But then I got to a quote by Louisa May Alcott, the author of Little Women. When she was 10 years old she wrote the following in her diary:
Father asked us what was God's noblest work. Anna said men, but I said babies. Men are often bad; babies never are.
I had to laugh at that. So what would you say is God's noblest work? (Atheists can play along by deferring to the God part for the moment and focusing on the noblest work bit.) I'm tempted to pick something mushy like "love" or "community." But I think the theme of the quote involves tangible objects. Chocolate jumps to mind, but that might be a bit of a silly answer.
I suppose a question like this calls to mind another question, "What does it mean to be noble?"
I guess I'm going to go with "People" as my answer for now. We're such complex creatures that I think that makes us pretty impressive. But noble? See, I'm not sure if we fit that part. I'll have to keep thinking on this.
I'm reading from Marie Bashkirtseff's diary now and she was only 14, but the Duke that she had set her sights on marrying has just gotten married and she's trying to "move on". She writes, "Let us love dogs; let us love only dogs! Men and cats are unworthy creatures..."
ReplyDeletelol!
So I guess that dogs are the noblest of creatures? ;-)
lol... let her love dogs all she likes, but everyone knows cats are superior creatures :)
ReplyDeleteIntellect. From that, all else can follow.
ReplyDeleteyou're saying that intellect is the noblest thing? or that those with intellect are the noblest things?
ReplyDeleteThe intellect is the source for nobility, and those who use their intellect exhibit the noblest quality.
ReplyDeleteintellect the source of nobility? how? intellect can be used for good and for evil.
ReplyDeletewhat is nobility? you say it has a source. i don't know that i would have said that intellect is the source, but the fact that you attribute a source is what i find even more provocative. can nobility be inherent? i think the quote sorta implies that.
ReplyDeleteIntellect is a tool, and can be used for either purpose, yes. But, just as you can't build a bridge without a hammer (which can be used as a murder weapon also), you can't achieve a noble goal without intellect.
ReplyDeleteAll else aside, the intellect is primary.
Going to the dictionary, I'm working from the definition: "of superior quality or kind; excellent"
ReplyDeleteI don't think nobility can be inherent, since I don't think superiority can be intrinsic. I think it would need to be aspired to and strived for in order for it to be. Maybe "source" is the wrong word for it: I would say that it's a prerequisite for noble aspirations and achievements. Otherwise, nobility becomes an accident or a lucky outcome of circumstances, something I don't think is truly noble.
so you don't distinguish "superior quality" and "superiority"? they seem like different things in my mind. i can grow a squash of superior quality that has no superiority over me or anyone else.
ReplyDelete"Superior quality" is a relative term, like how you used it to compare two things. And also that was comparing apples and oranges (or in this case Megs and squashes). But X1 being of "superior quality" doesn't mean X1 is also the noblest of all X; ie., there might be another one (Xn) that is superior to X1.
ReplyDeleteBut this is getting away from what I was intending to say. And now that I reread the sentence, you seem to be using "superiority" to be some kind of authority or controlling position or role. "Superiority" in my statement above and before was regarding being of a better quality or standard, not about dominance. What I was trying to say is that noble results aren't accidents, they are achieved by intent and not accident, and the intellect is what makes that possible.
so you're essentially saying that noble is what noble does? 'cause now you're talking about "noble results" which seems different to me than a "God's noblest work" (which seems to be an object, not an action).
ReplyDeletei'm still confused on whether you're saying *intellect* is God's noblest work or that *those with intellect* are God's noblest work (which would mean you agree with the "man" answer in the quote, yes?)
A "noble work" is the product of an action, is it not? (unless you're using the word "work" in the verb form)
ReplyDeleteThe discussion, for me at least, is kind of derailed now though since it's coming back to the god concept while I'm speaking solely about what is noble from a realist perspective.
maybe you missed this part in the original post?
ReplyDeleteor maybe deferring was the wrong word? i meant something like "assuming" or "allowing for".
the post also described the noblest work as being one of God's creations. the goal was to say which you thought was the noblest.
Ah, then in that I'd be hard-pressed to maintain a discussion on the topic. It would be along the lines (for me at least) of discussing addition while assuming 2+2=3... ;)
ReplyDeleteI don't think so - you can see what there is in the world, you just don't believe that it's the result of God's work, you believe it just happened. but you can still comment on what you believe is the noblest of all the stuff you see around you.
ReplyDeleteThen that I have already done.
ReplyDeletebut the "rule" of the post was that it couldn't be something esoteric as that's not the kind of "work" that was discussed in the quote that was given.
ReplyDeletewe're looking for an item that's a noun and that is physical -- can be picked up, seen, whatever. "man" is a physical object. ... well, many physical objects. babies are also physical objects. intellect isn't something i can measure or view, etc.
Eh, then I say nothing. There is no one physical object that is more nobler than another.
ReplyDeletewhich i think gets back to the "what does it mean to be noble?" question.
