Quote:


It's a subjective defintion isn't it?
Wouldn't the supporters of those suicide bombers see them as being brave and courageous?
Wouldn't you also see somebody who gave their life to say, stop the S11 attacks as being brave and courageous, even though it was in direct opposition to the idealisms of the attackers and their supporters?

I reckon it moreso comes down to personal opinion of what you think is right and what is wrong. I doubt if Australians would generally have a respect for the bravery of the Turks in Gallipoli unless we had a little unsderstanding that our presence there wasn't quite right.

Therefore, the resistance of the Turks becomes a meaning to us of bravery instead of stupidity or ignorance, which was probably the opinion of the diggers who were fighting against them at the time.

It ended up that the diggers were probably fighting for the wrong cause. But we very much respect them and call them brave because they were so loyal to the nation, and how could they know the politics behind what they were doing?

The Vietnam vets, on the other hand, were not held in such great esteem, because the public had urged them not to interfere. A lot of them were branded cowards for not questioning the orders thay had had been given, regardless of how much more bravery they may have exibited on the battle field compared to the imagined better concept of bravery that has been regularly exhibited during more publicly palatable wars.

It might just be that questioning can stop more wars than bravery can start or continue. I'd choose to go with questioning why I would want be party to killing, or being killed by somebody who I probably like far better than those who give the orders.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 14^th, 2010 at 7:15am:


Pusillanimous might be more appropriate. So would docile, gullible  and sheepish. Certainly not brave or courageous.

As far as the perpetrators and organisers are concerned, I don't have a problem with the word "evil" or "malignant".

It depends on the purpose of the act. Those eveil bastards who flew planes into the World Trade Centre were hailed as brave martyrs by those who were dancing on the streets in celebration of the news. To me, the dancers were also evil bastards.
To me this illustrates that not every point of vew is equal.

An act is brave if the purpose of the act is positive. The act cannot be separated from the wider context of the act itself. Furthermore, what is positive and what is not is not simply a matter of perspective or opinion. Opinions and perspectives are not equal.

Soren wrote on Jun 15^th, 2010 at 12:18pm:


Correct. A lot depends on individual perspective. Your opinions and perspectives are more important to you than those of others.

Another Aristotle  here !


'Nature does nothing in vain.' ~ Aristotle



smiley=thumbsup.gif]

muso wrote on Jun 18^th, 2010 at 2:45pm:


They seem pretty important to you, too...

COOL TOPIC!!!!

Here are my results:

Your recommended philosophy-guru is ARISTOTLE.

Key fact: The star pupil of Plato.

Must have: A desire to study the world and see what it reveals.

Key promise: The good life, which comes from living a virtuous life.

Key peril: The virtuous life can be tough.

Most likely to say: "Everything has its proper place."

Least likely to say: "Science is where humanity went wrong."


Actually .. I agree with the above and anyone who knows me in real time also KNOWS that I say, "Everything has its own parking spot" quite a bit coz as far as I am concerned .. it's a generic principle which applies to so many different contexts .. from little toddlers who need to be taught the art of packing their toys and shoes away .. right through to office staff and family members who are forever looking for things .. sighs.