Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Sushan]

Buying fame and honor may not be a good way to acquire it, yet it is a very much possible way to do that.

Fame, yes. Honour, NO.

I know a person who helps his community spending a lot of money. So the people love and honor him very much and he has earned a good name.

That's not his honour; those are 'honors' awarded to him; mere trappings of external validation.

But the rumors say that what he has earned has come from drug dealing. But the people in his community does not care about that and I do not see that he has lost any fame or honor.

He may have gained fame, but he threw away his honour in the very first drug deal. He's trying to buy it back, and that's impossible. However, by doing good, he might begin to make amends and eventually redeem his honour.
But he would have to actually, physically go out and help the victims of his drug traffic - not just throw their money around.

You really don't see the difference between honour - integrity, constancy, fairness, veracity, faithfulness - and kudos?

As far as I see, all the words that you mentioned are included in honor. So, if honor is only personal, yes, then the above mentioned fellow might not have any honor. Yet, if it is personal, then you cannot judge one's honor. He might be thinking that he is doing a honorable duty by serving his community. He is constant in his service. He is fair to them. And he is faithful to them. So he has completed your list to have honor, in relation to the service that he is doing to his community.

If he truly believes that he is having honor by doing so, can we judge him and say "no, you do not have any honor"? If we say so, there will not be any difference between fame and honor.

[Alias]

As far as I see, all the words that you mentioned are included in honor. So, if honor is only personal, yes, then the above mentioned fellow might not have any honor.

Yes, there are two meanings: the primary meaning is a personality trait, a part of who you are. The secondary one is 'honours' given by other people, or 'being honoured' by other people: something you're given.

Yet, if it is personal, then you cannot judge one's honor.

You can't judge another person's, no. But you can know what it is in general, and what it takes to retain it or to forfeit it.

He might be thinking that he is doing a honorable duty by serving his community.

By giving it blood-money? Yes, he might think that, but he would be wrong.

He is constant in his service.

Money, especially money you didn't work for, is not 'service', and very far from from 'constant' service, since he only has to take a minute to sign a cheque once in a while, then get back into his heated swimming pool or his expensive mistress's bed.

He is fair to them. And he is faithful to them.

To whom? The teenagers who resorted to prostitution and burglary to support the drug habit he started them on? The addicts who died in the agony of horrible delusion? Many are already dead. Some are in rehabilitation centers funded by taxpayers. Most will never get back the life they would have had without his interference. How was he fair or faithful to them?

So he has completed your list to have honor, in relation to the service that he is doing to his community.

By giving away some of the money he has acquired by making other people miserable?
I don't think so!

If he truly believes that he is having honor by doing so, can we judge him and say "no, you do not have any honor"?

Yes. And so can a court of law. And so can a god, if he has one.

If we say so, there will not be any difference between fame and honor.

Many dishonourable people are famous. Many dishonourable people are not famous. Many hounourable people are not famous. A few honourable people are famous. Fame and honour have no causal or necessary relationship.

[Sushan]

As far as I see, all the words that you mentioned are included in honor. So, if honor is only personal, yes, then the above mentioned fellow might not have any honor.

Yes, there are two meanings: the primary meaning is a personality trait, a part of who you are. The secondary one is 'honours' given by other people, or 'being honoured' by other people: something you're given.

Yet, if it is personal, then you cannot judge one's honor.

You can't judge another person's, no. But you can know what it is in general, and what it takes to retain it or to forfeit it.

He might be thinking that he is doing a honorable duty by serving his community.

By giving it blood-money? Yes, he might think that, but he would be wrong.

He is constant in his service.

Money, especially money you didn't work for, is not 'service', and very far from from 'constant' service, since he only has to take a minute to sign a cheque once in a while, then get back into his heated swimming pool or his expensive mistress's bed.

He is fair to them. And he is faithful to them.

To whom? The teenagers who resorted to prostitution and burglary to support the drug habit he started them on? The addicts who died in the agony of horrible delusion? Many are already dead. Some are in rehabilitation centers funded by taxpayers. Most will never get back the life they would have had without his interference. How was he fair or faithful to them?

So he has completed your list to have honor, in relation to the service that he is doing to his community.

