Hence the
marks of a prideful and vainglorious man are an unwillingness to submit himself
to any higher authority (which would include prevailing laws and norms);
habitual braggadocio and bombastic speech; exaggeration and lying about his
achievements; being obnoxiously quarrelsome; stubborn attachment to his own
opinions in the face of all evidence and superior counterarguments; and a taste
for doing things that are shocking and unexpected.
It stands to
reason that a prideful and vainglorious man is bound to be polarizing. On the
one hand, his fundamental motivations are to attain pre-eminence, and to do so
by drawing attention to his imagined excellence. If he is good at this, then
naturally, he is going to gain a following of some kind. On the other hand,
pride and vainglory are objectively ugly character traits, as the daughters of
vainglory make evident and as one would expect from the fact that pride is the
worst of sins. Hence, people who see through a proud and vainglorious man’s
charade are naturally going to be repulsed by him, especially if they have
decent instincts.
The
Christian tradition has, after all, held that pride is the characteristic sin
of the devil and of antichrist. It is
also the characteristic sin of the tyrant, who on Plato’s analysis is a
consummate narcissist, and who in the political philosophy of Aristotle and
Aquinas is defined as the ruler who governs a polity for the sake of his own
good rather than for the common good. There are no villains more repulsive than
the devil, the antichrist, and tyrants. And yet in all three cases we have
figures who draw many to them. “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light”
(2 Corinthians 11:14). It is no wonder that lesser malign figures – prideful
and vainglorious politicians, business leaders, sports stars, entertainers,
public intellectuals, and so on – attract many people even as they repulse
others.
Aquinas also
teaches in De Malo that “pride
extinguishes all the virtues and weakens all the powers of the soul.” It is not
hard to see how this would be so. If a prideful man is by nature insubordinate,
he is not likely to subordinate himself to moral restraints. He may exhibit counterfeits of certain virtues, if that
would aid in leading others to perceive him as having excellence. He also may have a certain cleverness or cunning
in achieving his ends. But it will not
be true wisdom, because that requires seeing things as they really are, and his
narcissism prevents that. He will have allies and sycophants, but is unlikely
to have true friends, because he will ultimately sacrifice the good of others for
the sake of his own good. He may have a certain boldness, but he will not have
true courage, because his boldness does not serve the true and the good, but
only himself. And so on.
Scripture famously teaches that “pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18). But even apart from scripture, everyone knows this from experience. Or almost everyone, because the prideful man himself does not see it. Nor do those in thrall to him, since they labor under the same delusion about his supposed excellence as he does. It goes without saying that the greater the following a prideful man has, or the larger the community over which he has authority, the greater will be his fall, and theirs.
The proud man is more useful than Mister Spock.
ReplyDeleteMonk: Does a dog have a Buddha nature?
Joshi: 無.
Doubtful, but in any event, that is a false choice
DeleteThe fall of the prideful would in normal circumstances be a deserved and just thing; an issue arises when a prideful man who has a large public presence, in his vying for power and excellence, cloaks himself in an inherently good and truthful set of ideals or an institution representing those ideals in order to appeal to the honest and reasonable sensibilities of the public. In a world where such ideals have been eroded and are largely forgotten or misunderstood, there is a danger that the prideful man's presentation and abuse of them will shape and form the public's idea of those ideals in general. Thus when the prideful man fails and falls, this represents to the public the failing and falling of those ideals and institutions which he had misappropriated. As a result they may reject the ideals wholesale, observing that they (or rather their counterfeits) led to harm and destruction.
ReplyDeletein his vying for power and excellence, cloaks himself in an inherently good and truthful set of ideals or an institution representing those ideals in order to appeal to the honest and reasonable sensibilities of the public.
DeleteI think that among the public who are truly reasonable and honest, most will see through (or at least partly do so) his using fine appearances to cloak his vice. And even if they had been hoodwinked rather thoroughly, they will see through it upon the proud man's fall through the natural consequences of his pride. It is, rather, those who are themselves poorly formed, and those who are partly given over to vices, who are truly taken in by his cloaking and who mistake his fall as saying something negative about true virtues. But these latter are fooled all the time - including by bad things happening to (truly) good people, in spite of Jesus warning us (and showing us) that this will happen. While we must deplore the scandal that men in power cause when they do bad things and thus lead others to also do bad things, I don't see that it is something special to proud men that they do this, as any leader (even one who truly is mostly good) will have this effect.
