• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Arrogance

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I've heard that the ancient Greeks (specifically Aristotle) considered a person arrogant if he or she strayed into either of two extremes. First, if they claimed more for themselves than was just. And second, if they claimed less for themselves than was just. The ideal was to claim for yourself only what was just.

For instance: A person who was good at mathematics would be considered arrogant if he claimed to be better at mathematics than he actually was, and also considered to be arrogant if he claimed to be worse at mathematics than he was.

This view of arrogance is incompatible with the popular notion that claiming to be exceptionally good at something shows arrogance. In the Greek view, that claim would show arrogance if and only if it were not true.

What do you make of the Greek take on arrogance? Does it make sense to you? Is it philosophically superior to the notion that arrogance is merely claiming to be exceptionally good at something? What do you think?
 

Lightkeeper

Well-Known Member
Who is the judge of being better than or worse than something? Who decides what the middle ground is? I think it could be a form of arrogance if you underplay your assets. But, today we call that sandbagging or low self-esteem. It seems the goal of this is to have a realistic sense of your own capabilities. I think sometimes we might need the feedback of others to decide that.
 

rivet

Member
You won't get into as much trouble if you under-estimate your abilities than if you over-estimate them.

But, I kind of agree - having low self-esteem and down playing your abilities can be just as annoying as arrogance and boastfulness.
 

Feathers in Hair

World's Tallest Hobbit
Hmm... this is quite interesting! I'd never heard of the opinion. What we see as being humble would be percieved as arrogance.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Luke 14:7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 "When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, `Give this man your seat.' Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, `Friend, move up to a better place.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. 11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

This epitomizes arrogance to me. This next scripture demonstrates humility:

Philippians 2:3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
 

Rex

Founder
Lightkeeper said:
Who is the judge of being better than or worse than something? Who decides what the middle ground is? I think it could be a form of arrogance if you underplay your assets. But, today we call that sandbagging or low self-esteem. It seems the goal of this is to have a realistic sense of your own capabilities. I think sometimes we might need the feedback of others to decide that.
YOu hit it on the nose. Sandbaggin, I know that all to well from golf games!
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
FeathersinHair said:
Hmm... this is quite interesting! I'd never heard of the opinion. What we see as being humble would be percieved as arrogance.
The Greek ideal was to be realistic about oneself and others, and to have neither overbearing arrogance nor calculated humility. They saw that realism as being genuinely humble (as opposed to falsely or irrationally humble). In the Greek view, you should, out of respect for justice, give everyone his due (including yourself). At least, that's how I understand it.
 

Master Vigil

Well-Known Member
I am pessimistically optimistic. I keep my hopes low so that no matter what happens, its always a good thing. And I'm in a good mood most of the time.

Yeah yeah yeah, its a stupid idea I know. But it works.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
I agree with the Greeks. The middle way is best. If you judge yourself more harshly than you judge others, if you hold yourself up to a higher standard, that suggests that you actually think that you're better than others. Ideally, one should be able to judge oneself objectively.

However, since we very rarely achieve this ideal, I'd say that if one is going to err then it is better to err on the side of apparent humility. :162:
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Doesn't the ancient Greek view of this go against the modern inclination to see arrogance in any claim to be better than someone else?
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
Sunstone said:
Doesn't the ancient Greek view of this go against the modern inclination to see arrogance in any claim to be better than someone else?
Depends on what one means by "better." ;)

But you're right; I should have chosen my words more carefully. :eek: Person A can say that he is "smarter" than person B without being arrogant if it is true. Person A can say that he is faster, stronger, taller, more moral, etc. All that's fine, if it is true. If one wants to call that "better" so be it.

