Interesting that I listened to a sermon recently that talked about the fruit of the Spirit and how it is a whole, not a segmented framework. Until we see that you cannot truly be patient if you have no kindness in your heart or be peaceful if you have no love, we can't claim to know the fruit of the Spirit. We've really become a world that deals in parts rather than in the whole.
Could it also be related to how we use words and language nowadays? The dwindling use of words as they were meant to be used? For example, rather than call foolish what is directly (in the case of the example you gave), we attach adjectives and call it "foolish courage," thus stripping courage of its initial meaning and canceling out its good while painting foolishness as something that has some semblance of goodness.
I get what you mean. And I think a mutual relationship exists between our thoughts and our language such that our language shapes our thoughts even though it also reflects it. There are things truly that we will stop being able to conceive properly if we find how to excise the language for them from our vocabulary.
In the same vein, while terms like "foolish courage" might be beautiful semantic footwork, it might not be all harmless.
Objectivism's focus on rational self-interest leads to the consequence that every virtue must further the agent's own interests. Nothing is valued intrinsically, but is only valued to how it furthers the agent's goals.
Interesting that I listened to a sermon recently that talked about the fruit of the Spirit and how it is a whole, not a segmented framework. Until we see that you cannot truly be patient if you have no kindness in your heart or be peaceful if you have no love, we can't claim to know the fruit of the Spirit. We've really become a world that deals in parts rather than in the whole.
This was a good read as usual 👏 Been a while.
Could it also be related to how we use words and language nowadays? The dwindling use of words as they were meant to be used? For example, rather than call foolish what is directly (in the case of the example you gave), we attach adjectives and call it "foolish courage," thus stripping courage of its initial meaning and canceling out its good while painting foolishness as something that has some semblance of goodness.
I don't know if you get what I mean
I get what you mean. And I think a mutual relationship exists between our thoughts and our language such that our language shapes our thoughts even though it also reflects it. There are things truly that we will stop being able to conceive properly if we find how to excise the language for them from our vocabulary.
In the same vein, while terms like "foolish courage" might be beautiful semantic footwork, it might not be all harmless.
The reason for all of this, to simplify, is that post-modernism and Objectivism won out as the predominant philosophies of our time.
Post-modernism I can see. Objectivism I can't. Clarify if it isn't much trouble.
Objectivism's focus on rational self-interest leads to the consequence that every virtue must further the agent's own interests. Nothing is valued intrinsically, but is only valued to how it furthers the agent's goals.