I enjoy these sort of posts. Compact, thorough definitions of everyday terms really help regiment my thinking. They are so illuminating. thanks!
ReplyDeleteIt stands to reason that a prideful and vainglorious man is bound to be polarizing. On the one hand, his fundamental motivations are to attain pre-eminence, and to do so by drawing attention to his imagined excellence. If he is good at this, then naturally, he is going to gain a following of some kind.
ReplyDeleteRight: the truly proud man cannot stand to be NOT taken as a subject of conversation and decision, he must have people declare for him or against him. If you try to "stay out of it", he will get get in your face and force the issue - so he is (at least) a bit of a bully alongside of his other defects. So the proud man inevitably aims for being a leader of some size of group, the bigger the better. Thus politicians, as a class, are prone to be being proud men. And they inevitably take the mere fact of being held in esteem by a crowd as a core "accomplishment", sometimes in lieu of any other.
This is extremely helpful. Metaphysical reflection on the nature of vice is disarming in a way that pointing to particular instances of vice is not. It allows use to find fault with ourselves and to see the prominent faults of public figures without naming them. Through finding fault with ourselves we can grow with God's grace and through recognizing the faults of others we can both pray for them and recognize that their vices should not be emulated and can be aware of the nature of those vices and what harm they can cause. Again, super helpful.
ReplyDeletePride is the reason that Satan fell
ReplyDeleteIsaiah 14:13-14:
For you have said in your heart: "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High."
Hate to be the one to point out the.elephant in the room, but this post is a perfect description of Donald Trump.
ReplyDeleteDamn! That's exactly what I've been thinking too!
DeleteI think that's who Ed had in mind.
DeleteFrom Prof's OP: "Hence the marks of a prideful and vainglorious man are an unwillingness to submit himself to any higher authority (which would include prevailing laws and norms); habitual braggadocio and bombastic speech; exaggeration and lying about his achievements; being obnoxiously quarrelsome; stubborn attachment to his own opinions in the face of all evidence and superior counterarguments; and a taste for doing things that are shocking and unexpected."
DeleteYeah, pretty much kind of.
Did not Trump though give glory to God for his survival? And considering the insane levels of hostility from certain quarters is not much of his bravado 'self-defense'?
Delete@Anonymous: Trump's constant posturing as "the real victim here" is part of the grift. That's been a tactic for decades. Sad to see you seeming to fall for it.
DeleteCelebrity criticism might be a form of "vainglory"
DeleteFicino4ml
DeleteYes, the assassination attempt on Trump must have been a figment of my imagination as must also be the calls of people in daily life for Trump to be assassinated. I must have imagined all of that. I must have also imagined the total lack of such widespread calls for similar attacks on Obama for example. I must have just forgotten any failed but extremely close headshots on bush etc.
The fact is Trump is the victim of at least one assassination attempt and the response to him from the public, media and various politicians eg pelosi for years has been utterly unhinged at times.
On tyrants, Suarez and contemporary Jesuits writing on the topic held that there are two types of tyrants. Those that obtain office illegitimately and those that act in their own interest rather than in the interest of the common good. I for one am thankful that the last election was so conclusive and legitimate while the social policies currently in place are for the common good. Regarding the effect of the fiscal policy, I have been in banking and finance for 10 years and there are people who have FAR more understanding of macroeconomics than myself who are unsure of or disagree on the long term effects of the current tariff policy working in conjunction with the other policies precisely because the approach is something that has little to no precedent. For this reason, those that lack a deep understanding of economics and have not built remarkably successful businesses should, in humility, be circumspect before pontificating on what they themselves don't understand. An analogue for such a thing would be Dawkins pontificating on metaphysics.
ReplyDeleteNow one might argue: "well its the very uncertainty of the policy that we should be critical of." The problem with this argument is three fold. First, economics is simply not like mathematics or demonstrative reasoning. There is always some element or elements that add to the mix uncertainty. The question is how much and for what purpose.
