Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice - Part 3

 

An attempted rebuttal by David Rodriguez to my first posting on pride, in which I argued that pride is a virtue and not a vice, and that Christians misuse the term, resulted in my second posting on the subject, Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice - Part 2 . The comment made there by Watkins has resulted in this post, in which I will rebut his rebuttal. I will also be writing an additional 4th post on the subject of humble and humility, and how it relates to pride. This subject is very important, because I think that pride is such an important virtue that we should get it right. In fact, I believe pride is one of the primary virtues, as if one has the justifiable proper amount of self respect, they tend to hold the other virtues. Not to do so, would be to not only disrespect others, but to disrespect themselves. People who lack pride, tend not to hold the other virtues, and tend to exhibit unvirtuous behaviors.

According to Watkins:

"This is very simple. There are two definitions of pride; call them pride 1 and pride2. Pride 1 is an arrogant, boastful love of self. Pride 2 is a proper amount of self-respect. Christians say that pride1 is bad, and pride 2 is good. We label each "pride" simply as a matter of use. If you want to claim otherwise you're simply straw-manning and talking right past us."

To clarify, I am not claiming that the Christians do not use pride in two different ways--that is exactly my point. The Christian claims that pride is a vice AND a virtue. Pride is defined as the justifiable, proper amount of self respect, and then the Christian defines pride as unjustified over abundance of self respect. This is straightforward. As a result, the Christian use of pride lends itself to ambiguity and equivocation, while Aristotle's definition is clear and precise, and does not lend itself to ambiguity and equivocation. Therefore, Aristotle's use of the conception of the use of pride does a better job than the Christian conception, as Aristotle's definition is clear and concise."

I have never seen or heard a christian use the term 'pride 1' and/or 'pride 2--I have only heard them say "Pride is a vice." or ""It's good to have pride in your church." and so forth. Never have I heard them say, "I am using pride 1 as opposed to pride 2." But let's accept Watkins' distinction. The fact that he has attempted to label pride in this manner illustrates why he ought not use one word to mean two opposite things, when we have a better explanation and use of terms such as pride and arrogance. Now note, since I gave the definition of pride as the justifiable amount of self respect, that he labels as "pride 2" and then I gave the Christian definition of pride, that he label as "pride 1" I labeled each "pride"as a matter of use and argued that Christians misuse the concept of pride since pride 1 is the justifiable proper amount of self respect, and pride 2 is an unjustifiable amount of self respect. So, I did not commit the fallacy of equivocation as Watkins defined it above, since I did not even use a syllogism in the first place! Furthermore, I did not use pride as a middle term, I merely gave the definition of pride, and contrasted that with the Christian conception of pride--the one you call "pride 2," and showed that these 2 definitions are inconsistent, and to use pride in this manner is to misuse the term.

Now, what Mr. Watkins said above, which I will state again is:

"The fallacy of equivocation is not a matter of ambiguity. It's when you use a word that can't function as the middle term in a syllogism, because the word has different meanings in each premise."

This is exactly how Christians use the term pride! If we were to use the Christian conception of pride in a syllogism, it lends itself to equivocation as it has two contrasting meanings, whereas Aristotle's use of the term pride is clear and concise, and does not lend itself to equivocation and contradiction. As he pointed out, "Things are said to be named 'equivocally' when, though they have a common name, the definition corresponding with the name differs for each.--This is exactly what the Christian conception of pride is, as it has a common name and the definition corresponding with the name differs for each--but Christians often times equivocate.

His applying the label 'pride 1' and 'pride 2' helps, but does not fix the problem. According to Watkins, should any one define in what sense each is an animal, his definition in the one case will be appropriate to that case only. In practice, the majority of Christians misuse the term, and it is even misused in the bible, as illustrated below:

"Choose my instruction instead of silver, knowledge rather than choice gold, for wisdom is more precious than rubies, and nothing you desire can compare with her. I, wisdom, dwell together with prudence; I possess knowledge and discretion. To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech." Proverbs 8:10-13

Let us apply Watkins' label of "pride 1 and "pride 2." Now, let's use the law of substitution. In the above passage, we would have the following:

"To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate pride and pride, evil behavior and perverse speech."

or,

"To fear the LORD is to hate evil; I hate arrogance and arrogance, evil behavior and perverse speech."

