Humility: Good or Bad?

[james03]

Our own value is only determined by the value God gives it in His relation to us.

That is correct.  And since He bled and died for His elect, we are certainly not worms.

Yes, compared to God, we are nothing.  Just look through the Hubble telescope and see what He created will convince you of that.  Meditating on the Form of the Good will also convince you of that from the philosphical side.  But calling us worms, who are made in the image and likeness of God, reborn through baptism, bought and purchased via the Passion of Jesus, seems very jansenistic. 

In fact, Josef Pieper had a real concern with this line on humility.

[Maximilian]

I don't think consciousness is immaterial.  Imagine if an unscrupulous doctor did brain surgery on a man.  The more of this man's brain he removed, the less consciousness he would have.  Should the doctor remove all of the man's brain he would die.  Without the brain, there is no consciousness, ergo consciousness is material.

That doesn't follow. Compare the brain to a radio transmitter. The transmitter has mass, but the radio waves do not. If the transmitter is disabled, then the radio waves stop. But the one thing is not the same as the other. The brain is material, but consciousness is not. I wasn't being simply rhetorical when I asked, "How much does a dream weigh?" Dreams are real. So are thoughts.

The above answer assumes for the sake of argument that the brain is the source of thoughts. That may or may not be true, in any case. Here is an interesting article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors.html#.UlwY9lB22m4

"Man with tiny brain shocks doctors

A man with an unusually tiny brain manages to live an entirely normal life despite his condition, which was caused by a fluid build-up in his skull.

Scans of the 44-year-old man's brain showed that a huge fluid-filled chamber called a ventricle took up most of the room in his skull, leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue (see image, right).

"It is hard for me [to say] exactly the percentage of reduction of the brain, since we did not use software to measure its volume. But visually, it is more than a 50% to 75% reduction," says Lionel Feuillet, a neurologist at the Mediterranean University in Marseille, France.

Feuillet and his colleagues describe the case of this patient in The Lancet. He is a married father of two children, and works as a civil servant.

Not retarded

The man went to a hospital after he had mild weakness in his left leg. When Feuillet's staff took his medical history, they learned that, as an infant, he had had a shunt inserted into his head to drain away hydrocephalus - water on the brain.

The shunt was removed when he was 14. But the researchers decided to check the condition of his brain using computed tomography (CT) scanning technology and another type of scan called magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). They were astonished to see "massive enlargement" of the lateral ventricles - usually tiny chambers that hold the cerebrospinal fluid that cushions the brain.

Intelligence tests showed the man had an IQ of 75, below the average score of 100 but not considered mentally retarded or disabled.

"The whole brain was reduced - frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital lobes - on both left and right sides. These regions control motion, sensibility, language, vision, audition, and emotional and cognitive functions," Feuillet told New Scientist.

[Basilios]

I impressed with your credentials, but I was not asking if you have read Descartes, but rather have you tried taking everything off of your mental table that you cannot prove and then attempt to discover what you can really know.

Well you asked if I tried Descartes thought experiments; so I was showing you that I have, yes. And many more besides in the realm of the philosophy of mind and the metaphysics of reality.

The problem is this, for all these navel gazing type experiments: what could be more stupid than throwing out ones rationality and reason in order to question? By this I mean, it takes a special kind of mental exercise to resist the fact that, say, there is a table in front of you or that you have the ability to make judgments and that your mind displays a kind of directedness. You see, these things are self evident; and I put it to you that to deny that takes more effort than to confirm it. And for all that these experiments do, they yet do nothing; because the very act of question the reality of things around you requires them to be 'real'; for your mind must have some object to conform to in order to have a thought (directedness/the 'about' part of your thought). It is self-defeating, and when it comes down to it it's nihilistic. If I take everything off my mental table I am left with nothing; no reason, no rationality, nothing. That's not human; nor is it particularly intelligent or deep.