ReplyDeleteI think noble can only be applied to the result of an action (a noble work) and that nobility comes from it being an intentional result that benefits greatly those affected without adversely affecting anybody.
ReplyDeleteso you can do a noble act but that doesn't mean you'll ever be a noble being?
ReplyDeleteThat's what I think, yeah. No person is more noble than another, but a person can perform a noble act.
ReplyDeletehmmm... a quick glance at dictionary.com gives me these definitions (amongst others):
ReplyDeletehaving high moral qualities
having or showing or indicative of high or elevated character
according to this, a person can certainly be noble. and I must say this goes very much with my understanding of the term - that it's to do with character. if a person performs a noble act, I'd say that's a result of their noble character.
I think that's backwards. A person does not start out as noble: nobility in that sense is transitory at best; i.e., they are noble when and after they perform a noble act (one of the results I mentioned previously). They weren't noble before, but were noble after the act. And that nobility is finite: the next act they perform that's not noble rather strips away that nobility since you are what you last did in that regard.
ReplyDeleteso you don't think that a person's character affects their actions?
ReplyDeleteI think it's the other way around: their character is the summation of their actions; i.e., "the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing". And since nobility is the result of a person's actions and not intrinsic to the person themselves, as I stated before, then nobility cannot be a part of the person himself; i.e., their character.
ReplyDeletei think it's circular. if i do noble actions it will lead to me having a noble character which will enable and encourage me toward more noble actions which will in turn affect and inform my character which will lead to more noble actions....
ReplyDeleteI disagree that it's circular, though. You acquire some level of nobility as the result of a noble act. While that might influence future noble acts, the noble act was itself the primal source; i.e., you were never noble before you performed a noble act.
ReplyDeletebut what would lead you to do the noble act in the first place if it's not some level of nobility? *breaks out into a rousing rendition of "it only takes a spark, to get a fire going..."*
ReplyDeleteThe intellect. You deliberate decide to perform a noble act, and as a result of that act you become noble.
ReplyDeleteQED. :D
i've never understood exactly what QED means and i've been too embarrassed to ask. one of my math professors used that ALL the time.
ReplyDeleteso... what would make your intellect push you to do something noble as opposed to doing something naughty or selfish?
QED - "quid erat demonstradum" == "thus, it is proven" IOW, by the course of the discussion, we've now proven the original premise by exploring it. :D
ReplyDeleteI don't think intellect necessarily pushes you to do anything. It's simply a tool that can be used to achieve a goal. A person may choose to do something for the betterment or detriment of others (the "noble" or the "naughty").
so, according to your understanding, what is it that causes one person to choose a "noble" act in the same circumstances that another person chooses to act to the detriment of others?
ReplyDelete(re-edited since this didn't seem clear after I posted)
ReplyDeleteFree will allows a person to make their choices, and I don't think anything "causes" someone to choose one thing or another. Choice is based on willingness and desire: desired outcome, willingness to put forth the effort required for that outcome, and the to willingness to accept that outcome based on the the effort.
I don't believe anything "causes" someone to choose one way or another. If that were the case, then the person would necessarily stop being responsible for their actions since they're now a puppet to causes the compel them to act. That's counter to free will.
okay, let me try and clarify what I meant...
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean that there is something outside of us that causes us to behave in a certain way. What I meant was: what is it in us that causes us to make certain choices? what is it about you that makes you choose to do A and not B? whatever that thing is, that's what I see as your character, your personality.
No, I did understand you as meaning that before, that the something was internal. My statement about something that causes us to act a certain removes our free will included something internal to ourselves as well.
ReplyDeleteBut, to be clear, I don't think anything about me other than the aforementioned desire for the result and willingness to commit to the actions needed to get that result (or settle for what happens otherwise) are what makes me choose A and not B.
okay, so the "cause" that I'm asking about is a desire and a willingness? and how come person A might have that desire and willingness and person B might not?
ReplyDeleteNow you're wading into the waters of Nature Vs. Nurture. And for that I don't think anybody has a definitive answer.
ReplyDeleteI can see why you think that's where I'm heading... but no, I didn't intend to drill down as far as that. What I'm trying to say is, there is an X which I call "character" but you might call something else - I'm trying to find out what you might call it - and this X is what makes you you and me me, it is what is behind a person's choices, a person's desires, a person's thoughts and feelings and reactions to situations etc etc. You are uniquely you - whether or not parts of that unique you are influenced by your genetic make-up and/or your life experiences is a whole 'nother question, but however it happened, however you came to be the person that you are, there is someone there who has a unique character and this character affects your choices. and my drilling efforts were an attempt to get at what your terminology might be for that.
ReplyDeleteI think this ventures into the same categorical error that Descartes made when he tries to separate self from the physical body. Your choices, your desires, your thoughts, etc are all "you". There's nothing "behind" them, they are everything that is "you".
