Sponville states that "humility is the effort through which the self attempts to free itself of its illusions about itself" (147). I agree, and I also agree that humility is a virtue. Humility, indeed, does not call for us to hate ourselves or only see our short-comings. For if one hates the self, it only makes one "sad" and pushes them downward, and they will give up and not strive for being virtuous at all. Rather, humility, the "sister" of honesty, allows us to look at oursleves and say what we do well and we can do better. In that way, humility can be seen as a positive virtue, the virtue that keeps us focused on the ongoing journey of being virtuous. As much as we are virtuous person today, it must be proven through our actions tomorrow. Sponville also states that being perfectly loving and selfless is impossible for humans; therefore, we have no reason to believe that we are perfect. However, humility keeps us going and pushing for that ideal, so that we become the most virtuous that we possibly can be.
I think that Sponville contradicts the spirit of humility by saying humility is "truthful sadness" (143). I see humility as the ability of knowing yourself and your position and moving forward from that as far as one can go. To say that it is "truthful sadness" implies that the humble person must feel the emotional consequences of his or her failures. However, I think that while humility exposes faults, the faults are correctable. The fact that one is humble enough to see the faults is not a reason for sadness but persistance - recognition is the first step towards becoming better. Perhaps one feels sad that he or she has a flaw, but dwelling in that sadness is not virtuous. Perhaps one might feel disappointed or sad for a brief a moment, but it should not be a long ordeal. Therefore, sadness should not be considered a part of the definition of humility. If, as Sponville thinks, we were inherently flawed, then we logically would feel "truthful sadness" all the time, which could lead to despair. Despair is an anti-virtue. It stops one from becoming more virtuous.
One never has a reason to be prideful because they have not (nor will they ever) reach virtuous perfection; however, no one has a reason to be sad either because becoming virtuous is a process. Indeed, Sponville says at the beginning of the book that "virtue can be taught" (1).
“Humility is the virtue of the man who knows he is not God” (141). This is too true, the reality of being humble is realizing and accepting that you are just one small insignificant part of the bigger picture. You are no where close to God and are so minuscule in comparison. We will never be able to measure up to God. C-S goes on to say that “humility is a sadness born of the fact that a man considers his own lack of power, or weakness, writes Spinoza” (141). I suppose that this could make one sad to come to the realization that one is far from greatness and has so many flaws and is so distant from perfection. At the same time, I'm not quite sure this is completely agreeable. In response the Michael's question "is part of humility feeling sad?" I must say not necessarily. I too, questioned this point that C-S makes. I feel that humility does not require a sadness in order to exist. I think that acceptance is part of humility and does not require that we mourn this reality, but we are merely coming to terms with what is the fact of life. Further on in this section C-S states “better a true sadness than a false joy” (143). With this point, I am in complete agreement. Obviously I think it goes without saying that it is better for any emotion to be true than to fake an emotion. So yes, better to feel a genuine sadness than to falsify joy. This does nothing but hurt the one who is faking the emotion.
“It seems humility is a contradictory virtue, whose value comes only at its own expense” (143). I'm assuming that this is in support of C-S' thought that sadness is a part of being humble. I do think there is some truth in this because it's not like someone can be proud of being humble or even recognize their humility because wouldn't that simply contradict the humility then? There really doesn't seem to be any benefit in humility in the sense that one gets something in return for it...and, therefore, “humility in this respect is the most religious of virtues” (148).
In closing this chapter, C-S makes a point that I found very interesting, but definitely do not agree with. He mentions that “to believe in God would be a sin of pride” (149). I suppose that his reasoning makes sense in the respect that it seems to justify his point. By believing in God, we are assuming that we are worthy enough to be made by such a great and powerful being. Despite his attempted justifications, I do not believe this is a true. I think we show humility by recognizing that we are not God and are farthest from that state. We feel humility in the fact that we are so very unworthy, yet God sent his only son to come save us from sin and death. Though we constantly go against Him, God is always forgiving and loving us, unworthy creatures that we are. I think if we recognize our unworthiness, this in itself is humility. Any other thoughts on this point that C-S makes?
"In that way, humility can be seen as a positive virtue, the virtue that keeps us focused on the ongoing journey of being virtuous." (Michael) I love this idea, Michael! Humility is the virtue that reminds us that we are not perfect, but should continually strive to be our best. Humility urges us to pursue all other virtues and keeps us on the task of being virtuous. If we go into each day with a humble mindset, we will leave the anti-virtuous acts of pride and selfishness at the door, and will strive to, instead, be virtuous all throughout the day. I believe that humility is an attitude that we adopt over time after practicing the virtue of being humble. A humble mindset becomes engrained within us.
Like Michael, I completely disagree with C-S's assertion that humility is "this truthful sadness of being merely oneself." (143) We can realize our imperfections and faults without being saddened by them. Humility, in my opinion, pushes us to recognize these faults, and in turn, strive to correct them and be the best that we can be. This "truthful sadness" that C-S refers to seems to be more like self-pity, a definite non-virtue. We cannot let our shortcomings bring us sadness. We must, instead, recognize and acknowledge our weaknesses and strive to improve them in our quest to become virtuous individuals. As I suggested earlier, humility is an attitude, not a self-degrading emotion.