How odd. It would appear that in this passage they are making reference to "pride 1" and "pride 2." Otherwise, why would they repeat the same meaning twice? In other words, according to what Watkins said, the passage should read:

"To fear the LORD is to hate evil: I hate "pride 1" and "pride 2", evil behavior and perverse speech."

Therefore, the above passage illustrates how the Christian god hates self respect, as according to Christians, they are "dirty, filthy sinners," and they ought not have any amount of "self respect," as that illustrates they think too much of themselves as everything about them is due to God--via God's grace. This Christian argument against pride as a virtue, is expressed in the following passages:

"For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" 1Cor 4:7

and, 

"And you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day." Deuteronomy 8:18

According to this conception of grace, anything that distinguishes one person from another is a gift from God. Whether a person is intelligent, beautiful, strong, fast and so on, is all due to the grace of God, and is not of their own doing, as is expressed in the following passage:

"So the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD?" Exodus 4:11

There is nothing good about a person that is not a gift of god according to the Christian conception of grace. A person has no good characteristics that is a result of his own doing, as is expressed in the following passages:

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning." James 1:17

"Yours, O LORD, is the greatness, The power and the glory, The victory and the majesty; For all that is in heaven and in earth is Yours; Yours is the kingdom, O LORD, And You are exalted as head over all. Both riches and honor come from You, And You reign over all. In Your hand is power and might; In Your hand it is to make great And to give strength to all. "Now therefore, our God, We thank You And praise Your glorious name. But who am I, and who are my people, That we should be able to offer so willingly as this? For all things come from You, And of Your own we have given You. For we are aliens and pilgrims before You, As were all our fathers; Our days on earth are as a shadow, And without hope. "O LORD our God, all this abundance that we have prepared to build You a house for Your holy name is from Your hand, and is all Your own." 1 1Chronicles 29:11-16

The Christian saint, Augustine, uses this conception of grace to argue that all pride is a vice. As Don Schweitzer summarizes Augustine's view:

"We begin by analyzing the critique of pride put forward by Augustine and Reinhold Niebuhr. A critique of pride as sinful is certainly present in the biblical traditions (Prov. 16:18). But it received a new emphasis with Augustine, who sees pride as having been the major obstacle to his reconciliation with God and the primary cause of injustice, war and oppression. In City of God, Augustine defines pride as the exaltation of one's self in place of God (14.13; 1984: 571- 73). Augustine's purely negative description of pride arises in part from his emphasis on the creative and reconciling power of grace and his neo-Platonic metaphysics. According to Augustine, creation and salvation happen through the free and undeserved grace of God. Though humanity was created good, the effect of Adam's fall is that all deserve punishment and are unable to save themselves. As all that is of value comes as a gift from God, there is little cause for pride in one's self."

Now we can see that one Christian conception of pride only sees pride, all of pride, as a vice. Based on this conception, Watkin's use of "pride 1" and "pride 2" fails because on this view, there is no justifiable amount of self respect, as all is due to God's grace. 
 
Also, none of the following passages taken from the bible seem to use Watkin's conception of pride 1 and pride 2. In fact, they seem to make a sweeping generalization against "pride"--both 1 and 2, which is consistent with the Christian conception of pride as a vice I have just illustrated above.

Consider the following passages:

"But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” James 4:6
"The LORD abhors dishonest scales, but accurate weights are his delight. 2 When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom." Proverbs 11:1-2
"Pride only breeds quarrels, but wisdom is found in those who take advice." Proverbs 13:10
"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. 19 Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud." Proverbs 16:18-19
"A man's pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honor." Proverbs 29:23


Which "pride," (pride 1, or pride 2) are the above passages making reference to? It is interesting if we look at Aristotle's conception of pride, as pride is a virtue, and is the mean between the two vices of humble on one side, and arrogance on the other. It is difficult to distinguish which pride the above passages are making reference to, as it would appear that both definitions can be deduced to be vices from the Bible, and in fact was/is deduced to be a vice by Christians like St. Augustine. 
 
