Hubris: The Arrogance of Conviction

Socrates said that “True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.”

What does this mean?

It means that when one is convinced of something, they become blind to all other possibilities.

Indeed, conviction is the opposite of imagination.

When one is convinced of something, the reasoning faculty starts to take that conviction as truth, and subsequently stops questioning it, becoming lazy, and eventually corrupt.

This occurs in all humans. Religious people are convinced of their faith, and scientists are convinced of their theories. Both of these types of humans rest easily on either side of the mountain of imagination, for it takes effort and constant questioning of one's convictions to climb the mountain of imagination.

Unfortunately, many people also use the limitations of their own imagination to define what is possible. So the more convinced one is of their beliefs, the less likely they are to see any other possible outcome or reality.

Some have, however, learned to throw conviction back on itself. For example, during the early Christian period, there was much debate as to the concept of the resurrection. Gnostics proclaimed it symbolic, Irenaeus said that theologically, it was of the utmost importance to see the resurrection as literal. Why was this? What was the subjective effect in the humans who believed that a man literally was resurrected?

The aim was the same as the koans of zen, to break the mind out of perceiving reality through the limitations set by our convictions of what is real. But why do this? Why encourage people to believe something that most in the world would call foolishness?

The foundation of most neurosis, and indeed psychosis stem from internal conflicts in the mind of the subject. These conflicts are held in place by conviction, and thus introducing the belief in something antithetical to reason, allows the foundations of these convictions to crumble, and the neuroses right along with them.

Conviction can be found in skeptics and believers alike. They share this trait as they wage academic battles against eachother, both convinced that their version makes the most sense, and that the other hypothesis can't possible be correct. They are both driven by a natural egoic urge to be right. This urge is driven, ultimately, by the egoic desire for survival.

Conviction in thought, can bring a sense of security, as long as those convictions are readily defended, and contrary thought fought against. Hence the great wars caused by differences of religion.

It is because of this, that the ego is like a child learning to ride a bike. It believes that it must rest on convictions and establish as many as possible in order to be secure. It is afraid to remove the training wheels of conviction and move to the balanced ride that comes with taking each step as it comes.

To the religious, I would say that this is indeed what is meant as faith. Not a conviction that what you believe is true, but the understanding that in order for a world of unimaginable possibilities to exist, we have to dismantle the convictions placed upon us through our experience in the world.

To the philosophical, I would say that this is justified based on Plato's cave. We as humans can never apprehend absolute truth. We have only the shadows on the cave wall to work with. And although we can build better instruments to give those shadows better resolution, all that we are convinced of comes via indirect knowldege of shadows, not a direct knowledge of the thing itself.

Even as we are building a working model of our world, whether it be physical or metaphysical, we must make sure we don't mistake the map for the territory. We may have to approach something with a different model in order to get the results that we are looking for.

The balance comes in realizing that it's natural for us to build a working model of our world. Our brain is a pattern recognizing machine. That's just what it does. But we have to also understand that it is the need for security underlies the need for certainty of conviction.

As we build our models, let us remember they are only working models, and we may not see the whole picture. Let us continue to question those things we feel most convinced about, especially when doing so can remove what looks like a dead end and open up more possibilities then our arrogant convictions would allow us to see.

If you meet the Buddha on the road... Kill him.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

Very deep but full of baseless assumptions of ego.

Without a foundation a house collapses.

You need conviction or every idea/thought will be acted upon and chaos ensues.

Keep your mind open but with a rock oild basis for growth.

reply to post by crmanager


So do you find the socratic quote of “True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.” to be flawed?

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Correct becaus eit is incomplete.

Add this..."but you must have a foundation to move forward."

reply to post by crmanager


That foundation is, however, at it's root nothing more than a "working model".

What do you do, if the foundation gets in your way of being able to move forward?

are you convinced that that car your driving isn't going to explode? or how about me being convinced that i'm not married to vida guerra?

WOW, dang, and here I thought Hubris was one of those new eco friendly cars,

Originally posted by Mozzy
are you convinced that that car your driving isn't going to explode? or how about me being convinced that i'm not married to vida guerra?

To be honest, you might assume that the car your driving isn't going to explode, but as I found out last week, it's very possible the F-150 I'm driving could explode at any moment. A part was recalled that causes a fire under the hood.

Keep in mind, that we all have working models, and I'm not calling for the destruction of all working models. I'm simply saying that when we are honest with ourselves, that what we believe to be true are simply working models, then they don't become something which causes us to become blind.



[edit on 15-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

This is a good post; I'm reminded of the wisdom of Ecclesiastics, "all is vanity". Is hubris a necessary egotic accoutrement? It seems so, in light of larger understanding of the nature of the ego.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
To the philosophical, I would say that this is justified based on Plato's cave. We as humans can never apprehend absolute truth. We have only the shadows on the cave wall to work with. And although we can build better instruments to give those shadows better resolution, all that we are convinced of comes via indirect knowldege of shadows, not a direct knowledge of the thing itself.

I was recently told by a friend, "you live in a cave!" He meant, I believe, that I isolate myself from society's devices in a way that seems strangely contradictory to my expressive understanding. Well, if so, this metaphor is the reason why. In the 'cave', what is cast on the wall is distinct, even if only in it's intrinsic flicker. If, indeed, it is the ego of 'individual perception', and the hubris of the universality of personal definition that paints the outlines of those shadows, I do not want that obscured. In fact, such distinction and definition, I consider a blessing.

