Kolridg
Junior Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2016
- Member Type
- Native Language
- Russian
- Home Country
- Russian Federation
- Current Location
- Russian Federation
Should I understand "integrity" in the following text as a "morality", or if I should understand it as an "honesty"? I wonder because I have looked it in practically all dictionaries today, and most of them construe it in two general ways, as honesty and as things like following a morality, having good moral qualities, like here in Dictionary.com:
1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull.
I consider that if I construe it as a "morality" then the text have quite a reasonable sense: if people have integrity (have morality) then they are not concerned with drugs, nationalism etc. I talked to some people (non-native English speakers in fact) today about this text and they said that they took it as "honesty" and it doesn't have "morality" meaning at all . Yes, "honesty" suits this text as well, but not as much as "morality", so far as I am concerned. In case of "morality" we are doing a kind of summarising of all those things "not taking drugs, not being nationalist, and so on" in the end of the list, calling all of them with one single word, which looks much more reasonable.
Text:
Ojai 1982, 1st Q&A meeting (J. Krishnamurti)
"Society now demands engineers, scientists, businessmen, computer experts, architects, builders of roads, engineers - society demands that. So there lies the money, and all the rest of it. If the society demanded a totally different type of group of people - you are following? - that is, a group of people who are not concerned with nationalism, with violence, with drugs, alcohol, all those things, but are deeply integrated, have integrity - you follow? - will society demand such a people? Obviously not."
P.S. "Deeply integrated" - those people who live and work together as one, in harmony rather than in the conflict? I guess this meaning has nothing to do with the meaning in question, though the word has the same root. He must have used words with similar root (verb and noun) to express different things in the same sentence, in my opinion.
1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull.
I consider that if I construe it as a "morality" then the text have quite a reasonable sense: if people have integrity (have morality) then they are not concerned with drugs, nationalism etc. I talked to some people (non-native English speakers in fact) today about this text and they said that they took it as "honesty" and it doesn't have "morality" meaning at all . Yes, "honesty" suits this text as well, but not as much as "morality", so far as I am concerned. In case of "morality" we are doing a kind of summarising of all those things "not taking drugs, not being nationalist, and so on" in the end of the list, calling all of them with one single word, which looks much more reasonable.
Text:
Ojai 1982, 1st Q&A meeting (J. Krishnamurti)
"Society now demands engineers, scientists, businessmen, computer experts, architects, builders of roads, engineers - society demands that. So there lies the money, and all the rest of it. If the society demanded a totally different type of group of people - you are following? - that is, a group of people who are not concerned with nationalism, with violence, with drugs, alcohol, all those things, but are deeply integrated, have integrity - you follow? - will society demand such a people? Obviously not."
P.S. "Deeply integrated" - those people who live and work together as one, in harmony rather than in the conflict? I guess this meaning has nothing to do with the meaning in question, though the word has the same root. He must have used words with similar root (verb and noun) to express different things in the same sentence, in my opinion.
Last edited: