|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 18:28:06 GMT -5
Is it better to do the humbling or to have the humbling done to you?
Feel free to interpret the word 'better', and to question the underlying premises of the inquiry.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2014 18:34:54 GMT -5
Is it better to do the humbling or to have the humbling done to you? Feel free to interpret the word 'better', and to question the underlying premises of the inquiry. Humility isn't something that someone can do. There is an obvious hubris to trying to to be humble. Humility, very simply is the absence of pride that comes with seeing the emptiness of the notion that anything of virtue that our individuation is the vehicle for is the source of that individuation in any sort of independent sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 18:59:33 GMT -5
Humility isn't something that someone can do. There is an obvious hubris to trying to to be humble. If you're saying that it's impossible to humble your own self, is it still possible to be humbled by another? In that case I ask again, which side of the instance of humbling is it better to be on? |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 19:07:23 GMT -5
Humility, very simply is the absence of pride that comes with seeing the emptiness of the notion that anything of virtue that our individuation is the vehicle for is the source of that individuation in any sort of independent sense. My universal translator has failed to fully decode this transmission. Foremost I would take issue with the notion that there's such thing as 'virtue'. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 2, 2014 20:43:14 GMT -5
Is it better to do the humbling or to have the humbling done to you? Feel free to interpret the word 'better', and to question the underlying premises of the inquiry. It's better to have the humbling done to you. To try to humble someone else is pretty arrogant. And, what goes around, comes around. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 2, 2014 20:47:22 GMT -5
Is it better to do the humbling or to have the humbling done to you? Feel free to interpret the word 'better', and to question the underlying premises of the inquiry. It's not an either or kind of question -- not so simple. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 2, 2014 20:49:55 GMT -5
Is it better to do the humbling or to have the humbling done to you? Feel free to interpret the word 'better', and to question the underlying premises of the inquiry. It's better to have the humbling done to you. To try to humble someone else is pretty arrogant. And, what goes around, comes around. sdp It is better to have the humbling done to you, but it's usually - almost always I say - a situational thing because if someone tries to humble me, it's usually because of some animosity and it's not a pure thing, motivationally speaking. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 2, 2014 20:54:34 GMT -5
Rats, my question appears to be unclear. I'm not referring to deliberately humbling another person.. I don't even know how that would work. It's strange that everyone would interpret it as such. Can't wisdom just naturally be humbling? I'd rather be humbling than humbled simply because I'm striving towards greater wisdom, not less, so there's a direction involved. I don't curse the step I'm on since I realize it's a graduated, incremental process, but I'd consider it 'better' to take the next step than not. Just like I'd rather the next step but am great with the one I'm on, I'd rather be humbling but am great with being humbled.
I used the correct bait and set the cage in the correct location but I forgot to close the latch so all the fluff bunnies came in and then went right back out!
Hmmmm, perhaps I should have said: "Is it better to learn humility or to teach humility?"
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2014 22:46:47 GMT -5
Humility, very simply is the absence of pride that comes with seeing the emptiness of the notion that anything of virtue that our individuation is the vehicle for is the source of that individuation in any sort of independent sense. My universal translator has failed to fully decode this transmission. Foremost I would take issue with the notion that there's such thing as 'virtue'.  how can you define humility absent the foundation of virtue? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2014 22:47:55 GMT -5
Humility isn't something that someone can do. There is an obvious hubris to trying to to be humble. If you're saying that it's impossible to humble your own self, is it still possible to be humbled by another? In that case I ask again, which side of the instance of humbling is it better to be on? In humility, there is nothing subject to humiliation. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 2, 2014 22:49:43 GMT -5
Rats, my question appears to be unclear. I'm not referring to deliberately humbling another person.. I don't even know how that would work. It's strange that everyone would interpret it as such. Can't wisdom just naturally be humbling? I'd rather be humbling than humbled simply because I'm striving towards greater wisdom, not less, so there's a direction involved. I don't curse the step I'm on since I realize it's a graduated, incremental process, but I'd consider it 'better' to take the next step than not. Just like I'd rather the next step but am great with the one I'm on, I'd rather be humbling but am great with being humbled. I used the correct bait and set the cage in the correct location but I forgot to close the latch so all the fluff bunnies came in and then went right back out! Hmmmm, perhaps I should have said: "Is it better to learn humility or to teach humility?" Awe, happens.  |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 0:05:19 GMT -5
My universal translator has failed to fully decode this transmission. Foremost I would take issue with the notion that there's such thing as 'virtue'. how can you define humility absent the foundation of virtue? Well, I can be better than another person. At farming, at math, at bicycling, etc. I can yield greater crops, solve more complex equations, cycle without hands, etc. But to say I'm better without defining any sense to it, that's the metaphorical as well as literal epitome of nonsense. So how I am compared to others is always a function of specific actions, ways or tendencies or otherwise of any specifically defined context. There's no better or worse in a general or universal sense. This is a pretty basic concept so I'm curious why you believe virtue is needed to define humility. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 3, 2014 0:11:30 GMT -5
how can you define humility absent the foundation of virtue? Well, I can be better than another person. At farming, at math, at bicycling, etc. I can yield greater crops, solve more complex equations, cycle without hands, etc. But to say I'm better without defining any sense to it, that's the metaphorical as well as literal epitome of nonsense. So how I am compared to others is always a function of specific actions, ways or tendencies or otherwise of any specifically defined context. There's no better or worse in a general or universal sense. This is a pretty basic concept so I'm curious why you believe virtue is needed to define humility. For one, in terms of one who would either humble or be humbled, humility is typically considered a virtue, with the opposite number of pride. For another, in terms of one who would claim humility, they would of course, disclaim virtue, for if they didn't, how could they be considered humble? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 3, 2014 0:18:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Oct 3, 2014 1:06:21 GMT -5
In my aforementioned example I offered logical proof positive that arrogance is in error. Some would surely argue that arrogance can still exist, in this error form, among a vast many people. I feel we're conflating the process of living with the interpretation of concepts, categories and labels.
|
|
how can you define humility absent the foundation of virtue?