Finally, I must side with Kelsey's view on C-S's comment that "to believe in God would be a sin of pride." (148) In my opinion, this is a completely off-key statement. Like Kelsey, I think the recognition that God created me is more humbling than anything. To know that God created every individual and loves them unconditionally, humbles me, and makes me realize how inferior I truly am. It forces me to recognize my lowliness, not to take pride in the fact that God created me. But perhaps, that is just my take.
Just as Kelsey stated, I believe that we practice humility in recognizing that we are not God and that we are imperfect and lesser than he. That he would love an unworthy me and sacrifice his son to die for me, is incredibly humbling, and leads me to want to live a life of humility and self-sacrifice to serve God throughout my life as a thank-you note for his grace. Perhaps if we were perfect like Adam and Eve before the fall of man, belief in God would bring forth pride. However, we are full of sin, therefore, belief in God, for me, brings about the recognition that I am anything but perfect, and should only have pride in the fact that I am made perfect through Christ's death on the cross.
Perhaps the sadness the C-S is referring to isn't a sustained or permanent state of sadness, but the feeling that comes when we must step away from our own confidence or even self-esteem and realize that some of the good thoughts we had about ourselves are not true. When we feel at our best, our most confident, as though we have some really good qualities and we like the whole picture we see when we look at the Michael Jacksonian "man in the mirror" we are in one particular state of mind. That "puffed up" extreme is not true in the same way that the opposite extreme of feeling down about ourselves, like we are worthless and do not deserve the good things we have, is not true. Perhaps humility's aspect of "sadness" comes from the initial feeling of stepping away from the former extreme, and falling toward the latter extreme, and landing somewhere in the neighborhood of truth about ourselves.
As for my own personal feelings about humility and how it affects my own life, I completely agree with Karlie's explanation of her self-sacrifice to God as a response to His grace and the humility that that ultimate grace inspires. I find this as the cornerstone of how I should live my life. When it comes to bringing other people into the equation, I recognize that under God, absolutely no one is more loved than anyone else. We are all a part of the human race and we all are undeserving of the grace God shows to us. I am no "better" than anyone else even though I may make some relatively "better" choices than others. As a part of humanity, I am equal to everyone around me in a sense regardless of whatever skills, talents, virtues, or beliefs I may hold. Realizing this doesn't make me "sad" in the conventional sense, but it does bring me "down to earth" a bit and makes me really reflect on my view of the world and people around me. The "sadness" that C-S speaks of may be this very "down-bringing" feeling in which we are forced to remove all of the goals we've achieved and the good feelings we have about ourselves and see ourselves on the same level as every other human being.
Compte-Sponville starts off his chapter on humility by saying, "Humility is a humble virtue…" After reading such a profound and enlightening statement, I was certain that we were indeed reading the words of a Virtue Sage. C-S get a little more clear later on when he defines humility as an awareness of the limits of all virtues as well as an awareness of our own personal limits. I see what he is trying to say, but I think that I disagree with it. I do not think that the virtues have limitations. In a perfect world humanity would possess perfection of the virtues and then everybody would be a perfect person. Of course, thanks to Eve (and maybe a little bit of fault on Adam's side as well) this is not a perfect world. I hate to bring up Jesus because we are in college, and when people are in college they are supposed to be atheists, but since TMC is a Catholic college, I won't feel too guilty. Jesus was a perfect person (obviously he had an advantage over most of us) and I think it would be fair to argue that His virtues did not have limitations. Obviously none of us are perfect and will never attain that degree of virtuosity, but it shows that the virtues are not intrinsically limited. I agree with C-S about humility being an awareness of our own personal limits, but think that he does not go far enough. To say that it is just an awareness of our limits indicates that we know our limits and are content with them and accepting of them. In other words, that we are already good enough. How can you try to be a humble person while being content with what you are? I would argue that it is an act of pride and sloth to accept that I have reached my full potential. I think that humility is more of an awareness of our shortcomings, but it also seeks to improve on those shortcomings. It realizes that we are imperfect, but also realizes that we can do better and improve. Otherwise, what is the point of humility? If all we use humility for is to condemn ourselves for our faults, or worse, stay in a state of complacent moral stagnacity, then it is a hindrance to the construction of the other virtues. Spinoza tries to explain humility as an emotion of sadness that stems from a self-knowledge of a lack of power. Kant does a better job than Spinoza by defining humility as, "the consciousness and felling of the insignificance of one's moral worth in comparison with the law." This version of humility preserves the dignity of the subject (unlike Aristotle's micropsuchia, which presents humility as a form of lowliness). Calling people to be subject to and submit to the law makes humility a form of moral duty that is to be carried out by higher moral beings, rather than a type of lowly submission or groveling. However, Kant has a very tight distinction between what constitutes humility and what goes against human dignity. He holds that showing reverence to heavenly things is lowly and unbecoming of Mankind. However, C-S makes a good point when he says that humility is different than humiliation, so, lowering ourselves and disrespecting our human dignity and showing reverence for something are not necessarily intersecting events.
Spinoza says that a person who realizes his shortcomings is more perfect than somebody who has no inclination to live a virtuous life. This sums up humility pretty well. It also negates Nietzsche's opinion that humility is contemptible.
Augustine and Jankelevitch both agree that humility and love are interconnected. Without humility, the self becomes the predominant figure and sees the other person as an object, which leads to concupiscence, and not love. The last point that C-S makes is that we are so insignificant as beings, how can we believe that God would have wanted to create us or have us worship him? So, he says that to believe in God would be a sin of pride. I do not agree with that, but maybe other people do?
