Humility: Good or Bad?

[Probius]

People and objects are neither true nor false, they just are.  Statements are either true or false depending on how they correspond to reality.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

People and objects are neither true nor false, they just are.  Statements are either true or false depending on how they correspond to reality.

Jesus IS Truth there is nothing outside of truth...truth is the measure of all things...truth is the goal of all humanity...unless they wish to hide certain things about themselves. Without truth nothing can exist....and if truth is diminished or obscured death ensues. Deny Christ and you can never really know anything to be true.

[Non Nobis]

CF, tell me what you think about firemen risking their lives to save others from burning buildings, others who may have nothing to offer them at all.   What about a man who is not a fireman doing so?

Rarely is a man who is sacrificing himself for another a "slave to self-sacrifice"  (as you might say).  He sees in another man a value that all men share, because they are men.  He sees that he is not alone in the world, and that "love your neighbor as yourself" is not just a mushy saying by a strange historical figure, but a saying that expresses a deep mutual relationship between men.

Because we are ourselves and not another, it is natural and normal for our attention to be first directed to ourselves. But good men grow out of their childish selfishness when they see that the next man is in a meaningful way "another I".

[Probius]

To sacrifice is to give something up and in return to receive either less than what one gave up or nothing.  If the fireman's action is a sacrifice, them that would mean that the fireman saw little to no value in the person he saved.  The fireman also does not mean to sacrifice himself, as he does not intend to die.

I'll tackle this form a different angle.  The Catholic axiom says nemo dat quod non habet, nobody gives what he does not have.  Ayn Rand put it this way, before a man can say I love you, he must first be able to say I.  A relationship must be a two way street, neither may take advantage of the other.  If you want love, you must give love.  If you want companionship, you must give companionship.  This is the other side of the coin.  If you want to receive something from another, you must be willing to trade for it.  A one way relationship is no relationship.

[Non Nobis]

To sacrifice is to give something up and in return to receive either less than what one gave up or nothing.  If the fireman's action is a sacrifice, them that would mean that the fireman saw little to no value in the person he saved.  The fireman also does not mean to sacrifice himself, as he does not intend to die.

Typically a fireman would not know a person he saved in advance.  But he knows that everyone has great value.  He is willing to RISK sacrificing himself for another.  The mother sacrificing herself for her children does not intend to die, either. Only a sick mind would seek self-sacrifice as an end. It is a means to help others out of love. 

Love does not just mean mutual enrichment.  It can be one way, when you recognize another human like yourself ('another I') is in need of help.

[Probius]

If you love someone, there is something in that person that you love.  You see something of value in that person's virtues.  You are enjoying that person's virtues, and that person is enjoying your virtues.  Love is the emotional price paid for the enjoyment of another's virtue.  If love is not mutual enrichment, then only one person is being enriched.  But, how does a man love a woman whom does not love him back?  How is this man being enriched when the woman ignores him and pays him no love?  If love is not mutually enriching, it is not love.

[rbjmartin]

If you love someone, there is something in that person that you love.  You see something of value in that person's virtues.  You are enjoying that person's virtues, and that person is enjoying your virtues.  Love is the emotional price paid for the enjoyment of another's virtue.  If love is not mutual enrichment, then only one person is being enriched.  But, how does a man love a woman whom does not love him back?  How is this man being enriched when the woman ignores him and pays him no love?  If love is not mutually enriching, it is not love.

What of a mother's love for her newborn? The child has not had the chance to develop any virtue. By your definition, a mother's love for her infant is not real love.

Yours is a very narrow (and convenient) definition of love.

[Probius]

If you love someone, there is something in that person that you love.  You see something of value in that person's virtues.  You are enjoying that person's virtues, and that person is enjoying your virtues.  Love is the emotional price paid for the enjoyment of another's virtue.  If love is not mutual enrichment, then only one person is being enriched.  But, how does a man love a woman whom does not love him back?  How is this man being enriched when the woman ignores him and pays him no love?  If love is not mutually enriching, it is not love.

What of a mother's love for her newborn? The child has not had the chance to develop any virtue. By your definition, a mother's love for her infant is not real love.

Yours is a very narrow (and convenient) definition of love.

The mother loves the child because it is in her nature.  The child is a piece of the parents, a beautiful product of their love.  The parents are overwhelmed with love when the baby comes, and it is this joy which they seek in having a child.  A woman once decided to have a baby because of a sense of duty which had been placed on her by society.  Has she had not made this choice freely, she never loved the child.  She saw her time as a mother as an obligation which drained her life away slowly.  The child never felt loved and grew up to be a psychologically dysfunctional adult.  The child never knew how to love another person, because she had never been loved.  The mother had a child for the wrong reason.  She allowed others to make the decision, instead of making the decision on her own.  She chose altruism, and both her child and she suffered as a result.

[Michael Wilson]

Crimson,
what you are describing as "love", is what the scholastics would call "love of concupiscence"; ei. a interested love: we love someone because we see some good in them which we desired to obtain, such as knowledge, or prestige, or their affection. There is a second kind of love called "love of benevolence" where we love someone else, as another self, because of the good that we perceive in them, without even expecting a recompense.   Here is a nice article that I found on the internet on this subject:
http://www41.homepage.villanova.edu/donald.burt/god/28.htm
Here is the begining of the article:

Loving A Hidden God

THE NATURE OF LOVE

    The weight of a body drives it towards its own proper place. But a thing's weight does not necessarily seek the lowest place but rather that place that is appropriate for it. Thus, fire rises and stones fall. Oil poured over water remains on the surface of the water; water poured over oil sinks below the oil. Their weight causes them to seek their proper place. When things are out of place, they move. Once they find their proper place they are at rest. And so it is that my love is my weight; it is the force that moves me wheresoever I go.

    Confessions, 13.9.10.

There are various ways in which we can be related to other human beings and to God. In the order in which they advance or arrest progress towards loving union, they are:

    1. Hatred

    2. Indifference

    3. The "love of concupiscence" (amor concupiscentia)

    4. The unilateral "love of benevolence" (amor benevolentia)

    5. Friendship (the mutual love benevolence)

A convenient way of differentiating and understanding each stage is to examine how they respond to the mandate of the so-called "Do No Harm Principle" which commands:

    1. You should not bring unnecessary harm to others as you pursue your own good.

    2. You should rescue others from harm (whatever the source), unless you are reasonably excused.

Obviously if my relationship to another human being is hatred, I not only ignore both commands but even act against them. The virulence of my hatred would drive me to cause as much harm to them as I could. If perchance I was moved to rescue them from some impending harm, it would only be so that they might suffer greater harm later on. My goal is not union but separation. Indeed, if possible, I would seek their annihilation out of revenge for the harm that I imagine they have done to me.

If my attitude towards others is pure indifference, my goal is not to harm them but just not to be bothered by them. If I recognize their existence at all, my attitude can be best described as absolute neutrality. I would be neither for them nor against them. For example if someone asked me how I felt about God, I would say:

    Well, he may or may not exist, but in either case it has nothing to do with me.

If I am indifferent towards human beings, this does not mean that I have no interaction with them. Unless I live the life of a hermit, I must deal with others every day. But, although I am quite award of the stream of humanity passing by in all its sizes and shapes, I "could care less" about them unless they began to encroach on my space. Like the anonymous drivers speeding past me on the thruway, others become a "problem to be addressed" only when they "crash" into my life and disrupt it. There is no interest in making them friends or loving them or continuing any connection with them once my suit for damages is concluded.

This state of indifference is not the same as leading a solitary anonymous life where I neither know nor am known. If I live as a solitary and have no one to love as a friend, I could at least be open to a love that I have not yet discovered. I could love those still hidden "others" so that they might become my friends if the occasion arises. (83 Diverse Questions, 71.6) Even if I have been forever a solitary on a desert island not even knowing if someone else existed, my attitude could be:

    Well, if there is something beyond myself out there, I would like to know about it. If there is someone other than myself in the universe, I would be interested in knowing about them.

With such an attitude, I am not indifferent to others. I am just alone.

Neither hatred nor indifference can bring me closer to union with others. The only force powerful enough to do this is love. This is so because love is a complex act. At its foundation is an act of choice, a decision to seek some good with the goal of becoming one with it. A wave of emotion whereby I feel good may be part of the attractiveness of the object, but only choice can move me towards it. Such choice depends on two preconditions: knowledge and delight. I cannot choose something I do not know and I do not choose everything that I do know. Without knowledge of and delight in the object I will not come to love it and, not loving it, I will not be drawn to become one with it.

To love means to desire. Through desire I am drawn towards some object with a view to uniting with it in some way, of becoming one with it, of making it one with me or making myself one with it. To love someone or something means to wish to be united with it, to make it my own and (perhaps) to have it consume my "own-ness". When I love something it is like coming upon a pool of deliciously cool water on a hot day and wishing to jump in and be immersed in its delight.

The union between knower and thing known in the act of knowledge is quite different from the union of fulfilled love. Thinking about my past and present loves, I am indeed increased. My life has been enriched by knowing them but my knowledge does not make me become like them. Love for them has a quite different effect. When I love them and in some sense "choose" them, I do become like them. My life changes. To use Augustine's image, the objects of my affection become stuck to me with the glue of love. They leave in me "footprints" so that wherever I go they are always with me. (Trinity, 10.8.11) Without losing my identity or destroying theirs, I am raised or lowered to their level.

