More Modesty

Smith says, "I conclude, then, that the modest person is one who applies a different—indeed, a higher—set of standards than others might apply to her case" and I am convinced that he is wrong. One ought to apply the correct set of standards, not ones that are higher than those that others may apply. Imagine a grade school child who, despite receiving and A on his short story, laments that fact that his stories pale in comparison to Kafka. This child is not being modest, he is being foolish.

He discusses the arrogance of philosophers in his section VIII. Why Modesty is a Virtue: Consequences but I do not think that this tells us anything about modesty. The mean between arrogance and excess humility was pride for Aristotle, not modesty and thus I think that Smith's point could be made just as well by recommending pride rather than modesty. Reading this paper and thinking about modesty in general has led me to the conclusion that modesty is no virtue after all. Unless I am mistaken it did not arise as a virtue until the Christian times and I believe that, as Flanagan's view accepts and as your view sort of accepts at the end (I think), modesty requires that one view his accomplishments against a backdrop that renders them or his role in them insignificant. There is something out there that if taken into consideration would force one to the conclusion that he is not so special after all. This, to me, clearly stems from Christianity and thus ought to be jettisoned along with the religion if we are not to take its theology seriously anymore. Aristotle did not worry about modesty and I do not think that modern virtue theorists should either.

Pride, I think, is the real virtue. (Smith's last section seems to be discussing the value of pride not modesty.) To be proud is to believe truly that one is of value. The proud person does not underestimate or overestimate his worth nor does he go around telling everyone about how great he is as such conduct belies a sort of underestimation in that he needs to approval of others in order to believe that he or his work is of value. There is no need to go into greater detail here, however, but what I think is important is that much of what has been said about what is good about modesty is really what is good about pride. In the end, it would seem that modesty requires those who are great to never truly accept it (they may accept that there work is great compared to others, that they can do extraordinary things, etc. but never that they are great) and this is a sad thing I think. To be such a special sort of person and yet to never accept it is a true shame as it deprives that person of self-knowledge. (There is much more to be said here.) Pride on the other hand requires that one have that self-knowledge and is thus superior as it gives one the correct view of things. Now of course this sort of view is in trouble if what you are saying about the value of the individual is true. So let's talk about this at our meeting.