Perhaps principles and people should be judged seperately, unless ofcourse your case intertwines the two. Is there ever a case where principles and people aren't related? On either side, one would be trying to minimize conflict and reach a consensus based on some sort of belief. To go off what you replied to the previous comment, if you are perceiving yourself as truly "good" or "right", then whatever decision you are going to make will be essentially based off of your own view, even if it's not based on your own opinion (going with but also going against "groupthink"). Individual doubts could be set aside for fear of upsetting whatever balance is trying to be maintained. True "harmony" is also debatable. To go off your response again, living "honorbaly" might also mean what you do with yourself when you are are faced with doubt, uncertainty, and regret-dissonance. Along the lines of betrayal, would hurting another person you care about because you need to remain loyal to your principles be the same as hurting yourself to improve your sense of honor with others? I too think that questions like these pose differently for each scenario. There was a quote I stumbled upon not too long ago and it reminded me of the question you posed: "The desire to live an authentic life - one that honors the soul - requires becoming skilled at facing conflict so we're able to make the best choices. Anytime we remain silent or avoid making decisions that we suspect might be painful, we are, in essence, choosing to dishonor our soul, and this choise often dishonors our relationships as well."
You contradict yourself, friend. Or rather, your quote contradicts your own words.
I find it highly troubling that you feel that the highest aim of choices is to "minimize conflict and reach a consensus based on some sort of belief." The whole point of what I was saying, and what the person you quoted is saying, is that you have to face conflict and not try to minimize it with unnecessary compromise.
I don't really know what you're saying in the rest of that first paragraph at all (what's the difference between a view and an opinion?).
To your question about self-betrayal: absolutely not! There is no such thing as a "sense of honor with others." That is, to be frank or to just be dave, a perverse notion. Honor comes from within, and can only be judged within one's self. That's the whole point of it. No matter what "others" think, you do what you believe in your own heart is the right thing to do. Then you've acted with honor. If you hurt yourself, you've probably betrayed yourself in some way, especially if, as you believe, staying true to principles will lead to inner harmony! I have nothing but sympathy and, to an extent, disgust for a person who would hurt herself just so others would think more highly of her.
I think you should re-examine that quote. I think that it's essentially what I'm saying. You, on the other hand, argue for something completely different- a false, soul-dishonored life lived to please others. I don't claim to know which makes a person happier, but I do know what makes a person more honorable.
Trying to "minimize conflict and reach a consensus based on some sort of belief" is part of the definition of "groupthink". I was merely restating what you said in your original post. And, yes, it's true that your honor comes from within, but I was trying to say that you have to be able to stay true to others as well. You know what makes a person more honorable? You say it's staying true to yourself, and yet people's understandings change all the time. Of course, no one's core self is going to change, but as long as you're staying true to yourself then I think that is right. I'm not saying you believe in one firm or consistent "honor code", just no one is going to keep the same perception of "honor" all their life. I did not come across in a well-thought out manner. I apologize for the confusion. "A false, soul-dishonored life lived to please others". Hardly. I highly doubt anyone really lives by that (minus many fictional characters) unless they force themselves to be that low.
True "harmony" is also debatable. To go off your response again, living "honorbaly" might also mean what you do with yourself when you are are faced with doubt, uncertainty, and regret-dissonance. Along the lines of betrayal, would hurting another person you care about because you need to remain loyal to your principles be the same as hurting yourself to improve your sense of honor with others?
I too think that questions like these pose differently for each scenario. There was a quote I stumbled upon not too long ago and it reminded me of the question you posed:
"The desire to live an authentic life - one that honors the soul - requires becoming skilled at facing conflict so we're able to make the best choices. Anytime we remain silent or avoid making decisions that we suspect might be painful, we are, in essence, choosing to dishonor our soul, and this choise often dishonors our relationships as well."
Reply
I find it highly troubling that you feel that the highest aim of choices is to "minimize conflict and reach a consensus based on some sort of belief." The whole point of what I was saying, and what the person you quoted is saying, is that you have to face conflict and not try to minimize it with unnecessary compromise.
I don't really know what you're saying in the rest of that first paragraph at all (what's the difference between a view and an opinion?).
To your question about self-betrayal: absolutely not! There is no such thing as a "sense of honor with others." That is, to be frank or to just be dave, a perverse notion. Honor comes from within, and can only be judged within one's self. That's the whole point of it. No matter what "others" think, you do what you believe in your own heart is the right thing to do. Then you've acted with honor. If you hurt yourself, you've probably betrayed yourself in some way, especially if, as you believe, staying true to principles will lead to inner harmony! I have nothing but sympathy and, to an extent, disgust for a person who would hurt herself just so others would think more highly of her.
I think you should re-examine that quote. I think that it's essentially what I'm saying. You, on the other hand, argue for something completely different- a false, soul-dishonored life lived to please others. I don't claim to know which makes a person happier, but I do know what makes a person more honorable.
Reply
And, yes, it's true that your honor comes from within, but I was trying to say that you have to be able to stay true to others as well.
You know what makes a person more honorable? You say it's staying true to yourself, and yet people's understandings change all the time. Of course, no one's core self is going to change, but as long as you're staying true to yourself then I think that is right. I'm not saying you believe in one firm or consistent "honor code", just no one is going to keep the same perception of "honor" all their life.
I did not come across in a well-thought out manner. I apologize for the confusion. "A false, soul-dishonored life lived to please others". Hardly. I highly doubt anyone really lives by that (minus many fictional characters) unless they force themselves to be that low.
Reply
Leave a comment