Humility: Good or Bad?

[james03]

He clearly states that the mind is explained by the brain and that the brain is physical, so consciousness is something physical.

Did you even pay attention to the video?  It was a waste of my time.  He explains how images enter the brain and are encoded there.  He then says "we are making progress" on understanding conciousness and ........well that's it.  ZERO explanation on intentionality from a materialist understanding.  None, zip, nada.

[rbjmartin]

When I tell you that I prefer the moderns, I am not saying they are the only philosophers worth reading, or that they are the only ones that are correct, I was simply telling you whom I enjoy reading.  I wasn't trying to be argumentative.  I enjoy reading Dostoyevsky, that doesn't mean that I hate Dickens.  I was merely mentioning whom I enjoy reading, don't take anymore into the statement than that,

But you used your "preference for the moderns" as a means of deflecting my suggestion that you read the ancients, a suggestion I made NOT as a means of personal enjoyment (which seems to be the basis of your philosophical preferences) but as a means of arriving at truth via reasoning.

If you just want to be trapped in your own pleasures and enjoyments, fine, that's your choice. It's a prison of your own making. But don't pretend to care about truth, and don't pretend to care about freedom (which can only come from an acknowledgement of truth). Truth always costs something. It requires that we conform our minds to reality and surrender our petty preferences. Enjoyment and pleasure are not the arbiters of truth.

[BigMelvin]

Louis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

Let's start by clarifying terms.  What do you mean by "bad"?  Probably you should also supply definitions for pride and humility as well as what "good" means.  The discussion can be worthwhile if I know we are all submitting to the same understanding of the language used.

Excellent point.  A thing is bad in so far as it does not advance man in his quest for survival.  Pride is the joy one takes in achieving one's own moral perfection.  Humility is self-abasement, it is to see no value in one's own self.  The humble man says 'I am no good, and I do not intend on improving'.  Clearly y'all are using the term differently.

Hello Mr Flyboy and all the other contributors. Big Melvin here, nice to see you all. I have only just started reading this thread and would like to post as I read it, so I might be stating what is by now obvious (or indeed what has now been refuted!). So please excuse me if I duplicate.

Firstly, four points with respect to the above. Humility does advance man in his quest for survival, and indeed is the ultimate foundation of him being able to survive, providing we understand survival as eternal survival. This is because the theological virtue of charity - by which the just live eternally - is received in the soul who acknowledges his dependence on his Creator and lives accordingly.

Secondly, the moral perfection of the proud is not perfection at all, since without humility before God the acts of the proud lack reference to their final end and thus are not properly virtuous or indeed moral. Since the proud man acts with himself as end (Kant!), his acts are not performed in virtue but in vice, and are not moral but immoral.

Thirdly, humility is indeed to see no value in oneself if one is understood as self-sufficient, but to see an incredible value in oneself - and in one's neighbour - when understood as a creature of God.

ANd finally, the humble man indeed says I am no good, since I can do nothing of myself, but I do intend on improving since I trust in the infinite providence of God to lead me to perfection. So, conversely, it is only the truly humble person who genuinely intends improving, since it is she alone who recognises her weakness and nothingness and thus relies on the power of God.

I look forward to reading the rest of the thread, thank you!

[james03]

On the temporal level, pride, as properly defined on this Catholic forum, is evil.  A proud leader is no leader at all. Every great leader I have known has been humble and magnanimous.  Every one.

[BigMelvin]

What would be a better method?

Prayer. There is a being who is infinitely beyond our comprehension, who is, moreover, our creator. We are like those figures who spin around and hammer the bells on those old clocks in European town squares, and God is the clockmaker. If He doesn't tell us what to do, then we have no way of knowing.

Prayer is speaking to God. The amazing thing, beyond all our hopes or dreams or expectations is that God is willing to communicate with us. When He created us and provided us with all of our various faculties like our organs and our intellect and our memory, He also provided us with the most important faculty of all, the ability to pray. We have the ability to communicate with our Creator.

We are like one of those black megaliths in "2001: A Space Oddysey" which has been launched into the universe, but built into it is a transmitter so that it can communicate across the reaches of space with its Creator. And one day you trigger it and make contact. Jody Foster is trying to make "Contact" with aliens, but I can make contact right this minute with the Creator of those aliens, assuming they exist.