This is why Scholasticism makes so much more sense; because it takes the common sense of Aristotle and applies it to the world around us. It makes metaphysics easier and sensical; and it makes the philosophy of mind way easier too. It's also a lot less spiritually taxing. What naturalism/materialism/scientism does is to take the common sense too far and reverse it to suggest that only what is real is the table in front of you. The happy middle is the Scholastic; who realizes the truth that the table is as real as the soul. Working from a priori first principles, it is far easier and sensical to believe that there are things that exist and change (hinting here towards Aristotelian metaphysical arguments) than it is to believe that everything is illusory (which can't make sense given your day to day interactions).

I really think you should stop and pick up Edward Fesers books Aquinas and The Last Superstition and go and trawl through his blog. I say this because for the moment there is a great philosophical divide between us; which is difficult enough, but there is also a language divide (the jargon stuff).

[Maximilian]

But calling us worms, who are made in the image and likeness of God, reborn through baptism, bought and purchased via the Passion of Jesus, seems very jansenistic. 

"Jansenistic" -- the handy yet meaningless pejorative which is useful for every occasion.

In fact, Josef Pieper had a real concern with this line on humility.

Perhaps that is why the 20th-century Church produced neo-scholastic academics instead of saints.

[Probius]

I don't think consciousness is immaterial.  Imagine if an unscrupulous doctor did brain surgery on a man.  The more of this man's brain he removed, the less consciousness he would have.  Should the doctor remove all of the man's brain he would die.  Without the brain, there is no consciousness, ergo consciousness is material.

That doesn't follow. Compare the brain to a radio transmitter. The transmitter has mass, but the radio waves do not. If the transmitter is disabled, then the radio waves stop. But the one thing is not the same as the other. The brain is material, but consciousness is not. I wasn't being simply rhetorical when I asked, "How much does a dream weigh?" Dreams are real. So are thoughts.

The above answer assumes for the sake of argument that the brain is the source of thoughts. That may or may not be true, in any case. Here is an interesting article:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12301-man-with-tiny-brain-shocks-doctors.html#.UlwY9lB22m4

"Man with tiny brain shocks doctors

A man with an unusually tiny brain manages to live an entirely normal life despite his condition, which was caused by a fluid build-up in his skull.

Scans of the 44-year-old man's brain showed that a huge fluid-filled chamber called a ventricle took up most of the room in his skull, leaving little more than a thin sheet of actual brain tissue (see image, right).

"It is hard for me [to say] exactly the percentage of reduction of the brain, since we did not use software to measure its volume. But visually, it is more than a 50% to 75% reduction," says Lionel Feuillet, a neurologist at the Mediterranean University in Marseille, France.

Feuillet and his colleagues describe the case of this patient in The Lancet. He is a married father of two children, and works as a civil servant.

Not retarded

The man went to a hospital after he had mild weakness in his left leg. When Feuillet's staff took his medical history, they learned that, as an infant, he had had a shunt inserted into his head to drain away hydrocephalus - water on the brain.

The shunt was removed when he was 14. But the researchers decided to check the condition of his brain using computed tomography (CT) scanning technology and another type of scan called magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). They were astonished to see "massive enlargement" of the lateral ventricles - usually tiny chambers that hold the cerebrospinal fluid that cushions the brain.

Intelligence tests showed the man had an IQ of 75, below the average score of 100 but not considered mentally retarded or disabled.

"The whole brain was reduced - frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital lobes - on both left and right sides. These regions control motion, sensibility, language, vision, audition, and emotional and cognitive functions," Feuillet told New Scientist.

The radio waves are still dependent on the transmitter, and without the transmitter there are no radio waves.  I think this is an apt metaphor for the brain and consciousness.  The brain projects consciousness in the same way a movie projector projects a movie.  The projection is a separate thing from the projector, yet is dependent upon the projector and will cease to exist without the projector.

[james03]

Rand also denied original sin, as do I.  She called it the root of irrational thinking.  The denial of original sin does not necessarily lead to Communism........ Most Catholics equate Communism with materialistic atheists.  That's not a good definition.

Communism is certainly something beyond material atheism and a denial of Original Sin, but Communists MUST deny Original Sin, as David Horowitz explains in his autobiography.  Since he lived that life, then left it, I give him far more credence than Rand.  And that is my point.  Rand erred in a big way when she says that a belief in Original Sin leads to the Shamans of Material.  No it doesn't.  A belief in Original Sin leads to seeing the necessity of competition and liberty.  Look at Lord Acton, who was Catholic.

While you somewhat condeded this point: " denial of original sin does not necessarily lead to Communism", thus it CAN lead to communism, Rand based the underlying theme of her entire novel on the contrary premise, that belief in Original Sin leads to communism.  She completely blew it.

[james03]

Jansenistic" -- the handy yet meaningless pejorative which is useful for every occasion.

Uh...what are you talking about?  Seeing yourself as a worm is most certainly Jansenist.  But I did not just throw out a term, as if supposedly I'm resorting to ad hominems, I put out a sound argument, e.g. bought by the blood of Christ, reborn through baptism, etc..., which you fail to address.

[Probius]

Rand also denied original sin, as do I.  She called it the root of irrational thinking.  The denial of original sin does not necessarily lead to Communism........ Most Catholics equate Communism with materialistic atheists.  That's not a good definition.

Communism is certainly something beyond material atheism and a denial of Original Sin, but Communists MUST deny Original Sin, as David Horowitz explains in his autobiography.  Since he lived that life, then left it, I give him far more credence than Rand.  And that is my point.  Rand erred in a big way when she says that a belief in Original Sin leads to the Shamans of Material.  No it doesn't.  A belief in Original Sin leads to seeing the necessity of competition and liberty.  Look at Lord Acton, who was Catholic.

While you somewhat condeded this point: " denial of original sin does not necessarily lead to Communism", thus it CAN lead to communism, Rand based the underlying theme of her entire novel on the contrary premise, that belief in Original Sin leads to communism.  She completely blew it.

We are in some agreement here.  The only way one gets to Communism is by means of a denial of original sin, I agree.  However, the denial of original sin can lead to other things as well, such as other philosophies.

[james03]

We are in some agreement here.  The only way one gets to Communism is by means of a denial of original sin, I agree.

Well, that is not what Rand believed.  In fact that is contrary to the underlying theme of her entire novel, that BELIEF in Original Sin leads to "Shamans of Material".

Now her genius was in showing that the conclusions of communists are a nest of contradictions and used Aristotle to show this.  This is why I prefer Francisco over Galt.  Francisco pointed out the contradictions, Galt was used to state the premise, which was erroneous.

Another example: Catholic Anarcho Capitalists believe that Original Sin is so destructive that giving any coercive power to people over you is dangerous and destructive.  While I disagree with them, I respect their opinion as it rests on a sound premise.

[james03]

So let's look at some of the problems with atheism.  As you recall, you have had to modify your definition on "good", and in fact I'm still not satisfied with it, as I said anything that involves giving up your life means turning yourself into worm food forever.  You agree that if you deny Original Sin you CAN become a communist.  And you are not able to give me a MATERIAL definition of what you yourself call "spiritual" and I believe you even used the term "higher good".

So let us look at something "spiritual", and that is free market economics.  If you are a Libertarian, then something you will hold dear is the requirement that in an economic trade both sides MUST exchange value for value.  And that using coercion   -- "the point of the gun" to obtain things is immoral.  To put it in Catholic terms, you are very devoted to pure justice.  And the Church agrees with you, even stating that the care of the poor does not concern justice, but charity, i.e. a free movement of the will without compulsion. 

"it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. "Of that which remaineth, give alms."(14) It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law."

