Consider this; Clearly, people who think Christianity is a good thing and people who think it’s a bad thing are using two different definitions.Something I alluded to before but didn’t fully develop: Clearly, people who think patriotism is a good thing and people who think it’s a bad thing are using two different definitions.
It doesn’t matter how it is defined, people can and will think what they want, even about those ideals you cherish. That you have trouble with this suggests to me a depth of emotional attachment you have to this word, and little more. Yes, I define it with ideals, but it still has a disgusting nationalist element about it. I prefer to be cosmopolitan.I’d like to know why?
I don’t ‘use’ this definition, I merely challenge you to show why Vonnegut cannot hold a valid definition, and why it must be true the only possible way to logically derive an understanding must equate it to ideals when in fact this has historically not always been the case.I can’t ask Vonnegut, but I can ask you: why is it that you choose to use this definition?
You mean a total stranger? The statement would mean nothing conclusive except to suggest this individual has an emotional attachment to something they likely feel is greater than self and noble. As such, it is likely safe to assume they are emotional 'clubbers’.When someone tells you “I am a patriot,” what do you assume that person means?
At no time would I assume that.Do you assume s/he is using your definition?
It tells me meanings abound.Does it tell you anything that the definition you choose conflicts with the definition an avowed patriot probably uses?
In the sense that patriotism involves the love word, it is emotional and personal, yes.Thinking about it more, perhaps like love itself, patriotism is something only a patriot understands?
Last edited by a moderator: