Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Illusion of Humility

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by InnerPeace2012
 


"fulfillment" is a subjective term. Different things may be "fulfillment" for each person. You would need to define what "fulfillment" is because you make the claim that " humility leads to greater satisfaction/fulfillment"...


Individual fulfillment or satisfaction as you'd like to put it.

Peace




posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuttaHere
Humility is considering the needs of others before one's own because you recognize their basic human dignity as equal to your own. Pride is considering one's needs above everyone else's.

Humility is being willing to serve others whether you are a person of high social standing or not. Pride is demanding others serve you. Again, it is an issue of your regard for human dignity as a separate entity from wealth or professional accomplishment.

Humility is giving the best seat to someone else. Pride is demanding the best seat in the house. If it's all about YOU, then you are being proud.


I don't know where you are getting your definitions of pride and humility. You are twisting their definitions to fit your own argument. I am proud and I serve people of lower social standing. I am proud and I have high regard for human dignity. Being proud does lead to being selfish, but it does not equate to being self-absorbed. Is there anything truly wrong with being selfish?

Humility is considering the needs of others above your own? In practice that principle led to the concept of Communism. It doesn't work. People naturally will consider their needs first. If you consider the needs of others first you won't get anywhere, you won't be anyone important, and then you won't have the power to make a real, lasting impact on the world.

If you have done the work to earn the best seat in the house, you should sit in it. Don't deny the truth that you are most deserving.

Anyone read Atlas Shrugged?
edit on 12-3-2013 by Wang Tang because: above top secret



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by arpgme
 

Humility is not to be confused with humiliation. It's being true to one's self AND the other both. It's the only decent way to be. To lose one's humility in favor of pride would be like losing one's sense of humor.



Humiliation lends its part to humility. Humility is the ability to take humiliation, stress, and pain of all kinds; and then still retain the ability to not only suffer it, but also to forgive, and even more, not just because it is right to do, but because one understands that in order to suffer humiliation and pain, it must also have been allowed, and also therefore, even preordained, for a perfect purpose.

Is it pride that causes a man to die for other people? In this current world, we understand that sacrifices are made so that the weak may still live. So then, we also realize that in this current world, the only reason the weak have a place at all is because the strong had humility to be destroyed in favor of the weaker, and that they might thrive; even knowing that the weaker will be more ignorant as to the purpose, and possibly even completely deluded to the degree that they believe that they received good because they deserved it.

And the humble one understands that they are dying for those very same people that will claim that they deserve the good life that they have received.

So then it can be argued that pride has its place: for if it were not for the prideful, then the humble would not be named because the deeds of the humble wouldn't be known if it weren't for the prideful and their inherent inability to be strong and to take the inevitable punishment that is to be received in this world made cruel by the agencies of darkness and men.

But then if this is the case, the argument is nearly pointless. But the argument is not for the sake of those who believe in their pride. The argument is for the sake of strengthening those that already knew the truth, but might have been led astray by the illusion of strength that characters of a seemingly, and yet dubious, intelligence wish to portray in hopes legislating the transfiguration of the humble into their footstool; their feeble and fleeting wisdom, standing on the shoulders of dead giants, their throne.

But how ironic isn't it? That the prideful have the need to set the humble underneath their feet. But it is only nature, because the prideful wouldn't have a place to set their foot if it weren't for the humble. I think there is a modicum of gratitude owed here to the humble then.