Now here's the problem you face.  I can explain why insisting on the exchange of value for value is the only moral economic system based on the cardinal virtue of justice, you can not.  All you can say is that exchanging value for value is required for a righteous life, but you can't say why.  You stop there.  It is possible to abstract it slightly further by saying that each of us has the ability to be owed, but after that, you come to a complete stop.  Because there is absolutely zero atheistic-materialist explanation of how we can be owed.  In fact, I believe to even admit this is to contradict materialism.  And yet deep down we know that this immaterial fact exists.

[Probius]

We are in some agreement here.  The only way one gets to Communism is by means of a denial of original sin, I agree.

Well, that is not what Rand believed.  In fact that is contrary to the underlying theme of her entire novel, that BELIEF in Original Sin leads to "Shamans of Material".

Now her genius was in showing that the conclusions of communists are a nest of contradictions and used Aristotle to show this.  This is why I prefer Francisco over Galt.  Francisco pointed out the contradictions, Galt was used to state the premise, which was erroneous.

Another example: Catholic Anarcho Capitalists believe that Original Sin is so destructive that giving any coercive power to people over you is dangerous and destructive.  While I disagree with them, I respect their opinion as it rests on a sound premise.

I'm afraid my knowledge of Rand is insufficient here.  I have been reading her for about four years now, but haven't come upon the term 'shamans of material' yet.

[Probius]

So let's look at some of the problems with atheism.  As you recall, you have had to modify your definition on "good", and in fact I'm still not satisfied with it, as I said anything that involves giving up your life means turning yourself into worm food forever.  You agree that if you deny Original Sin you CAN become a communist.  And you are not able to give me a MATERIAL definition of what you yourself call "spiritual" and I believe you even used the term "higher good".

So let us look at something "spiritual", and that is free market economics.  If you are a Libertarian, then something you will hold dear is the requirement that in an economic trade both sides MUST exchange value for value.  And that using coercion   -- "the point of the gun" to obtain things is immoral.  To put it in Catholic terms, you are very devoted to pure justice.  And the Church agrees with you, even stating that the care of the poor does not concern justice, but charity, i.e. a free movement of the will without compulsion. 

"it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. "Of that which remaineth, give alms."(14) It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law."

Now here's the problem you face.  I can explain why insisting on the exchange of value for value is the only moral economic system based on the cardinal virtue of justice, you can not.  All you can say is that exchanging value for value is required for a righteous life, but you can't say why.  You stop there.  It is possible to abstract it slightly further by saying that each of us has the ability to be owed, but after that, you come to a complete stop.  Because there is absolutely zero atheistic-materialist explanation of how we can be owed.  In fact, I believe to even admit this is to contradict materialism.  And yet deep down we know that this immaterial fact exists.

I was explaining Rand earlier with reference to a man giving his life for his wife.  That is one area in which I disagree with her.  It doesn't seem to follow logically.  I may see benefit in my spouse surviving, but I would see more benefit to myself surviving.  If she dies, I lose a tremendous relationship which I enjoyed selfishly. If I die, I still lose that relationship, but I also lose all other relationships, as well as everything else.  So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.  Do you find that sufficient?

With regard to Christian charity the Church is spot on.  If we treated charity as justice, the recipient of such charity would have no reason to say thank you.  I do believe in exchanging value for value, because we are all equal.  We were born equal with a tabula rasa.  If I want something from you, I must be willing to exchange something of value to you.  Otherwise, you would have no reason to part with your object of value.  And the same goes for me.

I believe in the non-aggression principle, which is similar to the golden rule.  No one may use force upon another, except to protect one's life or the life of a loved one.  To take another's life, would be to take another's liberty.  It is a violation of one's rights.

[LouisIX]

I was explaining Rand earlier with reference to a man giving his life for his wife.  That is one area in which I disagree with her.  It doesn't seem to follow logically.  I may see benefit in my spouse surviving, but I would see more benefit to myself surviving.  If she dies, I lose a tremendous relationship which I enjoyed selfishly. If I die, I still lose that relationship, but I also lose all other relationships, as well as everything else.  So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.

