Dussel wrote:
McTell wrote:
Honour is a quantification of reputation, I suppose. If you get a knighthood, for example, it is an honour because it is a recognition of your deeds and so improves your reputation
You also can get a knighthood for sitting long enough behind a Whitehall desk, or knowing the right people.
McTell wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
Honour is having a rising sun bandana on your forehead, packing your plane full with explosives, and crashing it into a ship in a sea of flames, while shouting "BANZAI!".
Here, the person is 'honourable' because they are willing to sacrifice themselves for their country.
One of the most convenient ideas for rulers (democratic, aristocratic or dictators) ever developed: With this idea of a special honour of a country, a flag, even a regiment or any other group, you can switch off any kind of critical thinking with a majority of people. Impressing how well this works over millennia, even it is abused since we have written history (perhaps even longer).
Oh yeah, I agree with you about both. I think knighthoods are a foolish form of award, and find such violent patriotism terrifying. I was just trying to rationalise why these are seen as honours/honourable, certainly not support them.
On the subjects of knighthoods, though, my great-uncle received one, way before I was born, and I think that the fact nobody seems to know exactly what he got it for kind of shows that it is connections rather than great deeds that earn them. I'm sure if he'd done something awesome I would have been told all about it.