About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 11:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I also agree with Ellis.  I think that humility is a good thing because it allows you to find the balance in your life between no ego and an ego that is to big, a healthy ego.  Nobody likes someone who is completely full of themselves, and humility isn't devaluing yourself, it is just keeping things real and showing that you are not a completely self-centered person, but know who you are.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 5:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey, its my first post.  My apologies for lack of proper introductions.  I read thru this thread with great interest.  I did want to comment on a few things that, while perhaps obvious, may have been glossed over in the conversation.  

I almost felt there were really two conversations happening here.  There was one about the proper Objectivist traits of pride and self-confidence as opposed to humility, hubris, and arrogance in all of their forms.  The other topic I think dealt more with how we express those traits when interacting with others.  Dave brought this to the fore in post number five were, at the end, he states "We'll have to think of a better term than humility, but this is helping me understand why I often feel like many objectivists are closer to Rush Limbaugh than Howard Roark."

What Dave and coalton were trying to get at was how Ayn Rand's heros interacted with others; that "soft-spoken self-confidence", or how "the ideal man seems to carry himself with confidence yet humility".  That last paragraph of post twelve really summed it up well and what I think we're looking for here is that all of Ayn Rand's heros did one thing...

They treated everyone as equals.  As much as they refused to bow down as slaves they also refused to become masters; they dealt with everyone as equals (or they didn't deal with them at all).  Think of the relationship between Howark Roake and Peter Keating;  Howard never belittled Peter or lorded over him.  Instead Howard always treated Peter with a basic courtesy and respect (that is he respected Peter as a separate and autonomous individual who had the right to make his own choices, not that Peter had ever done anything to earn respect). 

To answer dave's question at the end of post 12 "What's that called?".  That's called common curtesy, respect,  common decency. 

Just my $0.02.

pax




Post 22

Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 6:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
to further explain my belief, I feel lucky that I had parents who taught me that pride was a good thing (as long as it is under control, i.e. rational), that you should value yourself, but in the process never put down others because of it.  I remember getting into arguments with highschool conservative teachers who would say that pride is a terrible thing and leads to al sorts of wrongs in the world (the same teacher who told me that I was just another selfish "liberal" because I believed that people could make a difference and improve their lives and help change the world), I would reply that pride is good, that someone without pride, without self-esteem, doesn't have a true persona, the just allow people to walk all over them and are not the kind of people I would want to be friends with.  I also believe that a person with rational, real pride is also humble because they know that they are worthwhile but don't flaunt it, so in that sense, yes, humility is a virtue.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.