The 2 realities that prevent me from succeeding at figuring out the meaning of my life do not apply to God. He has infinite wisdom and infinite time. He is willing to be a parent to me if I am willing to be a child to Him and accept His authority (as we discussed on the other thread). If I do, then He will educate me and draw me out of my ignorance and misery, but if I refuse, then I kill time in my pointless existence until I die.

I have tried prayer, with a lot of effort, all I heard was my own inner thought.  Since you talk about knowing, how can I know there is a God at all?

I am being a little presumptious here, but if your prayer began with the insistence that pride is better than and more realistic than humility, then it is little wonder all you found was yourself. All the Saints begin prayer with the assumption of our littleness before God, and the great truth that we owe everything to God. "The prayer of him that humbleth himself shall pierce the clouds" (Sirach 35:21)

And secondly, the Catholic faith of the Ages, commited by Christ to the Apostles, has always known that there are two ways of knowing that there is a God at all. One is through the use of natural reason, involving the axioms of non-contradiction, causality, and the intelligibility of being, and the other through the infused knowledge of faith. Faith is a theological virtue (or habit, a sort of modification) of the soul which elevates the knowledge of man above things known naturally so as to give him knowledge of things ordinarily beyond him. This is the Catholic principle of the supernatural, by which we know dimly the Holy Trinity and believe in the redemption in Christ and in many other wonderful things. Without supernatural knowledge we are like the fool that points at the sky and sees only his finger.

[BigMelvin]

GUDC

As mentioned earlier, I have studied the five ways of Aquinas and I find them insufficient.  I find the contingency argument to be the weakest.  Just because a thing is contingent does not necessarily mean that something created it.  A contingent being could very well have come about by chance.

I am sure I will be stating something that someone else has said, but as I understand it the contingency argument proves a necessary being, on whom all contingent beings depend. It seems to me that it is in subsequent questions that the issue of creation is dealt with. Did you study St Thomas's five ways in isolation, or in the context of his background in Aristotelian physics (philosophy of nature) and metaphysics?

[BigMelvin]

I'll explain further.  A contingent thing didn't have to exist, it isn't necessary.  But to equate contingency with a need for a creator seems to be assuming that there is some purpose to existence and that existence is objectively better than non-existence.  I don't think that's the case.  Existence is subjectively better from our point of view only.

Yes, I can and do believe this.  It's no different really than rolling the dice.

and do die come from chance?!?!

[Probius]

When I tell you that I prefer the moderns, I am not saying they are the only philosophers worth reading, or that they are the only ones that are correct, I was simply telling you whom I enjoy reading.  I wasn't trying to be argumentative.  I enjoy reading Dostoyevsky, that doesn't mean that I hate Dickens.  I was merely mentioning whom I enjoy reading, don't take anymore into the statement than that,

But you used your "preference for the moderns" as a means of deflecting my suggestion that you read the ancients, a suggestion I made NOT as a means of personal enjoyment (which seems to be the basis of your philosophical preferences) but as a means of arriving at truth via reasoning.

If you just want to be trapped in your own pleasures and enjoyments, fine, that's your choice. It's a prison of your own making. But don't pretend to care about truth, and don't pretend to care about freedom (which can only come from an acknowledgement of truth). Truth always costs something. It requires that we conform our minds to reality and surrender our petty preferences. Enjoyment and pleasure are not the arbiters of truth.

If you are interested in truth then you cannot speak of the 'ancients' as if they are one big party with one view.  They had incredibly diverse views.  I am getting around to Aristotle, so l will read him eventually.  I am interested in Lao Tzu as well.  I have a list that keeps growing, and I can only read so much at once.  I have been working my way through Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand recently, it isn't long, but it is very dense.

Since we are on philosophy, do you think Epistemology or Metaphysics should come first?

[Probius]

He clearly states that the mind is explained by the brain and that the brain is physical, so consciousness is something physical.

Did you even pay attention to the video?  It was a waste of my time.  He explains how images enter the brain and are encoded there.  He then says "we are making progress" on understanding conciousness and ........well that's it.  ZERO explanation on intentionality from a materialist understanding.  None, zip, nada.

I was merely pointing out that he clearly has a materialistic view of the brain, which you said he didn't.

[Probius]

Louis IX and Gerard, we can pick up where we left off here.

I'll start by stating that humility is bad and I prefer pride.  Humility is anti-humanistic, while pride is a wonderful virtue that celebrates man qua man.

