Brett wrote:
>Humility is a *choice* for a superior person, not an necessity (as
opposed
>to humility being a necessity for the person who does not have the
correct
>answer to a "math problem", for example 1+1). Allowing for an incorrect
>answer to the problem is one of grace...the time for grace will run out
for
>people who cling to inferior answers.
Humility is essentially interacting with one's fellows without ever
resorting to the ad hominem arguement. If you are a superior man who is
not humble then you must engage in ad hominem arguments. Ad hominem
arguments are fallacious. How can a superior man engage in fallacious
arguments? For to engage in fallacious reasoning is to be wrong at some
point <it is statistically inevitable> and how could a superior man be
wrong?
The humble man listens and learns without ever labeling an idea as inferior
... or labeling as inferior someone that believes in an idea that a humble
man considers unfeasible. For instance, I now grant that you are a
superior man as further interaction with you would waste my time and annoy
you; the superior man. I first learned this principle when my grandfather
explained to me that teaching pigs to dance is generally considered
un-feasible. Pardon me for explaining the reference for the other inferior
readers of the list. In begging your pardon I begin to wonder at what
point does one become a superior person? Is it at birth or is it a trait
that is acquired? If acquired is it modal ... that is in one instant I am
inferior and the next superior? It would certainly benefit an inferior man
to be humble so he may learn and obtain the position of a superior man.
But if superiority is modal how is the inferior person to know they have
entered the superior state? Wouldn't it be awful as an inferior person to
mistakenly assume you have entered the superior state ... and thus doom
yourself to inferiority forever?
Inferior minds wish to know.