Humility, Humility, and Humility

For starters, I'd like to thank you all again for the comments you've made. No matter how rhetorically harsh my response, I really do appreciate everyone's help in pointing out the weaknesses of my proposals. Whoever we are and wherever we are, we must accept the limits of our ability to both understand a certain issue and explain it. As humans, we are steeped in ignorance in any number of areas. There is so much to know in the world, we cannot possibly claim to know it all (or even much of it for that matter). This leads me to what I want to say in this post. I hope I have made it clear how this form of greatness is actually a manifested humility in which we turn from our concerns and we become concerned primarily with what is truly good for others. However, humility lurks closely in both the perfect application of this and its imperfect application. When applied perfectly, we are made humble in that we hold others concerns more highly than our own. When applied imperfectly, we are also humbled at the reality of our inabilities.

The Humility of Inability:

I believe a statement which says that love (as I've described) is impossible for human persons to achieve is more or less a true statement. However, this limit is not a limitation of potential or the possibility of loving, but it is a limitation in either our knowledge of, or desire for, the other person's good. With that, I think it seems simply true that we should struggle to train ourselves--by way of habit--to love others in the way I've been describing for some time now. So, what shall we make of our failures and our inabilities? The answer is humility.

We often fail to love others and fail to treat them as we would want to be treated, this is often because we don't know how to love others and thus can't choose properly which action to take. We are ignorant of so many things in this world, and indeed one of them is how we ought to treat others. We must approach situations in which it is difficult to understand the proper course of action with humility. In these situations our pride says, "There is nothing to be done here." On another hand, our humility would say, "There is something to be done here, I am just not quite sure what it is." Though there may be a true ambiguity in our understanding, there may still be a possible response to the situation. ALL people are deserving of our love. And so where there is a person, there love is required. Humility sees this, and the habit of humility expects this, even in situations where the loving response is unknown to us. Humility helps us not only to accept the ambiguities we face each day, but it also reminds us that we are to be ready to love others even when a certain and concrete course of action is unknown. Sometimes all we can do is act with a sincere intention for another's good.

As I said at the beginning, we must accept the limits of our ability to both understand a certain issue and explain it. Analogously, we need to accept the limits of our ability to both understand a situation and take the proper course of action in it. When we don't love due to a lack of desire for the other's good, we are humbled by the reality that there is a standard that we are capable of, although we fail to achieved it. In this we demonstrate that we lack a power critical to loving, and as I said, this power is the power to desire the good of someone else. Realizing that we are not able to exercise this power to do good should also humble us. This is because we have demonstrated our inability to reach a standard of loving that was possible for us to attain. If we know we can do something for others and do not perform, the internal disposition that is developed by humility is guilt or remorse. In our society today guilt and remorse are bad things; thus, we have gotten rid of many notions of a standard that we are to adhere to in our actions. However, guilt and remorse are not primarily negative, but when they are properly ordered they stir us to feel bad about ways we've failed so we will be reminded to do better next time.

Although, as usual, I am not satisfied with my treatment of all of these points (and the limit of my own mind), I think it's true that when we perfectly apply the form of life I've presented in this project, then humility is required. Also, when we fail to understand what course of action is needed to truly love others, we are to respond with humility. Lastly, when we fail to exercise our ability to love even when we knew the right course of action, we are to be humbled. Thus, if anyone desires to achieve greatness (or at least attempt it), they must be ready to accept humility, humility, and humility, and desire to be the servant of all. Perhaps though, as mere humans, we will never attain the perfect form of greatness that loves perfectly. In that case, maybe, by means of humility, we need seek help beyond what we can give ourselves. Perhaps only One can love perfectly, and the only way for us to begin achieve this form of love is to sit at the feet of the Master and learn.

What is this greatness I speak of?

Last weekend I went to a conference at the University of Notre Dame, and I heard a talk that discussed the children's story by Shel Silverstein: The Giving Tree (1964). For those of you who are unfamiliar, The Giving Tree is about a relationship between a young boy and a tree in a forest. The tree always provides the boy with what he wants: branches to swing on, shade to sit in, apples to sell for money, branches with which to build a home. As the boy grows older he requires more and more of the tree. The tree loves the boy very much and gives him anything he asks for. And as the tree loses the branches, apples, and etc. she never grows any of them back so as to really be giving each once and for all. In the ultimate act of self-sacrifice, the tree lets the boy cut down her trunk so the boy can build a boat on which he can sail. The boy leaves the tree, now a stump. Many years later, the boy, now an old man, returns and the tree says, "I have nothing left to give you." The boy replies, "I do not need much now, just a quiet place to sit and rest." The tree then says, "Good! A tree stump is a great place to do just that! Come boy, sit down and be happy." The boy obliged and the tree was happy.

Now this story has classically been interpreted as depicting the greatness of self-giving love. The tree will do anything the boy wants even at the cost of giving away all that she has. In many ways, I believe the author intends to show a proper parent-child relationship. Parents give continually for the happiness of their children, and insofar as the child achieves happiness, the parent is also happy. However, in the end I hope you are as appalled at this story as I am. The selfishness of the child, especially late in his adult life, when he asks for the most substantial portion of the tree for a boat is unbearable for me. I could stay on this point, but I think there is an even more egregious part to this story: the action of the tree that is fundamentally opposed to love and greatness.

It is not enough to simply give ourselves away so that others can be happy. I have an assumption that the author knew what he was doing when he continued to refer to the man as a boy even until the end of the book. But who is to blame for this elderly boyhood? The tree is at least as much if not more at fault than the boy himself. A child is only supposed to be dependent on their parents temporarily, but eventually they are to learn how to be self-sufficient. (Mom/Dad if you ever read this, I promise I'm trying!) The point is that all self-sacrifice for others isn't good or loving. If the tree wanted to do what was truly good for the boy, the tree would have said "No." to him even though the boy wouldn't have liked it. Instead, what the tree was doing was poisoning the boy by giving everything he wanted immediately. The true good of the boy wasn't what made him happy in the moment, but rather the true good would have been a refusal of his immediate want so that he could learn to provide for himself. And good parenting, I can only suppose, would involve slowly teaching the child to provide for himself by giving less and less until eventually there is no need to give anything. I draw on this example because I wanted to remind us all that love is desiring or willing the good of another even over our own good, and good is not synonymous with immediate happiness. Good, rather, teaches others how to love in the same way.

Although I am reluctant to define greatness because it is such a broad thing and I don't want it to become narrow in my mind or anyone else's, I will say that it is aimed at this point: to bring out that which is good, or rather, that which is best in you and me. To use our tremendous human capacity to do amazing things (like flying to extra-terrestrial surfaces) in order to do more good than the world has ever seen. The greatness I speak of, and am striving to achieve, is the ability to love. More specifically, greatness is the ability to decide well (be prudent) about how, when, what, and who to love. Greatness is the ability to love those who truly need love but, by some injustice, are not being loved. Greatness is the ability to be strong and steadfast in love (especially when it is hardest to love). Greatness is the ability to moderate our love of others, unlike the giving tree. We are to try to love only to the extent that we can. And, love in a way that puts others in a position to be able to achieve greatness themselves. In this way, we don't concern ourselves with simply what people want, but we are concerned about what the actual greatest benefit of others is. Sometimes we are faced with decisions that are not between good and bad options, but between options that are either good or better. With this in mind, "great"-ness itself is by definition vague because it denotes the condition that is above or better than what is merely good. Though it is vague, it describes something real (not everything in life is simply concrete, we need to realize that our inner dispositions affect the concrete). Greatness is a culmination of knowing the truly good that we can do for others and the desire to achieve that good to the highest degree we can.

In my opinion, to define greatness any more than this would be foolish. There are as many expressions of greatness as there are people in the world. Each of us is made to be great, but perhaps the first question that each of us needs to ask is, "How am I, unique yet incredible, called to become great during this short life I've been given?" When the answer to this question is governed by understanding greatness as essentially about others, only then can we begin the journey for greatness. We will not be afraid or unhappy because our regard will not be primarily for ourselves (humility). We will not be suicide bombers, which may be supposed and bestowed martyrdom but is not true martyrdom. This is because we will have regard for ourselves insofar as we see that our lives are a gift and they are a gift to be given so that others may have full lives. The true martyrs in the world are those who embrace martyrdom each and everyday. No matter if they are blessed with the opportunity to give their lives once and for all, they are prepared to do the harder thing and give their lives completely again today as they did yesterday for the sake of what is truly Good.

Thanks for the comments you all made on my last post. Please continue to give me feedback.

With the tremendous capacity unique to humans, and love that expels all fear, let us pursue a greatness that the world has never seen!

Act of Greatness!

In my last post I tried to treat the fundamental goodness of humans. Although I admit I did not sufficiently treat this point, for my excuse I argue that I didn't use the tool proper to treating it: life. It is my hope that this fundamental goodness of humans will become clearer when I get to the applications of greatness that I'd like to discuss in this and many postings to follow. Two things, however, that I did establish are (1) humans are capable of great good and great evil (beyond that of any creature on earth), and (2) this comes from a capacity planted within us that is unique to humankind, which includes you and me individually. In this post, I would like to look at an ancient example of a great action and then bring out what was going on in the person doing the act. And, through this example, I will propose to you the foundation that is necessary for becoming great. So here it is:


"He sat down and observed how the crowd put money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow also came and put in two small coins worth a few cents. Calling his followers to himself, he said to them, 'I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury. For they have all contributed from their surplus wealth, but she, from her poverty, has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood.'"


So let's look at this story and examine it. The first question that needs to be asked is what is the first indicator that this is a great act? It's simple, let's not over think! Thinking thusly, we must confirm that it is the reality that "from her poverty, she has contributed all she had, her whole livelihood." If you ask the most prudent people whether such behavior should be done, they will almost unanimously respond "No." However, the greatness of the action of this woman has to do with the combination of the situation her life has put her in and, for one reason or another, her motivation to being generous. Prudent people need to take such factors into account as well.

Her Situation:
This woman has already lost her husband and because of this has neither someone immediate to love nor someone to love her/take care of her (financially--it was a patriarchal society, emotionally, etc...). And moreover, losing a loved one (especially a beloved spouse) is one of the hardest things to go through in life for any person (and rightfully so because humans are very important--especially ones that we are close to) and I would imagine that this woman losing her husband would have been difficult for her. That is the poverty in her life. But, in this situation she has the opportunity to use her incredible capacity to choose for the best things. She has at least these two choices: (1) Focus on what she's lost in losing her husband (this no doubt can take a lot of time and energy from a person--and should for at least some time) or (2) Though she's lost her husband, she can realize, eventually, that she is still able to find people to love and entrust herself to someone that will love her.

Her Motivation:
As I have already referred to, her motivation, and the motivation for all of us who strive to become great, is love. Now this word can be confused to mean many things in our world, but I would like to propose a definition to you that I hope you will like very much. Simply put, love is willing or desiring the good of another (over even our own good). This why it is proper that martyrs are so revered. They have truly given their whole livelihood for the sake of others. The lady in the story is not giving to this extent, but she is definitively loving those outside of herself. Even when it would be reasonable for her to be consumed with her situation, she rises above that and takes concern for the situation of others. Now, as I said, this requires much trust. Although I could talk about where she's placing her trust (I hope it clear that her trust is in Love Himself), I would like to simply propose that it is in this incredible letting go of herself and her own situation that she can really love and be loved.

Now what does this mean for us? Many of us think of becoming great is opposed to humility. But the fascinating paradox of greatness is that it is only through humility--a realization of our own poverty--that it can happen. We have to let go of the emotional burdens and anxieties caused by the poverties in our life. Because of the poverties we see in the our lives today we are often motivated to selfishness and greed (among others). Perhaps life wouldn't be so bad for us if we were not always thinking about ourselves. Perhaps this would improve our lives and would give us a vision for improving the lives of others! Fundamentally this is a conquering of fear. To be great we need to be freed from fear so that we can love, and the more we are concerned with others, the less we are concerned with ourselves and our own fears. To be great we need to let go of our worries and frustrations caused by the poverties that turn us inward to our own seemingly wretched state.

I am not supposing that we forget about ourselves completely, in a single moment for the rest of our lives, for the sake of others (unless that is being asked of you in some actual way i.e. you are faced with real persecution or martyrdom). Actually, it is necessary that we do take care of ourselves, but even this is only so that we can do more for the sake of others. The reality of love is that even when we are to be concerned for ourselves it is for the greater benefit of others. This is the inner disposition to greatness: self-giving, self-denying, and self-forgetting love even though it seems all we have is poverty. No matter what situation we find ourselves in we are never beyond the human reality that we are to love--to look outside of ourselves at all times for the sake of the others.

With the tremendous capacity unique to humans, and love that expels all fear, let us pursue a greatness that the world has never seen!

Human vs Animal vs Vegetable vs Rock (Part 2)

To begin, I will remind you of the two principles I'd like to shortly (and certainly insufficiently) discuss in this post. The first is that humans have a power (or capacity) to do unplumbed, immeasurable, and unimagined things (whether greatly good or greatly bad). The second principle is that humans are fundamentally good. With that I must say that this, I hope, is my last speculative post before I start drawing on more practical circumstances in life. Sorry for all of you who prefer the concrete. If you prefer, you can take my two principles as granted and wait for subsequent posts. Moreover, I apologize for my tardiness in posting this; unfortunately writing blog posts is not my only commitment in life, and I like to think of it more as a hobby than a commitment. In any event, here is the highly touted and long awaited "first post of substantial content" in The Form of Life project.

The 20th century was a century in which we witnessed, in a tremendous way, the great extent of human power. I cannot help but think that humans are now remarkable creatures of flight in which sound barriers are broken and man can (and has) tread on extra-terrestrial surfaces. Medical advances are made so that we can deny pandemics and cure people of illnesses that used to be decidedly fatal. The beauty of the human mind has been realized even in huge skyscrapers made for cities. I am personally fascinated by it every time I drive downtown, and at night it can be especially beautiful. The point here is that life is at least more impressive and easier because of these things and in some cases it is entirely better. This is no doubt due to the incredible power of the human mind.

However, with the increase of technology, the 20th Century has provided us with fascinating ingenuity in regards to genocide. More people have been killed, in more efficient ways, than in any century prior to the 20th at the hands of humans. The world had never experienced something that could be rightfully designated a "World War." And after what was thought to be the War To End All Wars, there was another World War. I propose to you that any war of this magnitude, and efficient killing techniques, is only made possible by the great technological advances that were created by the minds of humans. Think for one moment about the awesome power of destruction that is found in an atomic bomb... I could go on with this point and the one above point about the great good that is brought by the human mind. Those points alone could be made into a book. But for my purposes I find that to be unnecessary. I am not against technology, I only want to suggest that not all technology is good (and there are many examples of things that were created with explicitly evil intentions). And most of all I want to bring out the reality that this is done by the incredible and not yet fully realized power of the human person.

What is the point of all this? The point is that there's something about humans that makes them capable of much more good and much more bad than any of the other creatures on earth. And this is made clear by the simple fact that we have been able to harness our minds and the natural world in order to produce incredibly fascinating results. Theologically, this is rooted in Genesis 1:26, "Let us create man in our image, in our likeness." God is able to create and he makes man like him--able to create. There are many answers that explain in what ways we are like God and in his image, but one of them is for sure our ability to, in a special way, participate with God in creating. It is because of this tremendous ability to create that producing great good and great bad is not new to humans, and most likely the trend will continue.

So this leads me to bring up the question about why it is obvious to me that people are fundamentally good. Why would I think this? Have I not heard about all the murder in the 20th Century? But it's really quite simple. We are good because we exist as human beings. This is not so apparent to most people, and it most certainly is not a simple point, but -- as humans -- we exist in a manner that is different than any other thing that exists. So, by existing as humans, we bring something unique to the world that only we as humans can. Although this can be manifested in doing great things, the fundamental goodness of humans is found in the reality that we have the capacity to do good beyond that of any other creature on the face of the earth.

To me, this is all that is needed to show that we our fundamentally good. For Aristotle, the essential quality of something is what makes it a distinct kind of thing. And as humans, we are earthly beings with an unrivaled ability to deliberate between good and bad (or even good and better) and choose according to that deliberation. So what makes us fundamentally good? It is not that we do great things, but it is because we have the capacity in us to do great things. If you are human, this is true for you (even if you never have or never will use this capacity). If someone else is human, this is true for them as well. You deserve to be respected as someone who can, at any moment, bring a great amount of good to the world, even if you are not currently doing that. And you should treat others with the equivalent respect that you believe you deserve.

So, if we are all fundamentally good, why do we call some people bad? Because they have decided to use this capacity to pursue bad things instead of good things (or simply good things instead of the best things). By pursuing bad things or lesser goods on numerous occasions they have developed a tendency within themselves to continue doing these things. This is what I call a good person "becoming" bad. Although a human being can never completely lose their capacity to do good, they can obscure this capacity so that they tend to do and pursue bad things even more. Alternatively, by pursuing good things we can develop a tendency in us to pursue good things even more. This is what goes into "becoming" good. For in this regard we can understand what Christ says in Mark 10:18, "No one is good—except God alone." These are the points I would like to discuss in my next post.

Sorry this is so long; thanks for your time. Let us pursue greatness beyond what the world has yet seen!