Pride

[mikemex]

Pride is pretty much the central issue for Nietzsche. According to him, the wrong thing is not to be proud, but to try to deny/repress it.

However, one should not confuse vanity with pride. The difference is stubble, but significant: pride is the genuine high regard of the self, while vanity is a feeling of insecurity that requires constant reaffirmation from the outside.

Proud people is quite rare, actually. Since they do not need reaffirmation from the outside, they generally doesn't give it away either and that's what makes them so annoying for most people: after all, the others are insecure underneath and have a subconscious desire to be acknowledged and appreciated externally to compensate for their lack of inner self regard.

A person who has high self regard doesn't necessarily has low regard for others. That's a myth originated by the vain people, because they are the ones who push others down in an attempt to get higher. Such way of behavior is self deceitful, since it is not based on appreciation of real characteristics of the self and induces further insecurities.

Finally, I consider myself a proud person, that's why I know so much about the topic.

[Lobo]

Pride is pretty much the central issue for Nietzsche. According to him, the wrong thing is not to be proud, but to try to deny/repress it.

However, one should not confuse vanity with pride. The difference is stubble, but significant: pride is the genuine high regard of the self, while vanity is a feeling of insecurity that requires constant reaffirmation from the outside.

Proud people is quite rare, actually. Since they do not need reaffirmation from the outside, they generally doesn't give it away either and that's what makes them so annoying for most people: after all, the others are insecure underneath and have a subconscious desire to be acknowledged and appreciated externally to compensate for their lack of inner self regard.

A person who has high self regard doesn't necessarily has low regard for others. That's a myth originated by the vain people, because they are the ones who push others down in an attempt to get higher. Such way of behavior is self deceitful, since it is not based on appreciation of real characteristics of the self and induces further insecurities.

Finally, I consider myself a proud person, that's why I know so much about the topic.

Being that you're at such high a level compared to the many insecure people in this world, why waste your time explaining this if you don't need "reaffirmation from the outside"? Why are you so merciful towards the people in this forum?

Maybe the proud people are annoying because... they are full of complete shit?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

It's what happens in many situations where you see good friends or family members eventually be in non-speaking terms because no one wants to give in. That's what I meant.

Don't you think tough that sometimes these situations aren't necessarily created out of pride of one of the two parties, but out of complete incompatibility between people? There have been a number of times in which I refused to speak with a ex-girlfriend; she accused me of being "proud" for this behavior. To me, instead, it was simply a matter of efficiency: we had a bad break-up, our story hadn't been that good, so I saw no point of re-evoking things for no particular reason.

[JuJu]

Don't you think tough that sometimes these situations aren't necessarily created out of pride of one of the two parties, but out of complete incompatibility between people? There have been a number of times in which I refused to speak with a ex-girlfriend; she accused me of being "proud" for this behavior. To me, instead, it was simply a matter of efficiency: we had a bad break-up, our story hadn't been that good, so I saw no point of re-evoking things for no particular reason.

I understand what you're saying here, FDG, definitely--I'm in the process of learning this though: regardless of personal history, I'm not sure that it's ever beneficial to totally discount someone... (I have done that, BTW, i.e. totally discounted someone.)

Two of the most rewarding relationships I have now are ones where I didn't talk to the person for a few years b/c of anger/disgust, w/e, but we started talking again and now it's totally different than before... It's much, much better.

In one case, she worked a lot on improving herself--and I did too. Now it's awesome..! We were 20 last time that we fought, and now, five or six years later: we both grew up and it's totally different.

In that case, if you'd have asked me a year ago if I'd ever talk to this girl again, I would've said "hell no." So I guess what I'm trying to say is: (two cliches,) it doesn't hurt to keep an open-mind, and you never know.

Like you're saying though, sometimes you definitely need time apart from another person--especially if you're in a bad pattern with them... Time helps you to forgive whatever they might've done to you, and also helps you to get on with your life... For example, I still love this person I lived with at the beginning of last year, but I would not want there to be much communication--other than "hi, what's goin on?" type of stuff--for a year or two... We both need to grow up. Someday though, hopefully we'll be friends again, and maybe more... If we both change for the better, I wouldn't bet against it.

[UDP]

U2-PRIDE

[Minde]

The times when I've let myself be vulnerable, I haven't regretted. That kind of honesty makes me feel a whole lot of freedom. It's fear disguised as pride though Sereno, not just pride. Really, it's just fear that holds people back. True pride and self assurance allows you to have that honesty, and say what's true without fear. You don't need to hide behind deceit and falsehoods trying to create an impression, you can just be you.

There, right there. That's exactly the type of thing I meant in my paragraph thread about finding that core principle upon which so much can be built and behavior can be understood. In fact, I almost used that as an example - how fear of hurt, or reaction to hurt, is really a big driving force in people and how so much of a person's behavior, especially negative, stems from that. Once that seed of a principle is understood, so much about the world makes sense. This is something that I can understand and figure out instinctually, sort of, but it also needs a kind of articulation to make it clearer, especially if you're going to try to show it to other people.


