NationStates Jolt Archive

((Prompted by Llewdor's "What is justice?" thread))

I'd like to see how various people define the following words. I have to go home now, but I swear this isn't a hit and run.

Courage
Delicious
Value
Appropriate
Modest

Ok, that's probably a long enough list.

And, the larger question is, do these words suddenly cease to be useful if we cannot agree upon their particulars? Is the word "delicious", for instance, useless because I might think that broccoli is delicious while you might hate it? If I think an action is courageous, and you think it is cowardly, does that make the two words useless? And so on.

That's an issue I deal with in poetry all the time because abstract ideas are the basis for most poetry, but are useless as descriptors. So we use concrete words as definitions, you might say--that's the essence of metaphor, using concrete images as definers for the abstractions of the world.

((Prompted by Llewdor's "What is justice?" thread))

I'd like to see how various people define the following words. I have to go home now, but I swear this isn't a hit and run.

Courage
Delicious
Value
Appropriate
Modest

Ok, that's probably a long enough list.

And, the larger question is, do these words suddenly cease to be useful if we cannot agree upon their particulars? Is the word "delicious", for instance, useless because I might think that broccoli is delicious while you might hate it? If I think an action is courageous, and you think it is cowardly, does that make the two words useless? And so on.

Without using a dictionary...

Courage - doing something (usu. good deeds?) despite fear of the consequences

Delicious - tasting very good (literally or metaphorically)

Value - the factor that determines desirability. differs depending on person and context

Appropriate - "right" for a given situation, likely to achieve intended aim

Modest - not boastful

Courage- standing up for what's right in enormous adversity


Delicious- the quality of being so good you can't possibly describe it


Value- having more worth than the cost


Appropriate- being generally acceptable


Modest- knowing the things that are important, and not flaunting the ones that are not.

:p that was......difficult.

It reminds me of when my 3 year old asks me questions and I can't answer them

"what does before mean?"
"it means before.........damn it.....hold on"

((Prompted by Llewdor's "What is justice?" thread))

I'd like to see how various people define the following words. I have to go home now, but I swear this isn't a hit and run.

Courage
Delicious
Value
Appropriate
Modest

Ok, that's probably a long enough list.

And, the larger question is, do these words suddenly cease to be useful if we cannot agree upon their particulars? Is the word "delicious", for instance, useless because I might think that broccoli is delicious while you might hate it? If I think an action is courageous, and you think it is cowardly, does that make the two words useless? And so on.

Delicious is a subjective term for something one finds to be highly enjoyable in taste. It isn't "useless," but it is subjective.

:p that was......difficult.

It reminds me of when my 3 year old asks me questions and I can't answer them

"what does before mean?"
"it means before.........damn it.....hold on"
And how often do you wind up using examples or metaphors to help her understand what you mean? ;)

Courage -- doing something which poses a danger to oneself because it is the correct moral action to take, regardless of the consequence or one's fears.

Delicious -- delightfully flavorful and satisfying

Value -- the worth one assigns to an object, emotion or person contained within the world of their personal experience.

Appropriate -- correct, not needlessly uncomfortable or willfully obnoxious

Modest -- opposite of attention whorish. Not flashy, not trashy, not over-the-top. Understated.

Courage - Will over fear

Delicious - Pleasure over need

Appropriate - Normal

Modest - Simplicity over pride

Courage - not giving up in the face of extreme and possibly disasterous adversity;
Delicious - full scottish breakfast, red thai curry homemade from scratch, thronton's chocolates, strong coffee, etc.;
Value - some thing that gets added for tax purposes;
Appropriate - everything and nothing;
Modest - mouse.

edit: i don't think the below post means me. i've been warpinating the time stream :P

Yes, agree, courage doesnt necessarily has something to do with morality.

Sometimes its purely personal.

I agree with the above posts with most of the words, but as for courage, I believe that you do not necessarily have to be doing something morally upright to be considered courageous. I think in any instance where a person has fear, but conquers that fear to go on with the action is an example of courage. then of course there is the issue of what is moral? what is moral for one person may not necessarily be so for another.

((Prompted by Llewdor's "What is justice?" thread))

I'd like to see how various people define the following words. I have to go home now, but I swear this isn't a hit and run.

Courage
Delicious
Value
Appropriate
Modest

Ok, that's probably a long enough list.

And, the larger question is, do these words suddenly cease to be useful if we cannot agree upon their particulars? Is the word "delicious", for instance, useless because I might think that broccoli is delicious while you might hate it? If I think an action is courageous, and you think it is cowardly, does that make the two words useless? And so on.
They cease to be useful in the sense of asking other people to act based on them. If you tell me to do something whenever something else is delicious, I need more information before I'll know exactly when you want me to do that thing.