Thank you for your well-worded post.

Of course we know stuff, even if it is a working model where the underlying workings are still a mystery. Look at gravity, we KNOW how to calculate it and pour it into a formula but why it exists has not been proven. This something where conviction can be a good thing and a bad thing i guess. Let's just say that a scientist is convinced that gravity works a certain way but is not the prevalent theory. The scientist, convinced as he is, still goes his own way and turns out that he can prove he is right. His conviction will be a good thing because he solved one of the mysteries.

So, just like anything. Conviction can be a good thing as wel as a bad one, just depends on the topic.

Top down conviction (as in learned from a book) can be harmfull and maybe even seen as brainwashing. however, bottom up conviction can be very rewarding in the sense that it is the opposite of the first one and maybe even helpfull in braincleansing. On one side it can be used to keep people down but the other side it can be a personal tool to free yourself from a previous conviction because it does keep your focus on a certain subject and makes you want to know more.


[edit on 15-12-2008 by Harman]

reply to post by Ian McLean


And thank you for a great contribution to this thread.


Along the lines of what you said, I believe this is the reason why so many traditions encourage spiritual aspirants to retreat from the world for a bit.

We can see this in the Christian tradition where Jesus goes into the wilderness, where he is confronted by his own personal demons.

socrates was just making a point, not a rule to live by every second of every day. and i'm sure he was telling it to people who could use the information. not going around telling people to take it literally.

Originally posted by Harman
Of course we know stuff, even if it is a working model where the underlying workings are still a mystery. Look at gravity, we KNOW how to calculate it and pour it into a formula but why it exists has not been proven. This something where conviction can be a good thing and a bad thing i guess. Let's just say that a scientist is convinced that gravity works a certain way but is not the prevalent theory. The scientist, convinced as he is, still goes his own way and turns out that he can prove he is right. His conviction will be a good thing because he solved one of the mysteries.

So, just like anything. Conviction can be a good thing as wel as a bad one, just depends on the topic.

Top down conviction (as in learned from a book) can be harmfull and maybe even seen as brainwashing. however, bottom up conviction can be very rewarding in the sense that it is the opposite of the first one and me be even helpfull in braincleansing. On one side it can be used to keep people down but the other side it can be a personal tool to free yourself from a previous conviction because it does keep your focus on a certain subject and makes you want to know more.

[edit on 15-12-2008 by Harman]

Yes, exactly. I find that conviction is on a spectrum like anything else. You have to have some "trust" in your working models, while at the same time understanding that they are only working models.

One must be able to doubt all things, while at the same time embracing all working models.

It's a narrow road.

I like your distinctions of the origins of conviction.

The Top-down vs Bottom-up. Thanks for your contribution

reply to post by HunkaHunka


And came out with a core belief system that was not changed on a whim with what came up for discussion.

If you believe NOTHING is set then all is acceptable. If all is acceptable then how can you hold anyone accountable for their wrong doing?

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

And came out with a core belief system that was not changed on a whim with what came up for discussion.

If you believe NOTHING is set then all is acceptable. If all is acceptable then how can you hold anyone accountable for their wrong doing?

First, it's not about believing nothing. It's about understanding that all beliefs are working models. When they stop working, you might have to find a new way to look at it. It's difficult to do so if you are convinced that your working model is Absolute Truth.

As far as accountability. That's not necessarily something which has to be accounted for. No pun intended.

The need to hold people accountable, is itself a product of conviction. Personally, I believe that this is why the stories of Jesus has him throwing forgiveness around like water. Notice how he said, that we should simply say yes or no, and not to swear by anything. I really don't want to give this a Christian overtone, but when you brought up accountability, thats the first thing that jumps to mind.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


"I believe that pedophilia is wrong" Hard to come upi with a working modle on that form of societal behavior.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Arrogance and strong conviction are both good because they help you get to the end of incorrect premises faster.
The type of person who thinks arrogance and hubris and zeal is bad a proiri, is a weak wormy person who feels a generalized resentment against the more able which he couches in terms of a morally condescending "more in sorrow than in anger" philosophical poormouthing program.
To sink to the level of the satanic proverbs, here's two:

THE ROAD OF EXCESS LEADS TO THE PALACE OF WISDOM
HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT TOO MUCH IS, UNTIL YOU DO TOO MUCH

But the main reason why people should be arrogant is because it's fun...if they like fun, that is.

reply to post by nine-eyed-eel


oh man, I spelled "a priori" wrong and now I have crushed myself...

I don't know anything, therefore I am the smartest person on the planet. Just ask my wife....in one breath she will tell me that I'm the smartest man she has ever known...then in another breath she will tell me that I don't know anything.


This topic kind of relates to me in a sense. It reminds me of a great quote that I'm probably going to butcher. I believe is was made by Mark Twain or that other great American humorist who's name escapes me but it goes something like this....

"A person who says, I tell it like it is...rarely does...and it rarely is! "

The jist of the mutual point being, in my opinion, that we can only tell it like we see it....not like it is!

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

"I believe that pedophilia is wrong" Hard to come upi with a working modle on that form of societal behavior.

Yet if you lived in Ancient Greece you might have felt differently about it. Keep in mind though, this thread is not about concepts of right or wrong, or good or evil. Those concepts are based upon whatever the sensibilities happen to be in a given society.

What I'm speaking of is Conviction.




[edit on 15-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]