🇳🇱
In a world of polarized extremes, be the moderate and reasonable middle ground... Too much of anything is a bad thing.
@freemo I disagree with this formulation. Coddling / enabling isn’t “more” loving than tough love. The same can be said for many of these.
@Cosmic tough love doesnt even appear on the chart, so not sure how you implied that.
@freemo where would you put it?
@Cosmic I wouldnt put it anywhere on the chart, tough love is a type of love, not a quantity of love.
So really your talking about two different properties, one is love, which is already represented, the other would be toughness.
@freemo my point is:
Enablement and Tough Love are both types of love.
Someone’s love can be at the 100% mark. That could be expressed as enablement, tough love, or any other type of love.
This chart implies that 100% love is enablement. It is not. If anything, enablement is often too similar to selfishness.
@Cosmic You are both making and missing the point here.
The love spectrum is not saying enablement is "a lot of love", it is a scale of how much you "give" to a person without expecting anything in return... if you do very little giving no matter how much they "earn" it then it is selfish. If you give someone a lot even when they dont "earn" it, or worse yet have acted poorly, that is enablement. However if you give just the right amount, when it is appropriate, then this is love.
As you point out toughness is a **type** of love, it isnt a quantity of virtue. a person who gives "tough love" could be giving any amount of love. You may give very little but do so in a "tough" way without coddling and its a little bit or much.
@freemo maybe there needs to be a new diagram with 10 paragraphs of explanatory text
@Cosmic Not really, I think it is pretty straight forward to anyone who has studied the historic/literary ideas of virtues. They are by definition elementary/atomic/fundemental properties. For example the 7 virtues from the literature of knights and nobles from the middle ages.
@freemo Similarly to @Cosmic I'm confused by some triples. The one most obviously weird to me is the one that implies that diligence is opposite of laziness: I can very easily imagine a lazy (doesn't want to do work) but diligent (only does work in a very correct fashion) person: in fact, I think that a lazy diligent person appears more lazy by virtue of being diligent.
@123abceng @freemo @robryk wait how did mRNA become relevant here… get JnJab, Jabson and Jabson, one poke and you’re done (until it’s two pokes but at least it’s not three).
@123abceng definitely not an option when you’re on a movie set with Alec Baldwin.
Thank you for being smarter, than @freemo. The sense of humor also was deeply appreciated... Really. Thanks, man.
@robryk
I think youa re using a different (though valid) definition than the author.
I think the definition the author is using here for diligence is "characterized by steady, earnest, and energetic effort"
In other words its better to work at a steady pace with a healthy amount of effort "diligence) then it is to constantly work to excess all the time (workahlism) or to not work at all (slothful).
The definition of diligence you were using however is more this one, which is a separate but equally correct one: "having or showing care and conscientiousness in one's work or duties." Which isnt really about effort or pace but rather the quality of the work.
@Cosmic