If you glance down through some of my past posts, I know hard to do today, you'll see that I'm using the premise of honor as self actualization.
I stated before that honor is not specifically definable, only aspects of it are. That is why I have emphasised self actualization as honor, as it is the closest to what honor means.
Each of these leaders was the best at what he did, except maybe Ivan, he is a bad example on my part. I was trying to think up Stalin's name at the time, but was having a mental block, so I dropped back one tyrant.
But, Mao was and is widely loved by his people, even though he was ruthless. Gengis had popular support rivaling Bill Clinton, as his whole population was in the army, not just a professional elite.
And likewise, Alexander was heralded as the best a Greek could be for generations after his death(murder? no one will ever know).
Now, Ivan was a bad guy. Dropping puppies off the Kremlin wall is a good sign of a sadist in the making. But, Stalin on the other had was widely loved by the proletarians, and why not. He gave them land, mules, and vodka! All stolen from the people residing in mass graves on the other side of the hill. But, the people felt he was the best a Russian could become.
Honor comes from others, and is what you get for building something, be it a company, country or foundation. Compassion is a blind emotion, something we all feel when we see a little girl cry.
That is why honor (self actualization) is more important than compassion. You have to earn honor. And, you are right, people will fight and die to defend their honor. That is why compassion is less important, almost nobody will die to defend their compassion. The irony is, it is honorable to die for compassion. (The firefighter who dies trying to save a little girl, even though he know that the flow is unstable. He has to do it, for it is the honorable thing.) |
