Humility: Good or Bad?

[columba]

Reason is a tool not a virtue which if used correctly would bring you into agreement with the rest of the forum on at least the fundamentals.

Independence is an anti-virtue and if everyone subscribed to it, it would lead to utter chaos. Can you imagine the result of independence in an army?

Productiveness would be the fruit of virtue providing that what is being produced is good. I can imagine productivity bonuses being handed out in an abortion mill; the fruit of the anti-virtue, "independence from God."

Your virtues only work if there's an objective standard by which value can be measured.
Can each man determine his own values in opposition to what others hold as their values?

[Probius]

Each man must choose between existence and non-existence.  If he chooses non-existence, he does not need values, as values only pertain to living things.  Non-living things continue to exist no matter what, as matter cannot be destroyed, but living things must choose.  If a man chooses to live, he must act in order to remain alive.  He does this by pursuing values which further his life, doing this is to act virtuously.  Life is an action, not a state of being.  This is why I say that a virtue is an act as well, because it is an action which pursues life serving values.  Actions which pursue life serving values are virtues, actions which pursue life defeating values are vices.

[Non Nobis]

Crimson Flyboy,

Is humility nothing but self-debasement and the like for you?

I've known people who to me seemed very humble and yet I had no clue that they were believers.

They were strong, very capable and self-assured, but they let you see their talent and virtues by yourself.  They did not brag or boast.  They were not resentful when others were praised, and they praised others readily. 

Humility is truth, not puffing your self up, nor putting yourself down.  If you don't believe in God humility would be recognizing that, however they got there (or if they "just were"), you had qualities that YOU did not put there. It would be trying to appreciate them in others as you appreciate them in yourself. It would be recognizing that even if you think you are "superior" there are innumerable men through the ages who are truly superior to you.  Pride is sometimes just silly.

[rbjmartin]

Each man must choose between existence and non-existence.  If he chooses non-existence, he does not need values, as values only pertain to living things.  Non-living things continue to exist no matter what, as matter cannot be destroyed, but living things must choose.  If a man chooses to live, he must act in order to remain alive.  He does this by pursuing values which further his life, doing this is to act virtuously.  Life is an action, not a state of being.  This is why I say that a virtue is an act as well, because it is an action which pursues life serving values.  Actions which pursue life serving values are virtues, actions which pursue life defeating values are vices.

Man does not have to choose to exist. If he only follows his most basic animal instincts (i.e. satisfy his hunger, rest when he is tired, avoid danger, etc.), he will continue to exist, just as any irrational creature. So by your definition, all animals possess virtue. But this is the antithesis of the definition of virtue as it has existed since ancient Greece. Virtue is something that ONLY man possesses.

So you need to go back to the drawing board with your definition. Virtue is not an action, and it is not simply surviving.

You could make use of the virtue of humility by looking to the learning and wisdom of the ancients who already explored these questions thousands of years ago, rather than assuming that you can and should re-invent the wheel.

[rbjmartin]

[Probius]

Each man must choose between existence and non-existence.  If he chooses non-existence, he does not need values, as values only pertain to living things.  Non-living things continue to exist no matter what, as matter cannot be destroyed, but living things must choose.  If a man chooses to live, he must act in order to remain alive.  He does this by pursuing values which further his life, doing this is to act virtuously.  Life is an action, not a state of being.  This is why I say that a virtue is an act as well, because it is an action which pursues life serving values.  Actions which pursue life serving values are virtues, actions which pursue life defeating values are vices.

Man does not have to choose to exist. If he only follows his most basic animal instincts (i.e. satisfy his hunger, rest when he is tired, avoid danger, etc.), he will continue to exist, just as any irrational creature. So by your definition, all animals possess virtue. But this is the antithesis of the definition of virtue as it has existed since ancient Greece. Virtue is something that ONLY man possesses.

So you need to go back to the drawing board with your definition. Virtue is not an action, and it is not simply surviving.

You could make use of the virtue of humility by looking to the learning and wisdom of the ancients who already explored these questions thousands of years ago, rather than assuming that you can and should re-invent the wheel.

Man cannot survive on his instincts alone, he must use his reason.  If he does not want to live, he need simply cease from acting and he will die soon enough.  To live, however, requires action, and action requires a choice, at least in men it does.  Animals also pursue values, but with instinct instead of reason.  Animals do not have the use of reason, and  hence do not have virtue.

I prefer philosophers such as Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Frederic Bastiat to the ancients.

[james03]

But Rand says Aristotle was the greatest philosopher ever, so your are refuting yourself.

[Probius]

Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

[Angelorum]

Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

[Probius]

Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Stefan Molyneaux, John Locke, to name a few.  I have been very interested in Anarcho-Capitalism recently.

[Probius]

I should add Daniel Dennett.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Stefan Molyneaux, John Locke, to name a few.  I have been very interested in Anarcho-Capitalism recently.

Rand was a complete nut.

[Probius]

Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Stefan Molyneaux, John Locke, to name a few.  I have been very interested in Anarcho-Capitalism recently.

Rand was a complete nut.

What do you think about the other philosophers I mentioned?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[james03]

Rand is a novelist who ignores Aristotle where convenient.  Rothbard and Bastiat are great economists, though I disagree with basitat on his free trade argument as he fails to define the system, Molyneaux is a recovering abuse victim, but I admire him for taking responsibility for his future actions, and I believe John Locke is the only real philosopher.  To be honest I have not read much of Locke, but I have read a little and agree with some of his stuff.

Dennett is a piker from what I just read on Wikipedia, and that is the end of my knowledge about him.  Here he is trying to explain conciousness and intentionality:

The model of decision making I am proposing has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously).

The agent?  Did you catch that?  Kind of begging the question.

"all varieties of perception—indeed all varieties of thought or mental activity—are accomplished in the brain by parallel, multitrack processes of interpretation and elaboration of sensory inputs. Information entering the nervous system is under continuous 'editorial revision.'"

Let me guess, the "it" doing the editorial revision is again this "agent".  But he does give it a stab:

"These yield, over the course of time, something rather like a narrative stream or sequence, which can be thought of as subject to continual editing by many processes distributed around the brain, ..."

Except this begs the question of IMMEIDACY and of course intentionality.  A piker.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Aristotle did some great things, but I prefer modern philosophers.

Like who?

Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat, Stefan Molyneaux, John Locke, to name a few.  I have been very interested in Anarcho-Capitalism recently.

Rand was a complete nut.

What do you think about the other philosophers I mentioned?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually I always loved Bastiats..."The Law"