ReplyDeleteso, you want to call it "everything that is you", that's fine by me - all I'm saying is, whatever you call it, your "you-ness" or whatever, it is different from one person to another and our choices depend on that. so when two people are faced with an identical situation, each of them makes a choice (consciously or not) as to how to behave depending not just on the circumstances but on what sort of "you" they are. or what sort of person they are.
ReplyDeletefor instance - my mum is a person who worries, it's just how she is, so when years ago I moved to a nice place near a river and sent her a postcard to show her the beautiful river, her immediate reaction was: I hope you don't live too near the river, there'd be danger of flooding. not everyone would react like that, so what is it that caused that reaction? it was something within her, it was a characteristic of her personality, it was part of her "you-ness", whatever you want to call it. she reacted the way my mum would react, not the way someone else would react to the same situation.
and the same goes for "noble" actions - two people standing in front of a house that's on fire with a woman outside wailing about her baby that's stuck inside, one man will say to himself: that's really awful but it would be crazy to go in there, must wait for the firemen to arrive; another man will run inside and try to rescue the baby. why? because they have different personalities. one has more "nobility" or courage or something in his bones than the other.
dang, 10 new comments?!!! i'll have to save this for tonight.
ReplyDelete:-P
And that uniqueness is due to all those different perspectives and experience that each of us experiences in life. And, to bring up Star Trek, there was a Star Trek novel or short story that touched on this. I can't remember which one it was: I think it was "Spock Must Die!", that had Spock split into two identical halves, like in the episode "Enemy Mine". One Spock separated from the other, and when McCoy asked one copy where the other would be, Spock said he didn't know. "Well, you must know! You're exactly the same!" was McCoy's answer. To which Spock said, "No, we became different the moment we saw events from different perspectives. And those differences grow as each of us builds on that." (all paraphrased)
ReplyDeleteThe point is, each of us sees things even slightly different and build our world view based on those slight differences. And, as in mathematics, over time those small differences in angle result in great magnitudes of differences in world views. And that's why two people with similar backgrounds can have vastly different responses to the same situation: because no two people have ever, or could ever, have the exact same world view.
OK, so person A chooses, for no reason whatsoever except that the idea popped into his head, to do something noble. And person B choose, also for no reason, to do something rotten. This is probably when they're wee little things because they're going to keep making choices, for no reason whatsoever except that that's what they happen to choose, until they start noticing repercussions or consequences or rewards or something as they're growing up. Then they start using their intellect to choose what they think will give them... something that they think is worth making a choice for. And since person A mostly chose good things and only occasionally chose bad things, person A will grow up to be a noble person who has made noble choices. And person B, who mostly starting out selecting the bad options, will end up being a bad person. Is that what you're saying, D?
ReplyDeleteI never said there was no reason for their choices. To the contrary, I said they choose based on their desires and willingness to put in the effort for their choices.
ReplyDeleteperson A will grow up to be a noble person who has made noble choices. And person B, who mostly starting out selecting the bad options, will end up being a bad person. Is that what you're saying, D?
No. I'm saying that B can be a noble person just as A can be noble. It depends on what their last action was when you looked at them. A could have spent the majority of his life doing great things, but if you see him stealing paperclips then he's not noble. And B could have been a scoundrel, but if you see him darting into busy traffic to save a toddler in the road, you'll think him noble.
Nobility is a transient, ephemeral state at best. It's always based on your last action.
what gives them a desire or willingness to put in a "good" or "bad" effort for their choices? Nobility is a transient, ephemeral state at best. It's always based on your last action.!!! so no one can ever really be noble. you're not looking at the "slope of their line" (their nobleness or non-nobleness) over their entire life time but at a specific, discrete point along that line (finding the derivative, yes?).
ReplyDeletePrevious experiences and how they've incorporated and reconciled those experiences. A person's desires and all change with each event in their life and their state and a myriad other things.
ReplyDelete!!! so no one can ever really be noble. you're not looking at the "slope of their line" (their nobleness or non-nobleness) over their entire life time but at a specific, discrete point along that line (finding the derivative, yes?).
More or less, yes, exactly. Nobody is inherently noble: nobility is a state at a point in time.
but that first time?
ReplyDeleteWhen you figure out how to interview a newborn, let me know. ;)
ReplyDeletei'm always amazed when they do tests on newborns and are able to determine things, like that the prefer sharp contrasts in color vs. blended colors.
ReplyDeletei'm also always amazed at how much the care of a baby in the first year can affect it later in life. a friend's daughter was adopted at 7 months out of a really bad situation and now she's 15 and they're still dealing with the very serious repercussions of what was done to her before they ever took custody of her. her present day choices seem pretty clearly affected by her birth parents choices before she'd turned 1.
i'd go so far as to say that she was trained from infancy to make ignoble choices.
I met someone once who had traumatic memories from her birth, which had been unconsciously affecting her behaviour as an adult.
ReplyDelete