Ramen

Those who strive to be unbiased ascertain objectivity. Theists are more subjective, hence biased thinkers, IMO.

To say that humility seeks a reward would go against its very definition.

My response was just based on my definition of humility. I'm not Xtian and I don't endorse Xtianity. Why are you so quick to label things Xtian? Here's one of my favorite quotes...

"Because you grasp labels and slogans,
You are hindered by
Those labels and slogans,
Both those used in
Ordinary life and those
Considered sacred.
Thus they obstruct your
Perception of objective truth,
And you cannot understand clearly.

- Linji "

Unless the humble person sees everything as equal.

Why bother believing one way or another? And believing is something that theists emphasize.

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: peeramid ]</p>

Ender

Apparently, by ascribing "absolutism" to my statements, you have either a dishonest agenda or a comprehension problem. Nice pissing-in-the-well tactic, by the way. Do you have anything more to add beyond your opening statement that humility is subjective?
So much for the dictionary. Are you willing or are you not willing to investigate the term humility in its human context or have you decided to cop out by indulging in a semantic game? Don't you think that a humble person has a motive to stay humble? If not, we have nothing to talk about, because this implies that you believe in the objectivity of human sentiments.
Your definition of humility has its genealogical roots in slave morality. Got nothing to comment on the Aristotelian type of ethics?
If it stinks like herd morality, walks like herd morality, talks like herd morality, then by George! You do not have to believe in Christian God to espouse slave morality, by the way. This is the disease of British morality- they have gotten rid of God but the leftover stains of Christianity remain.
Do you have anything serious to say beyond an exercise of your aesthetic preferences of poems that amounts to nothing more than a massive non-sequitur?
Equality is another endorsement of slave morality. Why are you wasting my time? Aristotle also said once that the greatest injustice was to make unequal things equal.
Get back to me when you have something more substantial than this self-refuting nonsense.


~WiGGiN~

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Ramen

Did I define my agenda? Maybe my agenda is to be an asshole.

As I stated before, the motive of the humble is to refrain from being an asshole. The motive of faking humility seeks rewards.

Not familiar with Aristotlian ethics. Is there a topic on it?

Out with the Xtian stamp and in with the slave stamp?

The point of the quote emphasized clear and objective thinking. What do you have against this?

As if I were forcing you to reply. If you choose to reply, you are deciding what to do with your own time.

Ender

Possibly. There's no need to cover your arse by defining your agenda on the outset- it's already written allover your posts.
Who gets to sanction what is an "asshole?" Is this another social construct the toadying hypocrite quickly endears himself or herself to? Why does the humble person avoid stepping on another person's toes, even at the cost of his own pride? This brings me back to the claim that concepts such as equality or humility or other democratic ideals are characteristics of herd morality. All human behavior is predicated on teleological motives, like you've admitted in your unsatisfactory explanation.
I'm sure a google search will produce something fruitful. Moreover, a good book on Aristotelian ethics will help.
Slave morality is the diseased soil where belief in Christianity was tilled and cultivated. A belief in a certain deity is predicated by a psychological profile of the believer.
Regrettably, the poem claimed that labels and slogans were obstacles to objective thinking. Objective thought requires knowledge independent of the knower, which is a contradiction. One should not volunteer whimsical poems as an argument in a philosophical discussion. Next!
Yes, I can ignore you any time. Rephrased: you are most certainly taxing my patience with your non-sequiturs, snide attitude and a churlish refusal to connect the dots. Put in an effort, chico.
~Speaker 4 the Death of God~

Plump-DJ

This is an interesting discussion. My own feelings is that ultimately humility is a good thing.

This does not mean allowing oneself to hold back, to nor strive for goals or allowing oneself to get walked over. It's the way you carry yourself in the process that counts to your "humility" points.

And i think we all recognise humility when we see it. The winner who congratulates his defeated opponent for example.

Adrian Selby

Ender,

"Humility is another tool invented by the weak to impede, prevent and circumvent the healthy who strive with great ambitions."

Who invented humility? The weak? Got any names? Come on, that's a hard comment to substantiate.

Can a person be ambitious and humble? of course, they can set out to be the best in the world at something, and realise that their struggle to succeed in that field reveals how far short they are from true excellence. Do you know of any artists or writers or athletes or musicians that were every satisfied that they had achieved greatness and therefore had no need to be humble, whether in fact they were humble or not? Of course, successful people can be arrogant, or merely confident, and have the conviction they're right, that doesnt' mean, generally, they can't be humble. But then, these are amorphous attributes.

"Humility is an aspect of hatred, that it is evil to strive after greatness, or to fulfill what is everybody's potential. It is one of the biggest obstacles to the progress of humanity. "

Wrong, humility is a quality of a person that some admire and some don't, and it is a quality that some have and some don't. Humble people aren't the set of people who aren't great. Muhammad Ali was and is humble before Allah, fiction or not. Eric Clapton admitted he could never play the blues like Robert Johnson, similarly, Hendrix admired and felt less 'great' than Dylan, and Dave Gilmour of the Floyd said after jamming with BB King, that if he stopped eating and sleeping for the rest of his life, and practised, he might be as good as BB. There are very many successful people that, when talking about their influences and heroes, seem to display humility. After all, not everyone is humble in everything, one doesn't eat humbly, one merely eats, so in talking of humility, it should be apparent that we're talking of instances or times when great people are given the opportunity of being humble, and they have been known to have that in them. I don't find humility a quality that's so easy to stamp on groups of people like you do, but then, people are a bit more complex to categorise than 'great' and 'herd', phrases I find most unhelpful when talking about people at large. Can you point at someone and say definitively 'herd member' and 'great' and expect everyone to agree with the particular criteria you applied to that person?

I am a writer. I do not think that in getting published, which I strive towards, I will be better than anyone else, confident though I am I will be published one day, so while its no small ambition to get a novel published, it equally doesn't preclude a sense of humility about one's work, and how one relates it to the work of others.

"There are no unselfish motives in human nature"

I suppose this will need defining, are you of the school that people are incapable of acting out of anything other than self interest?

Adrian

Ramen

Ender,

Well, you have given me some food for thought. I like seeing things from as many perspectives as I'm able to, so maybe I will pick up a book on Aristotlean ethics.

Dude, you might think about being a little more humble.

ManM

No, I mean people who do not even consider the issue. I have a feeling our ideas of humility are quite different. I believe that humility is not negative self-esteem, but rather a lack of self-esteem. It seems as though you are talking about negative self-esteem. I am not.

Synaesthesia

Ender,
Although, strictly speaking, this position can be maintained depending upon how you define "selfishness", I think it requires such a dilute definition of the term, that it is simply confusing. Human beings can indeed consciously take actions that are in no sense their own best interests.

They can take a self-destructive (even deadly) course of action for the good of an external agency, even when the possibility for self-preservation is availible. To call this extreme altruism a selfish behavior seems somewhat contrary to the meaning of those words.

diana

You mean, hypocrites who pretend to not know the definition of humility?

Hm.

I was just thinking that true humility is not motivated by desires, but is a result of understanding one's own utter insignificance in space and time.

Maybe I should have made that True Humility (TM).

I rather think no one is consistently humble. It seems to be the nature of the beast that we must constantly remind ourselves--and be reminded--how little we know and how unimportant we are. I think we have a natural bent toward being arrogant sons-of-bitches. Or maybe I'm just projecting.

I now returned you to your regularly scheduled brutal argument. Don't mind me....

d