My concern involves the seeming contradiction between believing that we can improve the human condition, and the belief that we don't necessarily know what's best for ourselves, which leads to the logical conclusion that we conduct aimless action. If there's no contradiction, and humility means something to the effect of "understanding our role within the construct of a whole society and the universe", then that eliminates the contradiction. Rather, that makes humility akin to "self awareness", which brings into play Socrates' and Thales' exhortations to "know thyself". If that's the case, then I agree, we can avoid the terms "pride" and "humility", until they're extremely carefully defined.
It would create a situation, though, where we would need to know where to place "excellence" in all this. We want people to exceed expectations and create all these technological and medical advances to address all the ills in the world but, at the same time, we seemingly want to express that this advancement means nothing in the long run. How do we get people to continue to press the boundaries of human achievement? On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:35 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > Mike *: > *Chris is right, Ernie is the one to really explain this best. > However, and much as I think highly of Aquinas, there is > a very different sense of the word that is being assumed > in this discussion. > > It may be best summed up in the phrase " I am third," > which is a frequent enough motif in sermons. Namely *:* > Christ comes first, family and friends and community come second, > and only then do "I" enter the picture. Yes, it is an ideal > that is not achieved probably moreso than otherwise, > but it is the Christian ideal. > > Another way to look at the concept is that it is all about > sense of personal limitations. Sure, we should take pride > in accomplishments, about which my attitude is my own, > but Evangelical emphasis, at least is on denial of value to > a number of kinds of pride, to the extent that > self-sacrifice comes first and pride is a distant second. > > This may be one of the reasons why Ernie and myself debate > the meaning of "humble" every once and a while. I understand > the Evangelical view and regard it as important, its just that > to me pride has a very positive sense and deserves to be > given a vital place in one's life. But that isn't --as I understand it-- > what Ernie is saying. His view ( he will correct this impression > if it is off base ) is that being humble is FAR more important > than pride, even in a positive sense. Why ? Because of > Christ's example. To put it in Catholic terms, Ernie is much > more in tune with St Francis than St Thomas. > > This is about an Evangelical outlook but it is similar to > a debate between a Franciscan and a Jesuit. > > Maybe this helps explain things > > Billy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > 1/10/2012 6:18:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected]: > > I quoted the preeminent church father himself, St. Thomas Aquinas. If we > let God work through us for food, then we starve to death. At some point, > we have to take responsibility for ourselves, whether that be to find > sustenance or create the optimal state. > > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Chris Hahn <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> You are missing the Christian definition of humble that Ernie referenced. >> It is not about submitting to one's superior in an old British sense of >> social class; rather, it is about listening to God. If we presume to tell >> God what is in our best interest, then we are lacking humility. Arrogance >> is the presumption that we can usurp the infinite intelligence of God with >> our human will. Humility allows God to work through us for a higher >> purpose. Ernie can probably elaborate more eloquently. >> >> One thing is clear in our discussion today... words matter. If the terms >> progressive or humility have loaded meanings that distract the casual >> reader >> from the true message, then we need to find better words. >> >> Chris >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael >> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:42 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [RC] On humility >> >> Aristotle placed pride as the proper mean between humility and vanity. Why >> not fulfill our agenda with pride? One of central pieces of our ideology >> is >> that we freely usurp parts of anything right, but that doesn't mean that >> we >> need to fight placidly, as if we're only borrowing the truth. A certain >> sense of purpose in implementation is a virtue, even if we aren't the >> 'true >> believer' type. >> >> Keep in mind St. Thomas Aquinas' definition of humility, that it "consists >> in keeping oneself within one's own bounds, not reaching out to things >> above >> one, but submitting to one's superior." Is that really what we want to be- >> people who submit themselves to servitude? >> >> -- >> > > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community < > [email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org > -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
