On Pride

The crowd gathers around. One now two, three then four…like atoms smashing together and colliding, a body begins to form. How can bodies unite as one, when one can distinguish one-another? The preacher walks to the pulpit, already wagging his finger. He calls for the extirpation of human nature…yet one must ask, what is meant by human nature? They begin, “Brothers, Sisters, comrades all alike…I stand before you today as a person. A person lost in their ways, flooded by desires and thoughts. One who is like all of you in nature, yet unlike you in acts. This corruption that we have leads us astray, each–to their own way, but in unison, all lost.” The crowd listens attentively, anticipating his next words. The crowd loves oratory; for the style? To be serenaded? One can only guess. He continues, “I will now shed all formalities, I shall speak plainly…the gospel I preach is not to be coated in wisdom of this world, not the fancies of grammar, nor the deceptive allure of prose…we must leave behind sin. We must…we must…those seven deadly sins: Pride, Greed, Wrath, Envy, Lust, Gluttony, and Sloth, I lay them before you. They are the foundation upon which all sins emanate. However, today…this very instance, I wish to speak on Pride.” The crowd falters, each disturbed…for is not pride the sum of who we are? And when the who of a person is threatened, what then are they? “You are them, I am them, we embody them…pride my friend is dangerous, and we must do all we can to weed it out of our lives.” 

What is right? 

  When it comes to exploration of that which is right (acceptable) and wrong (unacceptable), there ought to be a grander exploration. Are the stipulations to be founded on a subjective bedrock, or an objective core? However, I am convinced we are posing an incomplete question—and therefore are led astray. How so? One must ask; whichever road we traverse, there is the snare of falling into administering ideals, maxims, or ideas which do not account for a holistic view of the object to define, and the environment it resides in, and when played out, a mental agony suffered by the subject. In a vacuum many of these ideas are plausible, and possible. However, one must not go far to realize society is far from that. There seems to be a direct conflict, at times, between what we perceive to be a correct way to live, and the environment that impedes, or limits that way of being. For example, Society has an obsession with ethics; a quest to discover what is right…and noble to do. One has to be amused, because the fabric of society itself is built upon an act to do right, and a will to wrong. One is met with a conflict in society, and as a consequence human nature, whereupon there is a tendency to do right, and at once the impulse to harm.

  All of this talk of human nature begs the question…just what is human nature? I believe that this question runs the risk of infinite responses…thus, we can simply and safely conclude human nature to be whatever it is humans are capable of doing. What is within nature, allows the animal to operate the way it does. Human nature therefore includes a variety of acts: from the random act of kindness, to the deliberate act of malice; from the sweet words bathed on another, to the disturbing-arrows that pierce the heart; technological advancements that can potentially cure illnesses, to those that can destroy life at a level hitherto unfathomable. The question that ought to be asked is two fold, which is not the subject of this essay: (1) What is the original state of human nature? And (2) How can we operate in a furnished state, where one does not incessantly seek to kill the other? 

  Now that we have sufficiently described human nature, there seems to be, under the conflict that is found, a grand disillusionment of what it means to be human. Further, a cognitive dissonance of the soul. I do not speak of hypocrisy…for this disillusionment seems to arise from a conflict, an epistemic realization, not a conscious choice to acclaim to the self virtues not had…but the mechanical wiring of a system that is constituted of both good and evil impulses. Of traits in excess and depravity. The Apostle Paul exclaims in one place, “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do (Romans 7:15.)” This is the conflict we all endure, walking around with masks…pointing the finger at another, seeking to dictate right or wrong, and at once failing. This is not to be interpreted as me preaching, but rather a critique of the society we inhabit, the churches we attend, the friend groups we find ourselves in, and the selves we persecute. 

Body or Soul?

  Whether in the Church, or the Philosophical Cathedral one will encounter a discussion between the body and soul; between the various pleasures that prick our interests, and of which does one acquiesce. The best example of such a discussion is found in the church, where there is a pogrom against the flesh. There is constant expression of this verse: “walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh (Galatians 5:16.)” There are various permutations uttered daily by individuals. I can already hear the crowd picking up their pitchforks, a mob forming…and in unison accusing me of denying the path that we ought to walk, and the sin we must uproot from our lives. To those critiques I have two answers: (1) I do not deny the fact that this world is covered by sin, that I am a sinner…just as much as anyone else, that I can be a hypocrite, a liar, debaser, lustful, and a myriad of other things. I too realize that I must work to overcome these, and indeed if I am under Christ, I am daily undergoing a process of sanctification. These are not mere mechanical utterances, but a deep realization that indeed I am part of those whom Christ came to heal. (2) I respond by calling all those who wish to disagree instantly, to examine yourself–not in a matter of not throwing the first stone, but which of you can wake up from the morrow and cease to sin? Further, what do you mean by the flesh? And can one separate natural desires that arise from the body, and twisted ones that arise from the like? 