As well, thrones and tombs of knowledge will be broken down and will be burnt up. But the ground, though it may be plowed, though it may be burnt, though it may be shoveled; though it may be pillaged, and be made dry, or be flooded: the ground will always be there, waiting for the next step of those who walk on their own two feet and hold their chin up high. And those with their two feet with their chin held up high; these very same will soon become that very dust upon which they walked. And then what will they say? Nothing; but they will take the place of the dirt they once trampled. And the dirt they once trampled will be reshaped, and made perfect, and will be made higher than before. And will the prideful then complain? Dirt can do nothing unless someone pours the water of life into it, and shapes it, and molds it, and causes it to move. Will the clay worker keep clay that demands of its creator, and speaks against him, and looks down upon all his other works? The clay worker will break that one down, and never use that dirt again; but instead, that dirt will be used to fill a hole elsewhere, and other dirt will be used, and tested, and tried. And the clay that is good, and speaks praises of the clay worker's creativity, and is at the service of the clay worker, that clay will the clay worker keep. And that clay will be cooked in the heat to make sure that no cracks appear when it dries of its water. If a few cracks appear, the clay worker will not want to get rid of it, but instead will seek to repair it. If the clay can be repaired, it will be repaired, and tested again. And if that clay keeps its form in the heat, then will the clay worker keep it, and dress it, and decorate it, and keep it as a memory of his perfect handiwork. But all the clay that breaks up in the heat, and that cannot be repaired, all that clay will be broken back down and thrown into the holes to fill the holes up. And once the clay worker has found all the good clay and has separated all of the good clay from the bad clay, then the work will be done. And all of the bad clay will be underfoot for the rest of time; no individuality will exist, but all will be ground. And all the good clay will exist forever, having been preserved, and dressed, and made perfect for the clay worker forever.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


We all share the same unconditioned ground of being, so I say that it's a joke at prideful's expense, an inescapable and unavoidable utterly hilarious joke at pride's absurdity, to the degree that pride itself will laugh along in the loss of pride or at it's own expense, the humor or understanding, real true and authentic understanding it's that powerful, that persuasive, that irresistible!

Pride? LOL!!!



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
It's good to hold yourself in a high regard, but erroneous to hold yourself in the highest regard. And it is a fools errand to seek superiority against others. It is wise to seek superiority in your ability to work as a team which involves knowing your place in the hierarchy which requires humility. Pride and humility are both appropriate, I think, but it is harmful, probably, to not know when which one is appropriate.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
It's good to hold yourself in a high regard, but erroneous to hold yourself in the highest regard. And it is a fools errand to seek superiority against others. It is wise to seek superiority in your ability to work as a team which involves knowing your place in the hierarchy which requires humility. Pride and humility are both appropriate, I think, but it is harmful, probably, to not know when which one is appropriate.


It is not pride to understand one's God given ability. In fact, it is more honest to recognize what has been given than to deny it.

But that is not pride. But I don't think you should be put down because you see it that way -- I see nothing wrong with your statement, except that others have a different definition....

But if we performed everything by the definitions of men, where would we be?



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   
If on the inside I hold myself in the highest regard, then I am proud, correct? If I hold myself in the highest regard, but don't blatantly make it known to others, then I am being humble, correct?

What I'm trying to say is humility is only an expected set of behaviors, nothing more. Pride is something much deeper.

In my opinion everyone tries to imply the word "humility" has a deeper meaning than it actually has. I'm not a fan of people blindly favoring a baseless set of behaviors in humility over the tried and true power of pride.

Now if this thread has taught me anything it is that there is a difference between inward pride and outward pride. Few people have a problem with people being inwardly proud, and quietly confident. More people seem to have a problem with the behaviors exhibited by abundant pride.

Well then, it seems to me it is not pride that is bad, but certain behaviors that follow from pride.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wang Tang
If on the inside I hold myself in the highest regard, then I am proud, correct? If I hold myself in the highest regard, but don't blatantly make it known to others, then I am being humble, correct?

What I'm trying to say is humility is only an expected set of behaviors, nothing more. Pride is something much deeper.

In my opinion everyone tries to imply the word "humility" has a deeper meaning than it actually has. I'm not a fan of people blindly favoring a baseless set of behaviors in humility over the tried and true power of pride.

Now if this thread has taught me anything it is that there is a difference between inward pride and outward pride. Few people have a problem with people being inwardly proud, and quietly confident. More people seem to have a problem with the behaviors exhibited by abundant pride.

Well then, it seems to me it is not pride that is bad, but certain behaviors that follow from pride.


Absolutely incorrect this time.

Your heart is where it counts. You hold yourself in the highest regard in your heart, so then you are a fool.

Truth is the truth.

I don't care how someone appears on the outside. It is not for me to judge.

You don't think very deeply, do you?

