Discuss:Mathematics, Logic, Philosophy:Arrogance
From da Vinci Concept
Contents |
Arrogance
macrocosm - Sat Dec 18 20:35:04 2004
Quite simply: what is arrogance?
I will elaborate my own understanding of the concept at a future juncture in time, but for now, I encourage all to pour forth your answers.
--macrocosm Sat Dec 18 20:35:04 2004
henrik - Sun Dec 19 8:06:36 2004
This question is strongly related to the question you asked in the other thread concerning the nature of respect.
I believe arrogance is an attitude of direspect that is tied to feeling superior to others. I believe it is possible to be disrespectful of someone without really feeling superior to them. In fact, some people might feel the need to be disrespectful of someone because they feel inferior to that person. However, whenever it is the case that you are disrespectful toward someone and you feel superior to that person, this is an instance of arrogance.
[ Edited Tue Dec 21 2004, 06:09AM ]
--henrik Sun Dec 19 8:06:36 2004
macrocosm - Sun Dec 19 19:07:03 2004
So let me attempt to fuse your notion of respect with that of arrogance:
If one blocks (or attempts to block) another's pursuits and justifies such an action(s) via reasons which assume/imply one's right to do such due purely or largely to perceived greater value/rank/importance (hence superiority)--- a self and/or other held notion based upon i.e. greater experience, then this is arrogance.
If one does not justify such an action(s) it can be assumed then that the action(s) arose out of one's feeling(s) of superiority or else that one can not communcate the logical reasons for the apparently distruptive action(s) and is actually / was actually attempting to protect either the other or society as a whole.
We must glean various clues from the context in order to determine which (the former or the latter) is the case. It is the former case which constitutes arrogance.
[ Edited Tue Dec 21 2004, 10:51AM ]
--macrocosm Sun Dec 19 19:07:03 2004
henrik - Tue Dec 21 7:18:23 2004
I think you have understood rather well both my definition of respect and of arrogance. However there are a few details that are a bit off mark in your reformulation.
I don't believe there needs to be any form of explicit justification for arrogance to be present. Regardless of whether we are able to logically communicate the reasons for which we disrupt certain pursuits, arrogance is present so long as at some level of our psyche, we feel a sense of superiority that entitles us to disrupt this pursuit.
In fact, it is not inconsistent to do the right thing, i.e. to do something that will be in the interest of the general welfare of society and be arrogant at the same time.
For example, if a judge A rules that B must go to jail for repeatedly beating his wife C. And A feels superior and condescending toward this couple that cannot function properly. A will be in a situation in which he was both ethical and arrogant.
The problem is that although arrogance and ethics are not inconsistent. In most cases, arrogance tends to lead us toward being unethical. The reason is of course, that if we having a tendency toward viewing ourselves as being superior then we will also tend to view ourselves as always being right about our understanding of the world even if we really don't understand everything that well. And hence we will feel inclined to intervene by disrupting others pursuits even when it is not warranted.
--henrik Tue Dec 21 7:18:23 2004
macrocosm - Tue Dec 21 7:27:39 2004
I understand most thoroughly. However, I included the "justification" ingredient due to the fact that we can not know if others feel superior to us unless they communicate such a feeling. The way in which they justify their actions can serve to clue us in to the potential for the existence of feelings of superiority.
But of course, I would agree that this is not the only indicator.
[ Edited Wed Dec 22 2004, 07:25AM ]
--macrocosm Tue Dec 21 7:27:39 2004