In my opinion, there is no doubt that humility is a virtue. However, C-S points out the contradiction of humility. To admit that you are humble is not a humble act but to admit that you are lacking in humility is allowable and the way to become humble.
Joe stated that “The last point that C-S makes is that we are so insignificant as beings, how can we believe that God would have wanted to create us or have us worship him? So, he says that to believe in God would be a sin of pride”. I have to agree with Joe in disagreeing with this statement. Why this was brought up in the humility section I am somewhat confused on, as C-S also states earlier that “humility is the virtue of the man who knows he is not God” (141). The religious references seem to throw off what exactly C-S is defining humility as. This chapter would have been significantly stronger without them.
Since we’re on the topic of religion here, C-S describes that humility is the opposite of pride. This made me wonder if all of the “deadly sins” had virtuous counter parts. For some, it is obvious, but for others not so much, at least not among those listed as virtues, by C-S. Anyone else have any ideas?
While I am inclined to believe that all of the virtues we have studied thus far have been, at least to some degree, contradictory in nature, Comte-Sponville directly states that the very essence of humility is contradictory. “…if humility deserves respect or admiration, isn’t it groundlessly humble? And if it is rightly humble, how would we rightly admire it? It seems humility is a contradictory virtue, whose value comes only at its own expense” (page 143). I’ve acknowledged the contradictions found in previous chapters, but I somewhat ironically feel that humility doesn’t have a conflicting nature at all. I also feel that C-S’s own discussion supports this.
C-S states that “humility is the extreme awareness of the limits of all virtues and of one’s own limits as well” (page 140). The very essence of humility is the ability to have knowledge of oneself and, as C-S expresses, to love this knowledge more than oneself (page 141). We thus cannot overestimate our own self-worth or our own virtuous natures. Conversely, we also cannot underestimate ourselves; underestimation and a lack of self-esteem bring about lowliness, which prevents us from performing at our highest capabilities. Therefore, it can be said that humility is achieved through a delicate balance of sorts. I believe that this balance eliminates the contradictory nature of which C-S speaks. A person who accepts the limits of their knowledge and of their capabilities and constantly strives for a greater understanding is, in my mind, humble. If said person recognizes the fact that he or she is generally humble, does this make him or her any less humble for doing so? I think not. I feel that the acknowledgement that one is doing the right thing isn’t prideful in itself; only when one is prompted to act upon this self-love—essentially becoming an egoist—does arrogance result, which is the opposite of humility.
I also take issue with Kant’s discussion of humility (pages 143-144). Kant’s concept of humility involves the practice of admiring others—including heavenly beings—over ourselves; a practice that is given to “groveling on the ground.” Kant goes so far as to say, “Whoever makes himself a worm cannot complain when he is then trampled underfoot.” He uses this concept to criticize humility, but I feel that he falls short of defining humility to begin with. When one admires or worships another, he is not necessarily being humble. While the individual might be recognizing his own faults or deficiencies, celebrating another person does not represent a love of truth or a thirst to better oneself; in fact, in some cases it blindly ascribes humility and virtuousness to an object that might not be deserving.
I can definitely see Andrea’s point that all the virtues seem contradicting. C-S is always sure to play devil’s advocate in that he shows the how the virtue can be viewed in a different light as the very opposite of what it is actually meant to embody. With humility, we see him do this again when he points out that if someone claims he or she is humble, that person is clearly not. Compte-Sponville states that humility is “informed contempt” that comes from the “acknowledgment of all that we are not” (140). In response to Joe’s question about God, I must also differ from Compte-Sponville’s statements that “humility, born of religion, can lead to atheism” and that “to believe in God would be a sin of pride” (148) because, to me at least, it seems that recognizing and worshipping God would be the ultimate showcase of humility in that we would be acknowledging our limitations as human beings and accepting the fact that we are but mere peons to a greater power that is the ultimate, infinite and perfect display of every virtue. To worship a god, no matter the religion, is indeed to recognize human limitations and yet still strive for the perfection of the virtues, exactly what a god is. C-S states that this acknowledgment of human limitations is the very definition of humility, so it confuses me how he can argue that by stating this in the form of worshipping God, one is committing a sin of pride. I just don’t see how recognizing and blatantly admitting one’s failures as a human being and seeking to make up for those failures by praying to a god can be anything but humility.
I had to laugh at Joe's post about hating to bring up Jesus, first of all. Secondly, I can't help but agree with him on C-S's definition of Humility having its own shortcomings as well. So In an effort to improve it, as well as put my own twist on what Joe said, here is what I would propose Humility's definition would be closer to: An acceptance of one's shortcomings, the need to improve AND that other's may be better than you and you can learn from them. I feel as if this last part of my definition is a key part of the virtue because Humility is, in essence, a social virtue and, if one wants to be better, who better than to learn from those to whom you are showing humility towards?
In response to the "To believe in God would be a sin of pride," quote, I feel like C-S potentially put that in there as a blatant exaggeration to generate attention to the important virtues he is discussing. I mean, if I adopt his "mind set" I can see why he feels he can make such a statement; believing in God would be believing that you are special, something made with a purpose, a higher cause. Not really exceptionally humble feelings. Though, like I said, I think C-S was merely putting it out there to generate some kind of heated debate... perhaps we have a french troll as our author??? Haha. Just kidding.