  There seems to be a pogrom against the flesh–whereupon it ought to be exterminated…and I must ask why? Why is it that we come to this point? If we define the flesh as the desires we hold, then indeed I agree. If defined as the system (the body) from which the desires themselves arise from, I disagree. In using the latter, we have caused collateral damage to the body, and mind. 

As a concrete example I now turn to the impulse of procreation, or sex. Human beings are sexual beings…we get aroused when attracted to the opposite sex; we get excited at the sight of an attractive man or woman, that is a natural thing. However, seemingly in the church this aspect of our being is persecuted. One cannot be aroused without thinking they have committed a mortal sin. One cannot be physically attracted to the opposite sex without thinking they have been tempted. This leads to a distortion of human sexuality–a degradation, whereupon our sexual needs are suppressed, these sexual callings, gifts from God are repressed. I ask then why are we surprised when a preacher is caught having affairs? When society explodes in a lightshow of sex here and there? When many are troubled by the desires they have? The frustration of having desires, yet feeling it a sin to accept them as pure? The cries of many who even in a marriage are repulsed by the idea of sex? Do we need to ground our sexuality on a healthy basis? Yes indeed, I assent to that claim. However, the way in which that base is constructed leads to an  unhealthy view–both from the society, and in the church. In the church its restrictiveness leads to numerous issues; in society its unbounded openness leads to difficulties as well. This issue underpins a larger sociological issue: We do not understand at all what sex is, nor do we comprehend the way it ought to be enjoyed. One side views it in a purely spiritual light…masking it as a thing to not do until marriage. The other views it simply as a means of pleasure, ignoring the connection that bolsters its enjoyment. A misunderstanding that many use sex as a way to soothe…or to another a validation of masculinity, still to another as a coping mechanism for abuse endured in the past. A lack of critique of sex, leads to the adoption of numerous falsities of it. 

United Flesh

  We have minimized what it means to be human, in order to achieve Godhood. Unfortunately, no man will ever achieve such a feat. I speak not in the spiritual sense of holiness, but in the sense of ignoring our human nature, to adopt a nature we are meant to operate under…that is meant to furnish the human soul. Christ himself was born of the flesh…and his living dictates how the human flesh submitted to God can operate. Indeed he calls for us to overcome the desires of the flesh—those that whisk us away from respecting one’s dignity and those that cause us to cower from responsibility. A soul under Christ ought to embody the purity of sex…in the sense that the desires and outlook on sex is healthy. That in the bedroom there is not an intention of selfishness—not the intention of pleasing one’s self and ignoring one’s partner. To achieve climax while one’s partner is unsatisfied–which is a cry that many women utter. I agree that indeed since the mind (divinity) is the locus of decisions, it ought to be protected…and at once agree that the body, which is the command tower, and desires (which are the hungers of the soul) are to be nurtured. Under such a conception all three work in unison in order for the human system to operate well. Epicurus in his letter to Menoeceus entails the goals of happy living to be, “bodily health, and imperturbability of mind.” The mind cannot work without the body, and the body cannot work without the mind. The goal that we must have in mind is to furnish the two at once. 

Pride

  It should be noted that the discussion at hand is not about sex–but pride, which we must now turn to. We have, like sex, misunderstood what pride is. Further, as a compulsion of our nature we have fallen into a disillusionment and applied a maxim that simply leads to the mental imprisonment of many individuals. “Cease this talk,” one says, “does not the good book speak on pride goeth before the fall?” And to that I respond, a guideless pride leads to our fall. There appears in the seasons of actions a time for everything. The same book quoted affirms that for every season…for every moment…there is a time. There is a time to be confident in one’s self, and a time to admit ignorance…there is a time to stand up against the crowd, and a time to lay back. There is a time to fight, and a time for peace. What we have done with pride, and many other things, is radicalize them (as stated earlier). There is a consistent administering of an unfeasible or incomplete maxim. 

  Take for example the verse, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well (Matthew 5:38-40.)” Let us break from arguments, it is silly to believe that Christ calls for us to be defenseless…to allow someone to abuse us, to hit us, and we go back to them…that is simply ridiculous. What is meant here is to not repay evil for evil, that though we want revenge we ought to leave that up to God…not allowing the evil within our enemy to enter into our hearts. I struggle with this, for at times I wish to hit back…sometimes I do and it can be destructive…and sometimes I do, and it ends up being productive, and conducive to mending a broken relationship. The fact of the matter is, we are not to be passive in our going, nor our entering. I speak not as well that we are violent…more so that we ought to be vigilant. That we ought to respond, yes as hard as it is–and as hard as I struggle, to hatred with love. Love does not mean we stay when we are hit, but to reiterate, we distance…we remove ourselves instead of falling for the bait, so to say. In one place a Christian utters this verse, and in another speaks of protection, and the need for such. In one place utters this verse, and in another wishes to find a husband that protects. In one place utters another verse, and in another sneers at one’s incapacity to love a woman. In one place dictates that we ought to  not be prideful, and in another acts in a manner that upholds self-respect. It is not hypocrisy, but rather disillusionment. 

