---"When you don't care who gets the props for something and take satisfaction that the truth is out there for people to accept as they choose - that is humility."---

Confronting your own biases is part of being honest. To "prop yourself up" in an Unearned position is being dishonest. Not caring who gets "props" or credit for a brilliant explanation of reality or an insightful analysis of complex concepts is an equivalence of value with non-value. I take no satisfaction in seeing that and I'm proud of it.

Since you seem unwilling to continue the conversation using the definitions that form the entire basis for this conversation, continuing this is pointless.

In actuality, you are exhibiting exactly the type of pride and the results I warned of by refusing to continue the conversation based on the definitions I established as the foundation of such. By refusing to even consider an alternate view of the world but your own, you are exemplifying the exact attributes and behavior I specifically cited. I would thank you for proving my point so effectively, but it wasn't at all the desired outcome.

How does the average person learn to obtain humility, or the state of being humble? Answer: To reduce respect for themselves. To reduce their self-confidence. To make the themselves less comfortable about who they are. To literally lower themselves to the dirt.

Pride itself is not bad. I see a world without any pride being very bad, if not outright unsurvivable.
But like all emotions, pride can mutate into something awful if respect for individual rights are tossed aside. But, that is also true with humility.

You don't need humility to know you don't know it all. It does however seem that the more humble people are, the more susceptible they are to become willing servants to those many conflicting “greater goods.” And that is a very slippery slope indeed.

In the context of this discussion, pride was defined as the "idea or attitude that one's own view of something is correct and authoritative and therefore is not subject to adjustment or correction". This is the epitome of a closed mind. I doubt this was what you had in mind with your reference, but please expand on your reasoning.

I never advocated mortification, shame, degradation, etc. - either towards others or towards one's self. Where did you get the impression that I said anything of the kind? Please re-read the post. Humiliation does NOT lead to humility.

If I didn't respect the people here in the Gulch for being interested in the truth, I'd almost suspect you were intentionally trying to twist my words.

So only if people mortify, degrade, shame or lower themselves then can they know truth?
You seem very self confidence of this. I'll still pass.

Humility can not be forced on someone. Humiliation is a coercive act of oppression - it is not an act of introspection. Humiliation has nothing to do with presenting what is right, but seeks to cow someone and make an example of them for disagreeing with someone in power. The result of humiliation is resentment - not agreement. Humiliation is all about power - not truth.

Making the truth known forces people to confront their own biases, but HOW you make it known makes all the difference. Humility is the key to that. When your goal is to prop yourself up as a guru, master, professor in the proverbial ivory tower, etc., then you are seeking dominance - an aspect of pride. Truth gets left in the dust. When you don't care who gets the props for something and take satisfaction that the truth is out there for people to accept as they choose - that is humility.

+1

Sounds like we should be humbling everybody so all can know truth.
I'll pass

If you believe that, you misconstrue one aspect of Pride for Humility. Humility does not mean backing down from what is true or right. Humility is no respecter of persons or political privilege. If one doesn't want to look at Christ, one can also look at either Mother Teresa or Mahatma Ghandi as examples of those who were humble, yet held very strong convictions as to what was right.

Pride can be either arrogance or unreasonable subservience - both are the product of someone being unwilling to look at the world objectively, are they not? The objective person - the humble person - does not invalidate their own view just because someone else says differently (subservience) nor do they project their views onto others as authoritative because of their position (arrogance). A humble or objective person is concerned with _what_ is right - both subservience and arrogance are concerned with _who_ is right.

Also, because a person must have conviction born of knowledge to take a principled stand, ignorance is in no way synonymous with humility. In point of fact (especially in the case of subservience), ignorance contributes to Pride. All one has to do is look at political discourse to see this principle on grand display!