I can know what you mean when you say "This apple is delicious", but I can't determine without you here whether you would consider a given apple to be delicious.

((Prompted by Llewdor's "What is justice?" thread))

I'd like to see how various people define the following words. I have to go home now, but I swear this isn't a hit and run.

Courage
Delicious
Value
Appropriate
Modest

Ok, that's probably a long enough list.

And, the larger question is, do these words suddenly cease to be useful if we cannot agree upon their particulars? Is the word "delicious", for instance, useless because I might think that broccoli is delicious while you might hate it? If I think an action is courageous, and you think it is cowardly, does that make the two words useless? And so on.

Courage - doing what needs to be done even though you're scared shitless.
Delicious - It tastes good to you.
Value - The worth of something, not only in material but in moral terms.
Appropriate - Fitting the situation.
Modest - This is really contextual. What is modest for a Muslim woman in Iraq is not necessarily modest for me. Basically, one's comfort level defines it. If I'm not comfortable in a bikini, then it's not modest - for me.

In a world where people don't value morality, it's no surprise that people take issue with my definition of courage.

But then again, as the OP asked, it's MY definition of courage.

Courage - The might to act in the face of great adversity, fear or hardship
Delicious - The emotional response of satisfaction through consumption by the senses
Value - The quantification of worth
Appropriate - What is reasonable and acceptable
Modest -

I can know what you mean when you say "This apple is delicious", but I can't determine without you here whether you would consider a given apple to be delicious.
Here's where the problem comes in--what is it about the apple that makes it delicious to you? The tartness? The sweetness? Some apples are so sweet they're like honey--others make your mouth pucker up. The one constant is that they appeal to different people, or they wouldn't have been cultivated.

So saying the apple is delicious isn't enough--you have to give something more definitive, something grounded in the physical world to serve as a marker, so the person you're responding to can have a starting point for understanding. It's why we almost reflexively speak in comparison, in metaphor--unless we're hoping to disguise our intent, or unless we don't really have one.

Which brings us to political speech, which is more loaded with abstraction and contains fewer concrete markers than any other genre of speech. Read e. e. cummings's "next to of course god america i" for an amazing example of how politicians work.

Courage: A lion.
Delicious: A new flavour you never experienced before.
Value: Money! MONEY MONEY MONEY!
Appropriate: Penis.
Modest: Boring.

In a world where people don't value morality, it's no surprise that people take issue with my definition of courage.

But then again, as the OP asked, it's MY definition of courage.

I just don't see why it has to be morally correct. But of course, your definition. *pats*

Courage - not giving up in the face of extreme and possibly disasterous adversity

Courage - doing something (usu. good deeds?) despite fear of the consequences

Courage - The might to act in the face of great adversity, fear or hardship

doesn't this also cover "bloody fucking stupid" pretty well too?

doesn't this also cover "bloody fucking stupid" pretty well too?

"Bloody fucking stupid" would be not seeing the danger.

Courage would be seeing it, and going forward anyway because the objective is perceived to be right.

"Bloody fucking stupid" would be not seeing the danger.

Courage would be seeing it, and going forward anyway because the objective is perceived to be right.

"Sometimes the courageous thing to do is run away." The Sphinx. He's terribly mysterious.

In a world where people don't value morality, it's no surprise that people take issue with my definition of courage.

But then again, as the OP asked, it's MY definition of courage.

Yes, and you have every right to your opinion, but who determines what is moral and what is not? I certainly have morals, a code of honor and whatnot, but they are MY morals. it is very possible that what I believe is moral does not line up with other people's views.

doesn't this also cover "bloody fucking stupid" pretty well too?

depends on how valid you think the ends that are being worked towards are i guess. which is again subjective.

running into a burning to save a child who is going to die before the fire service arrive is brave. running into a burning building to save an old granny who is going to die before the fire service arrive is stupid. not necessarilly my opinion, just as an example. the judgemnet there being based on the relative potential worth of the rescuees. still, you might not know before you run in that the child is the future psychotic dictator of the world or the old granny is a retired doctor who's just come up with the cure for aids.

Courage- Wrestling a bear or shark.

Delicious - Apple pie.

Value - My 280z.

Appropriate - Wearing clothing in public.

Modest - Eating only half the apple pie.

bump

((Prompted by Llewdor's "What is justice?" thread))

I'd like to see how various people define the following words. I have to go home now, but I swear this isn't a hit and run.

Courage
Delicious
Value
Appropriate
Modest

Ok, that's probably a long enough list.