Knowing what is below me does not make me any less, but loving it does. Examining the lives of beasts does not make me a beast but loving a beastly life, desiring to live that life reduces me to the status of a beast. As Augustine says:

    Through the act of love we dwell with our heart. It is for this reason that we call those "the world" who live in the world and love it. Those who love the world live in the world with their heart. For those who do not love the world may live bodily in the world, but in their heart they already live in heaven.

[Recovering NOer]

It's amazing more people haven't realized this even several months ago.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

It's amazing more people haven't realized this even several months ago.

why?
This is very good training....its good to see how the mindscrewed think and reason so as to be prepared when you find it in others. Further I dont remember seeing you two on the moderators list?

[rbjmartin]

If you love someone, there is something in that person that you love.  You see something of value in that person's virtues.  You are enjoying that person's virtues, and that person is enjoying your virtues.  Love is the emotional price paid for the enjoyment of another's virtue.  If love is not mutual enrichment, then only one person is being enriched.  But, how does a man love a woman whom does not love him back?  How is this man being enriched when the woman ignores him and pays him no love?  If love is not mutually enriching, it is not love.

What of a mother's love for her newborn? The child has not had the chance to develop any virtue. By your definition, a mother's love for her infant is not real love.

Yours is a very narrow (and convenient) definition of love.

The mother loves the child because it is in her nature.  The child is a piece of the parents, a beautiful product of their love.  The parents are overwhelmed with love when the baby comes, and it is this joy which they seek in having a child.  A woman once decided to have a baby because of a sense of duty which had been placed on her by society.  Has she had not made this choice freely, she never loved the child.  She saw her time as a mother as an obligation which drained her life away slowly.  The child never felt loved and grew up to be a psychologically dysfunctional adult.  The child never knew how to love another person, because she had never been loved.  The mother had a child for the wrong reason.  She allowed others to make the decision, instead of making the decision on her own.  She chose altruism, and both her child and she suffered as a result.

Your view of love is very mechanical and fatalistic. I have hundreds of anecdotes that blow your perception of love out of the water.

I have no children who are my own (biologically). My wife had them prior to our marriage. That didn't stop me from loving them as my own pretty much the moment we started dating. There was no biological incentive for me to love them. But according to Rand, what I did was despicable and "weak."

[james03]

Love is the emotional price paid for the enjoyment of another's virtue

Love is not an emotion.  It causes an array of emotions. 

Love can not be defined.  Though we know it exists as one of the most powerful forces in the world.

[Probius]

This appears to be a false distinction.  If you love a woman, it is because there is is something of value you see in this woman, you are seeing her virtues.  To pursue a relationship with her is to make a statement that she has value, that she is worth your time.  There is a cost-benefit analysis to be done.  Every time you spend time doing one thing, you forego many other things you could have done with that time.  This is why I like to say that I spend time, because time is really spent.  Now, people obviously don't think in these terms, but this is what's going on.  When a man goes on a date with a woman or goes to a ballgame with a friend, he is enjoying the other's company.  This doesn't mean that he is trying to 'get over' on the other.  A man goes on a date with a woman, they have a great time, he takes her to bed, then he steals her purse and never calls her again.  This is how most people view a 'selfish' man.  But, this man does not act in his own self interest.  He cuts himself off from this woman, he will never have a relationship with her.  He makes himself into a man he cannot be proud of.  He has to hide who he really is, lest his friends will leave him, or worse, they won't.  To truly seek out a relationship means that he will benefit from the relationship, and the woman does the same.  The man and the woman both seek to benefit, to be made better, from the relationship.  I know when a man has found the woman he will marry, because this woman makes him better.  I have seen a few of my friends made into better men because they found the right woman.  In a proper relationship, both the man and the woman are made better, they both benefit.  When I speak of benefiting, I mean being made better, and not just obtaining cheap pleasure.

I'm watching 'Good Will Hunting' right now, I love this movie.  Will is the main character, and he develops a friendship with two professors.  The first really wants a friendship with Will and the two are made better.  The second doesn't really care about Will, but only what Will can so for him.  The second man is living vicariously through Will, because Will can do things in math that the professor never could.  The first professor seeks a true friendship with Will, which is two sided.  The second seeks a one way friendship, which is not a real friendship.  In order for a relationship to be real, it must be two sided, both must benefit in some way.  Both must be made better off because of the relationship.

Recovering NOer & lauremar, if you don't like this thread, ignore it.  I have benefited from this conversation, and have learned much.

[Recovering NOer]

why?
This is very good training....its good to see how the mindscrewed think and reason so as to be prepared when you find it in others. Further I dont remember seeing you two on the moderators list?

That's funny because I don't remember where I claimed to BE on the moderators list.

On second thought, anyway, I do admit that stuff like this can actually have some value to others who see it (though not necessarily the one being targeted) so I won't say it's completely useless.