By giving away some of the money he has acquired by making other people miserable?
I don't think so!

If he truly believes that he is having honor by doing so, can we judge him and say "no, you do not have any honor"?

Yes. And so can a court of law. And so can a god, if he has one.

If we say so, there will not be any difference between fame and honor.

Many dishonourable people are famous. Many dishonourable people are not famous. Many hounourable people are not famous. A few honourable people are famous. Fame and honour have no causal or necessary relationship.

Though this discussion will go a bit off topic, I would like to convey my thoughts on drugs and drug addiction.

Drugs and drug dealers are there for anyone if they are willing to use them. But no one is forcing anyone (even such things are possible in extremely rare situations) to use them. So if somebody is using drugs, we cannot put the whole blame on the drug producers and the dealers, because the buyers have their free will to decide and its their money that are spent on drugs. I am not going to justify the what the drug dealers do, but if someone is using drugs, it is mostly his/her fault and responsibility.

I agree that it is illegal and unethical to earn by selling drugs, but the buyers are at fault too.

[Alias]

Drugs and drug dealers are there for anyone if they are willing to use them. But no one is forcing anyone (even such things are possible in extremely rare situations) to use them.

You are very naif.

So if somebody is using drugs, we cannot put the whole blame on the drug producers and the dealers, because the buyers have their free will to decide and its their money that are spent on drugs.

Even if 'the buyers' are children in elementary school who were enticed with free candy?

I am not going to justify the what the drug dealers do, but if someone is using drugs, it is mostly his/her fault and responsibility.

Guilt shared is still guilt.

I agree that it is illegal and unethical to earn by selling drugs, but the buyers are at fault too.

That doesn't give the drug dealer back the honour he has deliberately and knowingly thrown in the garbage - no, not even is he later gives away some of the money he never had a right to.

Blame shifting, even topic shifting changes nothing with regard to fame and honour.

[Sushan]

Drugs and drug dealers are there for anyone if they are willing to use them. But no one is forcing anyone (even such things are possible in extremely rare situations) to use them.

You are very naif.

So if somebody is using drugs, we cannot put the whole blame on the drug producers and the dealers, because the buyers have their free will to decide and its their money that are spent on drugs.

Even if 'the buyers' are children in elementary school who were enticed with free candy?

I am not going to justify the what the drug dealers do, but if someone is using drugs, it is mostly his/her fault and responsibility.

Guilt shared is still guilt.

I agree that it is illegal and unethical to earn by selling drugs, but the buyers are at fault too.

That doesn't give the drug dealer back the honour he has deliberately and knowingly thrown in the garbage - no, not even is he later gives away some of the money he never had a right to.

Blame shifting, even topic shifting changes nothing with regard to fame and honour.

I have never seen any drug addict who has been addicted to substance when he/she was not old enough to understand what is happening to them in my clinical training or clinical practice. Even if they are addicted to a substance by mistake, there are abundant ways for them to get help, even without their parents' awareness. If they have no such knowledge, in my country, they can simply come to a hospital and ask for help from a doctor since we have a totally free health care system, and any doctor have access to such help and will guide those who are seeking for help. With all those things, I see that many addicts just go on with their addiction without trying to come out from that.

One can say that it is not that much easy to get out from an addiction. Yes, I agree, but it is not impossible. I have helped a few to get out from their Heroin addiction within several days. But the problem is that, for reasons that I cannot understand or justify, they once again take those drugs and get addicted to.

I have no intention to honour the drug dealers, and it is true that they use various means to attract young crowd to their substance. Yet, there are so many ways to avoid such an addiction and also to get out from an addiction. Despite having all that if an addict chooses to continue his/her life as an addict, is it the fault of the drug dealer or him/herself?

[Alias]

I have no intention to honour the drug dealers,

Then stop. Don't equate buying applause with good character.

Yet, there are so many ways to avoid such an addiction and also to get out from an addiction. Despite having all that if an addict chooses to continue his/her life as an addict,

That is completely irrelevant to the drug dealer's honour.

is it the fault of the drug dealer or him/herself?