Mr. Rodriquez provided a quote, which cites two passages from the bible which is supposed to illustrate what you call "pride 2"--that is, pride as a virtue:

"He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say." 2Cor. 12:5-6

But now note, that in this passage, there is no term 'pride.' It would seem that they are making reference to the word 'boast.' But boast, like pride has two meanings, one as a virtue and one as a vice. Paul refrains from using the term in reference to himself, so no one will think more of him than is warranted by what he dose or says. It is interesting because today if a person says, "I have pride," a common Christian response is, "Pride cometh before a fall." They do not ask, are you speaking the truth, and if so, reply, "you are justified in your pride." They do not distinguish between the two different meanings. They tend to reason along the lines of St. Augustine. The Christian conception of pride lends itself to misuse.

The second passage offered to show that the Christians have a positive conception of pride as a virtue, is:

"I have great confidence in you; I take great pride in you. I am greatly encouraged; in all our troubles my joy knows no bounds." 2Cor. 7:4

The context of this passage and the one above illustrates pride as a virtue. But they also illustrate the need for clarity. I have asked many Christians if pride is a virtue or a vice; 99% of the time I was told that pride is a vice, and they made no distinction otherwise. As I have shown above, one Christian conception of pride is that all pride is vice, while in a few passages, some form of pride is a virtue. As Mr. Rodriguez pointed out, it is usually considered a vice though--and as I have shown above, we now know why that is the case.

The use of pride 1 and pride 2 fails in the case that no one is deserving of any kind of pride. For in this case the use of pride 1 and pride 2 not only fails--it is ruled out all together as it makes reference to pride in a general sense as being a vice, which encompasses both pride 1 and pride 2. Thus, we can see that we have two Christian conceptions of pride, the main one where all pride is a vice and one view where some form of pride is a virtue and some form of pride is a vice, and both conceptions of pride are depicted in the bible. This results in a contradictory, convoluted, ambiguous and misuse of the term 'pride' by Christians. 
 
Now on the issue of humble and humility, I also agree with Aristotle's definition, in that being humble, and having humility is a vice. Pride is a virtue and a mean between arrogant on one side, and humility on the the other. Christianity teaches that we must be humble—have a poor self-esteem, have a feeling of insignificance and worthlessness, etc. – and that having pride (self respect) is bad. 
 
Therefore, Christians misuse the term 'pride,' and Aristotle's conception of pride does a better job than the Christian conception of pride, as the Christian conception of pride is contradictory, convoluted, and ambiguous.

As a final note, I find it interesting that the "Rational Gang" have swept Satan under the rug, even though the confusion in the meaning of the word pride can be somewhat attributed to the belief that Satan was a fallen angel that was kicked out of heaven due to his excessive "pride."  After I explained the history of Satan, and that there is no "fallen angel" story in the Old Testament, and that Satan is one of the "sons of god" in Genesis 6, and is a spy and adversary of men who works FOR Yahweh in the Old Testament according to the Jews who wrote the text--they did not bring up the subject again.  Interesting.....;)

Addendum:  I emailed the "Rational Gang" (I find the name rather amusing, for many reasons) and asked them to either offer a rebuttal, or admit the truth.  I'm still waiting.....
Addendum 2 - As of June 2012 (the last time I checked) the "Rational Gang" is no more.  Perhaps they couldn't take the "heat."--lol.

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice - Part 2

 

Recently I came across a site called "Rational Gang" **which posted an attempted refutation on my post on Pride. In this post, I will show that his rebuttal does not work, and in fact, I will use his failed attempt to further illustrate the point that I made about the Christian conception of pride in my first posting. In my first post, I argued that pride is a virtue, and the Christian conception of pride as a vice misuses the term. I will also use Mr. Rodriguez's failed rebuttal to show that the Christian conception of pride is contradictory, convoluted, and ambiguous, and thus lends itself to equivocation.

In my original post, I used Aristotle's definition of pride. According to Aristotle, a virtue is a mean between two vices. In the case of pride, pride is the mean between the vices of being arrogant/boastful and humble. Thus, pride is a virtue as it is the proper amount of self respect. According to Aristotle, a virtue is a mean between two vices. I used Aristotle's definition because in this case, it is a better explanation and interpretation of what a virtue is--in particular pride. The Christian conception of pride is contradictory, convoluted, and ambiguous. Mr. Rodriguez rightly points out that the Christian view of pride is for the most part, a vice, in that it means being egotistical, vain, arrogant and boastful; as well as being a virtue--which is a contradiction, as it would make pride be a virtue, and not a virtue.

