Hubris: The Arrogance of Conviction

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Arrogance and strong conviction are both good because they help you get to the end of incorrect premises faster.

Indeed... embracing working models is needed in order to get to the end quicker. However, even though I follow the map and trust the map, I can't be 100% certain that the territory hasn't changed.

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.

Oh I would agree wholeheartedly.

I'm not saying that arrogance, hubris, or zeal are bad. Personally I believe that right/wrong, good/bad are subjective concepts which play no role in objective reality other than the role we give it.

I'm just saying that Conviction leads to a corruption in the critical faculty of reasoning.



Now, because it appears as you didn't read the whole post... I'll quote that last bit for ya here..

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]

Originally posted by GeneralLee
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!

Indeed... your last sentence there hits on my premise directly.

Thanks for your humorous and on point contribution.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Arrogance and strong conviction are both good because they help you get to the end of incorrect premises faster.

Indeed... embracing working models is needed in order to get to the end quicker. However, even though I follow the map and trust the map, I can't be 100% certain that the territory hasn't changed.

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.

Oh I would agree wholeheartedly.

I'm not saying that arrogance, hubris, or zeal are bad. Personally I believe that right/wrong, good/bad are subjective concepts which play no role in objective reality other than the role we give it.

An extreme to either direction causes issues.

Right or wrong being subjectives means we are tasked to explain away deviant behavior.

Originally posted by crmanager

Right or wrong being subjectives means we are tasked to explain away deviant behavior.

Deviant is a relative term which is directly related to social norms.

Many times it is those social norms which actually lead to deviant behavior through Stigma

The social effect of forgiveness will actually reduce the deviance from social norms where the issue is psychological.

Either way... we are way off topic.



[edit on 15-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by nine-eyed-eel

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

Arrogance and ideological constipation is lot of fun until you irritate the big guy with your high minded intellectualism, dogma and hubris; and he punches you in the mouth, kicks you in the nuts and beats you within an inch of your life.

Some people hate arrogance!! Never call a cop Barney!!

[edit on 15-12-2008 by whaaa]

reply to post by whaaa


Exactly!

This reminds me of a humurous book put out by Hare Krishnas titled "You are not God" It shows a comic of a guy meditating on the Godhead, and up comes a farmer who just lost his crops to weather and is ticked off at God.

So the farmer begins beating the crap out of the meditator.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Conviction is conviction is conviction. We are not discussing the correctnes of a religion or way of government. We are discussing the idea something is "right" and something is "wrong." Conviction.

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

Conviction is conviction is conviction. We are not discussing the correctnes of a religion or way of government. We are discussing the idea something is "right" and something is "wrong." Conviction.

Well, we are dicussing the convictions of right and wrong, but we are also discussing the convictions of ordinary things as well which don't enter into the realm of right or wrong.

Shakespeare gave voice to Hamlet to say, "There is no right or wrong, only thinking makes it so".

In Christianity you might here Paul say "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

Buddhism has the concept of "Right Action" Which cannot be known aforehand, but is found in the moment.

The essence of all of these statements is that right/wrong are real to those who subjectively believe that something is right or wrong. The reason for this contigent reality is that when the subjective mind apprehends something as truth, it acts as if it is.

Hence the issue with Conviction.


[edit on 15-12-2008 by HunkaHunka]

Here is another great example of how things we are convinced of can be challenged by experiences to the contrary.



Space magnetics don't work the way we expected

reply to post by HunkaHunka


In other words don't let conviction drive you past the ability to consider other/better alternatives or to rethink things and to also rebuild your thoughts on an area if need be if your original thoughts on a matter were incorrect or had a better outcome another way. It is better to be wrong than to be an emperor with no clothes!


An example of this would be my uncle. He is an all out racist. He despises blacks in particular. While all his reason for being racist is just as subjective to right or wrong as religion he also pays for these consequences in that he has lost out on many potential friends and allies. Also it is the reason that he is no longer invited to family functions and hardly anyone visits. So, in effect his conviction has alienated him and has set his life up to be as those closest view him.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Buddhism has the concept of "Right Action" Which cannot be known aforehand, but is found in the moment.

I like this idea

when it comes to conviction - it's something that seems to exist in the past or the future

in the moment - whether you like it or not - you deal with things as they come to you - even your ideas, beliefs - habits - the moment is undecided

you can't know what you'll do, or even what you'll think in the moment - it's decided as fast as it happens - or happens as fast as you can decide

some would argue you don't even get to decide

maybe we only have the luxury of conviction by looking backward or forward

so, the arrogance of conviction comes out of defending your past or defending your future - both revolving around defending your identity

This thread should be required reading before posting on ATS.

Its an artform to balance between a fixed standpoint and flexibility and changeability in standpoint.

I choose the word "standpoint" (as conviction) deliberately because it gives us a picture of the issue. In a standpoint I am rooted, stable, strong. But I am also unmoving and only able to perceive the world from that very standpoint. In order to find out anything new I would have to move away from it, release it, relax it and explore other standpoints. But I will only ever do that if I feel strong within, without the need for a fixed place to see the world from.

OK, Im rambling here......what was I gonna say? I like your thread. It raises a myriad of issues.

