.
I very humbly make this declaration, convinced of its truth. Since it is true, this conclusion has as much validity as any other truth, be it scientific, or even religious. Its truth and validity are also upheld by the fact that I am great.
There seems to be contradiction involved to one who views these conclusions for the first time. This is not unusual. In fact, it is true very generally that viewing conclusions alone, without knowing their basis, inevitably produces such seeming contradictions.
To remove the seeming contradictions then, it is necessary to view their basis. To establish the validity of the conclusions I have stated, and to show that they do not involve circular reasoning, a critical analysis of them and their development is necessary.
A negative approach is most illuminating in this particular case and is, therefore, used in preference to any other analytic approach.
If the assumption is made that I am not great, or to go further, that I am not even good, the following argument holds.
If I am not good, then obviously others around me must be better (unless being "not good" is the highest level of man's attainment, in which case it could be defined as "great" in a relative sense). Others around me, to be better, must be better in at least one way.
Since the distinctive characteristic of man, as distinguished from other forms of life, is his ability to think logically, or to rationalize, this single characteristic is the only attribute considered for further discussion. It should be noted that the argument depends upon the distinction that any chosen characteristic makes. If another characteristic is substituted, the argument will be effected, and will reflect the nature of the distinction the characteristic makes.
Returning to the argument, it is now valid to say that others around me have the ability to think better, or more logically than I. But if this is true, I would be foolish and incapable of refuting their ideas and I must inevitably succumb to their ideas and conclusions. Accepting this argument forces the conclusion that if I have the right to exercise my limited ability to think at all, it woud be stupid to do so, as well as completely useless and ineffectual. I can only be a subject, or a slave, or, not bothering to think for myself at all, I become for all practical purposes, a robot.
It becomes obvious that in order for me to be a human being, to be able to think logically, or to rationalize, I must at least be good enough to do so! It is equally obvious that to rationalize my doing anything at all, I must at least be good.
This first conclusion can be stated in other, more general terms. A human being has unique qualities, by his very nature, which make him good.
He is good because he is human; human because he is good. The reciprocal relationship is very important.
So far, the human being has been distinguished from other forms of life (animals and trees), and it has been shown that by the very nature of this distinction, he is good. In fact, good or bad have no meaning applied to anything except in their relationship to man.
But this is not enough.
To follow the same analogy, if I am only good, as everyone else around me is good, then my ideas are no better or worse than theirs. Then upon which of these should I act? Obviously, if they are all equally valued, it makes no difference art all. But if I wish to define one idea as being better than any other, I find myself in the same quandry. The only possible solution is that my idea is the best, or I have no right to follow it. In fact, should I act on any idea, intrinsically I value this as the best idea. The ideas I accept and follow do not have to originate with me; that is, be a product of my own mind, but if I accept any idea, it becomes my idea. It is then the best because it is my idea (regardless of whether it originated with me or not); I am great because I retain the best ideas; and I have the ability to distinguish between the good and bad ideas.
The ability to distinguish between the good and bad ideas, and thereby arrive at the best one is an innate ability. This at first might surprise the reader, for superficially it appears to be a new concept, a new assumption, which is being made to support the argument without any basis. A little reflection, however, will show that , if the argument up to this point has been accepted, this concept has also been accepted intrinsically. In fact,the ability to distinguish is the premise without which the concept of rational thinking, or logic, become meaningless.
For example: If I cannot distinguish, I question my ability to think. I think only in terms of what I can distinguish. The logic is just a tool to test a suspected distinction which either supports or denies the suspicion and thereby helps to better, or more clearly define the distinction. If the distinction being tested is non-existent in reality, the logic would indicate that the distinction is an arbitrary one having only relative value. If relative values are the only ones which have meaning, reality does not exist, and the distinction being tested by logic has as much meaning in a relative sense as any other distinction that could be made.
It is very interesting to note that this innate ability to which reference is made coincides very well with the concept conscience.
Unquestionably then, I am great.
As a second conclusion, anyone who does not have the same conviction of himself is a fool, is subjected to his society, a slave to habits, or is a robot. To deny that a person is great is to deny that he is a human being, and in turn to deny that he is worthy of even his own respect. It is fortunate that realizing these distinctions is not a criterion for establishing the greatness, the "humanness", or the worthiness of an individual. It is unfortunate, however, that more people do not appreciate these distinctions and thereby realize how great they really are. This probably offers as good an explanation as any for their behaving in ways that are inconsistent with their greatness. For those who would consider religious concepts, this seems to offer a good definition of sin as a perversion of the God-given greatness we possess as human being.
The usefulness of the argument can be extended.
It was pointed out earlier that this argument depends upon the distinction that any chosen chracteristic makes. A single indication will make this apparent.
Taking the same chracteristic, thinking, but changing the distinction relative to a thinking God, will lead to the conclusion that man is subject to God without effecting in any way the concept of the greatness of a human being. The distinction will only point out that man may be great but is not the greatest. That is, by the very nature of the concept of God, He is greater than man; regardless of how great man is considered to be, some humility is still required.
1. e-mail
2.
Contents Original Work
3. Home Page
.