Happy Life
Auto-translated
Is this some kind of Zaum?
- My surname, - she replied to the organizer. - My name is Ayano.
- As for the subject of conversation — "a sense of duty." Or "responsibility for a common cause," if such a definition is more to your liking, - she paused for a few seconds to let the answer sink in. - I will explain. First of all, the context should be established. From a legal point of view, Lamaris-san's answer is self-evident and not subject to discussion. Take the issue of succession — a "protégé" who does not belong to a specific dynasty, let's call it that, possesses no rights to it, and no matter how beloved by the people they may be, or even with powerful support from the nobility, under a monarchy, without situational inputs, they will never gain power, because it contradicts its principles. Should this happen regardless, it would signify a coup — even if completely bloodless — and the erosion of institutions. The same applies to issues of civil inheritance in the absence of a specifically contradicting will from the deceased; civil and divine laws regarding marriage, and much more. Therefore, I believe we are conducting this discussion specifically within the framework of abstract philosophy on an emotional-spiritual level. In that case, Morozny-sama's position, while certainly having argumentative ground, seems to me insufficiently focused.
- I will start from the end — the spiritual closeness of one person to another can take different forms and be justified by any number of factors. In the church traditions of monotheism, for example, members of the clergy may be designated as brother, sister, father, or mother. Does this have the same underlying basis we are talking about? In fact, no; such "regalia" is dictated by tradition and certain general provisions according to which "all people are brothers" by one religious principle or another, and you can expect that you will be heard and guided to the path of truth, with the secrecy of confession preserved. You may feel positive emotions toward this clergyman, which would reinforce such a relationship, but what if you are seeing him for the first time? To you, he is still "father," but only because etiquette requires it. Regarding, for example, the spiritual closeness of a man and a woman — if there is a romantic subtext, they are lovers; in its absence — close friends. To unjustifiably attribute the status of "kin" to such a bond is to blur the very concept. Let's go further and take, for example, the friendship of two men. Suppose they are close enough in character and have been through enough together to call each other "brother." Now, you will never see such a picture in the "Golden Hole" among wealthy acquaintances, nor in the "archive" among the intellectual regulars enjoying each other's pleasant company. But you will find it in any Knight order, or in a tight-knit company of veteran mercenaries, and even in some gang of bandit scum — that is, in a close-knit collective engaged in responsible tasks, often lethally dangerous. Why is this? Because in these cases, they are bound by a common cause to which they have dedicated their whole selves. When you risk your own life and people just like you risk theirs shoulder to shoulder, and you have known them for a long time, you feel that you are responsible for them — and vice versa. You eat from the same pot, cover each other's backs, and work together, eventually beginning to understand each other without words. Naturally, in a matter of life and death, you develop a sympathy for your comrades; they become "brothers-in-arms" to you.
But moving away from the "military" example, let's return to the "man and woman." As I have already said, if there is a romantic subtext, they are lovers, and nothing more. From a legal position again, upon the fact of marriage, they can also be called a family. But personally, I refuse to recognize this, except in those cases where, according to certain religious views, such a thing is considered "family" in the eyes of the gods — I have no objection to that; in any other case, it is still just a pair of lovers who have legalized their status in the laws of men, and nothing more. I will call it a family only when they have a child — that is, direct offspring, incapable of self-sufficiency; a soul that they brought into the material world and for which they are responsible. In other words, when this pair is united by a common cause, and not by the mutual satisfaction of passions.
- Regarding social ties and the first example, - the priestess added, almost forgetting. - I will be brief; from the above, my position should be clear. A social tie includes your relationship with a known rice merchant at the bazaar, but you would not call her family. But if we take, for example, a butler who has spent a century of his life in service to his "family," or your example of an apprentice and his master who left no heir, or even a samurai or shinobi whom you picked up twenty years ago as a boy on the battlefield, giving him shelter and food, and who is today ready to cut open his belly at a single word from his master — in all these cases, your kinship attitude toward a non-blood relative would be justified, and all this is similarly brought under the common denominator of duty, responsibility, and belonging to a common cause. That is my answer, - the nihonka gave a polite nod, thanking them for their attention.