The first line of this chapter is perfect, “Humility is a humble virtue, so much so that it even doubts its own virtuousness: to pride oneself on one’s own humility is to lack it” (140). I just thought that was so cute. Those who are humble doubt it they are in fact humble because they are being humble. Humility is knowing you are awesome, but not bragging about it. It’s deep down knowing you are as nice as people say, or as smart as people say, but denying it when people tell you that you are. Because we all know that when we say “I’m in Honors” someone goes “Wow. You must be smart” and we always say, “no, I just work hard” or something like that. Unless we say it with a joking tone, we never say “Yes. I am smart.” On the other hand, people do often comment on just how awesome we are. When we answer a random question of an obscure fact and someone asks how we knew that, sometimes we reply, “because I’m awesome.” And sometimes when we need a pepping up, we tell ourselves, “yes! I can do this because I am the best.” But these last couple things I described are more sarcastic and thus not perfect examples of humility. So, I kinda went off on a tangent, sorry. :]
“Humility is the virtue of the man who knows he is not God” (141). This is more true than I can say. Anyone who thinks that they are omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent clearly is not being humble. Those that realize there is something bigger out there, those who realize they aren’t perfect, those that realize there is more to learn are those that are humble. C-S goes on to talk about how humility is a sadness. Like most others, I do not agree with this. While part of being humble may be that you realize your own weaknesses, one does not necessarily become saddened when he/she realizes that he/she is weak. While we must come to an acceptance of these shortages, I do not believe we have to be sad in order to be humble.
To continue Holly’s quest for the seven deadly sins’ opposites, I think Envy’s opposite could be generosity. It’s a bit of a stretch, but those who are gluttonous want what they don’t have and those that are generous give what they don’t need, and sometimes even what they do. Sloth is apathy right? Sort of like indifference or laziness? So the opposite of that would be kindness? Politeness? Passion? Sympathy? Take your pick.
"So In an effort to improve it, as well as put my own twist on what Joe said, here is what I would propose Humility's definition would be closer to: An acceptance of one's shortcomings, the need to improve AND that other's may be better than you and you can learn from them."
I don't have a problem with C-S's atheism, but I really think he comes at the issues from the weirdest perspective ever. Like, really. It seems he believes that man is too far below God to make salvation worthwhile from God's point of view, and that it is prideful to assume otherwise. Also, that man is far too humble to ever have a hope of understanding the nature of either salvation or God. (That's more from my simplicity chapter than this one). I can sort of understand C-S's point, but it seems he doesn't really understand the other side. Most Christian theology spends a lot of time asking why God would bother to save creatures as insignificant as us, and how we can hope to understand the nature of god and salvation. You might not agree with the answers they came up with (briefly, "image and likeness of god" and "revealed truth", respectively), but I think to discuss this issue you should at least know what they are and respond to them.
I did like what C-S had to say about humility being a contradictory virtue, where awareness of one's proficiency in this virtue negates it. If I think I am humble, I'm not, but if I think I'm not (and I am), I am...wrong? So is everyone either humble or misguided?
As far as the sadness issue goes, I think C-S is on to something there. I think that part of the human condition is being sad at one's shortcomings. If anyone doesn't look at their moral life with some degree of sadness, they have either achieved enlightenment or are a total narcissist. I think that humility really is all about being sad--not a crippling, numbing sadness, but more a quiet, contemplative sadness.
Holly--the opposite of sloth is probably industriousness. The opposite of virtue of envy is charity, and I think generosity is the opposing virtue of greed
Humility is a virtue that’s difficult to value. The confident, the self-assured, and even the arrogant are many times our heroes. Americans especially seem to value confidence over humility. In a society that’s so obsessed with winning, it’s hard to care about this unimportant virtue. If you can win and be humble about it, that’s great, but the important thing is to win. Most would admire the arrogant winner over the humble loser. I agree with Comte-Sponville, however, that this would be a grievous mistake. I like his idea that “Humility means loving truth more than oneself” (141). In this way it is less a sadness than a moderation of self-love. I don’t know if I agree with Spinoza that humility is a “sadness.” I don’t think that it needs to be a sadness at all. I think that loving the truth more than oneself can be a joy—a joy in the knowledge of how the world really is. This idea, in fact, seems like it presupposes that the arrogant are happier. In fact, I think this might be the trouble wit American society and our love of arrogant heroes. I think we also tend to put “happiness” as the number one, ultimate goal of our lives. Now, this might be a good thing if everyone was striving for true happiness, but I think that when many people think of “happiness” they think of it in a rather selfish way. How can I be happier? How much money do I need to be happy? How many friends? How many lovers? When we think of happiness in this selfish way, we start to see the whole world in terms of commodities toward happiness—“happy money” with which we can buy things and events and even people. This is the ultimate arrogance—the ultimate sin against humility. And in the end, this is not true happiness at all. You can better find true happiness by realizing the truth of things—the truth of your own shortcomings in order to truly enjoy the strengths of those around you—to have the humility to be truly grateful.
