WE HAVE UNDERVALUED OURSELVES
Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
In almost any discussion of the benefits of Objectivism, I'm continually confronted with the argument that it's bad to be selfish, to take pride in self or in accomplishment or achievement, that it's the team not the individual. I've always had difficulty with the culture of humility and humbleness and the opinion that people that don't obey are bad.
In this article by Paul Rosenburg, he puts forth a discussion of where much of that belief arises from:
"But whatever motivated the adults of my youth, they were mostly wrong – it’s not our overvaluation of ourselves that is the real problem; it’s our undervaluation.
Here is a passage from G.K. Chesterton’s The Defendant that makes this argument:
There runs a strange law through the length of human history — that men are continually tending to undervalue their
environment, to undervalue their happiness, to undervalue themselves. The great sin of mankind, the sin typified by the fall of
Adam, is the tendency, not towards pride, but towards this weird and horrible humility.
I think Chesterton was entirely correct, and I think we have all been surrounded by, and influenced by, a “weird and horrible humility.”
Most of us, most of the time, fear making errors, think about our failures and deficits, and live in a sea of guilt. Not only is this dark self-image unnecessary, but it degrades us and is built upon falsehoods.
We are, since childhood, trained to view ourselves as dangerous creatures, teetering on the edge of error and harm. We absorb these ideas through what currently passes as “law” and by parts of modern religion… particularly the doctrine of “original sin.”
Even the definition of “good” is held to be “selflessness,” which clearly maintains that “self” is bad.
Bear in mind that I’m not saying all humans are good. Clearly, some of them are violent and vile. But these are a small minority, and we should not lump normal people in with them."
Can those taught to doubt themselves and maintain humility ever understand Objectivism or an Objectivist?
In this article by Paul Rosenburg, he puts forth a discussion of where much of that belief arises from:
"But whatever motivated the adults of my youth, they were mostly wrong – it’s not our overvaluation of ourselves that is the real problem; it’s our undervaluation.
Here is a passage from G.K. Chesterton’s The Defendant that makes this argument:
There runs a strange law through the length of human history — that men are continually tending to undervalue their
environment, to undervalue their happiness, to undervalue themselves. The great sin of mankind, the sin typified by the fall of
Adam, is the tendency, not towards pride, but towards this weird and horrible humility.
I think Chesterton was entirely correct, and I think we have all been surrounded by, and influenced by, a “weird and horrible humility.”
Most of us, most of the time, fear making errors, think about our failures and deficits, and live in a sea of guilt. Not only is this dark self-image unnecessary, but it degrades us and is built upon falsehoods.
We are, since childhood, trained to view ourselves as dangerous creatures, teetering on the edge of error and harm. We absorb these ideas through what currently passes as “law” and by parts of modern religion… particularly the doctrine of “original sin.”
Even the definition of “good” is held to be “selflessness,” which clearly maintains that “self” is bad.
Bear in mind that I’m not saying all humans are good. Clearly, some of them are violent and vile. But these are a small minority, and we should not lump normal people in with them."
Can those taught to doubt themselves and maintain humility ever understand Objectivism or an Objectivist?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
A healthy mind is confident, is self aware, does seek self satisfaction through achievement, does expect honest payment for accomplishment, does not waste effort in false humility, or accept other's standards or assigned limitations, and can expect respect of proven ability and individual natural rights.
I could be wrong, though.
Excellent thread and some fantastic comments.
I have never worried about the mistakes I have made. I have learned much, perhaps more from my mistakes, but if one never makes attempt one learns nothing. I can often tell someone that I do not know the proper or best course of action, but I certainly know what courses of action were futile, or worse, detrimental. Live and learn, but dare to live!
Regards,
O.A.
Now, 'humility' and 'submission' have been conflated into a single dubious virtue and we have lost the positive aspects of 'being humble'. When you read literature that endorses humility, it is handy to consider 'when' it was written and 'what' the quality called "humility" meant to the writer.
Jan
There are two ways one can look at where we came from: that we always existed (conservation of matter/energy) and that this is simply another form, or that we at some point were brought into existence. Even deists fall into different camps here. I personally subscribe to the original notion that there is conservation of intelligence, but that our present form does not include a remembrance of anything prior to this.
Why is this important? Because where we came from has an undeniable impact on where we are and hints at the potential of where we can go from here.
And where can we go?
Here is another of those philosophical questions that is a fundamental divide between atheists and deists. I haven't met an atheist who believes in an afterlife, and I haven't met a deist who doesn't, but that fundamental belief colors EVERY decision about the evaluation of potential for the future. If the atheists are correct and nothing exists past this life, then we need only be concerned about living this life. If intelligence persists, however, and death is merely a doorway out of a temporary state, then suddenly we must then evaluate whether the choices we make now will influence what comes after. Though they may disagree as to the afterlife and its specifics, I am not aware of a deist religion that does NOT hold that decisions here in this life are not absolutely critical to the pathways open to us in the next - thus understanding where we came from and where we want to get to have an enormous influence upon the choices we make now. Presupposing that there are qualifications or standards which must be met for certain pathways in the hereafter - which we do not control - it is only then up for us to decide whether or not attainment of such is 1) within our power and 2) of utility to us.
The supposition in your question is that man can decide for himself both where he wants to go AND how he gets there. While that may be somewhat true for this life, it is not the case for anything beyond. Thus knowing what is beyond and the standards for such allow us to make an informed decision.
Some people approach the Bible as a concrete instead of an abstraction and I think that approach invites "religious governance".
Once in awhile an opportunity arises where I can ask direct questions about that approach and am usually met with positive results.
Washington uses the same tactics, we just don't think of Washington as a"church" or "religion".
Same abstraction, different concrete.
Where does man's inherent drive to explore and determine his own standard fit into your description?
That is the struggle of life: to identify where we came from, where we are now, where we would like to go from here, and how we are going to get there.
Load more comments...