Let's start by clarifying terms.  What do you mean by "bad"?  Probably you should also supply definitions for pride and humility as well as what "good" means.  The discussion can be worthwhile if I know we are all submitting to the same understanding of the language used.

Excellent point.  A thing is bad in so far as it does not advance man in his quest for survival.  Pride is the joy one takes in achieving one's own moral perfection.  Humility is self-abasement, it is to see no value in one's own self.  The humble man says 'I am no good, and I do not intend on improving'.  Clearly y'all are using the term differently.

Hello Mr Flyboy and all the other contributors. Big Melvin here, nice to see you all. I have only just started reading this thread and would like to post as I read it, so I might be stating what is by now obvious (or indeed what has now been refuted!). So please excuse me if I duplicate.

Firstly, four points with respect to the above. Humility does advance man in his quest for survival, and indeed is the ultimate foundation of him being able to survive, providing we understand survival as eternal survival. This is because the theological virtue of charity - by which the just live eternally - is received in the soul who acknowledges his dependence on his Creator and lives accordingly.

Secondly, the moral perfection of the proud is not perfection at all, since without humility before God the acts of the proud lack reference to their final end and thus are not properly virtuous or indeed moral. Since the proud man acts with himself as end (Kant!), his acts are not performed in virtue but in vice, and are not moral but immoral.

Thirdly, humility is indeed to see no value in oneself if one is understood as self-sufficient, but to see an incredible value in oneself - and in one's neighbour - when understood as a creature of God.

ANd finally, the humble man indeed says I am no good, since I can do nothing of myself, but I do intend on improving since I trust in the infinite providence of God to lead me to perfection. So, conversely, it is only the truly humble person who genuinely intends improving, since it is she alone who recognises her weakness and nothingness and thus relies on the power of God.

I look forward to reading the rest of the thread, thank you!

Welcome to the conversation.  There has been a problem over definitions up to this point.  I have been working on a definition of pride as a joy which proceeds from the attainment of virtue, and humility as self-abasement.  Which brings up the question of altruism.  What do you think of altruism?  Is altruism to be seen as a good thing which should be pursued?  Is it practical?  Does it promote life?

[rbjmartin]

When I tell you that I prefer the moderns, I am not saying they are the only philosophers worth reading, or that they are the only ones that are correct, I was simply telling you whom I enjoy reading.  I wasn't trying to be argumentative.  I enjoy reading Dostoyevsky, that doesn't mean that I hate Dickens.  I was merely mentioning whom I enjoy reading, don't take anymore into the statement than that,

But you used your "preference for the moderns" as a means of deflecting my suggestion that you read the ancients, a suggestion I made NOT as a means of personal enjoyment (which seems to be the basis of your philosophical preferences) but as a means of arriving at truth via reasoning.

If you just want to be trapped in your own pleasures and enjoyments, fine, that's your choice. It's a prison of your own making. But don't pretend to care about truth, and don't pretend to care about freedom (which can only come from an acknowledgement of truth). Truth always costs something. It requires that we conform our minds to reality and surrender our petty preferences. Enjoyment and pleasure are not the arbiters of truth.

If you are interested in truth then you cannot speak of the 'ancients' as if they are one big party with one view.  They had incredibly diverse views.  I am getting around to Aristotle, so l will read him eventually.  I am interested in Lao Tzu as well.  I have a list that keeps growing, and I can only read so much at once.  I have been working my way through Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand recently, it isn't long, but it is very dense.

Since we are on philosophy, do you think Epistemology or Metaphysics should come first?

Your problem seems to be intellectual promiscuity. You seem to hop from philosophy to philosophy as it suits you, but you only seem to latch on to what seems pleasurable and convenient to you. There is no conviction of truth in your studies.

If you are just now "getting around" to Aristotle, don't pretend to have a general familiarity with Western philosophy. You should exercise some humility and consider yourself relatively unlearned in the field of philosophy. But this is not what you have done. For instance, you summarily dismissed St. Thomas's Five Ways, but it's apparent that you don't even have the philosophical background to understand his arguments correctly. For example, your statements about the argument from contingency demonstrate that you don't even know what contingency is, so you are being quite presumptuous when you dismiss it.

When I generically refer to the Greek and Roman philosophers as "the ancients," I mean those philosophers who constitute part of the canon of Western literature. For instance, anyone with at least a cursory understanding of Western philosophy will have a familiarity with ideas and writings of the pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics (Cicero, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius), Epicureans, Sceptics, early Christian philosophers/theologians, etc. That means having read a significant amount from each and gleaning what truth is available in each. But again, there is a cost to accepting truth. Pleasure is not the arbiter of truth, but you have made it out to be.

