Is an ego a bad thing?

[Norsemaiden]

That was a very good post Korona. You summed the issue up nicely.

As regards pride being one of the seven deadly sins, this has to be put in the context of the declaration by Jesus that "the meek shall inherit the world". Which doesn't mean the meek have the best strategy for defeating the self-confident, but rather that God likes the meek and will reward them. In practice the meek are likely to be losers. This advice was tailor made by strong willed people to get their enemies to adopt a philosophy that would make them unthreatening.

 

[Korona]

I think the seven deadly sins should be seen as natural tendancies, in an unnatural extreeme.
Gluttony is a good example - there is nothing wrong with liking food but there is something wrong with liking it to excess. It shows a total lack of self-control.

For Dante, pride was a "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbour". Such pride is just as abhorent to Nietzsche. The scathing attack he levels against his contempories in part 3 of Zarathustra is a very witty demonstration of why unfounded self-belief is increadably damaging - it traps us in who we are and prevents us from becoming something greater. Indeed all the seven deadly sins really have the same trap behind them.

I would read the Jesus passage as saying you need to drop your pride if you want to inherit something greater. Self-confidence is a good thing, until it gets in the way of your development as a human being. (It's not right to set Nietzsche up as being opposed to Jesus per se. The antichrist is a demonstration of how what Jesus was and said has been perverted by the Church).

 

[Norsemaiden]

I think the seven deadly sins should be seen as natural tendancies, in an unnatural extreeme.
Gluttony is a good example - there is nothing wrong with liking food but there is something wrong with liking it to excess. It shows a total lack of self-control.

For Dante, pride was a "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbour". Such pride is just as abhorent to Nietzsche. The scathing attack he levels against his contempories in part 3 of Zarathustra is a very witty demonstration of why unfounded self-belief is increadably damaging - it traps us in who we are and prevents us from becoming something greater. Indeed all the seven deadly sins really have the same trap behind them.

I would read the Jesus passage as saying you need to drop your pride if you want to inherit something greater. Self-confidence is a good thing, until it gets in the way of your development as a human being. (It's not right to set Nietzsche up as being opposed to Jesus per se. The antichrist is a demonstration of how what Jesus was and said has been perverted by the Church).

Nietzsche said there has only ever been one Christian and he died on the cross.

It cannot be denied that pride that involves a perverted hatred or denigration of ones neighbour is destructive. A very good point.

My view on the meek inheriting the Earth is in line with the view that Christianity was invented by the Jews to give the Romans a credo that would destroy them - a brain bomb - the idea of being meek as well as of turning the other cheek, giving away what you have to whoever asks it of you, resisting not evil, loving your enemy, thinking not about tomorrow, etc.

 

[Demilich]

Ego, I've found from personal experience, can be very useful. At one point in my life, I was a typical "low self esteem" type. Through my formative years I had gleaned that my lifestyle (reading, playing video games, paying no attention to fashion) was not popularly deemed very respectful. Promptly, I began to develop the trademarks of a shy, introverted, ego-lacking person.

It wasn't until I met a wonderful person that my life began to change. Suddenly, I had found someone who didn't allow me to be comfortable with all my insecurities and self-judgements. I do not even consider myself a shy person anymore, and my self esteem is anything but low. I am confident in my faculties of mind and body, my ability to find and create meaning in my world, and my understanding of my surroundings. All it took was the ability to step back from an extremely limited personal "reality," look at the big picture, and accept the absolute worthlessness of how I am esteemed in the eyes of others.

 

[OldScratch]

"...one does well to put gloves on when reading the New Testament. The proximity of so much uncleanliness almost forces one to do so...I have looked in vain for so much as one sympathetic trait in the New Testament: there is nothing free, benevolent, open-hearted, honest in it."
The Anti-Christ ch. 46

I dunno...seems like more than a rebuke of The Church perverting the "Gospels"(Which isn't to say they have not done so also). Perhaps?

*edit*Oops...forgot to first quote Korona's post with regard to Nietzsche, etc. Sorry...

 

[Demilich]

I'd have to take at least some exception to Norsemaiden's interpetation of "The meek shall inherit the earth" I would interpet this in a similar way to Korona - that the qualities of the meek are such that they are likely to succeed in the long run while the proud/vain shoot themselves in the feet.