This brings me to the second problem with the argument. This current tariff policy is being done because of a trade imbalance. How big of an economic problem is this? Again, a problem for high level economists and there is room for disagreement with those currently in office holding that it is a significant economic problem that needs to be addressed. Along with this there are some level of security issues with us being dependent on countries that display some level of hostility to us (e.g. China). So there is a national security argument for creating a competative environment where production can occur at home.
The third problem as already suggested is that there are highly accomplished and competent economists who not only see the trade imbalance as an economic problem. Are there folks here capable of assessing their arguments in a substantive way? Possibly so, but that isn't likely to occur through drive by tweeting. Just as complex metaphysical arguments require more space than twitter to address substantively; likewise, so economic arguments require more of us that the characters allowed on twitter will permit. I am not aware of economic blogs that address these issues in as substantive a way as our host addresses philosophy here, but I am sure they are out there and that is what is needed for reasonable analysis of the implications of the current tariff policy and it is a matter of humility to recognize this (and our own lack of expertise on relevant topics).
Michael, interesting points.
DeleteFor this reason, those that lack a deep understanding of economics and have not built remarkably successful businesses should, in humility, be circumspect before pontificating on what they themselves don't understand.
It's funny that you say this, because just yesterday I was commenting to my wife that I simply don't have a good sense of what the tariffs will do at the 2nd, 3rd, and farther levels of consequences (in spite of the fact that I do have a wee bit of economics education). Yeah, I think there's room for a LOT more humility that I see running around.
Michael, good points.
DeleteFor this reason, those that lack a deep understanding of economics and have not built remarkably successful businesses should, in humility, be circumspect before pontificating on what they themselves don't understand.
Funny enough, I commented just yesterday to my wife that I don't understand the 2nd, 3rd, and later orders of consequences to tariffs to have any sense of what Trumps efforts will lead to. Since I do have a wee bit of education in economics, I imagine that many others also have no clue where this is going.
The third problem as already suggested is that there are highly accomplished and competent economists who not only see the trade imbalance as an economic problem.
I am very unsure of my thinking on this, but it was my sense that a large portion of the reason for this "trade imbalance" (maybe a majority of the reason) has to do with the implications of Bretton Woods and the US dollar becoming the world's reserve currency. The international desire for dollars to solidify their own currency and economies meant that dollars have been at a premium, and countries have (in effect) been willing to sell us goods to get their hands on (even inflated) dollars. The perverse incentives embedded in this condition meant that for 70 years, US politicians have been willing to inflate the dollar and sell cheapened dollars for foreign goods, which naturally undermines the market for our own goods that don't sell for cheap. I am sure that there are also many other foreign activities that accentuate this imbalance, but to me it seems that the principal cause is US behavior (US living off of foreigners buying our dollars), and I doubt that Trump has proposed something that unravels the underlying problem. Rather, he is at least as gung-ho on the US dollar remaining the world's reserve currency as any other president. I suppose it is possible that tariffs can somehow succeed in getting the world to stop buying dollars with their products, but it is unclear how that will be a net improvement to the US economy. Maybe it will, I just have trouble seeing how that works.
And I doubt it will succeed FAST ENOUGH to allow Republicans to get the White House next election, and if they don't, most of his work will be unwound. But that's just guesses, I don't know.
There's not much to comment on and nothing to argue about on this concise little piece. Although, it would be interesting to explore the emphasis that "If he [the prideful man] is good at this, then naturally, he is going to gain a following..." What is it that elevates these bad leaders? Do fans of Patton and Muhammed Ali enjoy the some form of pride here? Does naked pride typically gain an audience, or is the uninteresting norm a person who is mostly avoided and lonely?
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the article because it at least raises awareness that popular leaders can be false. But I wonder what role pride plays in their success compared to true ones.
Someone I know worked for Muhammad Ali's family and met the retired boxer several times. I am told how generous he was. I can't prove this, but I suspect a lot of what seemed like bombast etc. in Ali's public behavior was an act. I have read that Ali became good friends with Frazier and Foreman in years after their fights.
DeletePatton was exactly general we needed at that time in WW2. Ali was the greatest heavyweight boxer of all time.
Delete„Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.
ReplyDeleteFor they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb."