Great post, and I tend to agree.

False certainty is the enemy of learning.

While our motto here at ATS is "deny ignorance", in order to do so, in order to learn and to grow, we must first admit our ignorance.

That's kind of how I see the slogan "deny ignorance" - IE deny it's hold on us by learning and accumulating information, including that information which those in power would rather we not have access to

And if we want to learn and progress, well we have to admit we don't know everything already first

Again, good post, and a though-provoking topic

I wrote something in my journal yesterday that is very much along these lines:

" It's not uncommon in a movie for a character to tell another something to the effect of "I couldn't tell you the whole truth because you couldn't handle it/couldn't understand it.". Do people in the real world play this same bull**** game? If you believe that everything is both true and not true then there is no fact that is really that inconvenient. RA Wilson is most probably correct in asserting that not only does the universe contain a "maybe" but that this can be used as a tool of enlightenment. It's not just the classic Socratic/DeCartian doubt; it's more of a view that assuming reality is there, there is still a doubt or a "maybe". Which of course is a quantum view. In quatum logic we have true/false/maybe. That's right, there is a logic which uses "maybe" as a value. In fact quantum physics says that by observing an event WE create a maybe. Nice. "

I'd like to add:

I believe in everything which is the same thing as believing in nothing. I believe both the conservative and the liberal viewpoint; I believe the world is flat and that the world is round; I believe we were created by god and that we evolved without any godly help. And I see no contradictions. See you liberals out there will probably NEVER understand the conservative view point because you never tried to believe it. This goes for most everyone who picks a side; you probably will never understand the arguement the other side is making.

Now saying that I do not encourage trying it. If you do you WILL be rewiring your brain(which I think is a good thing but that's my opinion) and there are consequences to rewiring your brain. hehe, that's an understatement...

Vas



[edit on 19-12-2008 by Vasilis Azoth]

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Interesting thread and you raise a good point. However, I take a middle road on this because the appropriate adage will differ under circumstances.

In some cases, it is as you (or Socrates) say:

'True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.'

Then in some cases, it is as the old saying goes:

'You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything.'

reply to post by AshleyD


It's key to remember, as Skyfloating stated above, that you can stand for something and still allow room for alternatives to your viewpoint. We take our stances because of the experiences we've had. That's an important thing in order to move forward and have a working model.

However, the conclusions we have arrived at can also limit us, because of the conditions we have yet to experience.

So if we keep our limited experience in mind, it can serve two functions.

1. When you are convinced it's hopeless, second guessing your conviction can help move you forward.
2. When you are convinced that you've got it down, second guessing your conviction can help you to "check your six" as the phrase goes.

Now what do I stand for?. I find that standing on Paradox is a much more workable truth for me, so my only conviction, is that all convictions are suspect.

I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this tread. Remarkable posts, each of them.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Hi HunkaHunka burning.... Love?

Checked your signature block and found this thread of yours....

Wonderful understanding of what is really going on. I had to flag and star it for you as I would have written it myself had I the ability to convey my thoughts in such a wonderful manner. You appear to be waking up...

Many Thanks...



[edit on 18-5-2009 by AllTiedTogether]

Actually it takes courage and imagination to have faith in the unseen. It's a false assumption to think that people of faith, because of their convictions, lack imagination. I dislike it when people make those assumptions, born of their own conviction that people of faith lack imagination, or the capacity for critical thinking.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
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?

It's flawed because Socrates obviously thought he knew enough to know that. Rather self-defeating to me.

To my perspective, one must explore as many avenues as are found available. And what use is it to follow any path without the conviction that it is the right path at the time?

To know nothing isn't even to know oneself. No, I think the truly wise are those who readily admit they don't know everything, and do so emphatically, with the utmost conviction.

It is due to note that many do not form their own convictions, but have convictions shaped and passed down to them by their forebears. Cultures and regions pass down traditions and values, moulding ideas and thoughts on matters. Shaping and forming conviction.

Socrates lived and died by his beliefs. "The Unexamined Life is not worth living," as well as, "True Wisdom is found in knowing that I know nothing," For Truth exists only for the gods to see, mankind is incapable of perceiving it.

Conviction stems from the righteous, from the proud. From the root of truth mistaken for Truth (Notice one is capitalized and one is not?).

Socrates spoke with philosophers, leaders, military legends. He spoke with the powerful and the talented, and came away with just this; people who think they know things turn out to know very little about what they claim to know.

Conviction is the misperceived knowledge, the idea that you have an understanding of the world, universe, or mankind as a whole.

Conviction is the outrage at Muslim countries treatment of women.

Conviction is the outrage at Pedophiles.

Conviction is the justification for wars.

Conviction is the entitlement mentality.

Conviction is Israel, it is Palestine, it is the flower which blossoms hate and love alike.

Conviction is suffrage, conviction is equal rights, conviction is a free India.

Whether it is used for good or ill, Conviction is the will to power over your reality. Conviction is the will to change, the desire to stand out, the need for your perspective to be heard, felt, experienced.

Conviction is overt... and I would argue rarely has anything to do with Wisdom.

Wisdom is receptive and allowing. Conviction is not.