[rbjmartin]

Welcome to the conversation.  There has been a problem over definitions up to this point.  I have been working on a definition of pride as a joy which proceeds from the attainment of virtue, and humility as self-abasement.  Which brings up the question of altruism.  What do you think of altruism?  Is altruism to be seen as a good thing which should be pursued?  Is it practical?  Does it promote life?

Altruism has nothing to do with the current conversations. This is just more of your intellectual promiscuity. You hop from topic to topic and remain unfocused because you don't really seem to care about arriving at any sort of conclusions (unless they are your own and you find them pleasurable).

[Probius]

Welcome to the conversation.  There has been a problem over definitions up to this point.  I have been working on a definition of pride as a joy which proceeds from the attainment of virtue, and humility as self-abasement.  Which brings up the question of altruism.  What do you think of altruism?  Is altruism to be seen as a good thing which should be pursued?  Is it practical?  Does it promote life?

Altruism has nothing to do with the current conversations. This is just more of your intellectual promiscuity. You hop from topic to topic and remain unfocused because you don't really seem to care about arriving at any sort of conclusions (unless they are your own and you find them pleasurable).

Altruism has everything to do with the concepts of pride and humility.  The reason Miss Rand discussed pride and humility in the way that she did was because she dismissed altruism as a great evil.  She thought altruism was the worst evil the world has ever seen, and that only rational selfishness could counter act it.  Miss Rand believed that humility led to selflessness, which is against life.  (Her opinion)

I will readily admit that I am not well read when it comes to philosophy, I have never claimed otherwise.  I have read some of the metaphysics of Aristotle, but I don't understand it.  I tried reading St. Thomas, but it may as well have been greek.  Please excuse my generally confrontational manner, it is a flaw in my personality which I don't always handle in the best way.  I'm sorry for this.  So, let's start over as I think I have a chance to learn something here.  I am beginning with epistemology and working my way slowly through the topic.  Do you have any suggestions on good books to read on epistemology.  So far all I have is a book by Ayn Rand, but I want to be more diverse and see what others have to say.  Thank you.

[rbjmartin]

Humility is simply the rational acknowledgement of one's limitations and weaknesses. However, true humility doesn't see the self as worse than it really is (which would be false humility). Humility is simply an objective and realistic view of self, and for human beings, that inevitably means the acknowledgement of our shortcomings, limitations, dependencies, and weaknesses.

So Rand is wrong. Humility does not NECESSARILY lead to selflessness. It is simply an acknowledgement of reality.

Back to your discussion of independence as a virtue (I don't even remember if it was in this thread)...you do realize that simply by using language, you are demonstrating dependence? You didn't invent the language you use. You also frequently depend on the dictionary for your definitions. Independence is not an absolute good, nor is dependence an absolute evil.

[Probius]

Humility is simply the rational acknowledgement of one's limitations and weaknesses. However, true humility doesn't see the self as worse than it really is (which would be false humility). Humility is simply an objective and realistic view of self, and for human beings, that inevitably means the acknowledgement of our shortcomings, limitations, dependencies, and weaknesses.

So Rand is wrong. Humility does not NECESSARILY lead to selflessness. It is simply an acknowledgement of reality.

Back to your discussion of independence as a virtue (I don't even remember if it was in this thread)...you do realize that simply by using language, you are demonstrating dependence? You didn't invent the language you use. You also frequently depend on the dictionary for your definitions. Independence is not an absolute good, nor is dependence an absolute evil.

Miss Rand just had a different understanding of humility.

Now we are making progress.  In a way total independence is not possible, but neither is total dependence.  When I say independence I mean that a man works to sustain himself and makes his own decisions.  He does not demand that others feed him nor does he demand that others take care of his needs.   The dependent man lives on welfare, he takes from others without giving anything back, while the independent man seeks to exchange value for value.  A man living on an island would have a very meager life, he needs to work with others in order to have a better life.  But, if he is to live in society, he cannot seek to be a burden to others.  If he wants goods from someone else, he must be willing to exchange his own goods for the goods he seeks.  All goods are obtained through either production or theft, if he is a good man he will produce and then seek to exchange some of what he has produced for some of what others have produced.  This is what I mean when I speak of independence.