As to her subsequent note that the meek are a bunch of losers, I'll leave a simple

 

[OldScratch]

I'd have to take at least some exception to Norsemaiden's interpetation of "The meek shall inherit the earth" I would interpet this in a similar way to Korona - that the qualities of the meek are such that they are likely to succeed in the long run while the proud/vain shoot themselves in the feet.

As to her subsequent note that the meek are a bunch of losers, I'll leave a simple

I would not to pretend I can speak for Norsemaiden, but I think you may have misinterpreted her broader meaning(which I happen to agree with). The idea that "The Meek" as a group or even individually shall be granted wonderful things seems to me to run counter to everything we know from history. What evidence is there that the Meek tend to succeed, "in the long run?" We have already acknowledged that excessive hubris is not healthy either, but no more or less so than excessive humbleness, etc.

The Meek may survive or even thrive in spite of themselves but how often? Are the Meek not almost by definition destined to forever be potential victims - waiting to be had? This is no way to go through life.

Curiously, by your own admission you are now very comfortable with yourself having 'overcome' a more Meek persona which knew not confidence or self-assurance. Thus, in essence, you have moved beyond this meekness and I sincerely doubt you look back at those awkward, introverted years fondly(perhaps, I presume too much). In other words, you have left the Meekness behind and moved forward...confidently! What I believe the good Maiden (and I) are saying, is that consciously and intentionally remaining, or simply being meek for the sake of some Scriptural glorification is just not a wise plan.
Hopefully, none of this sounds patronizing in any way, as that is hardly my intention.

 

[judas69]

Norsemaiden doesn't believes there is any benefit in being meek and so, to be meek, especially from a religious standpoint, is to be oblivious to the Truth which she believes is politically motivated for reasons of power and control. This may or may not be true, and may or may not be another example of her bias against religion but regardless, it does fit, and what better means of control is there than to convince people to give up and accept the loss of their power and control?

I'll say more about this later ..

 

[Demilich]

@OldScratch: I'm not up for a longwinded response, but your post seems to hinge almost entirely on the presumption that I believe meekness and confidence to be mutually exclusive. Let us not confuse self-loathing, anxiety and lack of confidence with what I take to be meekness. As for myself, I'd call myself far more of a meek person today than I would have in my years of nerdliness.

Yes, I am confident. My confidence comes from knowing that through humility, reservation, patience and kindness (read: meekness) I will persevere. I find this path to be superior to that of the brash, self-absorbed and overconfident individual. Who is more likely to bite off more than he can chew?

I am aware that some definitions of meekness imply compliance, unwillingness to resist oppression, etc, I simply do not identify with that aspect of the word. I suspect that God (or whoever, as I am surely no deist) was getting at the same when he let that one slip about who would inherit the earth.

 

[Seditious]

@OldScratch: I'm not up for a longwinded response, but your post seems to hinge almost entirely on the presumption that I believe meekness and confidence to be mutually exclusive.

so you're saying you'd comfortably use it as a synonym for humble?

 

[OldScratch]

@OldScratch: I'm not up for a longwinded response, but your post seems to hinge almost entirely on the presumption that I believe meekness and confidence to be mutually exclusive. Let us not confuse self-loathing, anxiety and lack of confidence with what I take to be meekness. As for myself, I'd call myself far more of a meek person today than I would have in my years of nerdliness.

Yes, I am confident. My confidence comes from knowing that through humility, reservation, patience and kindness (read: meekness) I will persevere. I find this path to be superior to that of the brash, self-absorbed and overconfident individual. Who is more likely to bite off more than he can chew?

I am aware that some definitions of meekness imply compliance, unwillingness to resist oppression, etc, I simply do not identify with that aspect of the word. I suspect that God (or whoever, as I am surely no deist) was getting at the same when he let that one slip about who would inherit the earth.

Fair enough. Then we shall simply have to disagree on this point, as per this explanation we clearly see this issue from differing perspectives - at least to a large degree.
I will only add that by disavowing the meek and mild approach(particularly as it is framed in the "Sermon On The Mount") one need not be necessarily brash, belligerent or fatally overconfident. I would argue that this is no more true than to suggest that every demonstrably humble person is a spineless doormat. Plenty of middle ground...and most people I know fall somewhere in between. Best Regards.

 

[Korona]

Meekness taken to extreeme is as self-destructive as pride taken to extreeme. However it's important to always give a speaker the benefit of the doubt, else you will just be defeating straw-men rather. In this light I don't think its fair to interpret Jesus as saying you need to be perpetually meek. If this is what he intended then his actions towards money-lenders in the temple would be just one example of him being a hypocrite.

This isn't to say that the church didnt interpret the words differently to advance their own ascetic programme (hence allowing Nietzsche to think well of Jesus, and poorly of what the Church did).

@ OldScratch The section of "The Antichrist" you quoted is aimed at the apostles (Paul et al) rather than at Jesus himself. Bear in mind that "the new testament" is the Church-approved accounts of Jesus' life, PLUS a lot of interpretation and additional writings by the "early Christians". - he elaborates on that point you quoted by going on to say:

On the contrary, it is an honour to have an "early Christian" as an opponent. One cannot read the New Testament without acquired admiration for whatever it abuses--not to speak of the "wisdom of this world,"

(rofl )

As for Christianity being a Jewish conspiracy... I don't think we should take Nietzsche's conspiracies theories too literally. Most of his "histories" are stories that illustrate his wider points, rather than verbatim true accounts of fact.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I would not to pretend I can speak for Norsemaiden, but I think you may have misinterpreted her broader meaning(which I happen to agree with). The idea that "The Meek" as a group or even individually shall be granted wonderful things seems to me to run counter to everything we know from history. What evidence is there that the Meek tend to succeed, "in the long run?" We have already acknowledged that excessive hubris is not healthy either, but no more or less so than excessive humbleness, etc.

The Meek may survive or even thrive in spite of themselves but how often? Are the Meek not almost by definition destined to forever be potential victims - waiting to be had? This is no way to go through life.

Curiously, by your own admission you are now very comfortable with yourself having 'overcome' a more Meek persona which knew not confidence or self-assurance. Thus, in essence, you have moved beyond this meekness and I sincerely doubt you look back at those awkward, introverted years fondly(perhaps, I presume too much). In other words, you have left the Meekness behind and moved forward...confidently! What I believe the good Maiden (and I) are saying, is that consciously and intentionally remaining, or simply being meek for the sake of some Scriptural glorification is just not a wise plan.
Hopefully, none of this sounds patronizing in any way, as that is hardly my intention.

Yes, you understand exactly what I was implying, OldScratch, thanks for that. I put the definition of "meek" in the context of Jesus' instructions to resist not evil, to do good to those who seek to harm you (which he himself failed to practice one time in the temple of money-lenders), and so on.
When I once was briefly a Christian I truly considered that the more you let people exploit or walk all over you, the greater your reward in Heaven. Except I lacked the "strength" to be so....

There do exist Christians who are this fundamentalist though - but I think they might have difficulty also in being as meek as they feel is required.

Jesus may have asked Gods' forgiveness for his outburst against the moneylenders - but the Bible leaves that to the imagination.

 

[judas69]

Meekness taken to extreeme is as self-destructive as pride taken to extreeme. However it's important to always give a speaker the benefit of the doubt, else you will just be defeating straw-men rather. In this light I don't think its fair to interpret Jesus as saying you need to be perpetually meek. If this is what he intended then his actions towards money-lenders in the temple would be just one example of him being a hypocrite.

Jesus may have asked Gods' forgiveness for his outburst against the moneylenders - but the Bible leaves that to the imagination.

Well to be fair, Jesus came back in human form, and throughout the bible you find examples of his faith being tested in this way.

 

[Korona]

I don't think it's fair to blame Jesus for people mis-interpreting him

The way meekness is being interpreted here is certainly in line with the view of "religion" put forward by Nietzsche, but it is worth bearing in mind that he isn't crtical of Jesus, nor religion per-se

He IS critical of asceticsim i.e. self-denial, which a certain type of (perhaps prevailent) religious outlook prescribes. I don't think you will find any of that being advocated by Jesus, although it was certainly advocated in the new testament. The move to be avoided is from love of one's neighbour to hatred of one's self.

Why love your neighbour? Nietzsche himself gives good reason why in the genealogy, when he talks about criminals. It is the strong society than can treat criminals lightly, and the weak one that is punitive in its punishments. To love even a total shit of a neighbour is a mark of strength. After all, the alternative is fostering a seething resentement for them, or going off to live in the woods and refusing to engage with them like a true aescetic. Either option hurts only one's self.

