| Most Recent Messages of Each Discussion |
Created by |
Re:Different Kinds of mistakes
>> Are there any different words in your languages for mistakes by ignorance and mistakes by negligence?
>
> Are there different words for the two in Finnish?
I know about none that would make a clear distinction. That is why I thought to ask others.
Puti
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
September 4, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: September 4, 2005
|
Different Kinds of mistakes
I can't think of any. We talk about ignorant mistakes and about careless mistakes. Some of the slang terms may have connotations one way or the other, like "opening a can of worns" is generally thought of, I think, as a kind of ignorant mistake, though it doesn't have to be out of ignorance, it usually seems to be. But most of our expressions for mistakes apply equally regardless of whether the goof occurs out of ignorance or carelessness.
Are there different words for the two in Finnish? In other languages?
Are there any different words in your languages for mistakes by ignorance and mistakes by negligence?
Puti
This is a reply to message # 59989
Language pair: French; English
Category: Opinions
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Mark S.
September 4, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: September 4, 2005
|
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Mankind versus Animals!
See, actually, here is where I think we go from the specific to the general. The key difference, for me, in the case of the unfaithful husband, and in fact in all of the cases that might illustrate my point, is that it is not a specific desire to harm that is operative, but rather a natural desire to care and support that has been overwhelmed by other feelings that are in conflict. It is not a positive intent to hurt so much as an insufficient commitment to not hurt. The man loves his wife and would never deliberately hurt her. But his momentary excitement is overwhelming. He may not even think about his wife in the heat of the moment, or if he does, he may resolve the conflicts in his mind by some ridiculous argument that may not even hold water if he looked at it thoughtfully. The problem is that in this situation, he is not willing to take the effort to think carefully because "Mr. Happy" has taken over the thinking department" The brain has been checked, and the husband has become unwilling to thoughtfully consider the most likely outcomes of his choice. Because if he did consider them, he might be forced to confront the fact that his actions are tantamount to a willing harm to his wife. This would actually force him to back out, which at a certain point he may become constitutionally incapable of doing. it's like the Alcoholic who destroys his family and his life with his drinking behavior. It is not because he doesn't care about his life and about his family. It is because his sickness forces him to live in a state of denial that allows him continually to choose alcohol over the most patently obvious sensible choices. Ideal example: Bill Clinton.
# 59989
Re:Re:Re:Re:Mankind versus Animals! Arnaud MALARDE
It is true that your example makes me think a lot. On the other hand, the man your depicted knew that he would damage his wife, and nevertheless he decided to go too far beyond the limits. We can claim that he was drunk, that he loved his wife and that it was an accident, but nonetheless, there was a moment when his mind told him: "you will regret it", however he decided to put it aside and have fun. This short moment is the damage willing, I think, even though it is a really short moment. The best proof is that he feels regrets and guilty after his act. One is only convinced of guilty when he has bad intents.
Does this answer your question? Surely you could find many other examples to support your theory, and nevertheless, I think that most of the time a betrayal is a bad intent. I cannot think of the contrary. I would be happy to know the other cases that dwell in your mind.
This is a reply to message # 59859
Language pair: French; English
Category: Opinions
Post date: September 2, 2005
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
Mark S.
September 3, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: September 4, 2005
|
"The rule does not apply on me"
> there was a moment when his mind told him: "you will regret it", however he decided to put it aside and have fun. This short moment is the damage willing, I think,
There is a common pattern in many of the mistakes we do, namely the thought that we can find an exception to the rule. "I can still take a 5-minute nap before I have to go. I can do this little bit of speeding even if it is considered illegal. I can run this test on the nuclear power plant with safety devices off. I can establish the capital city here even though there are earthquakes." However, there are times that the reality refuses to cooperate.
I wonder how many accidents there would be left, if we were free of all human shortsightedness.
Even though we want no harm to ourselves or to the people around us, we are guilty at the moments we knowingly mess up our priorities.
Courage may sometimes call for action that looks foolhardy. Then, I guess, it is the motive of the action that tells the heroes apart from the fools.
Are there any different words in your languages for mistakes by ignorance and mistakes by negligence?
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
September 3, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: September 4, 2005
|
Re:Morality in isolation
> Don't you think that a long period of isolation for a man can deprive him of all the things he learnt from civilization, such as morals?
He may lose a couple of things, and perhaps learn a few new ones through his hardships. But I agree that in general he will appear less civilized, though not necessarily less moral.
My uncle has lived abroad since his youth, and he has been visiting Finland only a few times and quite briefly. Abroad he has no use for Finnish language (as far as I know), but he still speaks fluent and nearly perfect Finnish when he visits us. If a forest-dwelling man can preserve his morality even nearly as well as my uncle preserved his Finnish, then I would say that loneliness is not a great risk for the man's humane attitude (and related moral topics) towards other human beings.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
September 2, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: September 2, 2005
|
Re:Re:Re:Mankind versus Animals!
Does betrayal necessarily entail intent to harm?
I agree that it often does. My mind is exploding with exceptions, and I'm trying to think of an example that's famous enough to be meaningful.