Humility can be a slippery slope to subservience. It reminds me of various religious dogmas. Humility, by definition and connotation implies a feeling of thinking one is less than others, or deferring to others as superior. Certainly not what we would expect from an Objectivist. One can be totally ignorant and be humble, just by way of that ignorance.
Objectivist live for their own interest, using reason. They do not think of themselves as inferior or less than others, nor do they think themselves better. They think what best a person can be, and hope that person, and they themselves can achieve that.
Political attacks occur when the one who wishes to control for power's sake, feels thwarted and attacks the person - a logical error. You will find few in politics who search for truth, rather for power.
Rand's characters do not condemn, but they do ask for the right to pursue their own interests and not live for the sake of another. Humility would not describe that approach, as they would soon cave to the manipulations of others, assuming they knew best.

I don't particularly agree with the idea of sophistication as being the correct word. Arrogance too only describes one aspect. And authenticity is relative to knowledge - one can be totally ignorant and be 100% authentic, so that one doesn't really hold for me, either.

No, I'll stand with my original definition.

uuuuhhhh-that's exactly why the NAP is BS

The interviewer was Alvin Toffler. -- http://www.atlassociety.org/ayn-rand-pla... The link includes some of Rand's edits and deleted material. "This article was originally published in the March 2004 issue of Navigator magazine, The Atlas Society precursor to The New Individualist."

§ 304 . Duration of copyright: Subsisting copyrights
(a) Copyrights in Their First Term on January 1, 1978. —
(1)(A) Any copyright, in the first term of which is subsisting on January 1, 1978, shall endure for 28 years from the date it was originally secured.
(B) In the case of —
(i) any posthumous work or of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof, or
(ii) any work copyrighted by a corporate body (otherwise than as assignee or licensee of the individual author) or by an employer for whom such work is made for hire, the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of 67 years.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3...

Duration under 1909 Act
Federal standards for copyright duration differ substantially under the 1909 act compared with the 1976 act because of the renewal term contained in the 1909 act. Under the 1909 act, federal copyright was secured on the date a work was published or, for unpublished works, on the date of registration. A copyright lasted for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. The copyright was eligible for renewal during the final, that is, 28th year, of the first term. If renewed, the copyright was extended for a second, or renewal, term of 28 years. If it was not renewed, the copyright expired at the end of the first 28-year term, and the work is no longer protected by copyright. The term of copyright for works published with a year date in the notice that is earlier than the actual date of publication is computed from the year date in the copyright notice.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.p...

"As part of their celebration of the 50th anniversary of the first Playboy Interview, the editors of Playboy have republished their interview with Ayn Rand, from the March 1964 issue. (Kindle Edition)" --
https://estore.aynrand.org/p/569/ayn-ran...

Hey...I did some shruggin' today and I've had a couple of beverages. The angles were shiny, I got sucked in.

if you steal my property, you have landed the first blow. Even if I do not feel the sting on my cheek, my well laid plans may be torn asunder

I'm really scouring this for some nuggets to connect, but can't seem to find any. (Nice to know there are principled men out there though. :))

Might it not be authenticity rather than humility which brings us most in touch with truth? Is it not the constant desire of people to try to emulate the pseudo-sophistication of public figures which leads them astray and away from what you seek? They do not realize that sophistication is just layers of unreality, taking them farther and farther from truth, basic values and even God, if they are so inclined.If one is authentic, they will put up with nothing less from those who seek to lie or posture. If one is authentic, they will not need to defend themselves and will seek truth, as well as demanding as much from those who seek to attack out of their own pride.

let's just say, LS is highly motivated and looks at things from new angles....

I'm not the one speaking all the innuendo I'm just piecing it together.

It was actually in response to your "always a new angle." It made me go "Hmmmm".

I'd rather not discuss my past, but, I have many times stood on principle and often became least liked in the unit (during my Active Duty days). It was ALWAYS reflected in my Annual Performance Report. Oh well, despite the best efforts of those morons who out ranked me to keep me from getting promoted, I still retired as a Master Sergeant. (E-7) Do you know what it's called when your best just isn't good enough?

FAILURE. =)

I succeeded in achieving my goals. They never stopped me. But I digress....