Sponville states that "humility is the effort through which the self attempts to free itself of its illusions about itself" (147). I agree, and I also agree that humility is a virtue. Humility, indeed, does not call for us to hate ourselves or only see our short-comings. For if one hates the self, it only makes one "sad" and pushes them downward, and they will give up and not strive for being virtuous at all. Rather, humility, the "sister" of honesty, allows us to look at oursleves and say what we do well and we can do better. In that way, humility can be seen as a positive virtue, the virtue that keeps us focused on the ongoing journey of being virtuous. As much as we are virtuous person today, it must be proven through our actions tomorrow. Sponville also states that being perfectly loving and selfless is impossible for humans; therefore, we have no reason to believe that we are perfect. However, humility keeps us going and pushing for that ideal, so that we become the most virtuous that we possibly can be.
ReplyDeleteI think that Sponville contradicts the spirit of humility by saying humility is "truthful sadness" (143). I see humility as the ability of knowing yourself and your position and moving forward from that as far as one can go. To say that it is "truthful sadness" implies that the humble person must feel the emotional consequences of his or her failures. However, I think that while humility exposes faults, the faults are correctable. The fact that one is humble enough to see the faults is not a reason for sadness but persistance - recognition is the first step towards becoming better. Perhaps one feels sad that he or she has a flaw, but dwelling in that sadness is not virtuous. Perhaps one might feel disappointed or sad for a brief a moment, but it should not be a long ordeal. Therefore, sadness should not be considered a part of the definition of humility. If, as Sponville thinks, we were inherently flawed, then we logically would feel "truthful sadness" all the time, which could lead to despair. Despair is an anti-virtue. It stops one from becoming more virtuous.
One never has a reason to be prideful because they have not (nor will they ever) reach virtuous perfection; however, no one has a reason to be sad either because becoming virtuous is a process. Indeed, Sponville says at the beginning of the book that "virtue can be taught" (1).
Is part of humility feeling sad?
“Humility is the virtue of the man who knows he is not God” (141).
ReplyDeleteThis is too true, the reality of being humble is realizing and accepting that you are just one small insignificant part of the bigger picture. You are no where close to God and are so minuscule in comparison. We will never be able to measure up to God. C-S goes on to say that “humility is a sadness born of the fact that a man considers his own lack of power, or weakness, writes Spinoza” (141). I suppose that this could make one sad to come to the realization that one is far from greatness and has so many flaws and is so distant from perfection. At the same time, I'm not quite sure this is completely agreeable. In response the Michael's question "is part of humility feeling sad?" I must say not necessarily. I too, questioned this point that C-S makes. I feel that humility does not require a sadness in order to exist. I think that acceptance is part of humility and does not require that we mourn this reality, but we are merely coming to terms with what is the fact of life. Further on in this section C-S states “better a true sadness than a false joy” (143). With this point, I am in complete agreement. Obviously I think it goes without saying that it is better for any emotion to be true than to fake an emotion. So yes, better to feel a genuine sadness than to falsify joy. This does nothing but hurt the one who is faking the emotion.
“It seems humility is a contradictory virtue, whose value comes only at its own expense” (143). I'm assuming that this is in support of C-S' thought that sadness is a part of being humble. I do think there is some truth in this because it's not like someone can be proud of being humble or even recognize their humility because wouldn't that simply contradict the humility then? There really doesn't seem to be any benefit in humility in the sense that one gets something in return for it...and, therefore, “humility in this respect is the most religious of virtues” (148).
In closing this chapter, C-S makes a point that I found very interesting, but definitely do not agree with. He mentions that “to believe in God would be a sin of pride” (149). I suppose that his reasoning makes sense in the respect that it seems to justify his point. By believing in God, we are assuming that we are worthy enough to be made by such a great and powerful being. Despite his attempted justifications, I do not believe this is a true. I think we show humility by recognizing that we are not God and are farthest from that state. We feel humility in the fact that we are so very unworthy, yet God sent his only son to come save us from sin and death. Though we constantly go against Him, God is always forgiving and loving us, unworthy creatures that we are. I think if we recognize our unworthiness, this in itself is humility. Any other thoughts on this point that C-S makes?
"In that way, humility can be seen as a positive virtue, the virtue that keeps us focused on the ongoing journey of being virtuous." (Michael) I love this idea, Michael! Humility is the virtue that reminds us that we are not perfect, but should continually strive to be our best. Humility urges us to pursue all other virtues and keeps us on the task of being virtuous. If we go into each day with a humble mindset, we will leave the anti-virtuous acts of pride and selfishness at the door, and will strive to, instead, be virtuous all throughout the day. I believe that humility is an attitude that we adopt over time after practicing the virtue of being humble. A humble mindset becomes engrained within us.
ReplyDeleteLike Michael, I completely disagree with C-S's assertion that humility is "this truthful sadness of being merely oneself." (143) We can realize our imperfections and faults without being saddened by them. Humility, in my opinion, pushes us to recognize these faults, and in turn, strive to correct them and be the best that we can be. This "truthful sadness" that C-S refers to seems to be more like self-pity, a definite non-virtue. We cannot let our shortcomings bring us sadness. We must, instead, recognize and acknowledge our weaknesses and strive to improve them in our quest to become virtuous individuals. As I suggested earlier, humility is an attitude, not a self-degrading emotion.
Finally, I must side with Kelsey's view on C-S's comment that "to believe in God would be a sin of pride." (148) In my opinion, this is a completely off-key statement. Like Kelsey, I think the recognition that God created me is more humbling than anything. To know that God created every individual and loves them unconditionally, humbles me, and makes me realize how inferior I truly am. It forces me to recognize my lowliness, not to take pride in the fact that God created me. But perhaps, that is just my take.
