Humble

 

On Page 119 of his book, The Passionate State of Mind, Eric Hoffer writes two entries which I quote and then comment on.

 

 

Hoffer: “          212

 

Humility is not renunciation of pride but the substitution of one pride for another.”

 

My response: There is wholesome, genuine humility which may not indicate the person is actually humble in self-regard; ethically it is more important in public that one acts humble rather than arrogant: it is beneficial for social relations that one act humble, even though one is not very humble.

 

 Each person must role-play being humble, modest, discreet, diplomatic and self-effacing in public to make others feel good about themselves, to increase social harmony, and to not create a rancorous social state. If he acts humble, and does not brag or strut, his displayed humility can become an attitude of cordial modesty that becomes second nature to him, and I suggest this feigned but well-meant humility is compatible with egoism morality and individuating, while lessening social friction.

 

The pride that goes with this first account of humility is the pride of pridefulness (my term) n that is the healthy, self-realistic pride felt by an individuators that has achieved solid accomplishments, and, also, is proud in that his performance and behavior have to match or closely approximate his high self-standard or he cannot live with himself. He can be proud, act proud, and feel proud, but he must not brag or be supercilious in public, ever.

 

There is also the fake humility of the joiner that is seeking and receiving social kudos for his humble attitude. He is actually quite manipulative and seeks to grow his power in group settings.

 

The pride of pridelessness (my term) is the pride that accompanies this second, groupist, selfless sense of humility, and there is little that is good about it, but even the weak, the fake, the non-producers and the masochistic, need to feel proud of something, so their distorted humility is something for them to hang their hat onto. They are proud of their social rank and popularity.

 

I hope I am correct in assuming Hoffer is referring to something like these two kinds of pride and two kinds of humility as I independently have laid them out.

 

 

Hoffer: “          213

 

The passionate are not as a rule culturally creative, but only they make history.”

 

My response: The passionate are the intellectuals and elites that lead and rule the masses, nonindividuators and groupists, and all these assembled joiners are passionate, for they are not rational, creative or emotionally temperate. Still, being most citizens, they carry weight, and where they amble or stampede towards, that is the story of that society in that generation, and this is how they make history.

 

Individuators and great souls are culturally creative, but they are few in number, so they do not make history; still, a society of individuating supercitizens could be both culturally creative and make history as the dispassionate majority.