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?
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?