Just as Kelsey stated, I believe that we practice humility in recognizing that we are not God and that we are imperfect and lesser than he. That he would love an unworthy me and sacrifice his son to die for me, is incredibly humbling, and leads me to want to live a life of humility and self-sacrifice to serve God throughout my life as a thank-you note for his grace. Perhaps if we were perfect like Adam and Eve before the fall of man, belief in God would bring forth pride. However, we are full of sin, therefore, belief in God, for me, brings about the recognition that I am anything but perfect, and should only have pride in the fact that I am made perfect through Christ's death on the cross.
Perhaps the sadness the C-S is referring to isn't a sustained or permanent state of sadness, but the feeling that comes when we must step away from our own confidence or even self-esteem and realize that some of the good thoughts we had about ourselves are not true. When we feel at our best, our most confident, as though we have some really good qualities and we like the whole picture we see when we look at the Michael Jacksonian "man in the mirror" we are in one particular state of mind. That "puffed up" extreme is not true in the same way that the opposite extreme of feeling down about ourselves, like we are worthless and do not deserve the good things we have, is not true. Perhaps humility's aspect of "sadness" comes from the initial feeling of stepping away from the former extreme, and falling toward the latter extreme, and landing somewhere in the neighborhood of truth about ourselves.
ReplyDeleteAs for my own personal feelings about humility and how it affects my own life, I completely agree with Karlie's explanation of her self-sacrifice to God as a response to His grace and the humility that that ultimate grace inspires. I find this as the cornerstone of how I should live my life. When it comes to bringing other people into the equation, I recognize that under God, absolutely no one is more loved than anyone else. We are all a part of the human race and we all are undeserving of the grace God shows to us. I am no "better" than anyone else even though I may make some relatively "better" choices than others. As a part of humanity, I am equal to everyone around me in a sense regardless of whatever skills, talents, virtues, or beliefs I may hold. Realizing this doesn't make me "sad" in the conventional sense, but it does bring me "down to earth" a bit and makes me really reflect on my view of the world and people around me. The "sadness" that C-S speaks of may be this very "down-bringing" feeling in which we are forced to remove all of the goals we've achieved and the good feelings we have about ourselves and see ourselves on the same level as every other human being.
from Joe:
ReplyDeleteCompte-Sponville starts off his chapter on humility by saying, "Humility is a humble virtue…" After reading such a profound and enlightening statement, I was certain that we were indeed reading the words of a Virtue Sage. C-S get a little more clear later on when he defines humility as an awareness of the limits of all virtues as well as an awareness of our own personal limits. I see what he is trying to say, but I think that I disagree with it. I do not think that the virtues have limitations. In a perfect world humanity would possess perfection of the virtues and then everybody would be a perfect person. Of course, thanks to Eve (and maybe a little bit of fault on Adam's side as well) this is not a perfect world. I hate to bring up Jesus because we are in college, and when people are in college they are supposed to be atheists, but since TMC is a Catholic college, I won't feel too guilty. Jesus was a perfect person (obviously he had an advantage over most of us) and I think it would be fair to argue that His virtues did not have limitations. Obviously none of us are perfect and will never attain that degree of virtuosity, but it shows that the virtues are not intrinsically limited. I agree with C-S about humility being an awareness of our own personal limits, but think that he does not go far enough. To say that it is just an awareness of our limits indicates that we know our limits and are content with them and accepting of them. In other words, that we are already good enough. How can you try to be a humble person while being content with what you are? I would argue that it is an act of pride and sloth to accept that I have reached my full potential. I think that humility is more of an awareness of our shortcomings, but it also seeks to improve on those shortcomings. It realizes that we are imperfect, but also realizes that we can do better and improve. Otherwise, what is the point of humility? If all we use humility for is to condemn ourselves for our faults, or worse, stay in a state of complacent moral stagnacity, then it is a hindrance to the construction of the other virtues.
Spinoza tries to explain humility as an emotion of sadness that stems from a self-knowledge of a lack of power. Kant does a better job than Spinoza by defining humility as, "the consciousness and felling of the insignificance of one's moral worth in comparison with the law." This version of humility preserves the dignity of the subject (unlike Aristotle's micropsuchia, which presents humility as a form of lowliness). Calling people to be subject to and submit to the law makes humility a form of moral duty that is to be carried out by higher moral beings, rather than a type of lowly submission or groveling. However, Kant has a very tight distinction between what constitutes humility and what goes against human dignity. He holds that showing reverence to heavenly things is lowly and unbecoming of Mankind. However, C-S makes a good point when he says that humility is different than humiliation, so, lowering ourselves and disrespecting our human dignity and showing reverence for something are not necessarily intersecting events.
Spinoza says that a person who realizes his shortcomings is more perfect than somebody who has no inclination to live a virtuous life. This sums up humility pretty well. It also negates Nietzsche's opinion that humility is contemptible.
Augustine and Jankelevitch both agree that humility and love are interconnected. Without humility, the self becomes the predominant figure and sees the other person as an object, which leads to concupiscence, and not love.
The last point that C-S makes is that we are so insignificant as beings, how can we believe that God would have wanted to create us or have us worship him? So, he says that to believe in God would be a sin of pride. I do not agree with that, but maybe other people do?