And, the larger question is, do these words suddenly cease to be useful if we cannot agree upon their particulars? Is the word "delicious", for instance, useless because I might think that broccoli is delicious while you might hate it? If I think an action is courageous, and you think it is cowardly, does that make the two words useless? And so on.

are you SURE this isnt hit and run?

ok ill bite:

courage is acting through fear. if you arent afraid, its not courage. the fear doesnt have to be physical, it can be fear of bad consequences as in a cheerleader befriending an unpopular girl even though the in-crowd might ostracize her for it.

delicious means it tastes very good. its the taste equivalent of beautiful.

value is the worth you put on something whether it be the price of a thing or the ordering of a moral code.

appropriate means fitting in with a situation. being in the range of "just right"

modest is not calling attention to oneself.

the discussion of these kind of value-words is important. it helps us to figure out what is important to us and why. if someone else finds something "delicious" maybe im missing something. if one person finds a suicide bomber courageous and another person finds him cowardly, the discussion of why is a very important one. it goes to the heart of what we value most as human beings.

DER OP!!!!!11

Courage- acting despite being afraid
Delicious- tastes good (when eaten, your taste buds send a benevolent feeling blahblahblah science)
Value- How much something is worth, either monetarily or sentimentally
Appropriate- fitting in to the situation
Modest- meeting some cultural standard in how to behave, either in dress or ego

They cease to be useful in the sense of asking other people to act based on them. If you tell me to do something whenever something else is delicious, I need more information before I'll know exactly when you want me to do that thing.

No, you don't. You know what you do and do not find to be delicious, do you not?

I can know what you mean when you say "This apple is delicious", but I can't determine without you here whether you would consider a given apple to be delicious.

No, you can't - not without asking me about it. But you do know whether or not you find a given apple to be delicious, just as you would know whether you thought a given action was courageous, appropriate, or just. Just as you would know whether or not you place value on a given item or viewpoint.

Perhaps we can find common ground on those topics. Perhaps we cannot. That's how it works.


are you SURE this isnt hit and run?

Indeed, just had a busy weekend.

Courage is the ability to do things you're afraid of anyway.

Delicious refers to things that are pleasing in some way.

Value can either refer to a numerical quantity or a personal belief (we call them values when they're personal, and morals when they're societal).

Appropriate things conform to the expected societal and social norms.

Modest is the opposite of egotistical or attention-whoreish. (Basically, what Kat said.)

hmmm....

courage: To think with your head in a dangerous situation instead with your legs.
delicious: what your parentd don't want you to eat :p
Value: numerical quantity, especially of a utility function
Appropriate: actions that won't get you executed or shunned.
modest: letting someone find out on his or her own how great you are


SCNR :)

Here's where the problem comes in--what is it about the apple that makes it delicious to you? The tartness? The sweetness? Some apples are so sweet they're like honey--others make your mouth pucker up. The one constant is that they appeal to different people, or they wouldn't have been cultivated.

So saying the apple is delicious isn't enough--you have to give something more definitive, something grounded in the physical world to serve as a marker, so the person you're responding to can have a starting point for understanding.
And that's my point. The characteristic delicious can't exist on its own. It's like justice, or goodness. Just as you can't show me two paintings and claim they're identical in every way except on of them is good (either morally or qualitatively), you can't point to two apples and claim they're identical in every way except one of them is delicious.

No, you don't. You know what you do and do not find to be delicious, do you not?
Yes, but only because I know what I like in an apple. I can tell you why I think a given apple is delicious or not. For example, I don't typically like spartan apples because I find they have a mealy texture. Whereas, I enjoy the fresh bitterness of a macintosh. I know what I find delicious, and I can describe it to you.

If you know what you find delicious, then you can describe it to me.

Similarly, if you know what you find just, you can describe it to me.
No, you can't - not without asking me about it.
But you could teach me to identify apples you would like, were you eating them, because in order to identify deliciousness in apples yourself, you must have criteria against which to compare any given apple.
But you do know whether or not you find a given apple to be delicious, just as you would know whether you thought a given action was courageous, appropriate, or just.
I don't claim to be able to identify those traits. You do, however, therefore you should be able to teach me to identify those traits as you perceive them.
Just as you would know whether or not you place value on a given item or viewpoint.
But, again, I know why I value any given viewpoint. Similar to what I said above, there can't be two viewpoints that are identical in every way except the extent to which I value them. And that's true because I value them based on other identifiable characteristics. And if I value any given viewpoint, I can tell you why I value that viewpoint, such that you could identify on your own whether I value that viewpoint by measuring it against my criteria.

This is what you claim is impossible. By that reasoning, you can't ever predict what I would perceive as square, even if we agreed in advance on what the definition of square was.
Perhaps we can find common ground on those topics. Perhaps we cannot. That's how it works.
We don't need to agree in order to understand each others' positions.

I disagree with most socialist positions, but I often understand the reasoning behind them.