Cowerdly does not simply mean bad. Saying that sacraficing your life to achive a goal is cowardly is nonsense.
They suppressed there fears, that’s what bravery means. You can be brave doing horrible things. Mao was brave, Hitler was (at times) brave. You are falling into the halo issue, saying that if an act was bad it must be bad in all ways.
Cowerdly does not simply mean bad. Saying that sacraficing your life to achive a goal is cowardly is nonsense.
“Cowardly” is a term of vice, and it does therefore imply some negative normative value. To use it otherwise is using the word wrong.
They suppressed there fears, that’s what bravery means. You can be brave doing horrible things. Mao was brave, Hitler was (at times) brave. You are falling into the halo issue, saying that if an act was bad it must be bad in all ways.
“Bravery” is said in many ways, but I believe here it was being used as a synonym for “courage”. “Courage” is a term of virtue, and it does therefore imply some positive normative value. To use it otherwise is to use the word wrong.
Some words in English have normative value as part of their meaning. To say that someone is “good” is simply an ascription of value, while to say someone is “present” contains no ascription of value; however, to say that someone is “courageous” is both a description of their behavior and a statement that their character and/or actions are virtuous.
Thus, to say (for example) “his courage was vicious” is inconsistent.
ETA: And “is said in many ways” is an Aristotelian idiom roughly meaning “has multiple senses in common use”.
While words have a normative value as part of their common use, I think the reason you’re getting so many down votes for those comments is that “value” is only a behavioral mechanism on our own part. Lots of people ascribe negative or positive values to event X. Great. But that’s just a response in the human brain(s) that observe(s) event X, not a part of event X itself.
And to say that “his courage was vicious”—you know what, I like that. I’m going to look for a way to use that in prose.
I think the reason you’re getting so many down votes...
I think it’s more likely that I got downvotes because I was 1) telling people they’re using a word wrong, and 2) invoking Aristotelian idioms in a context not friendly to Aristotle.
I’m not concerned.
“value” is only a behavioral mechanism on our own part. Lots of people ascribe negative or positive values to event X. Great. But that’s just a response in the human brain(s) that observe(s) event X, not a part of event X itself.
That really isn’t relevant. The words are also produced by human brains, and are often about value. If you say “good” and mean “bad”, then you’re using the word wrong. At a minimum, that’s bad communication. And some words have “good” or “bad” as part of their meaning. If you don’t want to imply virtue, you can say (for example) “bold” or “fearless” instead of “courageous” (if you want to imply vice, you can say “brash” or “reckless”). There are many words.
Cowerdly does not simply mean bad. Saying that sacraficing your life to achive a goal is cowardly is nonsense.
They suppressed there fears, that’s what bravery means. You can be brave doing horrible things. Mao was brave, Hitler was (at times) brave. You are falling into the halo issue, saying that if an act was bad it must be bad in all ways.
“Cowardly” is a term of vice, and it does therefore imply some negative normative value. To use it otherwise is using the word wrong.
“Bravery” is said in many ways, but I believe here it was being used as a synonym for “courage”. “Courage” is a term of virtue, and it does therefore imply some positive normative value. To use it otherwise is to use the word wrong.
What a non-answer.
Or, put differently, I do not understand what you mean by this, could you please explain?
Some words in English have normative value as part of their meaning. To say that someone is “good” is simply an ascription of value, while to say someone is “present” contains no ascription of value; however, to say that someone is “courageous” is both a description of their behavior and a statement that their character and/or actions are virtuous.
Thus, to say (for example) “his courage was vicious” is inconsistent.
ETA: And “is said in many ways” is an Aristotelian idiom roughly meaning “has multiple senses in common use”.
While words have a normative value as part of their common use, I think the reason you’re getting so many down votes for those comments is that “value” is only a behavioral mechanism on our own part. Lots of people ascribe negative or positive values to event X. Great. But that’s just a response in the human brain(s) that observe(s) event X, not a part of event X itself.
And to say that “his courage was vicious”—you know what, I like that. I’m going to look for a way to use that in prose.
I think it’s more likely that I got downvotes because I was 1) telling people they’re using a word wrong, and 2) invoking Aristotelian idioms in a context not friendly to Aristotle.
I’m not concerned.
That really isn’t relevant. The words are also produced by human brains, and are often about value. If you say “good” and mean “bad”, then you’re using the word wrong. At a minimum, that’s bad communication. And some words have “good” or “bad” as part of their meaning. If you don’t want to imply virtue, you can say (for example) “bold” or “fearless” instead of “courageous” (if you want to imply vice, you can say “brash” or “reckless”). There are many words.