In my opinion, there is no doubt that humility is a virtue. However, C-S points out the contradiction of humility. To admit that you are humble is not a humble act but to admit that you are lacking in humility is allowable and the way to become humble.
ReplyDeleteJoe stated that “The last point that C-S makes is that we are so insignificant as beings, how can we believe that God would have wanted to create us or have us worship him? So, he says that to believe in God would be a sin of pride”. I have to agree with Joe in disagreeing with this statement. Why this was brought up in the humility section I am somewhat confused on, as C-S also states earlier that “humility is the virtue of the man who knows he is not God” (141). The religious references seem to throw off what exactly C-S is defining humility as. This chapter would have been significantly stronger without them.
Since we’re on the topic of religion here, C-S describes that humility is the opposite of pride. This made me wonder if all of the “deadly sins” had virtuous counter parts. For some, it is obvious, but for others not so much, at least not among those listed as virtues, by C-S. Anyone else have any ideas?
Sloth- ???
Pride - Humility
Lust – Chastity (Purity)
Gluttony - Temperence
Greed – Gratitude (maybe?)
Envy - ???
Wrath - Mercy
Is all virtue a counteraction of sin? Are all virtues rooted in our attempts to keep ourselves from committing what we know to be wrong or to be sins?
While I am inclined to believe that all of the virtues we have studied thus far have been, at least to some degree, contradictory in nature, Comte-Sponville directly states that the very essence of humility is contradictory. “…if humility deserves respect or admiration, isn’t it groundlessly humble? And if it is rightly humble, how would we rightly admire it? It seems humility is a contradictory virtue, whose value comes only at its own expense” (page 143). I’ve acknowledged the contradictions found in previous chapters, but I somewhat ironically feel that humility doesn’t have a conflicting nature at all. I also feel that C-S’s own discussion supports this.
ReplyDeleteC-S states that “humility is the extreme awareness of the limits of all virtues and of one’s own limits as well” (page 140). The very essence of humility is the ability to have knowledge of oneself and, as C-S expresses, to love this knowledge more than oneself (page 141). We thus cannot overestimate our own self-worth or our own virtuous natures. Conversely, we also cannot underestimate ourselves; underestimation and a lack of self-esteem bring about lowliness, which prevents us from performing at our highest capabilities. Therefore, it can be said that humility is achieved through a delicate balance of sorts. I believe that this balance eliminates the contradictory nature of which C-S speaks. A person who accepts the limits of their knowledge and of their capabilities and constantly strives for a greater understanding is, in my mind, humble. If said person recognizes the fact that he or she is generally humble, does this make him or her any less humble for doing so? I think not. I feel that the acknowledgement that one is doing the right thing isn’t prideful in itself; only when one is prompted to act upon this self-love—essentially becoming an egoist—does arrogance result, which is the opposite of humility.
I also take issue with Kant’s discussion of humility (pages 143-144). Kant’s concept of humility involves the practice of admiring others—including heavenly beings—over ourselves; a practice that is given to “groveling on the ground.” Kant goes so far as to say, “Whoever makes himself a worm cannot complain when he is then trampled underfoot.” He uses this concept to criticize humility, but I feel that he falls short of defining humility to begin with. When one admires or worships another, he is not necessarily being humble. While the individual might be recognizing his own faults or deficiencies, celebrating another person does not represent a love of truth or a thirst to better oneself; in fact, in some cases it blindly ascribes humility and virtuousness to an object that might not be deserving.
I can definitely see Andrea’s point that all the virtues seem contradicting. C-S is always sure to play devil’s advocate in that he shows the how the virtue can be viewed in a different light as the very opposite of what it is actually meant to embody. With humility, we see him do this again when he points out that if someone claims he or she is humble, that person is clearly not. Compte-Sponville states that humility is “informed contempt” that comes from the “acknowledgment of all that we are not” (140).
ReplyDeleteIn response to Joe’s question about God, I must also differ from Compte-Sponville’s statements that “humility, born of religion, can lead to atheism” and that “to believe in God would be a sin of pride” (148) because, to me at least, it seems that recognizing and worshipping God would be the ultimate showcase of humility in that we would be acknowledging our limitations as human beings and accepting the fact that we are but mere peons to a greater power that is the ultimate, infinite and perfect display of every virtue. To worship a god, no matter the religion, is indeed to recognize human limitations and yet still strive for the perfection of the virtues, exactly what a god is. C-S states that this acknowledgment of human limitations is the very definition of humility, so it confuses me how he can argue that by stating this in the form of worshipping God, one is committing a sin of pride. I just don’t see how recognizing and blatantly admitting one’s failures as a human being and seeking to make up for those failures by praying to a god can be anything but humility.
I had to laugh at Joe's post about hating to bring up Jesus, first of all. Secondly, I can't help but agree with him on C-S's definition of Humility having its own shortcomings as well. So In an effort to improve it, as well as put my own twist on what Joe said, here is what I would propose Humility's definition would be closer to: An acceptance of one's shortcomings, the need to improve AND that other's may be better than you and you can learn from them. I feel as if this last part of my definition is a key part of the virtue because Humility is, in essence, a social virtue and, if one wants to be better, who better than to learn from those to whom you are showing humility towards?
