value or respect upon someone, but that does not mean they are necessarily worthy of that value or respect.

 

[The Revolting Man]

We are commanded to honor our parents in Exodus 20:12 and Matthew 15:4, but nowhere does it say to only do this if they are honorable. The action of honoring is one of bestowing value or respect upon someone, but that does not mean they are necessarily worthy of that value or respect.

Booyah master chief! That is the crux of the issue. Honor is owed. It is due. It is not earned. Or at least the one rendering honor is not the one who gets to assign it.