  What we need, and what is constantly ignored, is a healthy view of pride. Society critiques pride, but respects the one who harbors it. Society argues that pride is destructive, but realizes the importance of it. Society dictates that one ought to be humble, but takes advantage of the one who is. The reason? The terms that are used are not properly defined, which is a plague in society—a lack of clear communication and communicators. I propose to first solve the issue of the incomplete maxim, there is to be added a “but” to the clause. For example: One must be kind BUT when disrespected must protect their dignity; one must be a peace seeker BUT if attacked should defend the self; one ought to be humble BUT be cognizant of their abilities; one must not be prideful BUT have pride in one’s self. Machiavelli once exclaimed, “A man who wishes to profess at all times will come to ruin among so many who are not good (The Prince.)” I do not speak here of the deliberate schemes that society uses to prey on the weak–or those they deem so. In the affairs of mankind, one indeed can never be “good” always…for there is the risk of being taken advantage of, whether consciously or unconsciously; deliberately or accidentally. A holistic person is the one with the capability to balance the various impulses of human nature; to be kind, and when it calls for it cruel. To accept a certain thing, and to assert one’s ideas when one does not agree. 

  The critique I have against every single member of society is two fold, including myself: 1) There seems to be an expectancy of perfect hood, and at once 2) They themselves are not perfect. This leads to exactly the idealization of individuals, to strip from them human nature…and imbue into them godlike status. There seems to be a search for certain individuals to contain the maxims society itself cannot hold; hence, heralding one person as the paragon of a certain trait, and decimating them when they have failed. The issue is not about being perfect…nor is it the case that one’s status: being perfect or not, determines their worth, the respect they ought to be given, admiration, and otherwise. The important factor is this: Are you trying your best every day? Are you growing every day? We ought to cease looking for objects of perfection, and fix our regard on people of progress; those who admit their faults and are conscious, and make an effort to grow. Any man, woman…individual who submits to the disillusioned principles of society will come to ruin, and will be agonized in mind, for the crowd is likened to a mob, they change and switch…they put on their masks and act…they command you to do X, Y, and Z…when they themselves do not know X, Y, or Z. They bash your heads with ideals of what is right, they command submission…they antagonize the opposition…yet they themselves are disillusioned to their own state. At the end of the day, when the curtains are drawn, each looks into the mirror, seeing the very traits they condemn. Each becomes aware of the struggle within. 

Of Myself

   I will greatly admit that I am a person of pride, and I shall live and die on that mountain. Pride is the realization that each person you come across is not far removed in human nature. Each has dignity to be respected–yet none are God, which then bolsters confidence in the self, that I too am someone, that I too am a person, that I too am to be proud of who I am. Self-respect is an ought in order to be human. This includes thinking for oneself, making one’s own decisions, being one’s own person, that indeed we ought to be prudent and listen to the words of another, but ultimately it is our decision that matters…all these are included in pride. There is further realization, as Shakespeare says, “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players.” If this be true, which I entirely agree, there is a need to laugh at the critique heaped upon the self by others…not that one is not cognizant when wrong, or accountable, but to laugh at insults…at baseless accusations, and realizing that the self is not defined by what others say, but what you say and act…of yourself. All men and women are playing a game, one of power and control; one of status and seek of respect…one of testing their opponents, to humiliate, to conquer. There is nothing more to do except laugh. To go on a quick tangent, I do not care anymore to express that I am not perfect…at this point it must be a given. Think of it like a deductive argument: 

Premise 1: If someone is human, then they are not perfect.

Premise 2: Someone [insert name] is human

Conclusion: Therefore, [person] is not perfect. 

Now to pick off, I am a person of pride. I am unapologetic about that. I only have God and myself to discuss with, and I owe my fellow humans the responsibility of respecting their dignity; I try to, and I seek to….every single day. So my message to you: Be a person of pride, but do not be prideful. Do not be blinded…remain not in an ivory tower, but walk amongst people. However, in your stroll, hold your head up high. Therefore, pick up your head…find your own path…forge your own way. Be your own person. One of the Delphic maxims states: “Know thyself”…to that I add, “dare to be unapologetically yourself, separated from the crowd.”