Well, let's just do a hypothetical. Perhaps a man is very happily married, and one day meets an old high-school girlfriend. Delighted to see her after many years, and eager to learn what she has been doing in the intervening time, they go out for a drink together. They have a wonderful visit, and lots of wine, and end up sleeping together before their visit is over.
I would say in this case that the man has certainly betrayed his wife. And you can call him stupid or selfish, or irresponsible, or any of a thousand different things, but I don't see how you can say that he had any intent to harm his wife. He merely neglected his responsibility to her.
What do you think?
Reply to message # 59755
Re:Re:Mankind versus Animals! Arnaud MALARDE
I must answer something to your message blaming human beings for their robberies and betrayals, which drives you to compare them with animals. Nevertheless, if you think again about it, you should change your mind. Thus, animals do not betray, nor steal. They cannot betray because this word entails a willing to damage the other. On the other hand, animals do not have this kind of willing, all their acts are conducted by one imperative: their survivals. When an animal take the food of another, there is no prejudice in the mind of the stolen animal. It is nature, and none of its rules bans this acting. Survival allows all kinds of acting. Betrayal and robberies are pure human devices due to our ability to invent rules to leave nature and constitute human societies.
This is a reply to message # 59686
Language pair: English; German
Category: Opinions
|
Language pair: English; German
|
|
Mark S.
August 31, 2005
# Msgs: 8
Latest: September 4, 2005
|
Morality in isolation, part 4
> Are you sure they would have succeeded if they had been organizing their survivals on their own?
They would be safe from group violence, at the cost of suffering and danger because of their unskilled efforts of survival.
> I doubt it since it is always better to join forces, especially for the youngest children's interests.
This is true if the joining is not more costly than its benefits. Mobs can kill.
> I am glad that my messages cause such a controversy and I am pleased to debate with you.
I enjoy it, too. I have heard that France and Mediterranean countries have a long tradition of debate. Does it come from Greek and Roman traditions?
I apologize for the length of this quadruplet.
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 31, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: September 2, 2005
|
Morality in isolation, part 3
> There is no rule at all except this: you can do everything your physical abilities allow you to do. No judgement at all.
Nature can be much harsher teacher than human beings. Part of our morality arise from natural laws and simple logic: some kinds of behavior causes us trouble or danger and must thus be avoided, even if the avoidance goes against our desires.
Laziness might be an example. If I am lazy in a society, I am immoral, because other people have to do my work. I am punished by scolding. If I live in solitude and become lazy, Nature may punish me by death. In solitude my laziness may not seem to be a moral thing, because I am alone, but the effect of laziness is the same: it endangers one or more human beings. Thus my punishment for laziness would be just an extension of the natural law, and if I want to live happily in solitude, I must carry on the diligence I learned in the society.
> The danger comes from the fact they found themselves assembled without any previous link and had to constitute new bonds
It may produce positive as well as negative results. Among children the results are often negative, because they bring their ingrained egoism with them, but have no good tools to control it. However, the solitude itself does not force them to make bad decisions. Impulse to this comes from other sources.
Continued...
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 31, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: September 2, 2005
|
Morality in isolation, part 2
It is now almost 30 years that I last saw the book "Lord of The Flies", and my memory of it is getting a bit vague. I hope I have not forgotten any crucial points.
> To clarify, a man is said moral or immoral only judging his behaviour towards other men.
Perhaps I have used a different definition for "moral". I would include in it also conscience, covering the cases about how a single person behaves towards himself.
There is also a difference in Euro-American and Oriental cultures here: my Japanese wife told me that western moral control is based on conscience and eastern one on shame in front of the public. This provided, I would expect different attitude from these two cultures, when their people live long time in solitude.
> For example, one cannot do anything he wants in society because there is always obstacles, [...] In nature there is not such a constraint,
This is true, too, but I do not think it tells the whole story of morality. Morality may arise also from internal needs and longings.
A group separated from a large society may deteriorate morally, but the opposite is also possible. In a totalitarian, completely rotten state governed by a mad dictator people may choose to escape in wilderness to live a more healthy life, and I would presume that their moral is better that that of the society they left. On the other hand, criminals and immoral people appear also in the middle of the society, and the culture is unable to rescue them from their immorality.
Continued...
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 31, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: September 2, 2005
|
Morality in isolation, part 1
> Regarding your example of a man lost in the middle of wilderness, I doubt that he still use morality.
It is admittedly true that a person in solitude does not use morality for interaction, and therefore his morality has no social dimensions. However, he still carries with him his education and past life, which may make him obliged to follow some code of morality so that he does not become ashamed of himself. A devout protector of animals might hesitate to kill animals even if no human being would ever see him to kill one, and even in the case that the animal would be convenient for him as food. Some other person might come to another conclusion with his own morality, though.
This ingrained morality (among other reasons) keeps us humane when we live outside society. In children its shielding effect would be weaker than in adults.
However, I am a little bit off-point here, because I understand now that you are discussing of isolated groups rather than isolated persons. I will continue in part 2...
Puti
|
Language pair: French; English
|
|
Juha-Petri T.
August 31, 2005
# Msgs: 5
Latest: September 2, 2005
|
