Remby Debes is based on a study of the contradictory and complex origins of the concept of honor.
In Western society, the idea of human honor is quite valuable. If human beings are considered equally shared, innate, and unearned value, human dignity is generally the moral basis of human rights. For the same reason, it is unacceptable to reject the concept of human honor while discussing issues such as goodness, justice and justice with other people who often draw the boundaries of a logical debate. In addition, human honor urges us to act immediately. When we think that human dignity is a serious threat, we react violently. We are overwhelmed when we hear that human dignity is taken under the feet, ridiculed or infringed. When we learn that the soldiers of our country torture prisoners or that a political leader we vote for is warm to racism, we indirectly see ourselves as accomplices (or perhaps they are) ashamed in their place. In short, in the words of John Rawls, human honor is today one of the most prominent points of "conflicting ideas" in Western culture, perhaps in all cultures.
However, the definition of this basic concept of Western morality is, at least, recognized as "honor", quite new. In fact, until 1850, the concept of 'dignity' in English, 'dignitas' in Latin, 'dignité' in French had no meaning of 'innate, unrequited human value'. On the contrary, the notion of 'dignity' was lyakati and a kind of inequality throughout the modern age. For example, when we use the word 'dignitary', the meaning of the word 'dignity' indicates a kind of social status depending on the strength, the mastery, or the rise of the church site
The word 'honor' does not apply to any article of the US Declaration of Independence. Likewise, it does not pass in the US Constitution. During the French Revolution no one screamed "Liberté, égalité ... dignité" (Freedom, Equality ... Honor). The anti-slavery British who helped change the Western slavery in the 19th century did not speak or condemn the maniacal slavery in the name of 'honor' that we understand today. For the first time, until the term was officially used in the 1917 Mexican Constitution, this term had not been seen in any significant political goodwill in the sense we know today. Even after this Constitution, it did not mean exactly the meaning of 'innate human value that was born after birth'. This morally appreciated meaning did not enter the records until the United Nations ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the term was used twice as the reason for the declaration in the preface of the manifest.
This information led to a two-way question. From one side, how did the concept of 'honor' become evocative of a moral concept? On the other hand, even if the concept of 'honor' does not make a moral association until 1850, is it not possible for this term to take on a different terminolo-
A few years ago I decided to find answers to these questions. I have worked with many different academicians and eventually compiled the first historical research. I am not going to summarize all the contributions made to this work here, but I am going to point out to a point that is aroused by the work.
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant made a radical change in the notion of honor in 1785 when he argued that the basic moral principle 'unconditional order' could be understood as follows:
"Treat mankind, in himself and others, not always as a tool, but always as an aim!"
The whole argument about why Kant should not just act as a 'tool' to another person is complicated, but this part brings the claim that people are not 'worth'. On the contrary, according to Kant, man is 'above all worth'. He says:
"Everything that is worth is changeable, but not costly, so what is not equivalent is" Würde. "
And now the critical link: Even in the earliest translations of these claims (late 18th century), Kant's 'Würde' translates to dignity in English. And that is why the moral meaning of honor keliminin comes out. Among Kant's mass influences on the German and Anglo-tradition, 'honor' has kept its morally precious meaning forever.
Unfortunately, no. As a history of today's sense of honor, the story mentioned above is so spoken. Certainly, Kant's thoughts on human worth have influenced many philosophers of morality and politics in the late 20th century and today. Indeed, the summary of the philosophy of human honor can not be completed without considering the influence of Kant. However, when it comes to the emergence of the concept of honor and its implication in the present sense, this story, which dates back to Kant, does not yield results.
Let's go back to the 18th century and let the interpreters who first translate Kant's works use the word 'dignity' for Kant's concept of 'Würde'. Why did they call it that? However, Würde translates to 'worth' when translated into English. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, English was used for the concept of economic value. But as we have seen, Kant made a distinction between 'the price' and the people of Würde. It therefore seemed that Kant certainly refused to use the concept of Wu de to make material associations. That is why English translators need to find a new term in accordance with this, and they choose 'dignity'. The important point is that this word does not seem to be selected at random. On the contrary, the dignity connotations in English make it possible to create contradictions in any material or spiritual value that we can attribute to people. Therefore, when Würde is translated, dignity is used instead of worth words.
Wait a minute. But did I not tell you that before 1850, dignity did not mean 'unadulterated human values'? Yes, I did, but that only means there is no established use before 1850. It would be appropriate to think that before 1850, there was a shift in meaning in the sense of the word 'kelimin' and that the meaning of 'unearned human values' began to partly blossom. I mean, we can see that Kant has been meaningless before he published his groundbreaking moral works in 1785.
We can gather some evidence to support my argument by examining today's dictionaries. For example, Samuel Johnson's Glossary of 1755 shows a shift in the notion of dignity to the concept of immaterial value. Let's take the first two definitions of 'equality' in Johnson's dictionary.
