I have been fascinated all morning about the concept of Duty, having heard Commander Data use it in a Star Trek: The Next Generation. The episode was The Offspring and Data spoke of the Duties of Parenting. Duty, Loyalty, Love... all concepts that cover a lifetime, not just a moment of a life. They cover a wide span of living, containing within their grasp all the unattractive details of life, as well as the glorious highs and the tragic lows.
Moral concepts cover a life, a history. They are endless carpets we weave as we walk.
What strange logic and language they are !
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Of the three: Duty, Loyalty, Love, surely Loyalty is the most problematic to your thesis. Does it really cover a life? Or is it in most instances transitory? Loyalty is a sometimes tattered carpet.
Well, an acute instance of Loyalty could occur exactly once in a soldier's life, for example, standing his ground to cover the retreat of his fellows.
His entire life history, and particularly his history as a soldier, prepared him for this in a sense: he learned not to be overwhelmed by fear.
You're right about "tattered" at least in the sense of being punctuated. Truly instances of Loyalty may occur infrequently, and they may be accompanied by Infidelity, too.
Punctuated, with holes, a randomicity to the warp and weft.
I cannot argue with the proposition that logic and language make a hash of moral concepts, or is it the other way around?
I think that Language carried on way too far makes a terrible hash of many things.
It's like St. Francis of Assisi or the Lord Buddha: go only so far with analysis, then jump into action and do what you must...
But we reward endless commentary and talk, we admire obfuscation and obstruction... which, upon reflection, might be the best course for the clueless.
Post a Comment