 

[Norsemaiden]

It is the strong society than can treat criminals lightly, and the weak one that is punitive in its punishments. To love even a total shit of a neighbour is a mark of strength. After all, the alternative is fostering a seething resentement for them, or going off to live in the woods and refusing to engage with them like a true aescetic. Either option hurts only one's self.

That first statement needs examples to be given - it doesn't make a lot of sense. Can you explain it further?

I neither love nor hate my neighbour - which is an option you haven't considered. The natural instinct is for neighbours to want to give eachother personal space and not infringe on eachother's territory.

If by "neighbour" the intended meaning is "racial kinsman" ,as is supposed to have been the interpretation in ancient times, it would be more likely that they would cooperate than if it was a situation of a neighbour from a very different background.

If you advocate "love thy neighbour" in the modern age, you have to mean "love everyone" and that means you should never hope to curtail the ignorant and worse-than-useless masses.

 

[Korona]

hmm I thought that there was something along these lines in the begining of the Genealogy, but I can't find it with a quick scan so I could be mistaken.

Anyway here is another quote that says what I wanted to say -

The resentment of the noble man himself, if it comes over him, consumes and exhausts itself in an immediate reaction and therefore does not poison. On the other hand, in countless cases it just does not appear, whereas in the case of all weak and powerless people it is unavoidable. The noble man cannot take his enemies, his misfortunes, even his bad deeds seriously for very long—that is the mark of a strong, complete nature, in whom there is a surplus of plastic, creative, healing power, which also can make one forget (a good example for that from the modern world is Mirabeau, who had no memory of the insults and maliciousness people directed at him, and who therefore could not forgive, because he just forgot). Such a man with one shrug throws off him all those worms which eat into other men. Only here is possible (provided that it is at all possible on earth) the real "love for one's enemy." How much respect a noble man already has for his enemies! And such a respect is already a bridge to love . . . In fact, he demands his enemy for himself, as his mark of honour. Indeed, he has no enemy other than one who has nothing to despise and a great deal to respect! By contrast, imagine for yourself "the enemy" as a man of resentment conceives him—and right here we have his action, his creation: he has conceptualized "the evil enemy,: "the evil one," and as a fundamental idea—and from that he now thinks his way to an opposite image and counterpart, a "good man"—himself!

This is found in the Genealogy of Morals(ity) in the first essay "Good and Evil, Good and Bad" at the end of section 10.

Unless I can find the section where he talks about criminals its probably best to ignore the point about socieites.

Neighbour in the "love your neighbour" passage is the word used to refer to "fellow Israilite" so would mean kinsman. I think it's saying something like "have pathos for your fellow human" rather than "feel affection for people regardless of what they do". It seems weird to ask us to have any kind of feelings towards people we don't know, so I don't feel it should apply to "the ignorant masses" or whatever. However it seems reasonable for it to apply to everyone we have significant engagement with. Given we are engaging with them we are forced to take a position on how we feel towards them. A strong character can maintain a positive stance towards them. A weak character fosters resentement.

Edit:
I found the passage I was refering to - its in essay 2 of the Genealogy, section 10:

If the power and the self-confidence of a community keeps growing, the criminal law grows constantly milder. Every weakening and profound jeopardizing of the community brings the harsher forms of criminal law to light once more. The "creditor" always became proportionally more human as he became richer. Finally the amount of his wealth itself establishes how much damage he can sustain without suffering from it. It would not be impossible to imagine a society with a consciousness of its own power which allowed itself the most privileged luxury which it can have—letting its criminals go free without punishment. "Why should I really bother about my parasites," it would then say. "May they live and prosper—for that I am still sufficiently strong!" . . . Justice, which started by stating "Everything is capable of being paid for, everything must be paid off" ends at that point, by covering its eyes and letting the person incapable of payment go free—it ends, as every good thing on earth ends, by doing away with itself. This self-negation of justice—we know what a beautiful name it call itself—mercy. It goes without saying that mercy remains the privilege of the most powerful man, or even better, his movement beyond the law.

I can't think of any attitude more fitting a follower of Christ, and yet sadly, these are the ones constantly pushing for hasher laws and fewer freedoms.