You can't judge strangers actions so easily at first, not for some people. Some people do interesting and extreme things and it really turns out that there was a deeper understanding of good that would not have made sense to us before.

That is not at all what is being discussed here. We are not talking about the exterior.

We are talking about the interior. You know your heart better than we do; but God knows your heart. And if you think highly of yourself, He will bring you way down - straight to the ground. And He will let you fall into the earth as long as you continue to be so foolish.

But what is on the interior does make possible what happens on the exterior. But what happens on the exterior, though now we know all of what is done accomplishes that which is good, we also know that most of the good we do will actually be judged, especially by those who know us, as useless, pointless, naive, even angry, bitter, or even arrogant, and bold!

But we will know in our hearts what the truth is and we will not allow their short-sightedness and their judgments to interfere with what we know is right and what is good... but at the same time, we do our best to let them know, to the best of our ability, that they have it wrong, in the calmest way possible (if it is required that we answer to them and if, of course, calm is the means by which we can actually get through to somebody).

But to have inner pride, and to not show it--- no; you are more dangerous than someone who shows their pride. You see, I would like to be able to see your arrogant pride if you have it so that I am able to judge you more quickly so that I can either help you or pass you aside and shake the dust off my feet in your direction.

But if you're hiding it, and it turns out that I have to communicate with you, or derive something from you, then I would have to wait until some suffering came upon you and then I would be able to get the truth out of you.

Very bad.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 



Your heart is where it counts. You hold yourself in the highest regard in your heart, so then you are a fool.


Since we're talking about the interior:

The organ which pumps blood throughout the body is important, but is not where notions of pride, humility and "truth" exist. One cannot hold anything in regard in the heart—only blood.

Let's pretend we understand at least a little of the human anatomy before we try to talk about the interior—which I might add is still one and the same as the exterior. We are talking about humans, not specifically the insides of humans.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 



Your heart is where it counts. You hold yourself in the highest regard in your heart, so then you are a fool.


Since we're talking about the interior:

The organ which pumps blood throughout the body is important, but is not where notions of pride, humility and "truth" exist. One cannot hold anything in regard in the heart—only blood.

Let's pretend we understand at least a little of the human anatomy before we try to talk about the interior—which I might add is still one and the same as the exterior. We are talking about humans, not specifically the insides of humans.









Still talking about the flesh.

How do you consider yourself educated? You don't think very deeply.

The heart is the depths of the mind. The brain does not contain the mind, but lends to it. The spiritual heart is what gives us our mind, our reason, and our spiritual understanding. The brain merely interprets these things; but then also, so does the heart. Or have you not read how some have lived with a heart, and no brain? But no one lives without a heart; the brain cannot sustain.

But then what kind of a life is it to have no brain? But then, isn't this most people? Aren't most just walking dead; waiting for the time of the end because they process nothing and do not pay attention?

But then, what kind of a life is it to have a brain, and no heart? You are already dead.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 





Still talking about the flesh.

How do you consider yourself educated? You don't think very deeply.

The heart is the depths of the mind. The brain does not contain the mind, but lends to it. The spiritual heart is what gives us our mind, our reason, and our spiritual understanding. The brain merely interprets these things; but then also, so does the heart. Or have you not read how some have lived with a heart, and no brain? But no one lives without a heart; the brain cannot sustain.

But then what kind of a life is it to have no brain? But then, isn't this most people? Aren't most just walking dead; waiting for the time of the end because they process nothing and do not pay attention?

But then, what kind of a life is it to have a brain, and no heart? You are already dead.


Still talking about non-entities. Does your flesh not exist to you? How contradictory.

You don't think nor express very clearly—product of a closed and superficial mind.

When you say heart you mean something else. When you say mind you mean something else. When you say God you mean something else. When you say pride you mean something else. You're going in circles, abstracting yourself into pieces and at the same time doing an injustice to yourself as a whole single living entity.

There is no inner-you, it's just you. There is no spiritual you, it's just you. There is no physical fleshy you, it's just you.

I would advise you start taking responsibility instead of laying the blame on one of your many aspects—brain, heart, spirit, God, whatever—all nonsense.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Writing God off as nonsense is the most foolish of scholarly mistakes. Even ill-fools without the ability to read know that God exists. You don't exercise what intelligence you have very well at all.