What I meant is that if person A holds himself up to a higher standard than he holds person B up to (and thereby undervalues his own abilities), what he is in essence saying is that "I am such that I deserve to be held up to a higher standard." There is no objective or just reason to believe that he deserves to held up to a higher standard than he holds other people. The result is that claiming less for himself than is just is actually claiming more for himself than is just. Therefore, both are arrogance.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
lilithu said:
I agree with the Greeks. The middle way is best. If you judge yourself more harshly than you judge others, if you hold yourself up to a higher standard, that suggests that you actually think that you're better than others. Ideally, one should be able to judge oneself objectively.

However, since we very rarely achieve this ideal, I'd say that if one is going to err then it is better to err on the side of apparent humility. :162:
I have always judged myself more harshly than I would judge others; to me, it is not because I think I am better than others. It is more of a case of I KNOW what is right and wrong; I consider that not all people need have thought about things to the same degree as I have; not should they - I believe this is a particular lesson I have to learn in this lifetime. That doesn't make me better or worse than others - as long as I can follow my own moral code. Does that make sense Lilithu?:)
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
michel said:
I have always judged myself more harshly than I would judge others;
So do I. ;)


michel said:
Ito me, it is not because I think I am better than others. It is more of a case of I KNOW what is right and wrong; I consider that not all people need have thought about things to the same degree as I have; not should they - I believe this is a particular lesson I have to learn in this lifetime. That doesn't make me better or worse than others - as long as I can follow my own moral code. Does that make sense Lilithu? :)
I understand; but does that mean that any person who is more reflective should be held to a higher standard? And do you just assume that everyone else is less reflective than you? ;)

I'm just giving you a hard time, michel. I agree with the Greeks logically. But emotionally or intuitively, I agree with Jesus and you. :) Jesus' message of humility just feels right in my heart (despite Nietzsche's cogent attacks against it). I think that the Greeks just remind us not to take that good message to extremes.
 

No*s

Captain Obvious
I prefer to accuse myself, because I have a pride problem. I often cannot accurately estimate my own abilities, because I over-estimate them. So, I deliberately under-shoot.
 

kreeden

Virus of the Mind
I agree with Lilithu , and the Greeks . I don't think that they were talking about being humble so much as being overly humble to the point of being patronizing . It is like low self-esteeme . It can show it's self as being shy and withdrawn , or one can try to hide it by being loud and over-bearing . Tis my take on it at lest . :)
 

Lycan

Preternatural
if you hold yourself up to a higher standard, that suggests that you actually think that you're better than others. Ideally, one should be able to judge oneself objectively.


IMHO -
I disagree. Attempting to hold yourself up to a higher standard, I believe is a good thing. It will cause you to strive to over come obstacles, and better yourself. I don't think it has anything to do with thinking you are better than anyone else, in most cases. I think the point of this act's purpose, as far as thinking you are better than someone else is moot. I feel that most who do this are worried about reaching beyond their supposed ablities for themselves not for the degradation of others.

Lycan
 

Scorn

Active Member
Perhaps "holding oneself up to a higher standard" is a misunderstanding. In my opinion, While it's completely "just" to hold oneself to a higher standard it is not so think of yourself in a higher standard to someone else. Something I've learned over the years while holding a seemingly envious position in my career is how to be a centrist when talking about what I do, did, will do. I would often get extreme flattery and extreme contempt equally from those around me. On one hand, for many years, I lived with the imposter syndrome (humility: why do I deserve this?). Dealing with the flattery is a difficult thing because an over abundance leads to suspicion and mistrust of motive. On the other hand criticism lead to exactly the same contempt with the added feature of a certain amount of self righteousness on my part (arrogance).

It took me a long time to reconcile the two reactions. After a while though, (read: experience) confidence takes over. Confidence is a gift that should be freely given away. Once you offer confidence to those around you, you get balance. There is no higher stander by which you see yourself (not to be confused with the higher standard by which you strive).

Everyone else has something of value to offer. And confidence is what you give freely in return.

If the demon you fight is within yourself, once you recognize this, others become equal.

If the demon others fight is how they perceive you, once they recognize this you become equal.



Well that's just my take on it anyway. It seems to have worked so far.

 
Top