According to Mr. Rodriguez:

"The unfortunate thing about her argument is that its foundation is entirely based on a straw man of Christianity’s teachings on pride. Pride, in a Christian sense, is NOT Aristotle’s definition of being the mean of humble and arrogant. Rather, Christianity depicts pride as having an egotistic, vain, arrogant, and boastful view of oneself. Throughout the post, Cooper reiterates her caricature of pride as being self-respect or self worth. In one sense pride can be self-respect or a “dignified sense of what is due oneself or one’s position or character,” such as telling your child after a game, “I’m proud of you son! You did well!” [2] However, this is NOT the view of pride that Christianity expresses as a vice. This is precisely why Cooper is also guilty of equivocation. Glenn Miller responds to the question ‘can pride be good?’ in the following,


“Pride: A reasonable or justifiable self-respect; or improper and excessive self-esteem known as conceit or arrogance. The apostle Paul expresses a positive kind of pride when speaking of confidence in Christians (2 Cor 7:4) or of strength in the Lord (2 Cor 12:5, 9). However, it is the latter sinful meaning of pride, which most frequently appears in the Bible, both in the OT and the NT.” [3][Emphasis added]"

According to Mr. Rodriguez, I misrepresented the Christian conception of pride, and he claims I equivocated. But note, according to Mr. Rodriguez, and the quote that he cited above, he proves my point, and it is he and other Christians who equivocate with the use of the word "pride," and he illustrates that the Christian conception of pride is ambiguous and unclear--and is, therefore, an equivocation. The definition of equivocate means to to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead. According to Mr. Rodriguez, and the Christian explanation, pride is a virtue and pride is a vice--which is ambiguous and unclear, and is, therefore, a case of equivocation. This is why, via Ockham's Razor,* Aristotle's definition, which is clear, makes more sense. Let me illustrate this for you. I will now show you how Aristotle's definition of pride does a better job than the Christian conception of pride. We can do this by comparing and contrasting the two:

The Christian Conception of Pride = Pride is a virtue, and pride is a vice

Aristotle's Conception of Pride = Pride is a virtue, and arrogance is a vice.

See how clear and precise Aristotle's definition is, and how it does not contradict itself. Let me illustrate further with the following examples:

1. Assume you have a cake recipe that calls for just the right amount of salt. And then, the recipe also says that this amount of salt is too much. Now, note, it cannot be just the right amount of salt, and too much salt, as that would be nonsensical. If pride is the justifiable amount of self respect, then you cannot have too much pride.

2. Consider the statement, "John has pride." Now, on the Christian side, we would not know whether that means he is virtuous or he is un-virtuous with respect to pride. However, if we use Aristotle's conception of pride, it would be clear that John would be virtuous with respect to pride and that he is not arrogant.

3. Mary is proud of her mother. Does this mean that she has a justifiable amount of respect for her mother, or is it the case that she has a arrogant, blown up out of proportion perception of her mother. You might think that the context makes it clear. But note, that when a child says "I am proud of my mother." she might be arrogantly boasting about her mother, and meaning by this, "My mother is better than your mother!"--when in fact, she might not be. Given the Christian conception of pride, it could be either. The Christian might say, "Well, she had too much pride in her mother." But given the definition of pride as being the reasonable, justifiable and proper amount of self respect, then how could she have too much pride in her mother? She could not. On Aristotle's conception of pride however, we could say that she had a reasonable, justifiable and proper amount of respect for her mother. If she had a blown up out of proportion conception of her mother, we would say she is arrogant with regards to her mother.

See how simple and straightforward Aristotle's conception of virtue, and in this case, pride is. Therefore, via Ockham's Razor, Aristotle's conception of virtue and pride does a better job than the Christian conception of pride. Aristotle's conception of virtue and pride does not lead to convolution, contradiction, and/or ambiguity; while the Christian conception of pride clearly does lead to convolution, contradiction and /or ambiguity.