But it's not entirely your fault. You worship high imaginations and sciences that have given way to certain astounding things in this world; and the reason why you worship these things is because these things make the universe to appear within your control to document and eventually to manipulate; but not by will of Another, but by your own will, as you please, in what manner you choose.

The only problem there is that you have 7 billion people (for now) against which you strive for this same power. Quite a power struggle that is. You say God is nonsense; and yet you wish to be God.

So you wish to be nonsense?

Your wish is your command I suppose.

Why don't you burn the books in your mind and go back to wisdom; wisdom you had when you were a child. I think you will remember you were much more free then.

What if you are indeed one of God's chosen? What if you are one of His children? How long will you wait to answer the call? And then if intelligence is yours, it will be given to you a hundred fold. You would more than put me to shame, if it was given to you.

But it is not yet given to you, because you cannot see past the skin. You forget that there is marrow and there is a center to the marrow. You think you know; you think you know that the "God particle" has nearly been proven now. But the reality is, what makes up the "God particle"? For we know that if something has structure, it can be halved - do we not? So then if the "God particle" is a particle, what is it made of? How deep can you go? Will your science help you prove it? Or do you have a mind to see it and understand it?

But you don't. Nope, still not yet. Because you are more interested in the proof than the pudding. But without the pudding, where would the proof be? Your pride interferes with your ability to see. It does not magnify your vision by any means.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Wang Tang
 





What is humility?
Humility is a set of self-depreciating behaviors exhibited by someone who has accomplished enough to have the right to be proud. Humility has no deeper meaning, all it is is a foil to pride; without pride, humility does not exist. Humility makes one seem less important and less dignified than he really is, and gives the perception that someone wants less credit than he is due.



Although I mostly agree with your definition of humility here, I think it is deeper than that. I see humility as a realization that we are more alike than not; that i am not better, nor more deserving than you, or some guy living on the street. I see humility as a sort of check and balance system for our self worth, as compared to others....for we all have value, just as lives, dealing with much of the same pain, reliazations, and complexities of life we all must experience just to be alive. I also see humility as a recognition on a very deep, important level, that regardless of achievement, intelligence or lack thereof, we are (ostensibly) all human beings, trying to ake our way in the world we didn't make, but must endure regardless.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 



Writing God off as nonsense is the most foolish of scholarly mistakes. Even ill-fools without the ability to read know that God exists. You don't exercise what intelligence you have very well at all.

But it's not entirely your fault. You worship high imaginations and sciences that have given way to certain astounding things in this world; and the reason why you worship these things is because these things make the universe to appear within your control to document and eventually to manipulate; but not by will of Another, but by your own will, as you please, in what manner you choose.

The only problem there is that you have 7 billion people (for now) against which you strive for this same power. Quite a power struggle that is. You say God is nonsense; and yet you wish to be God.

So you wish to be nonsense?

Your wish is your command I suppose.

I never said God was nonsense. I implied your ideas of God, and the way you try to sell them as if they were absolute truths were nonsense. Using a foundation that has no floor, and then to build a philosophy on top of it, is tragic.

Nor did I say I wished to be God. Your straw-man arguments tell quite a lot about your inability to think rationally. I don't blame you for it however; many are blinded by their credulity.



Why don't you burn the books in your mind and go back to wisdom; wisdom you had when you were a child. I think you will remember you were much more free then.

Why don't you? Return to the time before you were taught to believe something you have no reason to believe other than it appeals to your emotions. Burn your book, your one and only book.



What if you are indeed one of God's chosen? What if you are one of His children? How long will you wait to answer the call? And then if intelligence is yours, it will be given to you a hundred fold. You would more than put me to shame, if it was given to you.


But it is not yet given to you, because you cannot see past the skin. You forget that there is marrow and there is a center to the marrow. You think you know; you think you know that the "God particle" has nearly been proven now. But the reality is, what makes up the "God particle"? For we know that if something has structure, it can be halved - do we not? So then if the "God particle" is a particle, what is it made of? How deep can you go? Will your science help you prove it? Or do you have a mind to see it and understand it?

