Humility: Good or Bad?

[voxxpopulisuxx]

But some are weak and we are not to condemn them for it as nutzo rand asserts. If we are prosperous because we worked hard and were just and honest...that does not mean we get to judge and dismiss those who were weak and because of it did not prosper. Jesus defined all the laws of moses as only 2 commands..Love God (humility) and your neighbor as if he was yourself ( more humility)...all good socioty and true justice flow from these truths...rand the rancid rejected this.

[rbjmartin]

Miss Rand just had a different understanding of humility.

I would be so bold as to assert that her understanding was false, as her notion of humility seems more visceral and not in accord with how the virtue of humility has been understood in the West for the last 2500+ years. She falsely associated it with weakness. Yet the Romans, who were anything but weak, appreciated humility (understood correctly) as a personal virtue.

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.

I don't think anyone is going to argue with your presentation of humility given above, but you were trying to make an absolute virtue out of independence, and it simply isn't, because dependence is a good and necessary thing under certain circumstances.

[Probius]

But some are weak and we are not to condemn them for it as nutzo rand asserts. If we are prosperous because we worked hard and were just and honest...that does not mean we get to judge and dismiss those who were weak and because of it did not prosper. Jesus defined all the laws of moses as only 2 commands..Love God (humility) and your neighbor as if he was yourself ( more humility)...all good socioty and true justice flow from these truths...rand the rancid rejected this.

First, insults are not necessary.  Second, Miss Rand never said any such thing.  She was perfectly fine with charity, so long as it was not seen as a virtue in itself.  (By charity I mean giving alms to the poor)  She wanted everyone to love each other, but not to use others as ends.

[james03]

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.

And this is what is crippling you, and Rand.  What you just stated is given a precise term: commutative justice.  If you want to use your Randian terms on an Objectivist forum, have at it.  On a Catholic forum such imprecision will get you nowhere.  Which if you are here to whine, I guess that suits you just fine.

[Probius]

Miss Rand just had a different understanding of humility.

I would be so bold as to assert that her understanding was false, as her notion of humility seems more visceral and not in accord with how the virtue of humility has been understood in the West for the last 2500+ years. She falsely associated it with weakness. Yet the Romans, who were anything but weak, appreciated humility (understood correctly) as a personal virtue.

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.

I don't think anyone is going to argue with your presentation of humility given above, but you were trying to make an absolute virtue out of independence, and it simply isn't, because dependence is a good and necessary thing under certain circumstances.

As far as humility goes we are getting into semantics with the two different concepts.  She dismissed self-loathing, and so does The Catholic Church.

How do you distinguish between absolute and non-absolute virtues?

[Probius]

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.

And this is what is crippling you, and Rand.  What you just stated is given a precise term: commutative justice.  If you want to use your Randian terms on an Objectivist forum, have at it.  On a Catholic forum such imprecision will get you nowhere.  Which if you are here to whine, I guess that suits you just fine.

Okay, define commutative justice.

[Angelorum]

Okay, define commutative justice.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32673

The virtue that regulates those actions which involve the rights between one individual and another individual. If a person steals another's money, he or she violates commutative justice. Any violation of commutative justice imposes on the guilty party the duty of restitution, that is, the duty of repairing the harm caused. In fact, strictly speaking, only violations of commutative justice give rise to this duty of restitution.

[Probius]

Okay, define commutative justice.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32673

The virtue that regulates those actions which involve the rights between one individual and another individual. If a person steals another's money, he or she violates commutative justice. Any violation of commutative justice imposes on the guilty party the duty of restitution, that is, the duty of repairing the harm caused. In fact, strictly speaking, only violations of commutative justice give rise to this duty of restitution.

Thank you.

[Probius]

But some are weak and we are not to condemn them for it as nutzo rand asserts. If we are prosperous because we worked hard and were just and honest...that does not mean we get to judge and dismiss those who were weak and because of it did not prosper. Jesus defined all the laws of moses as only 2 commands..Love God (humility) and your neighbor as if he was yourself ( more humility)...all good socioty and true justice flow from these truths...rand the rancid rejected this.

First, insults are not necessary.  Second, Miss Rand never said any such thing.  She was perfectly fine with charity, so long as it was not seen as a virtue in itself.  (By charity I mean giving alms to the poor)  She wanted everyone to love each other, but not to use others as ends.

Here is a great video in which Miss Rand is interviewed by Donahue.  She mentions her view of charity briefly.

[Probius]

But some are weak and we are not to condemn them for it as nutzo rand asserts. If we are prosperous because we worked hard and were just and honest...that does not mean we get to judge and dismiss those who were weak and because of it did not prosper. Jesus defined all the laws of moses as only 2 commands..Love God (humility) and your neighbor as if he was yourself ( more humility)...all good socioty and true justice flow from these truths...rand the rancid rejected this.

First, insults are not necessary.  Second, Miss Rand never said any such thing.  She was perfectly fine with charity, so long as it was not seen as a virtue in itself.  (By charity I mean giving alms to the poor)  She wanted everyone to love each other, but not to use others as ends.

Here is a great video in which Miss Rand is interviewed by Donahue.  She mentions her view of charity briefly.  (It is at the beginning, Donahue asks if is good to do good for others.)

[james03]

Here's the definition:

while the independent (sic)  man seeks to exchange value for value.  ....  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.

This is out of the cardinal virtue of justice.  A Catholic can explain on first principles why this is moral living.  An atheist can not because at the end of the day it is necessary that he arrives at materialistic eliminativism and nihilism.  Which is exemplified by Dennett who you say you like.

[Probius]

Here's the definition:

while the independent (sic)  man seeks to exchange value for value.  ....  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.

This is out of the cardinal virtue of justice.  A Catholic can explain on first principles why this is moral living.  An atheist can not because at the end of the day it is necessary that he arrives at materialistic eliminativism and nihilism.  Which is exemplified by Dennett who you say you like.

I don't know all of Dennett's philosophy, but I like what he has to say on the mind.  I don't know if he is right or not, but he is interesting.

[Probius]

Here's the definition:

while the independent (sic)  man seeks to exchange value for value.  ....  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.

This is out of the cardinal virtue of justice.  A Catholic can explain on first principles why this is moral living.  An atheist can not because at the end of the day it is necessary that he arrives at materialistic eliminativism and nihilism.  Which is exemplified by Dennett who you say you like.

What is materialistic eliminativism?  Will you please define this term?

[james03]

What he says about the mind is that it does not exist.  Therefore the ability to be owed can not exist.  Therefore trading value for value is meaningless.  That is the necessary conclusion, and doesn't depend on what you like.

[james03]

What is materialistic eliminativism?  Will you please define this term?

That at the end of the day we are just neutrons, protons, and electrons.  Therefore it is foolish to believe in love, beauty, justice, trading value for value, living, "bettering yourself", the mind, intentionalism, or any other kind of virtue or transcendental immaterial concept.  In a word, it is atheism.