Monday, November 04, 2019

The Truth Doesn't Need You to be True

Continuing on the theme of Dunning-Kruger, being that humans tend to "overestimate their competence by a long shot," the campaign to instill (even) higher self-esteem is yet another progressive policy that not only flies in the face of human nature, but aggravates it. You might say that someone with inflated self-esteem is like a human, only worse.

Now, there's nothing wrong with "self-esteem" per se, although the term itself is rather stupid; better ones might be self-respect, dignity, or integrity.

For one thing, people with excessive self-esteem are always vulgar and undignified, not to mention the vertical truism that "pride goeth before a fall." If you inflate a man, you're just setting him up to be deflated when the balloon is pricked by reality -- for example, via the phenomenon of "mismatch," which places black students in academic milieus which only ensure failure a little further down the lyin'.

Note that "affirmative action" pretends to be about increasing black self-esteem, but the whole corrupt exercise is actually in the service of making white liberals feel good about themselves at the expense of their black pawns -- about boosting white self-esteem.

How to tell when your self-esteem is excessive and on the way to DKville? By way of prelude, ever wonder why the Bible makes such a big deal out of humility? Not only is it exalted, but it is apparently something that doesn't come naturally to man. What does the Lord require of us? To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. Likewise the Sermon on the Mount, which is only the source of the cosmos telling us how it's supposed to done, e.g., meek, pure in heart, poor in spirit. In a word, humble.

Nocoincidentally, there are a number of synchronistic passages in Esoterism As Principle and As Way that touch on the theme of self-esteem and humility, which are by no means opposites or inversely related. Rather, the question comes down to objectivity, which is always necessary, but most especially toward oneself.

Now first of all, is objectivity even possible? Well, the whole premise of postmodernity is that it is not, and that all statements are perspectival -- just your opinion, man -- i.e., self-interested and ultimately about power, not truth. Therefore, one certainly cannot be objective toward oneself. And besides, the self doesn't even exist! So these dumb-as-a-post modernists are essentially saying: the self is an illusion, and it's special!

Utter nonsense, but there it is.

To back up a bit, there is an Absolute, which is the ground of the very possibility of intelligence. Remove the Absolute, and man is sealed in permanent and ineradicable stupidity. If you don't believe me, just try to make a true statement divorced from the Absolute. We'll wait.

Here is the reality:

The prerogative of the human state is objectivity, the essential content of which is the Absolute. There is no knowledge without objectivity of the intelligence; there is no freedom without objectivity of the will; and there is no nobility without objectivity of the soul.

Bing. Bam. Boom. These are things that you will either understand immediately; or fail to understand. But your failure to understand does not effect their truth one iota. The truth doesn't need you to be true.

Consider the second, freedom of will. How is this possible? It is possible because we are able to discern between good and evil. An animal cannot do this. But man can know the truth and thereby will the good. Simple as. If we cannot know the good, then morality is indeed illusory and arbitrary: perception is reality, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and there is no such thing as error, evil, or ugliness.

"Objectivity," according to Schuon, consists of "grasping the object as it is and not as it may be distorted by the subject."

Again, is this possible? It's a catch 22, because if you say it isn't, then you presumably mean it in an objective way. Note that this whole question is again tied in with Genesis 3, because -- it seems to me -- our fallenness has much to do with subjective passions distorting our ability to apprehend objective reality, to the point of disabling the fruitful and in-spiraling dialectic between the two (subject and object). "Adam and Eve," writes Schuon, "attributed to the relative the rights of the Absolute."

How does one square humility with being in the image and likeness of God? Wouldn't the latter be the ultimate pretext for grandiosity and self-inflation? Yes, it might be if God weren't at such pains to demonstrate humility for all the world to see. I mean, crucifixion?

Running out of time here. I'll just get to the point and let you figure out how it relates to DK:

"[N]obility of character consists in putting honor and moral dignity above self-interest," while "Detachment entails objectivity with regard to oneself."

Which is another way of saying that the noble man transcends himself, detesting what is bad in him and loving what is good. So you should never tell a person to just love himself, full stop. Rather, one must love only what is lovable, just as one should know only what is true, for knowing falsehood is another name for DK.

The essence of dignity is not only our theomorphism, but humility together with charity; these two virtues compensate for the risks stemming from our quality as image of God.... This theomorphism could well make us arrogant or egoistic, but when we grasp its true nature we see that it obliges us, on the contrary, to heed the perfections not only of the Lord but also the servant... (Schuon)

Aphorisms:

--Self-satisfaction is pathetic proof of lowliness.

--The noble one is not the one who thinks he has inferiors, but the one who knows he has superiors.

--Justifiable pride is accompanied by profound humility.

--Secular morality exudes pride (NGD).

16 comments:

River Cocytus said...

objectivity is one of those things where, if one gets a sense for history, is not something tried and found wanting but found extremely difficult and mostly left untried. The usual narrative is that the enlightenment was about objectivity, but it seemed to mostly about the intellectual fad for 'objectivity' as a fashion, like 'philosophy' was in Athens at the time of Christ.

In any case, it strikes me as more of a process towards a goal than an on-off switch, which tends to be how physics and its theories function; the sage is known not because he has absolute objectivity, but because he is notably more objective in his thought than most people. Newtonian physics isn't 'absolutely correct' but is certainly more correct than what preceded it.

One of the parts that tripped us up is what is called materialism; a good example of how is the psychological theory called behavioralism -- it creates a false objectivity: all behavior is a response to sensory inputs, present or delayed! All you have to do is ignore the soul (ironic, given the etymology of psychology.)

Gagdad Bob said...

Speaking of the degradation of psychology, this morning a friend alerted me to this festering sinkhole of progressive effluvia.

julie said...

Wow - the inmates have truly overtaken the psych schools. Most of the other schools, too.

To the post, humility is recognizing that we are, each of us, low as dirt. Earth from earth, ashes from ashes, one day to return to dust. Which conversely is a liberating realization, as dirt is also foundational and serves a great purpose, providing it has the right mix of nutrients.

River Cocytus said...

@bob

Every day, we stray further from God's light . . .

Anonymous said...

A kindly boss who I'd considered wise once told me that smart people tend to be more humble because they’ve learned how much more there is to know. Sadly, that boss was soon ousted by his mentee in an office coup, somebody who’d neatly fit the description of a DK.

And so I pondered the meaning of this. There must be more to wisdom than just humility.

Joseph Heller once said: “Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.” When I conflate his quote with my experience with that boss, I come up with: “Just because you’ve been humbled by knowledge doesn’t mean a DK wont still get you.”

I am now more troubled than ever.

River Cocytus said...

Well, power still exists, of course! Being perfectly wise won't stop you from dying if someone ties you to the train tracks.

Anonymous said...

The idea of giving bullying victims, past and potential, more self-esteem seems a good one.

With meeker folks being less tolerant of victimization, a freer society seems more possible since ‘authority’ would be less needed when individuals stand up for themselves more.

For example, in the schoolyard, all the weak, sickly and “different” children might then feel more confident about handling the playground DK bully themselves, instead of always having to bother authority or try to take matters into their own hands in some tragically violent way.

Emotionally stronger adults would be less of a drag on public services, be more likely to serve their community than be parasitic, be more able to achieve their pursuit of happiness.

But I think the problem is that the DKs are in charge. Climate activists Gore and Obama own waterfront homes. Dubya was basically a functional retard. The Clintons and Trumps are pretty much lying, crooked crooks. I mean, why the hell isn’t she locked up by now?

I’m coming to think that the idea of empowering the meeker folk with greater self esteem via stuff like trophies for every soccer kid and equal opportunity mandates, is either a pacifier to prevent violent revolution, or a good example of what happens when DKs come to pretty much own and manage all of society.

Ever seen the movie “Idiocracy”?

Anonymous said...

Hello Dr. G and Esteemed Colleauges of the Blog:

Dr, you wrote: "The prerogative of the human state is objectivity, the essential content of which is the Absolute. There is no knowledge without objectivity of the intelligence; there is no freedom without objectivity of the will; and there is no nobility without objectivity of the soul.
Bing. Bam. Boom. These are things that you will either understand immediately; or fail to understand.

I do not fully understand the emphasis on objectivity. I thought the opposite was true, that extreme and absolute subjectivity was the doorway to the apex human state, the highest one could fly, the closest one can get to God.

To wit, the inexperienced soul is rife with errors of judgment and discernment, and does in fact stand in need of more and more objectivity.

One in midstream has achieved objectivity and through this is able to express all of the finest human qualities, including appropriate humility.

One eventually moves on from this position, and objectivity must be shed, the awareness moves within and one proceeds on pure intuition, which may be termed "subjectivity" for want of a better term. Even humility must be left behind and a certain neutrality takes hold.

From this position there is no further progress possible until death overtakes the soul.

Anon 2:27, you have been severely wounded and are not at peace. I am sorry this has been your lot. Now you can move on and let go of all that you had hoped for that did not happen. You don't need that anymore. Peace will return to you, you have done your time.

-Slot Canyon

Anonymous said...

Everybody has a little DK in them. But don’t you think that our Powers That Be should have it less than we do? I don’t think blind authoritarianism was supposed to be the American way. But it now seems as prevalent on the right as it on the left, though of course, DKs from either side would vehemently disagree. If polls are to be believed, our children are losing faith in democracy. I've never seen this before.

Maybe there's peace to be found in a sort of misanthropic nihilism. Ever heard the term "blogging from mamas basement"? Of course everybody has. I'm coming to think it's less a derogatory towards people disagreed with, than it is wishful projection for a safe space where the world makes sense.

I have a few dangerous trees to take down now, most of them over 100' tall. I'd hire somebody but even 'hack gardeners with a saw' are exorbitant price gouging these days.

River Cocytus said...

Self Esteem is listed by Evagrius as one of the eight deadly thoughts, of those who if they cannot glory in riches, will glory in rags...

The only cure for self-hatred is to do something worth not hating yourself for, which might give you an objective sense of your state, rather than an idealized one, which is associated with vainglory and self-esteem (understanding yourself in terms of maps rather than territories.)

Authoritarians supposedly pretend to act with authority even when they don't have it -- but what is the term for the more common case, people who have the authority to command pretending like they don't? After all, the case of the recent Cartel killings reminds us that showing power outwardly is dangerous with certain neighbors.

When the method of getting past disagreements (democracy) provides no solutions, the only solution is to allow a single power to act. It's advisable for the 'democracy' to stand out of the way if it plans to be around when the time for action is over.

Anonymous said...

Hello All.

I must say this post is a good one, and the superb series of posts on "DK" has led to comments on self-esteem and comments airing suspicions about other people and about those in authority. Godwin, you have apparently hit a nerve.

I'll address a few items in River C's excellent comment of 1:59.

River wrote "The only cure for self-hatred is to do something worth not hating yourself for..."

To which I may ask: What about RW Emermson's assertion each person belongs here, as righteous and just as any star, mountain, or tree? We have been placed here by God with a unique mission which can only be fulfilled by our individual self and none other. Therefore, self-esteem would be a given as an extension of our esteem for God.

Self hatred may arise from guilt over wrong-doing, with the caveat wrong-doing is remediable by repentance. The basic self at rest is a rock of self-esteem, freestanding, and does not need to perform special works to be worthy. And this esteem is extended to all others, without need to see proof of merit. All are anointed with merit by the Creator who sponsors all.

Regarding authorities who under-use or abuse powers vested in them: Authorities are people doing a job, and some are more competent than others; some may fall prey vanity and lust for power. But, I aver these are few and far between.

The authorities are seldom talked about fondly, but see this, most perform their jobs well. And public service is seldom rewarded with accolades. Yet these jobs are often very taxing on the mind and body, especially military and police work. Civil servants of all stripes on average are laudable in many ways, and we should love them.

So say I, Stephen Greybeard, a very, very old man with the proverbial long gray beard.

River Cocytus said...

@anon

So what did God mean when he said what he said to Abraham after he stopped him from sacrificing Issac?

Should be a good exercise for the noggin'

Anonymous said...

@ self esteem and self-hatred:

All of these things are reasonably true, but only within human norms. I’m talking about people residing in the ‘hump of the bell curve’ so to speak, both temperamentally and environmentally. Most often, for these people self esteem must be continuously earned (maybe "maintained" is a more accurate description).

But not everybody is like that. Some folks glory in their glory days, long gone. For others, their wealth and status is their self esteem. Still others have a very fragile self esteem seemingly dependent on their last interpersonal encounter regardless of their actual ‘worth’ might be. I had a girlfriend who was publicly, an attractive vivacious extrovert with everybody telling me how lucky I was, while privately, she was a messy drunk disaster trying to knock back painful memories from childhood abuse. Every psychopath I’ve ever known had an outsized self esteem regardless of how much they were hated by others.

Anonymous said...

@ authoritarianism

Most people want to serve a deserving leader. At whatever level, these people know they don't have the intellectual, emotional or physical wherewithal to be 'top leadership' themselves. Unfortunately, they also don't have what it takes to be accurate judges of leadership.

The authoritarianism of which I speak, is where power is allowed to concentrate by people who don't understand the problems involved with this. Historically, benevolent dictatorships (or any other concentrated power) have been rare. The reasons for this are simple. They involve the ways all human power games are played and who it is that such games reward.

Authorities are people doing a job, and some are more competent than others; some may fall prey vanity and lust for power. But, I aver these are few and far between.

Where does this idea come from? In my personal experience, authority is far more often taken, than it is given as some kind of reward for competency or benevolence.

River Cocytus said...

Benevolent dictatorships are rare? But isn't that because 'dictatorship' is already a pejorative?

Interdasting. GIGO, as they say.

Anonymous said...

Every corporation is a dictatorship (the degree of which TBD by the board, of course). In its early days Henry Ford Motors was pretty benevolent.

Theme Song

Theme Song