Your "what if" philosophy leads us no where. What if you are wrong?

Answer what call? If there was a call it would be answered, but there has never been a call. What call have you answered? the call your priests make? the call of your parents? of your book? All pleas for nothing but obedience to nothing. Dare to peer outside your box.

Refusing to see the skin is refusing to see what it contains.



But you don't. Nope, still not yet. Because you are more interested in the proof than the pudding. But without the pudding, where would the proof be? Your pride interferes with your ability to see. It does not magnify your vision by any means.

I am more interested in reality than mythology, life than death, the real world over imaginary worlds. Your pride clouds your vision and impels you to keep grasping for the ungraspable. Now, if only you showed a little humility.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


Well done my friend. You have proven yourself to have a magnificent ability to construct straw man after straw man, and then beat them to shreds. Perhaps a more fitting name for you would be the "Straw Man Destroyer." But despite all those straw men you just destroyed I'm still here.

You may consider this your welcome to the realm of philosophy, where nothing is taken for granted, especially the existence of God.

In my humble opinion your claim to KNOW that God exists is exceedingly prideful and troublesome to my heart. I humbly claim to not know whether God exists or not; I admit to myself that there is very little I can actually KNOW in this life, and my pursuits in philosophy are often in trying to find what exactly I can know.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by tetra50
reply to post by Wang Tang
 


Although I mostly agree with your definition of humility here, I think it is deeper than that. I see humility as a realization that we are more alike than not; that i am not better, nor more deserving than you, or some guy living on the street. I see humility as a sort of check and balance system for our self worth, as compared to others....for we all have value, just as lives, dealing with much of the same pain, reliazations, and complexities of life we all must experience just to be alive. I also see humility as a recognition on a very deep, important level, that regardless of achievement, intelligence or lack thereof, we are (ostensibly) all human beings, trying to ake our way in the world we didn't make, but must endure regardless.


What you have described is all good, but I will have to respectfully disagree that it is deeper than that. I think humility comes from checks and balances, not the other way around.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Wang Tang
 


Therefore, a healthy pride in a job well done, provided one doesn't seek their own glory, is synonymous with true humility.

edit on 12-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)


So... can we define humility as the ideal moderation of pride?

If so, it seems humility IS pride, it is not its own entity; it's definition is completely dependent on the concept of pride.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Wang Tang
 


I'm sorry. I'm not really understanding the differences in what we are saying here. In fact, it seems like we are just repeating what one of said and then the other. Perhaps, if you have the time and patience, you could expound further upon what you mean?



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tetra50
 


Yes, so I said humility is just an expected set of behaviors, nothing else. These behaviors come from natural checks and balances. For example, imagine there is a mad king. The mad king uses his army to personally crush uprisings, and has all dissenters executed. He constantly displays the full extent of his power. Now, one of his lords is plotting to overthrow him, and as he is building up power, he hides his own outward pride and simply obeys the king in the king's presence. When the king congratulates the lord on the good work he is doing, the lord simply replies it is a lot less work and easier to manage than what the king does. He does this out of fear that if the king finds out, he will crush his uprising and have him killed immediately. These behaviors that he is exhibiting are what I see as humility. The check to his outward pride is the king, and the balance is the behavior of humility.

I would argue that what you have described as humility, being in touch with humanity, that is a view often expressed by people that are humble, but it is not humility.

edit on 14-3-2013 by Wang Tang because: above top secret



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Wang Tang
 





I would argue that what you have described as humility, being in touch with humanity, that is a view often expressed by people that are humble, but it is not humility.

This is an extremely wise comment and dinstinction, and one that had not occurred to me, frankly.

So you see humility as a more public, overt expression, action or reaction, by way of proof, perhaps of even being humble, in a way, but really just a posture to be displayed as a means of illustrating a desired character strength--rather than actually posessing that strength--and with secure people in their identities, without attendent insecurities and needs to prove which may, in fact, underline the lack of such character......
I was not looking at it from this perspective at alll, and so understand your OP and POV in a completely different way than I previously did......






top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join