Confidence

 

 

On Page 78 of his book, The Passionate State of Mind, Eric Hoffer wrote two entries which I shall quote and then comment on.

 

Hoffer: “          136

 

We have more faith in what we imitate than in what we originate. We cannot derive a sense of absolute certitude from anything which has its roots in us. The most poignant sense of insecurity comes from standing alone; we are not alone when we imitate.”

 

My response: I had no doubt that Eric Hoffer was the first Mavellonialist, but this entry confirms it in my mind. Note that people can only have faith or much faith in what they imitate, not in what they originate. It is the individualist, the individuators, the great soul that originates and creates. He cannot exhibit, demonstrate or actually feel absolute certitude about his world view, about himself, about the god he follows and serves, or the project he is bringing to life, for three reasons.

 

 First, he is hugely confident just to stand alone and create, for his self-esteem and self-assuredness is very high; still, what he believes in is invisible, intangible, will-of-the-wisp. He can never totally shed self-doubt: is he a solipsist, alone in the universe or living his own private fantasy? Is he flat wrong about everything? Does his near boundless sense of rightness amount to the same thing as what is actually true and factual?

 

Second, he is very rational and loves truth: this means, he understands that there is always  a risk that he is merely self-deluded, biased, ignorant, willfully blind or mistaken.

 

Third, he is a moderate epistemically: truth is multifaceted and complex, and he may have missed including some vital insight into his theory of creativity and production.

 

By contrast with the maverick and maverizer, the joiner, the nonindividuator, the true-believer, whether impassioned and energized, or snoring and sleepwalking, imitates and allows the group to do his thinking. Where there is no basis whatsoever in feeling confident about the subjective, emotional, communal, popular narratives or metanarrative of the pack and clique—and these narratives and metanarrative by accident may be wise, truthful and beneficial, but that is not why the collectivized joiner has absolute certainty about these beliefs and attitudes—there, the joiner has absolute certitude about his rightness, based upon his fanatical, absolute sense of being right, superior and wise.

 

Finally, even the most ardent individuator is a social creature and loves companionship, and a secretly seeks and craves a adulating, deferential clique of yay-sayers approving openly and repeatedly with one’s narrative and ideas, and are willing to stand with one out in the world for all to see, so without group support, one emotionally feels uncertain, no matter how wise, accurate  and logical is one’s original insights.

 

When a true-believer lies and is irrational about his spurious, shallow narratives and attitudes, he must present himself and his views to himself, to his pack and to the world as views of absolute truth and superiority, though they are nothing of the kind.

 

 

Groupists are absolutely certain about the worth of the sentimental claptrap that they devote their lives too, because they have an army of enthusiastic suppsorters backing them in wholehearted solidarity, all of one mind, and pure unity and uniformity of outlook and opinion.

 

 

 

Hoffer:  “         137

 

A  valid index by which to evaluate the influence other people have on us is by how much they increase or decrease our benevolence toward our fellow man.”

 

My response: This entry is a little harder for me to decipher, but Hoffer seems to suggest that if we are individualists and persons of good will, we will be fairly benevolent towards our fellow man.

 

If we are groupists, joiners, animated by altruist-collectivist morality, we likely will pick up all the hatred, bias and malevolence that our group feels and acts out against all rival groups, tribes, nations, loners and dissident individuals.