Mike : Suppose there is authority for making decisions about self-improvement ? Actually there are several : Psychology ( granted this is not foolproof but it is far better than guesswork ), religion, social approval, lessons of neuroscience, empirical research on healthy behaviors, and at least some kinds of philosophy. In this case, while you cannot eliminate all ambiguity or do away with all error, you still are ahead of the game and deservedly can have a sense of being on the right track. But, yes, a sense of excellence is necessary. However, you can get exactly this also from psychology ( some versions ), religion, etc. My emphasis is on philosophy maybe moreso than not, but by no means only philosophy, more like a plurality factor with strong competition from other factors and sometimes religious faith comes in first by a mile. Another "it depends." Life or death moral issue is one thing, trying to puzzle out why human beings favor some activities or have certain aversions, which is far more common of a problem, then it is time to turn to the sciences. Anyway, why can't we improve the human condition ? Seems like a good thing to do rather than leave everything up to fate or chance. Billy --------------------------------------------------------------- 1/10/2012 7:08:59 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
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]_ (mailto:[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]_ (mailto:[email protected]) writes: 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]_ (mailto:[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]) [mailto:[email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) ] On Behalf Of Michael Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:42 PM To: [email protected]_ (mailto:[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
