Timeline for Why did Worf pass up opportunities to become a key political leader in the Klingon Empire given that honour was so important to him as a Klingon?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 19, 2017 at 3:28 | comment | added | ThePopMachine | @user486818, honestly, it's not your definition of honour that matters, and if you've watched any TNG/DS9-era Star Trek, then I don't know why you use that definition. It's pretty clear that Klingon honour is better represented by a concept like integrity not something like power or prestige as you seem to do. | |
| Mar 19, 2017 at 0:15 | vote | accept | user486818 | ||
| Mar 19, 2017 at 0:15 | vote | accept | user486818 | ||
| Mar 19, 2017 at 0:15 | |||||
| Mar 18, 2017 at 19:29 | answer | added | James Forde | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 16:34 | answer | added | n00dles | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 12:53 | comment | added | Paul D. Waite | @user486818: plus there’s the moral one about doing what’s right (which I guess can apply to how highly both you and other people think of you), which I think is what Worf seems to mean when he uses the term. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 12:52 | comment | added | Paul D. Waite | @Lorendiac: absolutely. I think (with no evidence) that, like the Prime Directive, the writers have deliberately never explicitly defined Klingon honour, to avoid putting themselves and future writers in a creative straightjacket. I also think that Klingon politicians (Gowron, specifically) deliberately keep the concept vague, the better to gain and consolidate power. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 12:52 | comment | added | user486818 | Agree. My definition of honour is how highly other people view the person. Other definition of honour may be how highly the person views himself - self-respect. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 12:49 | comment | added | Paul D. Waite | @user486818: again, we’re just arguing about the definition of “honour”. According to Dictionary.com, there’s more than one. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 12:36 | comment | added | Lorendiac | @user486818 -- "most humans" would say "higher salary equals more honor"? Where do you get that? I've heard lots of my fellow humans voice dark suspicions about the ethics ("honor" by another name) of billionaire tycoons, high-paid lawyers, Wall Street traders, and the sort of politicians who get elected President of the United States (and I don't just mean from one particular party). There seem to be many people who feel that "if a man has huge success in worldly terms, it's probably a sign that he never lets a 'moral code' interfere with his desire to grab as much money & power as possible!" | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 12:32 | comment | added | Lorendiac | @Paul D. Waite -- I didn't know if "Klingon honor" had ever been explicitly defined. You make it sound like political rhetoric that's deliberately kept as vague as possible -- such as when a politician, quizzed on the burning issues of the day, says: "If elected, I will support the policy initiatives that will make our country great!" and leaves it at that, because he is hoping everyone in his audience will "hear this" as: "He favors my policy ideas! Since mine are obviously the only ones that can achieve that worthy goal, if enough legislators will line up to support them!" | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 12:22 | comment | added | user486818 | @Paul D. Waite, The nobler humans with higher calling would think the way you did. However, most humans would equate having a higher salary job as having more honour. Being a CEO brings more honour to the family than being a manager. Suppose I am a manager and my parents said what you just said to their friends whose son is a CEO, it will sound like sour grapes. Most humans would equate getting promoted to CEO as a badge of honour. Those who reject the opportunity may be viewed as someone who lacks confidence or has no ambition and will not amount to much. That's dishonour. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 12:16 | comment | added | Paul D. Waite | @user486818: “ I am using what I understand of humans today in the modern world context. If a person can get promoted to become a CEO rather than remain as a manager, wouldn't that be more honourable?” Not without further context. Perhaps as a manager, they can make life better for the people they manage; whilst as CEO, they’d be bound to make their shareholders richer at the expense of everyone else. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 12:14 | comment | added | Paul D. Waite | @Lorendiac: Klingon “honour” is pretty much a Rorschach test for Trekkies. It’s never defined, so everyone can decide them for themselves what it means, and then be amazed that one particular Klingon isn’t behaving in accordance with their conception of it. “This is illogical in the context of the Klingon culture.” Apparently this conception also mixes in a lil’ Vulcan philosophy for added flavour! | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 2:22 | comment | added | ApproachingDarknessFish | In my opinion, your conflation between honor, prestige, and face, is nonsensical. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 2:04 | history | edited | user486818 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Mar 18, 2017 at 2:01 | comment | added | user486818 | @Lorendiac, fair statement. I am using what I understand of humans today in the modern world context. If a person can get promoted to become a CEO rather than remain as a manager, wouldn't that be more honourable? If that person is very concerned about "face", then the higher the position, the more "face" he gains. I guess Klingons care more about having face than the Federation since they care so much more about honour. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 1:55 | comment | added | Lorendiac | @user486818 -- you seem to be assuming that "honorable," for a Klingon (or at least for Worf, who grew up among humans) must mean: "Grab all the political power you can get, as fast as possible! Any other course of action is dishonorable!" That's one heck of a sweeping assumption. If you can quote canonical dialogue which had Worf (or other Klingons) saying exactly that about their cultural definition of "honor," it would strengthen your case. But as it now stands, I think it just comes down to different people (and cultures), having very different definitions of "honorable." | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 1:23 | comment | added | Z. Cochrane | He was full Klingon by blood but very much at home in the Federation in spirit. His Klingon behavior was over-compensating for his being raised by humans. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 1:08 | comment | added | Integration | I think that could be argued both ways though. Was he more Human or more Klingon? He was half Human half Klingon iirc. Although I could be incorrect in that last point. It's been a while. Please correct if I am wrong. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 1:07 | comment | added | user486818 | True. However, it can be argued that he was definitely more Klingon than human in his behavior and thinking. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 1:06 | comment | added | Integration | Was the Klingon empire really his people? He grew up on Earth iirc. The struggles for his identity is pretty much his story arc. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 1:00 | history | edited | user486818 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Mar 18, 2017 at 0:55 | history | asked | user486818 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |