humility shmility

[Advocate]

Those who preach intellectual humility are inevitably going to miss the truth. Humility has no purpose for a truth-seeker who will seek to have an Accurate view of themselves, not a humble one. In looking through various definitions, they all boil down to underestimating oneself, even the attribute of moderation means an average level of opinion about oneself, which is a) not necessarily compatible with accuracy as the average person underestimates themselves through humility, b) not even possibly accurate for anyone who actually knows anything, as they will have a greater than average actual intellectual worth.

[FlashDangerpants]

Those who preach intellectual humility are inevitably going to miss the truth. Humility has no purpose for a truth-seeker who will seek to have an Accurate view of themselves, not a humble one. In looking through various definitions, they all boil down to underestimating oneself, even the attribute of moderation means an average level of opinion about oneself, which is a) not necessarily compatible with accuracy as the average person underestimates themselves through humility, b) not even possibly accurate for anyone who actually knows anything, as they will have a greater than average actual intellectual worth.

Having failed miserably in a couple of attempts to feign humility while advertising your grandiose delusion that you are the greatest philosopher of all time, you are now simply looking for a means to internalise that failure as a win. You still need real life counselling, not the applause of internet friends.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478927 time=1604763931 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478878 time=1604715247 user_id=15238]
Those who preach intellectual humility are inevitably going to miss the truth. Humility has no purpose for a truth-seeker who will seek to have an Accurate view of themselves, not a humble one. In looking through various definitions, they all boil down to underestimating oneself, even the attribute of moderation means an average level of opinion about oneself, which is a) not necessarily compatible with accuracy as the average person underestimates themselves through humility, b) not even possibly accurate for anyone who actually knows anything, as they will have a greater than average actual intellectual worth.
[/quote]
Having failed miserably in a couple of attempts to feign humility while advertising your grandiose delusion that you are the greatest philosopher of all time, you are now simply looking for a means to internalise that failure as a win. You still need real life counselling, not the applause of internet friends.
[/quote]

I am probably the best philosopher of all time. I have epistemological warrant for that position and to the extent i don't insist upon it is because i am likewise aware that being as unknown as i am, it is quite possible for some other equally good philosopher to be unknown. I defer from cautious respect for others in my position, not humility. Your response seems to have a lot of ego-based ideas in it. I don't have ego-based ideas. I've never feigned humility other than as sarcasm/joke/etc. As always, you not only miss the point but your personal attacks are mean, rude, unproductive, as well as the ultimate sin, boring. Can we talk about the idea now, which has nothing to do with me as an individual, or are you still determined to squash the field of philosophy by weight of your nonsense?

[FlashDangerpants]

I am probably the best philosopher of all time. I have epistemological warrant for that position and to the extent i don't insist upon it is because i am likewise aware that being as unknown as i am, it is quite possible for some other equally good philosopher to be unknown. I defer from cautious respect for others in my position, not humility. Your response seems to have a lot of ego-based ideas in it. I don't have ego-based ideas. I've never feigned humility other than as sarcasm/joke/etc. As always, you not only miss the point but your personal attacks are mean, rude, unproductive, as well as the ultimate sin, boring. Can we talk about the idea now, which has nothing to do with me as an individual, or are you still determined to squash the field of philosophy by weight of your nonsense?

I took the liberty of highlighting the portions of that which it is most important for you to show to a doctor.

Your grand ideas don't merit much discussion. At present you get taken apart easily by Immanuel Can, so badly indeed that he doesn't have to do any evasion against you, he doesn't have to pull out his "ad-hominem" trick, he doesn't even have to do his "sure I can answer that, but only after you have answered this very vague question first" routine on you.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=478950 time=1604769499 user_id=11800]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478935 time=1604766608 user_id=15238]
[b][color=#FF0000]I am probably the best philosopher of all time.[/color][/b] I have epistemological warrant for that position and to the extent i don't insist upon it is because i am likewise aware that being as unknown as i am, it is quite possible for some other equally good philosopher to be unknown. I defer from [b][color=#FF0000]cautious respect for others[/color][/b] in my position, not humility. Your response seems to have a lot of ego-based ideas in it. [b][color=#FF0000]I don't have ego-based ideas.[/color][/b] I've never feigned humility other than as sarcasm/joke/etc. As always, you not only miss the point but your personal attacks are mean, rude, unproductive, as well as the ultimate sin, boring. Can we talk about the idea now, which has nothing to do with me as an individual, or are you still determined to squash the field of philosophy by weight of your nonsense?
[/quote]
I took the liberty of highlighting the portions of that which it is most important for you to show to a doctor.

Your grand ideas don't merit much discussion. At present you get taken apart easily by Immanuel Can, so badly indeed that he doesn't have to do any evasion against you, he doesn't have to pull out his "ad-hominem" trick, he doesn't even have to do his "sure I can answer that, but only after you have answered this very vague question first" routine on you.
[/quote]

There is a reason someone invented the phrase "waste of oxygen".

[FlashDangerpants]

There is a reason someone invented the phrase "waste of oxygen".

Yes, so that your momma could write it on your birth certificate.

[Vali]

Arrogance can be intellectually important because without any dose of importance the philosopher dissolves in the crowd and gets lost ... but I don't use the word arrogance but individualism.

It is necessary to define exactly what philosophical humility is, where I find three possible definitions:
Humility for others
Humility towards myself and my intellect
Humility as a characteristic evaluated by God

If I say to a child “you are going to become the best philosopher of all time” this compliment will influence not only motivation but also the way of thinking.

[Advocate]

[quote=Vali post_id=478972 time=1604775422 user_id=9071]
Arrogance can be intellectually important because without any dose of importance the philosopher dissolves in the crowd and gets lost ... but I don't use the word arrogance but individualism.

It is necessary to define exactly what philosophical humility is, where I find three possible definitions:
Humility for others
Humility towards myself and my intellect
Humility as a characteristic evaluated by God

If I say to a child “you are going to become the best philosopher of all time” this compliment will influence not only motivation but also the way of thinking.
[/quote]

But what do you think about the accuracy objection? Are you saying it's intellectually important to lie to children to bolster their self-esteem?

[Vali]

I am not getting the point…acurecy is needed in what cases? We are all above average but under many.

[Advocate]

[quote=Vali post_id=478981 time=1604782302 user_id=9071]
I am not getting the point…acurecy is needed in what cases? We are all above average but under many.
[/quote]

Yes. Humility requires a constant under-estimation of oneself to whatever extent one is better than average - inaccurate.

[Hermit Philosopher]

Those who preach intellectual humility are inevitably going to miss the truth. Humility has no purpose for a truth-seeker who will seek to have an Accurate view of themselves, not a humble one. In looking through various definitions, they all boil down to underestimating oneself, even the attribute of moderation means an average level of opinion about oneself, which is a) not necessarily compatible with accuracy as the average person underestimates themselves through humility, b) not even possibly accurate for anyone who actually knows anything, as they will have a greater than average actual intellectual worth.

Dear Advocate

Which definitions of humility and truth are you using here, please?

Your argument is reasonable only if we ignore the rather central, “selfless” aspect in the concept of humility and choose to relate truth to self by defining it as “being right”.

None of those definitions are however exclusive, as I see it.

One can aspire to seek “objective” Truth for sake of truth alone and not attach it to anyone “being right”, in which case, the question of humility (however one defines it) is irrelevant.

On the other hand, Humility, understood as the selfless perspective, from which an individual attempts to approach another, more “objectively”, instead of in comparison to themselves, would also eliminate its role as valid variable in your statement*.

(*) One can even argue that, as humility per definition is selfless, any sense of self-undermining is evidence against a humble approach being present altogether.

Humbly
Hermit

[Advocate]

>>Those who preach intellectual humility are inevitably going to miss the truth. Humility has no purpose for a truth-seeker who will seek to have an Accurate view of themselves, not a humble one. In looking through various definitions, they all boil down to underestimating oneself, even the attribute of moderation means an average level of opinion about oneself, which is a) not necessarily compatible with accuracy as the average person underestimates themselves through humility, b) not even possibly accurate for anyone who actually knows anything, as they will have a greater than average actual intellectual worth.

>Which definitions of [i]humility[/i] and [i]truth[/i] are you using here, please?

I looked up a few randomly selected definitions of humility and none were substantially different in the respect that's relevant here. As for "truth" i'm using something like the vernacular understanding - that which continues to be the case when measured/validated.

>Your argument is reasonable only if we ignore the rather central, “selfless” aspect in the concept of [i]humility[/i] and choose to relate [i]truth[/i] to [i]self[/i] by defining it as “being right”.

Selflessness is neither necessarily a part of humility in the definitions i'm aware of, nor positive. Selflessness is an inane concept. We are embodied beings with a distinctly individual perspective on the universe and will always be so, even if we're on drugs that make us feel otherwise. Self/ego/perspective/awareness/desire are interchangable concepts in this sense. They only hint at different aspects of the same underlying unique perspective. I think you're using a social understanding of the word humility, in which the point is emotional capitulation, unrelated to truth. I'm using dictionary ones which are both more accurate and more useful.

But, we're dealing with subtleties here and i'm not sure whether or if we even disagree yet.

>One can aspire to seek “objective” [b]Truth[/b] for sake of truth alone and not attach it to anyone “being right”, in which case, the question of humility (however one defines it) is irrelevant.

I concur, sort of - there's no reason anyone would care about objective truth if not toward some end for which being accurate was required. But even if one does attach the emotional component of being right to objective truth, humility is still the opposite of that, as illustrated in the OP. Accuracy and humility are incompatible.

>On the other hand, [b]Humility[/b], understood as the selfless perspective, from which an individual attempts to approach another, more “objectively”, instead of in comparison to themselves, would also eliminate its role as valid variable in your statement*.

That seems like an entirely emotional definition, divorced from truth. That's the impression i get from most people's use of the words, and like "acceptance", they're missing the most important part. What the word does for them is wishy-washy feels stuff, which is regressive in relation to the purpose of language - of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding; actionable certainty.

There are many words that intend objectivity and point toward truth, but humility simply isn't one of them. Humility points toward subjugation, not truth. Objective is a good choice, but it relies on NOT taking into account other people's opinions, unless they are in themselves the reason for the examination. Dialectic is a good choice for truth-seeking in conjunction with other's opinions. Humility means "shut up, you don't know enough".

>(*) One can even argue that, as humility per definition [i]is[/i] selfless, any sense of self-undermining is evidence against a humble approach being present altogether.

I'm not entirely sure i'm responding to what you actually mean by selfless. We cannot act outside of the context of our selves, and there's no Reason to pursue knowledge, or care about our relation to others outside of our individual context.

[Eodnhoj7]

Those who preach intellectual humility are inevitably going to miss the truth. Humility has no purpose for a truth-seeker who will seek to have an Accurate view of themselves, not a humble one. In looking through various definitions, they all boil down to underestimating oneself, even the attribute of moderation means an average level of opinion about oneself, which is a) not necessarily compatible with accuracy as the average person underestimates themselves through humility, b) not even possibly accurate for anyone who actually knows anything, as they will have a greater than average actual intellectual worth.

Humility is simply knowing one's place. For example one may be an excellent football player and admit to it yet simultaneously be a poor husband and admit to this too.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=481484 time=1606259842 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=478878 time=1604715247 user_id=15238]
Those who preach intellectual humility are inevitably going to miss the truth. Humility has no purpose for a truth-seeker who will seek to have an Accurate view of themselves, not a humble one. In looking through various definitions, they all boil down to underestimating oneself, even the attribute of moderation means an average level of opinion about oneself, which is a) not necessarily compatible with accuracy as the average person underestimates themselves through humility, b) not even possibly accurate for anyone who actually knows anything, as they will have a greater than average actual intellectual worth.
[/quote]

Humility is simply knowing one's place. For example one may be an excellent football player and admit to it yet simultaneously be a poor husband and admit to this too.
[/quote]

In other words, never have anything good to say about yourself unless you balance it with something bad? <spit>