I hope you do not take offense to this, but I would be amiss if I did not mention how ghastly this is.  This is a philosophical poison and equivalent to the ethic of the First Rebel.

In the end, it's a form of moral solipsism.  You have deified yourself and have neutered your own ability to love anything but yourself.  It contributes nothing, but instead is all consuming.  It sucks the bone dry, leaving nothing but desolation. 

I appreciate your civility on the forum thus far, and criticize your ideas and not you as a man.  But out of love for both you and truth itself, you must come to understand how insidious this is.

[Probius]

I was explaining Rand earlier with reference to a man giving his life for his wife.  That is one area in which I disagree with her.  It doesn't seem to follow logically.  I may see benefit in my spouse surviving, but I would see more benefit to myself surviving.  If she dies, I lose a tremendous relationship which I enjoyed selfishly. If I die, I still lose that relationship, but I also lose all other relationships, as well as everything else.  So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.

I hope you do not take offense to this, but I would be amiss if I did not mention how ghastly this is.  This is a philosophical poison and equivalent to the ethic of the First Rebel.

In the end, it's a form of moral solipsism.  You have deified yourself and have neutered your own ability to love anything but yourself.  It contributes nothing, but instead is all consuming.  It sucks the bone dry, leaving nothing but desolation. 

I appreciate your civility on the forum thus far, and criticize your ideas and not you as a man.  But out of love for both you and truth itself, you must come to understand how insidious this is.

I take no offense.  I am a rebel at heart, funny enough, my high school was nicknamed the Rebels.  I can certainly see how this would seem insidious to you, but I see things differently.  To not exchange value for value in a relationship is to have one partner sacrifice to the other.  But partners should be equal, and not expect anything from the other unless value is given in return.  That is true equality.  And from there it logically follows that one should not sacrifice one's live to save the other.  Rand was brilliant, but I think she stopped short here.  Maybe it was because she was in love and this tore her from the obvious conclusion.  Maybe it's because I have never been in love.  I don't know, but the logic is certainly there.

[LouisIX]

I was explaining Rand earlier with reference to a man giving his life for his wife.  That is one area in which I disagree with her.  It doesn't seem to follow logically.  I may see benefit in my spouse surviving, but I would see more benefit to myself surviving.  If she dies, I lose a tremendous relationship which I enjoyed selfishly. If I die, I still lose that relationship, but I also lose all other relationships, as well as everything else.  So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.

I hope you do not take offense to this, but I would be amiss if I did not mention how ghastly this is.  This is a philosophical poison and equivalent to the ethic of the First Rebel.

In the end, it's a form of moral solipsism.  You have deified yourself and have neutered your own ability to love anything but yourself.  It contributes nothing, but instead is all consuming.  It sucks the bone dry, leaving nothing but desolation. 

I appreciate your civility on the forum thus far, and criticize your ideas and not you as a man.  But out of love for both you and truth itself, you must come to understand how insidious this is.

I take no offense.  I am a rebel at heart, funny enough, my high school was nicknamed the Rebels.  I can certainly see how this would seem insidious to you, but I see things differently.  To not exchange value for value in a relationship is to have one partner sacrifice to the other.  But partners should be equal, and not expect anything from the other unless value is given in return.  That is true equality.  And from there it logically follows that one should not sacrifice one's live to save the other.  Rand was brilliant, but I think she stopped short here.  Maybe it was because she was in love and this tore her from the obvious conclusion.  Maybe it's because I have never been in love.  I don't know, but the logic is certainly there.

So you are essentially a nihilist?  There is no transcendent meaning to anything.  Basically, it's about the maximization of pleasure and then nothingness.

Let me ask, does this attitude apply to one's children?  Is it better to let your 2 year old daughter die a gruesome death than for you to die?