WE HAVE UNDERVALUED OURSELVES
Posted by Zenphamy 9 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?
Governments rule by the force of law (Attila); religions (Witch doctors) rule by imposing an "original sin" of which you are guilty by being born.... if you choose to accept it.
That's what "Anthem" is for. That's why I always recommend that book first. Everyone has to break through this initial barrier.
And usually an answer can be found if you're willing to look closely, listen hard, and admit it when the other guy has a good point.
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
This has been a wedge between myself and mainstream Objectivism for more than thirty years.
I'd never seen the words before (hell, I thought it was MY idea) let alone seen a defense of it, but "enlightened self-assessment" (Now I know what it's called!) was crucial to my development. I saw it as the ONLY path to a proper ego. The only way I could be profoundly moved by my considerable strengths was to also be fully aware of my myriad weaknesses. To weigh the sum of one against the other and KNOW if I was a good man doing the right thing.
I saw value in this "humility". Profound value.
Yet as a young man, listening to a tape of Ayn Rand - the goddess of my idolatry, I heard her say that while she had no children and so was not qualified to offer much advice on the subject, she could say "above all do not teach them to be humble."
What was I to make of that?
But the way you've explained it, I'm sure she would take no issue.
Thank you, Jan.
Few moments are more sublime than when a BIG piece finally falls into place.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
As a teenage dreamer in love with the Arthurian legends (but having read Anthem by that time), I had trouble 'double thinking' their endorsement of humility as a virtue. Fortunately, I had a lot of practice in 'double think' because the myths and sf that I read had few female heroes and I always imagined myself with a sword/blaster performing great deeds rather than languishing in a tower combing my hair, so I dabbed a bit of mental 'no see' on the quality of 'humility' and went on reading...
Many years later, a friend showed me a paper that his martial arts teacher had written, on the change in what was termed 'humility' between the Middle Ages and our current era. In my usual shy and self-effacing manner, I marched right up to the teacher and asked him if he would please send me a copy of mine own. He did.
My reaction to his paper was similar to yours: How useful a quality 'humility' is when seen in the light of self-assessment rather than submissiveness! So I think that we should 'take back the word' and undercut the definition of subjugation that is now implied by its use. We proudly (but not arrogantly) humble people can go right on striding confidently through life, aware of our myriad weaknesses (nice!) and tolerant of our fallibility, but not ignoring our strengths nor caving in to society's demands of brainless submission to its dictates.
Jan
(Your enthusiasm and erudition betray your cognomen! I think you are (non)Zero(sum).)
It was so alien to my home-built concept, that I never even thought of "submissive" when others spoke of "humility".
When I saw it in this post did a double-take. I think I muttered something like "Say Whaa?!" before I Googled it.
Even then, I actually blamed the "dictionary guys" for shabby work and "getting it wrong" until I checked several other sites and realized the rest of the world was using a different word than I.
(Ha! Now THAT's what keeps you humble! I would have bet a dollar!)
Take it back? Hell yes. They've twisted one of our greatest virtues into an act of submission?
Yeah, I'll fight for that one.
No wonder AR was so hostile to it!
(One of the few times I disagreed with Her but, of course, I really just needed a little clarification. What a woman.)
About the closest definition to human nature being flawed is: The need to compare yourself adversely to others.
If you take this thought into consideration, you will see the beauty of this article.
Thank you for this post!
Washington uses the same tactics, we just don't think of Washington as a"church" or "religion".
Same abstraction, different concrete.
Cheers
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.
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.
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.
Where does man's inherent drive to explore and determine his own standard fit into your description?
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.
Are you more aligned with Clarke's vision in Childhood's End?
The only purpose I have ever had for believing anything is to learn the Truth. The Objective Truth our philosophy is named after.
I've always been a Scientist, not by vocation but by world-view. And as a Scientist I've seen scant evidence of life after death but considerable reason to doubt it.
No offense intended to anyone, but I've never thought the "conservation of energy" argument applied to an "immortal soul."
I am loathe to challenge another's faith, but simply to illustrate my view, consider this:
I once saw a "hands-on" example of resonance and standing-waves at the Exploratorium in San Francisco. A short length of rope was tied horizontally between an eye bolt at one end and a lever that moved up and down at the other. Like a child playing with a jump rope, you could vary the speed of the lever and make various waveforms in the rope. When you found the resonance of the length of rope you created a waveform that seemed to stand still - a "standing wave". It was cool as hell and I played with it for a while.
But when you turned the motor off the standing wave vanished and the rope lay limp between the two ends.
Where did that wave go? That wondrous thing that so enthralled just a moment ago?
Surely it's "energy" was "conserved". Mr Larsen taught me that in Jr High. So where did it go?
---
The rope is your brain.
The motor is the chemical fire that blazes in your skull, causing a three pound organ to consume a third of the oxygen you breathe.
And the Standing Wave is your Mind - your Consciousness - your Soul.
Where did it go?
It dissipated into the tiniest bit of heat as the rope/body came to rest.
As for the Soul being something more than Mind, I say "Really? What is a Soul without Consciousness?"
Where does your soul go when you sleep?
An EEG scribbles down the waveforms of your brain in motion. When you sleep the waves calm down, smooth out and you do not think - or even dream.
An EEG sees when you dream, your brain's waveforms approach true consciousness, they become more complex, your breathing increases and the chemical fire is stoked anew.
So what is your Soul but your Mind?
Did it always exist in some other form - long before your birth? Does it go somewhere when you sleep, doing things you can't remember? Does it survive your death, living on in some other plane of existence?
To my mind, No.
---------------
As for Childhood's End, I ponder that. I think perhaps it may be so. Perhaps this universe is an incubator for sentience. Perhaps "God" is lonely, or this is how "they" reproduce.
But that's all stoners around the campfire, AJ. Wondering minds, insufficient to the task, gazing into an abyss.
I believe we were created. For a purpose. By a benevolent creator.
I have reasons to believe this - I consider myself a Rational Deist.
But I stop there.
I don't even claim to "know" these things. But I have found sufficient reason to believe them.
---------------
My humblest apologies, Zen, for diverging so far from the original thread.
And the Standing Wave is your Mind - your Consciousness - your Soul."
You have an amazing ability to explain science in a human context. I enjoyed this post very much.
Childhood's End, to me, was frightening. The futility of it all - our existence that is.
The first chapter (or two ) of 2001: A Space Odyssey was compelling and intriguing - the ability to remember being the main and primary difference between humans and other species.
As for the soul I do see your point. Sadly I've seen enough people slip away - the light goes out while they eyes are open - to feel that there isn't something more to a person than brain waves and impulses.
Sincerely, I do appreciate your response.
And I am happy to respectfully differ. Thank god for the diversity of free minds.
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.
And in one sentence even - nicely done.
So many people honestly don't understand this concept. I do what I like; if I don't want to do something [and can afford, monetarily or socially] not to do it, I do not.
Too often, people [especially women] say they will do something, and then feel resentful and angry about "having" to do it. Well, who was it who said "yes"? tsk, tsk
I get the same reaction when I don't answer the phone. Someone will say "I called you last night, where were you." "I was home." "No you weren't, I called you." I know, that's why I called you back today." People don't get it. It's MY phone, in MY house, or in MY pocket. I get to decide if I'm going to answer or not.
Since when was doing everything everyone asked of you, even answer the phone, required? feh.
Thanks winter wind. An excellent example.