Comments on: Honor and Humility in the life of Jeremy Lin

By: Dwight Lindley

Dwight Lindley — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:35:06 +0000

Let’s bring it back to Mr. Joseph’s initial suggestion about Jeremy Lin: that the honor he seeks (and is paid well for seeking) is capable of being synthesized with a true Christian humility. The problem with this,as I see it, is that the honor culture of the eighteenth-century colonies and the honor culture of the contemporary NBA are two very different things. Magnanimity was possible in the former because they also privileged and fostered the many virtues that are necessary prerequisites to magnanimity (at least, acc. to Aristotle)–the cardinal virtues, certainly, but also many smaller ones. In the NBA, on the other hand, only a few virtues are cultivated, and even these are practiced only fleetingly, during and for the sake of the time they are on the court. So there’s honor there, but no magnanimity.

So I wonder whether Aquinas would be really be following along with us here.

By: Carl Eric Scott

Carl Eric Scott — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:04:19 +0000

Great thread, all.

Carson Holloway has a fine essay on the GSM here: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Carson-Holloway–Magnanimity?keyword=Carson+Holloway%2C+Magnanimity&store=book Clears up a number of questions, IMO.

On Brad’s (dangerous, for American Christians serious about Romans 13) revolution question, the key I think is how we judge the Declaration’s judgment that Britain’s actions “evince a design” towards despotism-establishment, such that the normal avoid-revolution rule of “Prudence” (and of Romans 13, albeit moderated by several famous passages in Aquinas?) doesn’t apply. Washington’s character does help illustrate the character of the Revolution, but it cannot provide its ultimate justification from a Christian perspective.

By: Jason Joseph

Jason Joseph — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:40:04 +0000

Here is Tocqueville discussing Classical and Christian views on equality:

“All the great writers of antiquity belonged to the aristocracy of masters, or at least they saw that aristocracy established and uncontested before their eyes. Their mind, after it had expanded itself in several directions, was barred from further progress in this one; and the advent of Jesus Christ upon earth was required to teach that all the members of the human race are by nature equal and alike.”

Another line worth reflecting on is the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence:
“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Sacred Honor? Sounds Classical AND Christian.

By: Brad

Brad — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:23:19 +0000

Interesting you go straight to Washington’s character when speaking about the character of the American Revolution? You’re saying Jaffa does the same but for different Aristotelian ends? Is Washington’s (and Havel’s) Christian humility a purer expression of the truth about the proposition of equality in the Declaration? Thanks for this.

By: CJ Wolfe

CJ Wolfe — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:13:36 +0000

That is a great question, Brad. I think the character in the American revolution we’d have to investigate is (of course) George Washington. Jaffa has argued that Washington fits the Aristotelian mold of magnanimity, but I’m not sure that he doesn’t better fit the mold of well-understood Christian humility. In Jaffa’s “Thomism and Aristotelianism” (p136) he points out that there is one part of Aristotelian magnanimity that Thomas doesn’t even try to fit into Christianity- the disdain and “looking down” of the great souled man. It’s pretty clear that Aristotle meant he would be “disdaining” inferior people, while Thomas interprets it as the great souled man “disdaining” inferior external goods like money. Now, my question is, did Washington show a disdain for people lower than him? I haven’t heard much evidence of that; in fact, I think Washington seems pretty similar to Havel in his long-suffering approach to the hotheads and arrogant men who surrounded him, for the benefit of the country

By: Brad

Brad — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:28:16 +0000

I like the V. Havel example (and description), Dr. Wolfe. And I’ll check out the Key’s chapter too, thanks. But curious: would this gloss on what the dissenters of communism were up to work equally well when it comes to to describing our own dissent against British tyranny? Sorry for such a huge question.

By: CJ Wolfe

CJ Wolfe — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:28:53 +0000

Lin and Tebow are all about the team, and it makes sense that their Christianity and teamwork go hand in hand. If the Knicks and the Broncos had been failures in spite of Lin and Tebow, their behavior probably have gone unnoticed by the world. But the success of these -teams- really is interesting

By: CJ Wolfe

CJ Wolfe — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:19:34 +0000

To take an example of Christian popular resistance to tyrants Brad, I think the dissenters against Communism in Eastern Europe were motivated by Christian humility, not pagan pride. Vaclav Havel was a great souled man in Aquinas’ sense, the sense of a human knowing what he is in the universe (not God but a creation of worth), and that tyrants who pretend that they are God deserve to go down. Havel and the others sufferred because of their dissent, but Havel didn’t throw a hissy fit about injustices done to him personally because there was a larger common cause at stake. A magnanimous pagan probably would have thrown a hissy fit. Mary Keys wrote a great chapter arguing this exact point in “Aquinas, Aristotle, and the Promise of the Common Good” that I highly recommend

By: Brad

Brad — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:42:05 +0000

Great and witty reminder, Jaffanese American. But perhaps pounding the boards for rebounds and breaking tackles (even on Sundays) is a much easier thing for the Christian than preaching popular resistance to tyrants?

By: Jaffanese American

Jaffanese American — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 21:31:12 +0000

But doesn’t slavery to God lead to defiance of tyrants–including the rejection of the devil and all his works (to pick up on the latest Santorum flap)? That’s still not the same as the pride of classical political philosophy, but it is not simple meekness either. Nothing about Christianity that would hinder Lin from crashing the boards or Tebow from barreling over a defender.