Dignity

justonemoreperson wrote:Aren't you supposed to use different colours?

Can never be bothered with that.

Thanks John

Spenser

^ lol ur such a dick but keep making me rofl.

DID so "the twins" want to chip in:

Dignity is a created human concept. It started when people put clothes on. It's used as an idea to control people through the fear of shame. Other peoples negative opinions "oh that's shameful, don't they have any dignity" is conceptualised in the word dignity and used to control society. And it works.

Dignity is about anxiety. "oh no I can't do that because..." Anxiety. "How can they do that..." Projection of shame. It's all BS. The Twins

Reads more like someone rationalizing sending dick pics to increase their 'ego' and get over their shame.

solemnlysworn wrote:I did have the idea of respect and honour in mind but tried to step around it and avoid it because it's easily entangled. Respect and honour are bestowed by a community and whatever it may value at the time. Dignity says something regardless of somebody's honour and respect you might have for them and I think I was curious about what others think about the people who are dignified and whether they might respect that and whether there was any sense of dignity among the people here in that they ought to act a certain way because it is right rather than because it is valuable to do so.

Right, so that is what I answered. People that are dignified are those that are given special respect due to some excellence. So I try to do it, both because it is right to do so, but also because it is valuable. Both really come together in the end, if you think about it. But of course, the person has to be worthy, and that is where the subjective aspect comes.

For instance, I had a lawyer, normally, you have to treat him with respect, but he was not respectful, did not do his job properly, even minimally, so I didn't do it. So he took offence and left, which is good, since he wanted to loose while i wanted to win, so it works out pretty good.

But I try to if I don't know any better. It's just that at some point, you can't have people that have power over you if they aren't responsible, and don't take their role seriously. So it is about treating clowns as clowns, especially the serious types.

solemnlysworn wrote:My more abstract thought before this thread was whether honour and dignity have to be related. It's quite easy to be impressed by somebody and respect what they have done but still dishonourable behaviour or means tend to tarnish that easily. In warrior cultures where maiming an enemy and raping their women was considered par for the course, this excellence and conduct in war was honoured. Was it also dignified or does dignity hint at something more similar to humanity and observation of the right of others? Honorific awards generally come about through service to the wider community. I don't know if dignity as I understand it's current meaning, relating to observance of certain human right or decency towards others, is needed here to gain honour. That said, when it is seen that a person is lacking honourable traits, it can bring dishonour towards someone which seems to say it's integral to it and is just assumed until proven otherwise.

Yes, in theory you will honor things that are dignified. But here it is because you have your own values and what you consider excellent. That tribe you speak of has its own values, so in theory they should dignify what they find excellent, and bestow special honor and respect on those that follow those things they value. You of course, might disagree and not honor them. In fact, you might even start the drums of war and make war cries about crimes against humanity, and ask other people of your own tribe to nuke the bastards. But now, that is where the problem is, in that after the person did nuke the bastards, you won't honor that person, you will maybe even find it horrifying, and leak secret documents to show how evil lurks amongst your midst, like a wolf in sheep's clothing as it were.

But then again, maybe not, but it is something humanists tend to do. I just read an interesting article about Samantha Powers that actually showed that problem. She was a humanist, and was quite warlike, but never took responsibility for her own action once she got into power. She still blamed those that did her deeds, so that to me is a tyrant. She has no honor, and no dignity, just empty values. The people in the tribe you speak of though, while maybe I disagree with them, but I think they have their own dignity, so I respect that. They are consequent with their actions, so they are moral people. Maybe not good in the absolute sense, but certainly more civilized than Samantha which is a barbarian. Making mistakes is fine, being an hypocrite isn't. Now, when the whole society is like that, its not worth much, so people stop respecting authority and so on, for good reason, but it is a problem.

solemnlysworn wrote:Dignity I think was what I was initially curious about because it's done for it's own sake. I wondered what others' relationship is to that idea of a dignified act, devoid of honour-seeking motivation. I did expect that we'd all post telling of a lack of dignity and then move on to how it works when there is honour at stake but I'm not sure that this'll tell us anymore than the DSM does

Well, I would not take what I say to infirm of confirm the DSM, or what anybody says for that matter if you ask me.

For me, there are a few gradations. When I see an ape, I ask myself if it is human. Usually humans have some qualities. I suppose the main one are as follow. Able to use reason, has free will, and is religious (meaning they can tell fiction from reality and are not grumpy). So there you have the basic moral human, which has some dignity. They also have to be social, I forgot. Not like a socialite, but accepting the political primacy of the social, the city, or the nation, depending on the unit, but something greater than your self, something that binds people together. Its really religion there as well, even more so, but I will put it separate just to be sure.

Then you have the civilized people. They can tell the truth, are reliable and understand reciprocity (not just horizontally as a quid pro quo, but vertically as well). Of course, the prerequisite is to be human.

Then you can go with values and stuff. Like being a good cook or good at drawing. Higher morality which can lead to special consideration.

So I am a bit of a minimalist, but with few tolerance with things that are uncivilized. Might treat a human as a child, and try to do some civilizing work, but if it is just animal, it is like a good steak, or a well-cooked seal which is virtuous for its own sake, so at least, not all is lost.

But yes, generally what is dignified is simply some excellence, or some virtue. If those warriors are good at what they do, at least they have the truth, may be reliable, but lack reciprocity, which is a problem, so they don't get full dignity points, but it is better than being an animal.

But generally, a human society should honor what it values, otherwise, it is quite inhuman, and will degenerate pretty fast into its true nature. So I keep my fork and knife, table salt and pan at the ready just in case something would come up. A stray animal of something, you never know.

Just kidding it's a metaphor.

ShaolinMonk wrote:

DID so "the twins" want to chip in:

Dignity is a created human concept. It started when people put clothes on. It's used as an idea to control people through the fear of shame. Other peoples negative opinions "oh that's shameful, don't they have any dignity" is conceptualised in the word dignity and used to control society. And it works.

Dignity is about anxiety. "oh no I can't do that because..." Anxiety. "How can they do that..." Projection of shame. It's all BS. The Twins

Reads more like someone rationalizing sending dick pics to increase their 'ego' and get over their shame.

LMAO I'll say that the next time a guy sends me dick picks online TY LOL I'll say "thank you for exhibiting your lack of shame and dignity through this medium of exchange. I admire your courage"

I see shamelessness and dignity as two ends of the same spectrum.

Excessive dignity leads to repression (of spontaneous expressions), while shamelessness is narcissistic in essence (although ties back to shame in a roundabout way).

I try to strike a balance.

When I try to think of people I consider dignified what they all have in common is that they're very good at hiding the parts of themselves that are ugly even if they're human. For example I couldn't imagine one using the bathroom unless I really tried. I also couldn't imagine them thinking or saying they're dignified about themselves.

Also I think people across the internet need to stop trying to define everything into detail and just trust what they say will be understood by those who are willing to hear it and accept it won't ever be by those who don't.

For me dignity is simply about being honest to yourself and others.

Seili wrote:For me dignity is simply about being honest to yourself and others.

This is literally the dumbest reply I've read in this thread so far.