- My surname, - she replied to the organizer. - My name is Ayano.
- As for the subject of conversation — "a sense of duty." Or "responsibility for a common cause," if such a definition is more to your liking, - she paused for a few seconds to let the answer sink in. - I will explain. First of all, the context should be established. From a legal point of view, Lamaris-san's answer is self-evident and not subject to discussion. Take the issue of succession — a "protégé" who does not belong to a specific dynasty, let's call it that, possesses no rights to it, and no matter how beloved by the people they may be, or even with powerful support from the nobility, under a monarchy, without situational inputs, they will never gain power, because it contradicts its principles. Should this happen regardless, it would signify a coup — even if completely bloodless — and the erosion of institutions. The same applies to issues of civil inheritance in the absence of a specifically contradicting will from the deceased; civil and divine laws regarding marriage, and much more. Therefore, I believe we are conducting this discussion specifically within the framework of abstract philosophy on an emotional-spiritual level. In that case, Morozny-sama's position, while certainly having argumentative ground, seems to me insufficiently focused.
- I will start from the end — the spiritual closeness of one person to another can take different forms and be justified by any number of factors. In the church traditions of monotheism, for example, members of the clergy may be designated as brother, sister, father, or mother. Does this have the same underlying basis we are talking about? In fact, no; such "regalia" is dictated by tradition and certain general provisions according to which "all people are brothers" by one religious principle or another, and you can expect that you will be heard and guided to the path of truth, with the secrecy of confession preserved. You may feel positive emotions toward this clergyman, which would reinforce such a relationship, but what if you are seeing him for the first time? To you, he is still "father," but only because etiquette requires it. Regarding, for example, the spiritual closeness of a man and a woman — if there is a romantic subtext, they are lovers; in its absence — close friends. To unjustifiably attribute the status of "kin" to such a bond is to blur the very concept. Let's go further and take, for example, the friendship of two men. Suppose they are close enough in character and have been through enough together to call each other "brother." Now, you will never see such a picture in the "Golden Hole" among wealthy acquaintances, nor in the "archive" among the intellectual regulars enjoying each other's pleasant company. But you will find it in any Knight order, or in a tight-knit company of veteran mercenaries, and even in some gang of bandit scum — that is, in a close-knit collective engaged in responsible tasks, often lethally dangerous. Why is this? Because in these cases, they are bound by a common cause to which they have dedicated their whole selves. When you risk your own life and people just like you risk theirs shoulder to shoulder, and you have known them for a long time, you feel that you are responsible for them — and vice versa. You eat from the same pot, cover each other's backs, and work together, eventually beginning to understand each other without words. Naturally, in a matter of life and death, you develop a sympathy for your comrades; they become "brothers-in-arms" to you.
But moving away from the "military" example, let's return to the "man and woman." As I have already said, if there is a romantic subtext, they are lovers, and nothing more. From a legal position again, upon the fact of marriage, they can also be called a family. But personally, I refuse to recognize this, except in those cases where, according to certain religious views, such a thing is considered "family" in the eyes of the gods — I have no objection to that; in any other case, it is still just a pair of lovers who have legalized their status in the laws of men, and nothing more. I will call it a family only when they have a child — that is, direct offspring, incapable of self-sufficiency; a soul that they brought into the material world and for which they are responsible. In other words, when this pair is united by a common cause, and not by the mutual satisfaction of passions.
- Regarding social ties and the first example, - the priestess added, almost forgetting. - I will be brief; from the above, my position should be clear. A social tie includes your relationship with a known rice merchant at the bazaar, but you would not call her family. But if we take, for example, a butler who has spent a century of his life in service to his "family," or your example of an apprentice and his master who left no heir, or even a samurai or shinobi whom you picked up twenty years ago as a boy on the battlefield, giving him shelter and food, and who is today ready to cut open his belly at a single word from his master — in all these cases, your kinship attitude toward a non-blood relative would be justified, and all this is similarly brought under the common denominator of duty, responsibility, and belonging to a common cause. That is my answer, - the nihonka gave a polite nod, thanking them for their attention.
My sword, my trusted ally, unphased by my aspect.
