The Shard of Weakness

[Fanghur Rahl he/him]

14 hours ago, Toaster Retribution said:

I feel like I am probably starting an argument that I will lose, but Honor is pretty relative as well, I think. 

Not in terms of its definition. Something either is or is not honorable, but it can’t be both from different ‘frames of reference’. Not like ‘weak’ can. ‘Honor’ does in fact have an objective definition.

[Lidolas he/him]

4 hours ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

Not in terms of its definition. Something either is or is not honorable, but it can’t be both from different ‘frames of reference’. Not like ‘weak’ can. ‘Honor’ does in fact have an objective definition.

In some sense, yes, but in others not so much.  Honor as in fulfilling obligations and keeping commitments is fairly objective.  But Honor can also be holding something in high-esteem or having privilege. And those could be very subjective.  Who do you hold in high-esteem or give privilege to, and why?

[Fanghur Rahl he/him]

6 minutes ago, Lidolas said:

In some sense, yes, but in others not so much.  Honor as in fulfilling obligations and keeping commitments is fairly objective.  But Honor can also be holding something in high-esteem or having privilege. And those could be very subjective.  Who do you hold in high-esteem or give privilege to, and why?

Subjective does not necessarily imply relative though. Sure different people might define ‘honour’ differently, but as long as they are consistent with how they use the term, it remains objective, and someone/something either is or is not honourable by that definition. However, the concept of ‘weakness’ is different in that the statement “X is weak” is meaningless unless viewed in relation to something else, Y. I am weak compared to a weight-lifter but not weak compared to a toddler.

[Jace21 he/him]

5 hours ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

Subjective does not necessarily imply relative though. Sure different people might define ‘honour’ differently, but as long as they are consistent with how they use the term, it remains objective, and someone/something either is or is not honourable by that definition. However, the concept of ‘weakness’ is different in that the statement “X is weak” is meaningless unless viewed in relation to something else, Y. I am weak compared to a weight-lifter but not weak compared to a toddler.

Which is itself dependent on how you define weak. All Shards, including Weakness if it were one, require a frame of reference for context. Weakness with regards to physical strength is only relative if you want to compare. Otherwise you could define "weak" as "can't do 100 push ups" and you the term is no longer relative.

Devotion is no more or less relatice than "Weakness" and we already know thats a Shard.

It is the definition of the intent that is important, as much for Weakness as for Honour. Like I said I have other issues with Weakness as a Shard, this isn't one of them.

[Fanghur Rahl he/him]

2 hours ago, Jace21 said:

Which is itself dependent on how you define weak. All Shards, including Weakness if it were one, require a frame of reference for context. Weakness with regards to physical strength is only relative if you want to compare. Otherwise you could define "weak" as "can't do 100 push ups" and you the term is no longer relative.

Devotion is no more or less relatice than "Weakness" and we already know thats a Shard.

It is the definition of the intent that is important, as much for Weakness as for Honour. Like I said I have other issues with Weakness as a Shard, this isn't one of them.

Well, sure. But then again, I can walk through walls, which I hereby define as synonymous with ‘doorways’. Yes, ultimately all definitions are subjective and arbitrary, but if we’re gonna allow for infinite variation in what any given word means, communication simply breaks down.

[Jace21 he/him]

28 minutes ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

Well, sure. But then again, I can walk through walls, which I hereby define as synonymous with ‘doorways’. Yes, ultimately all definitions are subjective and arbitrary, but if we’re gonna allow for infinite variation in what any given word means, communication simply breaks down.

Sure, much like how any argument can be taken to an extreme and made to seem ridiculous, Reductio Ad Absurdam.

But the definitions, relative or not, of Weakness, Honour and Devotion are hardly in the same league as "Doorways".

Either way this is a tangent that doesn't change anything either way, I don't think Weakness is Shard for previously stated reasons.

[Steel Inquisitive he/him]

5 minutes ago, Jace21 said:

Sure, much like how any argument can be taken to an extreme and made to seem ridiculous, Reductio Ad Absurdam.

But the definitions, relative or not, of Weakness, Honour and Devotion are hardly in the same league as "Doorways".

Either way this is a tangent that doesn't change anything either way, I don't think Weakness is Shard for previously stated reasons.

Agreed!

I don't think weakness will be a Shard, but do believe it could be a Shard.

[Fanghur Rahl he/him]

15 hours ago, Jace21 said:

Sure, much like how any argument can be taken to an extreme and made to seem ridiculous, Reductio Ad Absurdam.

But the definitions, relative or not, of Weakness, Honour and Devotion are hardly in the same league as "Doorways".

Either way this is a tangent that doesn't change anything either way, I don't think Weakness is Shard for previously stated reasons.

Sorry, that ended up sounding a lot more flippant than I intended it to. My point was simply that I can’t imagine any way of defining the concept of ‘weakness’ such that it isn’t relational without essentially just abandoning the term altogether.

[Jace21 he/him]

2 hours ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

Sorry, that ended up sounding a lot more flippant than I intended it to. My point was simply that I can’t imagine any way of defining the concept of ‘weakness’ such that it isn’t relational without essentially just abandoning the term altogether.

No worries

I get what you're saying, i just disagree. Personally when I think of something as weak, I dont see it as relative to anything else, I see it as whether or not an arbitrary bench mark has been met.

At the end of the day though, I still dont think Weakness fits with the rest of the Shards as one of Adonalsium's traits, but i could be wrong. Guess we'll have to RAFO 

[AnnaSmith she/her]

Agree!