Oh, and I agree with the rest of what you said about pride. Humility, the opposite of pride, requires an inner confidence and strength in both oneself and in what is right and good.

There's a quote by CS Lewis that has haunted me for quite some time:

"Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket--safe, dark, motionless, airless--it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable."

[Lobo]

The times when I've let myself be vulnerable, I haven't regretted. That kind of honesty makes me feel a whole lot of freedom. It's fear disguised as pride though Sereno, not just pride. Really, it's just fear that holds people back. True pride and self assurance allows you to have that honesty, and say what's true without fear. You don't need to hide behind deceit and falsehoods trying to create an impression, you can just be you.

Well, I see that pride is a result of fear in many cases. That's why I mentioned that it feels unreasonable to let go of the pride and be vulnerable because of that fear, yet I consider it to be better than to avoid the risk.

Don't you think tough that sometimes these situations aren't necessarily created out of pride of one of the two parties, but out of complete incompatibility between people? There have been a number of times in which I refused to speak with a ex-girlfriend; she accused me of being "proud" for this behavior. To me, instead, it was simply a matter of efficiency: we had a bad break-up, our story hadn't been that good, so I saw no point of re-evoking things for no particular reason.

That's true. It seems as if I'm generalizing it, but what I really meant was in those cases where pride was the cause.

There, right there. That's exactly the type of thing I meant in my paragraph thread about finding that core principle upon which so much can be built and behavior can be understood. In fact, I almost used that as an example - how fear of hurt, or reaction to hurt, is really a big driving force in people and how so much of a person's behavior, especially negative, stems from that. Once that seed of a principle is understood, so much about the world makes sense. This is something that I can understand and figure out instinctually, sort of, but it also needs a kind of articulation to make it clearer, especially if you're going to try to show it to other people.

I think that if you are able to articulate something, then it means that you can structure it in some way. However, I personally think that being able to articulate something so that it makes sense doesn't necessarily mean that it's meaningful. (lol, idk if this makes sense). There are people who I've heard say that the way to God is through philosophy. Honestly, considering all of the many philosophical essays and views, I would think that it's not converging into a universal way of thinking. What I'm getting at is that many times one can be trying to explain something about oneself or others, such as fear and the like, saying it in a very articulate and senseful way, and yet what you get as a result is just a form of "art," and in no way something that leaves the subjective to the factual. Anyway, that's what I think.

There's a quote by CS Lewis that has haunted me for quite some time:

"Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket--safe, dark, motionless, airless--it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable."

I would think that by putting it in a casket, it wouldn't be vulnerable?

[idolatrie]

Well, I see that pride is a result of fear in many cases. That's why I mentioned that it feels unreasonable to let go of the pride and be vulnerable because of that fear, yet I consider it to be better than to avoid the risk.

I agree, that pride is often rooted in fear. And sometimes stubbornness. When it comes to emotional matters, I find it very difficult to drop those defences - pride as one such - and be vulnerable. That is probably the most difficult and frankly terrifying thing for me. But if I see someone is able to do it then it becomes easier to do so? I think the only person I am wholly able to show my emotional vulnerability to is unefille, and that's because we have set up a pattern over so many years that demonstates to me that ok, I can be open and completely honest here. But even then, I'm not being emotionally vulnerable to her, but rather letting her see how I am vulnerable. I've never been in a relationship where I am emotionally vulnerable to the other person (I'm an only child, and I think emotional dependence better characterises my relationship to my parents than vulnerability). And that...well, that would be terrifying, but also possibly exhilirating? I don't know. I don't think it would be easy, though. As much as I know, intellectually know that being proud and stubborn and closed-off is wrong and potentially hurtful, I know I do it. And that is certainly rooted in fear.

I think that if you are able to articulate something, then it means that you can structure it in some way. However, I personally think that being able to articulate something so that it makes sense doesn't necessarily mean that it's meaningful. (lol, idk if this makes sense). There are people who I've heard say that the way to God is through philosophy. Honestly, considering all of the many philosophical essays and views, I would think that it's not converging into a universal way of thinking. What I'm getting at is that many times one can be trying to explain something about oneself or others, such as fear and the like, saying it in a very articulate and senseful way, and yet what you get as a result is just a form of "art," and in no way something that leaves the subjective to the factual. Anyway, that's what I think.

Hmm, yeah I get what you're saying. My diagnosis would be...*drumroll* you are a postmodernist! Haha, sorry. Sometimes I think I'm more amusing than I am... Seriously though, knowledge is pluralistic, and that knowledge can be eloquently expressed from a number of starting points, for a number of ends. Doesn't make any one strand more valid than another. Are there any universal truth or facts? Or is it all subjective? Is it up to us, as thinking, feeling, functioning human agents, to have to choose what we believe in, and own up to that choice?

So yeah, I can justify why I sometimes act 'proud' even though I know it is not something I want to be. I could even possibly, if you catch me on a good day, do it so well I could convince myself and others of its veracity. But does that make it true? In a manner of speaking, yes. But does it make it one of my 'truths'? No. Does it mean I have contributed anything meaningful to the discussion? Definitely not.

Hmm...I have no idea where I was going with that. Or what relevance it has. Merp. Blame it on reading waaay too much on post-structuralism today...I can't help all this stuff burbling out!

I would think that by putting it in a casket, it wouldn't be vulnerable?

I think that's the point of the quote? That it would be invulnerable, but it would also be an empty, cold existence. That quote makes a lot of sense to me though. Like, I get what it's saying. Doesn't mean I know how to actualise it though. (I don't.)

[Lobo]

I agree, that pride is often rooted in fear. And sometimes stubbornness. When it comes to emotional matters, I find it very difficult to drop those defences - pride as one such - and be vulnerable. That is probably the most difficult and frankly terrifying thing for me. But if I see someone is able to do it then it becomes easier to do so? I think the only person I am wholly able to show my emotional vulnerability to is unefille, and that's because we have set up a pattern over so many years that demonstates to me that ok, I can be open and completely honest here. But even then, I'm not being emotionally vulnerable to her, but rather letting her see how I am vulnerable. I've never been in a relationship where I am emotionally vulnerable to the other person (I'm an only child, and I think emotional dependence better characterises my relationship to my parents than vulnerability). And that...well, that would be terrifying, but also possibly exhilirating? I don't know. I don't think it would be easy, though. As much as I know, intellectually know that being proud and stubborn and closed-off is wrong and potentially hurtful, I know I do it. And that is certainly rooted in fear.

I get the impression when I get closer to some people that for "opening up" to occur, I always have to initiate it. Actually, that's fine by me, but I expect there to be some openness in return eventually. It is scary to open up completely, but I wouldn't hesitate to do it with the right person. I do have a tendency of saying more than what I would like to say in some situations, so it's nice to not have to worry about that anymore. There is something very stimulating () to me about being intrusted with innermost feelings and the like. I wait patiently to be given that chance, but it doesn't happen nearly as much as I would like it with people.

Hmm, yeah I get what you're saying. My diagnosis would be...*drumroll* you are a postmodernist! Haha, sorry. Sometimes I think I'm more amusing than I am... Seriously though, knowledge is pluralistic, and that knowledge can be eloquently expressed from a number of starting points, for a number of ends. Doesn't make any one strand more valid than another. Are there any universal truth or facts? Or is it all subjective? Is it up to us, as thinking, feeling, functioning human agents, to have to choose what we believe in, and own up to that choice?

So yeah, I can justify why I sometimes act 'proud' even though I know it is not something I want to be. I could even possibly, if you catch me on a good day, do it so well I could convince myself and others of its veracity. But does that make it true? In a manner of speaking, yes. But does it make it one of my 'truths'? No. Does it mean I have contributed anything meaningful to the discussion? Definitely not.

Hmm...I have no idea where I was going with that. Or what relevance it has. Merp. Blame it on reading waaay too much on post-structuralism today...I can't help all this stuff burbling out!

lol. I've never heard of postmodernism, I'll have to read up on it.

I think that's the point of the quote? That it would be invulnerable, but it would also be an empty, cold existence. That quote makes a lot of sense to me though. Like, I get what it's saying. Doesn't mean I know how to actualise it though. (I don't.)

Oh ok... When I first read it I thought that it was saying how to love, by keeping the heart in a coffin, etc. I got it now.

[mikemex]

Being that you're at such high a level compared to the many insecure people in this world, why waste your time explaining this if you don't need "reaffirmation from the outside"? Why are you so merciful towards the people in this forum?

Maybe the proud people are annoying because... they are full of complete shit?

The question would be: why do you ask a question if you've already settled your mind? It seems obvious to me, that you didn't really ask to know; you only seek confirmation.

Also, you don't even seem to have an opinion. You simply have prejudice mostly coming from the Christian tradition. Humility and pride are not opposites; in fact, are likely to be on the same side of the scale.

[Lobo]

The question would be: why do you ask a question if you've already settled your mind? It seems obvious to me, that you didn't really ask to know; you only seek confirmation.

Also, you don't even seem to have an opinion. You simply have prejudice mostly coming from the Christian tradition. Humility and pride are not opposites; in fact, are likely to be on the same side of the scale.

Opinion on what? And how am I being prejudiced?

Also, I never said that they are both opposites, or even mentioned humility in any of my posts. I don't like treating things as being opposites, and having to find the "middle."