(Psalm 37:1-2)
This is a topic on which Aquinas seems to disagree with Aristotle. The latter views pride as the virtue between vanity and smallness of soul, and praises those who correctly think themselves worthy of great things, while condemning those who are humble or self deprecating about great accomplishments. It would be useful to contrast Aristotelian and Christian (Aquinas) views on this topic, given that this is one of the few areas on which Aquinas and Aristotle seem to disagree.
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly significant differences between pre-Christian and Christian thinkers on this issue. But even the former recognized excessive pride (hubris) as a problem.
DeleteIt is true that Aristotle's view was not quite in tune with the Christian view. However, it also was not wholly contrary to it. It pays to note what excellence Aristotle was pushing. Primarily, one can say that he was arguing for a person have a right view of his own merit, especially compared to that of others. The good man should not falsely set his own merit below those who are bad men, for example. He should be truthful in all things, and this includes respecting merit where it exists.
DeleteChristians don't oppose this as such. They note (a) that (even apart from sin), our merit is always infinitely below God's. And (b) given sin, we all are in a state of infinite demerit, until we receive forgiveness of sin through grace, and then our merit is always received from Christ, it is not our own. We have nothing to boast of, for all our goodness is received as an unmerited gift.
But a Christian is STILL called to rightly acknowledge the difference between the person who, through grace, has received merit from Christ, and the one still choosing to remain in his sins who merits hell. Christians are expected to attribute their condition of merit to Christ, but not to deny their merit. And Christians expect to receive a (very great) reward for their merit in heaven while those who refuse Christ receive the due 'reward' of their demerit in hell.
I think it would be plausible to say that Christianity primarily adds a layer of recognition that true spiritual worth is not independent of our hope in Christ, but not that Christianity has a different notion of what excellence consists in on this point.
" two Englishmen produced vivid—but sharply contrasting—literary depictions of authoritarian dystopia.
ReplyDeleteIn 1932, Aldous Huxley published Brave New World, in which the future masses love their mindless oppression, blissfully drifting through life while dependent on artificially induced doses of happiness delivered by ingesting a drug called Soma. Seventeen years later, George Orwell published 1984, envisioning a dictatorial jackboot surveillance society, in which humanity is controlled through external force under the ever-watchful gaze of Big Brother.
The two novels are often equated as similar depictions of future dystopia, but their warning is radically different. One is the vision of the raw power of an iron fist; the other of happy minds willingly captured with a brainless smile.
And yet, the vision from Brave New World is arguably more insidious because it is largely invisible and self-imposed. Jackboots can be resisted, Big Brothers toppled. But how can we spark a revolution when the oppression is coming from ourselves?
As Neil Postman astutely summarized it:
In Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required…people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think…
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”
In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.
Despite a deluge of depressing news produced by powerful and malicious idiots, our modern world remains full of awe-inspiring beauty, kindness, and abundant proof that our species is capable of ingenuity, goodness, and moral decency. We do not live in dystopia. But we are lurching toward it, and our political and cultural failings are a synthesis of these two disturbing visions from the first half of the 20th century.
We are living, to an increasingly alarming degree, what Orwell and Huxley warned about.
Authoritarians are ascendant—crushing dissent, governing through fear, disappearing people from the streets to send them to a theatrical zoo of dehumanizing cages in El Salvador. They may not force people to say that 2+2=5, but hurricanes can be redrawn by sharpies and history’s injustices can be rewritten, with tragic lessons reduced to an anodyne husk. The Great Depression, according to the Cult of Trump, was caused not by tariffs, but by their removal. Tariffs, it turns out, are the path to prosperity, not ruin—and we have always been at war with Eastasia.
What is most depressing about these modern incarnations of Orwell’s prophecies is not the ruthless iron first of government coercing us, but the fact that one has largely been unnecessary.
Perhaps Huxley’s warning was more astute: authoritarian dystopia can be imposed not just by the heels of jackboots crushing heads, but by the titans of modern Soma capturing willing minds. Understanding the difference is crucial, because the same symptoms can be caused by many different diseases—and to treat them most effectively, we need to get the diagnosis right.
Are we fighting Big Brother or Soma?"
It would be a full disclosure if Mr Feser would just come out and say he is talking about Trump, as Mr Feser has recently expressed a disdain for Trump.
ReplyDelete