Similarity to any comparable character
Dignity at the same level
This is an excellent definition, given the diversity of egalitarian turbulence reflected in all the elements that constitute European cultures in the mid 18th century. Using dignity in its later adopted sense, suggesting that the real equality in the first place means equal honor, is a challenge to show that the social discrimination criteria existing between the upper and lower layers are not equal. This impression was supported by Johnson's 'honor at the same time' election for the second definition mentioned above.
"From a fair equality one who is not happy to be fraternal will claim a sovereignty over his brothers that he does not deserve." (Milton)
Or take Johnson's example of another word usage. Man's first definition of the word is human being.
"The King is like me." (Shakespeare)
If we see that divine right and absolute sovereignty are contemporary ideas, and Johnson's word selection is politically and philosophically inferior in a day when dictionaries and encyclopedias become a secret way of expressing disrespectful thoughts, we certainly miss some points. Instead, I think Johnson's choices point to a deeper story about the general re-thinking of human values throughout European enlightenment. This story explains in part how we arrive at the present moral meaning of the dignity word.
Or consider the following: In 1760 Kant noted that he was influenced by Rousseau in terms of human value. "Rousseau had shown me the truth in this matter," Kant said, informing Rousseau that he had learned the concept of honoring mankind. To tell the truth, this help is highly appreciated by scientists working on Kant today. But there is no evidence that the concept of honor gains moral value before Kant. For example, I show in my anthology that Rousseau's colleague Denis Diderot has developed his own concept of honor. In his article, Stephen Darwall states that the term of honor is used by Samuel Pufendorf, the natural thinker before these thinkers, and writes:
"It seems to me that there is a dignity person in the name of man: so the final and most effective claim to humiliating grieving is usually I am not a dog."
It is often forgotten that Kant's influence on the British point of view is very small until 1830, and how this point of view is influenced before and after 1830 is limited to certain factors. The first discussions on Kant in England (before 1800) took place outside the university on popular magazine pages. While Kant gained a short-lived popularity in these journals at the end of the 18th century, the ideas conveyed were simplified or even trivialized. Moreover, while his theoretical, theological and political views were very much emphasized, his focus on ethics was very limited, and he was on his latest issue, 'Eternal Peace'. From this last perspective, Kant is the King of England II. James put an end to the radical appearance of his factions. Towards the end of the century, the British people became increasingly conservative and nationalistic due to German thought of the Enlightenment and doubt about the cult. In short, Kant draws attention to the short term, but as Kant's Academic Journal on Critical Rewiew follows, "Kant's philosophy is very little known in this country."
After 1806, Kant's name disappeared from British magazines for decades. The translations of Kant's works, which are very rare, were not popular either. That's why the practice of Kant's philosophy has grown very slowly in English. The Basis of Moral Metaphysics, especially with his famous claims of honor, the Scottish J.W.Semple's first serious oppression had not been translated into English as professionally as in 1836. This translation was not readily available until the Scottish Henry Calderwood regiment was re-established in 1869 to one-third of the original price. Indeed, the academic interest shown to Kant in the first half of the 19th century was in Scotland, where attention was still concentrated on theoretical philosophy. Considering all this, Kant's influence on the moral philosophy of Anglo-ethnicity, let alone the concept of Anglo-consciousness, appeared after 1870, but it was too early to be tried before this date.
All in all, it is time to rethink how the West has embraced the concept of human honor and what it really means. Perhaps we will realize that there is much more to say about what is the most basic 'value' that humans share, just as we have seen in its origins.
Remy Debes is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Memphis. This article is based on Dignity: A History (Oxford University Press, 2017) which he edits. Her research interests include ethics, moral psychology, and the history of the philosophy of the Enlightenment.
Hello,
We have found that all or part of the above post may have been copied from: https://dusunbil.com/insan-onurunun-tarihi/
Not indicating that the content you post including translations, spun, or re-written articles are not your original work could be seen as plagiarism.
These are some tips on how to share content and add value:
Repeated plagiarized posts are considered spam. Spam is discouraged by the community, and may result in action from the cheetah bot.
If you are actually the original author, please do reply to let us know!
More Info: Abuse Guide - 2017.
If you reply to this comment directly, we may not notice your response.
It is recommended to contact us in our Discord Channel, instead.
Thank you.
You have been upvoted by the @sndbox-alpha! Our curation team is currently formed by @anomadsoul, @GuyFawkes4-20, @Steemitworldmap and Martibis and @fingersik. We are seeking posts of the highest quality and we deem your endeavour as one of them. If you want to get to know more, feel free to check our blog.
This is a courtesy of @fingersik
WARNING - The message you received from @nanig is a CONFIRMED SCAM!
DO NOT FOLLOW any instruction and DO NOT CLICK on any link in the comment!
For more information, read this post: https://steemit.com/steemit/@arcange/phishing-site-reported-steemautobot-dot-ml
Please consider to upvote this warning if you find my work to protect you and the platform valuable. Your support is welcome!