ReplyDeleteIn response to the "To believe in God would be a sin of pride," quote, I feel like C-S potentially put that in there as a blatant exaggeration to generate attention to the important virtues he is discussing. I mean, if I adopt his "mind set" I can see why he feels he can make such a statement; believing in God would be believing that you are special, something made with a purpose, a higher cause. Not really exceptionally humble feelings. Though, like I said, I think C-S was merely putting it out there to generate some kind of heated debate... perhaps we have a french troll as our author??? Haha. Just kidding.
The first line of this chapter is perfect, “Humility is a humble virtue, so much so that it even doubts its own virtuousness: to pride oneself on one’s own humility is to lack it” (140). I just thought that was so cute. Those who are humble doubt it they are in fact humble because they are being humble. Humility is knowing you are awesome, but not bragging about it. It’s deep down knowing you are as nice as people say, or as smart as people say, but denying it when people tell you that you are. Because we all know that when we say “I’m in Honors” someone goes “Wow. You must be smart” and we always say, “no, I just work hard” or something like that. Unless we say it with a joking tone, we never say “Yes. I am smart.” On the other hand, people do often comment on just how awesome we are. When we answer a random question of an obscure fact and someone asks how we knew that, sometimes we reply, “because I’m awesome.” And sometimes when we need a pepping up, we tell ourselves, “yes! I can do this because I am the best.” But these last couple things I described are more sarcastic and thus not perfect examples of humility. So, I kinda went off on a tangent, sorry. :]
ReplyDelete“Humility is the virtue of the man who knows he is not God” (141). This is more true than I can say. Anyone who thinks that they are omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent clearly is not being humble. Those that realize there is something bigger out there, those who realize they aren’t perfect, those that realize there is more to learn are those that are humble. C-S goes on to talk about how humility is a sadness. Like most others, I do not agree with this. While part of being humble may be that you realize your own weaknesses, one does not necessarily become saddened when he/she realizes that he/she is weak. While we must come to an acceptance of these shortages, I do not believe we have to be sad in order to be humble.
To continue Holly’s quest for the seven deadly sins’ opposites, I think Envy’s opposite could be generosity. It’s a bit of a stretch, but those who are gluttonous want what they don’t have and those that are generous give what they don’t need, and sometimes even what they do. Sloth is apathy right? Sort of like indifference or laziness? So the opposite of that would be kindness? Politeness? Passion? Sympathy? Take your pick.
"So In an effort to improve it, as well as put my own twist on what Joe said, here is what I would propose Humility's definition would be closer to: An acceptance of one's shortcomings, the need to improve AND that other's may be better than you and you can learn from them."
ReplyDeletePerfect. You two collaborate well.
I don't have a problem with C-S's atheism, but I really think he comes at the issues from the weirdest perspective ever. Like, really. It seems he believes that man is too far below God to make salvation worthwhile from God's point of view, and that it is prideful to assume otherwise. Also, that man is far too humble to ever have a hope of understanding the nature of either salvation or God. (That's more from my simplicity chapter than this one).
ReplyDeleteI can sort of understand C-S's point, but it seems he doesn't really understand the other side. Most Christian theology spends a lot of time asking why God would bother to save creatures as insignificant as us, and how we can hope to understand the nature of god and salvation. You might not agree with the answers they came up with (briefly, "image and likeness of god" and "revealed truth", respectively), but I think to discuss this issue you should at least know what they are and respond to them.
I did like what C-S had to say about humility being a contradictory virtue, where awareness of one's proficiency in this virtue negates it. If I think I am humble, I'm not, but if I think I'm not (and I am), I am...wrong? So is everyone either humble or misguided?
As far as the sadness issue goes, I think C-S is on to something there. I think that part of the human condition is being sad at one's shortcomings. If anyone doesn't look at their moral life with some degree of sadness, they have either achieved enlightenment or are a total narcissist. I think that humility really is all about being sad--not a crippling, numbing sadness, but more a quiet, contemplative sadness.
Holly--the opposite of sloth is probably industriousness. The opposite of virtue of envy is charity, and I think generosity is the opposing virtue of greed
Humility is a virtue that’s difficult to value. The confident, the self-assured, and even the arrogant are many times our heroes. Americans especially seem to value confidence over humility. In a society that’s so obsessed with winning, it’s hard to care about this unimportant virtue. If you can win and be humble about it, that’s great, but the important thing is to win. Most would admire the arrogant winner over the humble loser.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Comte-Sponville, however, that this would be a grievous mistake. I like his idea that “Humility means loving truth more than oneself” (141). In this way it is less a sadness than a moderation of self-love. I don’t know if I agree with Spinoza that humility is a “sadness.” I don’t think that it needs to be a sadness at all. I think that loving the truth more than oneself can be a joy—a joy in the knowledge of how the world really is. This idea, in fact, seems like it presupposes that the arrogant are happier. In fact, I think this might be the trouble wit American society and our love of arrogant heroes.
I think we also tend to put “happiness” as the number one, ultimate goal of our lives. Now, this might be a good thing if everyone was striving for true happiness, but I think that when many people think of “happiness” they think of it in a rather selfish way. How can I be happier? How much money do I need to be happy? How many friends? How many lovers? When we think of happiness in this selfish way, we start to see the whole world in terms of commodities toward happiness—“happy money” with which we can buy things and events and even people. This is the ultimate arrogance—the ultimate sin against humility. And in the end, this is not true happiness at all. You can better find true happiness by realizing the truth of things—the truth of your own shortcomings in order to truly enjoy the strengths of those around you—to have the humility to be truly grateful.