According to the Christian conception of pride, it is a vice because of the so-called "sin" of the so-called "angel" known as Satan, who is said to have rebelled against God in heaven because he was too full of "pride." How ridiculous!! The view that Satan was a "prideful angel" is not in the Old Testament. It comes from references from Milton's epic poem, "Paradise Lost." In Paradise Lost, Satan rebels against god in heaven (which is paradoxical, as how could Satan sin in heaven, if heaven is without sin??) due to his excessive pride in himself. Christians cite the passages of Isaiah 14 which tell of a "shining star" that fell as a reference to the "fallen angel." This is why Christians began calling Satan Lucifer, as Lucifer means "shining star" (A reference to the King of Babylon.)This view of Satan is entirely fabricated by Christians.

The passages in Isaiah 14 actually make reference to the King of Babylon, who was defeated by the Persians who had attacked him because he had disrespected them on an earlier occasion. As payback, he was struck through with a sword, killed, and was not given the proper burial of a king--even an enemy king. Instead, he was thrown into a common grave. Since he was killed, he could not be Satan, as according to Christians, Satan is alive and well and working in the world. According to the Jews, this king who thought he was a "shining star" was arrogant, as he had a blown out of proportion view of himself, and when he fell, the Jews who wrote the text were mocking him.

To the Jews who wrote the Old Testament, Satan is one of the "sons of god" in Genesis 6, and comes in the entourage of "sons of god" in Job. Satan is a spy, and adversary of men who works FOR Yahweh--not against him--according to the Jews who wrote the text. The "sons of god" in Genesis 6 are neither angels (angels do not procreate), idols (idols do not procreate either!) or nephilim (they were the sons OF the sons of god) which are the explanations most Christians give for this passage. The sons of god were exactly that--sons of god. The Jews were polytheistic, as Jeremiah 11:13 illustrates, before the tribes merged, and Yahweh was made numero uno.

Christians also cite passages in Ezekiel 28 to make reference to Satan, but these too speak of the King of Tyre--not Satan.

Therefore, I DO NOT equivocate, and as I have argued and proved above, the Christian conception of pride is convoluted, contradictory, and leads to ambiguity, and easily lends itself to equivocation and Aristotle's conception of virtue and pride does a better job than the Christian conception of pride. Mr. Rodriguez's rebuttal has been rebutted! 

* Ockham's Razor is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects

**As of the last time I checked (June 22, 2012) the "Rational Gang" is no more.  Therefore, I have inserted the photos I took of their post in their stead.

Pride is a Virtue, Not a Vice

Christianity has it all wrong, pride in oneself is NOT a vice...it is a virtue.  To use Aristotle's definition: Pride is the mean between two vices. For example: Courage is the mean between cowardice and foolhardy.

Pride is defined as the proper amount of self respect. The christian definition has been added as a definition which makes no sense. You can never have too much pride if pride is the proper amount of self respect--the christians misuse the word.

Pride is between humble and arrogant/boastful, and therefore, pride is a virtue.  I consider pride to be the highest virtue because if you have pride, then you will not disrespect yourself, and you will uphold all of the virtues.  

So why do Christians believe pride is a vice, as Ray Comfort made known in his blog post? It is because it is easier for the powers that be to control and manipulate meek and humble "sheeple" than it is to control and manipulate prideful people who will not belittle themselves or stoop to believing someone else can take responsibility for their actions, because they respect themselves enough to do it themselves.

The confusion comes about because christians have been taught that humble a virtue instead of a vice. Humble is defined as:

1.  having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.: In the presence of so many world-famous writers I felt very humble.

2.  low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble origin; a humble home. 

Therefore, Christians believe those who feel inferior, and lowly, and are subservient are more "godly" than those who are prideful and have self-respect.  Again, this is for a reason, which is why Christians "invented" the fallen angel story, who defied god due to his excessive pride.  But note, there is no such story in the Torah/Tanakh, and there is no such thing as excessive pride (the proper amount of self-respect).  The church, governments, and anyone who has control does not want to relinquish that control, so they take measures to maintain control.  The church did this by promoting "meekness and humbleness," so believers would follow like sheep and never question. 

Knowledge encourages self respect as when one becomes aware, they are less likely to believe anything without question.  Knowledge is power.  Question everything.  Have pride.  

Addendum:  Please see photos of the rebuttal to this post made by David Rodriguez of the now defunct "Rational Gang" (as of June 2012)  and my rebuttal here and here.


David Rodriguez can now be found at "walking christian"