What they did is their fault. What he did is his fault. He knew it was illegal, wrong, bad, potentially life-destroying, and very profitable. He took people's money in return for doing them harm. Then he turned around and gave some of the money back to the society he had damaged, in return for public 'honours' - that may be less evil, but it's no less despicable.

[Sushan]

I have no intention to honour the drug dealers,

Then stop. Don't equate buying applause with good character.

Yet, there are so many ways to avoid such an addiction and also to get out from an addiction. Despite having all that if an addict chooses to continue his/her life as an addict,

That is completely irrelevant to the drug dealer's honour.

is it the fault of the drug dealer or him/herself?

What they did is their fault. What he did is his fault. He knew it was illegal, wrong, bad, potentially life-destroying, and very profitable. He took people's money in return for doing them harm. Then he turned around and gave some of the money back to the society he had damaged, in return for public 'honours' - that may be less evil, but it's no less despicable.

Quite true. What he did was illegal. He knows it and he continues to do it. And that is bad for the society.

On the other hand he is serving to the society in a way, though what he spends to that is what he earned from a wrong doing. And for that people love him.

Can't we separate his good side from his bad side? no one is either black or white. Why we expect a white character from this fellow?

[Alias]

What he did was illegal. He knows it and he continues to do it. And that is bad for the society.

And therefore, he has no honour.

On the other hand he is serving to the society in a way,

And he cannot buy it back

And for that people love him.

That's their problem.

Can't we separate his good side from his bad side?

Not our job.

Why we expect a white character from this fellow?

I expect nothing from him, except a large part of his waning years spent in prison. Maybe he can learn to do some real good there and earn a little redemption.
I don't know what you expect, as you have not made clear why you brought him up as an example of fame being the same as honour - which it isn't. When one acts honourably, one is honourable and has honour. When one acts dishonourably, he isn't and hasn't. You can't change that by throwing some blood money into Santa's cauldron.

[Sushan]

What he did was illegal. He knows it and he continues to do it. And that is bad for the society.

And therefore, he has no honour.

On the other hand he is serving to the society in a way,

And he cannot buy it back

And for that people love him.

That's their problem.

Can't we separate his good side from his bad side?

Not our job.

Why we expect a white character from this fellow?

I expect nothing from him, except a large part of his waning years spent in prison. Maybe he can learn to do some real good there and earn a little redemption.
I don't know what you expect, as you have not made clear why you brought him up as an example of fame being the same as honour - which it isn't. When one acts honourably, one is honourable and has honour. When one acts dishonourably, he isn't and hasn't. You can't change that by throwing some blood money into Santa's cauldron.

That is true. No one can cover dishonourable acts with money (unless they cover the fact that they did that). I took him as an example because I wanted to counterargue the point that honour is a thing which is limited to one's self. I believe honour too comes to one from the society, or his followers (I am not talking about fame). If one says someone is a very honourable person, then that is a title which is given to that person by the society. Maybe he himself is not feeling the same, but the society does.

[Anand_Haqq]

. No ... Exactly the opposute.

. Fame is base metal ...

. Being unknown is Gold ...

[Sushan]

. No ... Exactly the opposute.

. Fame is base metal ...

. Being unknown is Gold ...

Rabbi Rashi's seeming disregard for fame as depicted serves to accentuate the underlying message. Contrastingly, your metaphorical assertion that "Being unknown is Gold" intrigues me. If I understand correctly, you seem to suggest that there's an intrinsic value in anonymity and that being unknown can offer a kind of richness that surpasses the trappings of fame.

While both viewpoints have merit, I think there's a middle ground. It might not be a binary choice between seeking fame or remaining entirely unknown. Instead, the true "gold" might be in understanding oneself and seeking fulfillment in ways that resonate deeply with one's core values, whether that leads to fame or obscurity.

The pitfalls of fame, as Friedmann notes, are evident in numerous real-life examples, where individuals who've achieved widespread recognition grapple with its unintended consequences. Yet, the choice to remain unknown, while certainly free from many of fame's trappings, might also mean forgoing the platform and influence fame can provide.

I'm inclined to think that the essence of the discussion isn't about fame or anonymity per se but rather the intentions and motivations behind our actions. Do we seek external validation at the cost of our own well-being, or do we pursue paths that align with our true selves, irrespective of the recognition they might bring?