What's that sanskrit word for humility in Yoga Sutra? Don't cite 'vinaya', as it means modesty.
Well, humility is inverse of pride; pride is one of virtues in Aristotle's principia nicomachea.
'Christianity (to some extent Judaism), presented an idea, unknown to the world in which it grew, namely the Pagan world of Rome. The idea was that human beings are creatures of God and that they belonged to His domain. He was the dominus or the Lord of the domain. As a result, human beings should not be arrogant, but must be humble instead. (As the ‘Book of Job’ in the Old Testament makes it clear, there is a very heavy price to be paid for arrogance.) Here, it belonged to the opposite spectrum in Ancient thought, which saw arrogance as a moral virtue and humility as a despicable vice. Protestant Christianity, especially Luther and Calvin, very forcefully propagated this idea: Man was a sinner, worse than the lowest worm, because of which God’s Grace becomes unfathomable and ungraspable.' [1]
Well, it is pra-ni-dhAna. Of course, people can say it is humility. ni-dhAna is just deliberation, holding, slowing down. Even the root word dhA/धा is about holding, keeping, etc.
It doesn't matter how you call it, whether "Ancient thought" or "blah blah", what matters is that what is being referred to. It is about how people thought about human actions before Christianity took over.
I’m not clear how you’ve countered my point. It describes humility before god without any stretch of the imagination, and is variously translated because like much of sanskrit it does not map directly.
My second point is that attempting to reason about, or exclude topics from, something as practically diverse and unknown as “Ancient thought” in order to support the primacy of a specific religion is essentially folly.
Try countering the OP's arguments instead of resorting to writing self-serving nonsense simply because you don't have the intellectual capacity to make a single well-reasoned counter-point.
I write this as someone who despises significant portions of Christianity and indeed all Monotheistic religions, and yet even I see some value in what the OP wrote.
The OP wrote about Moderns seeing "humility as a virtue, thanks to Christianity, and [the] secularization of Christianity" as opposed to the pre-christian Pagans who [rightly] saw personal pride and associated traits as being virtues.
A case in point being [from my possibly wrong point of view] the pre-Christian Romans whose list of principal virtues included: Dignitas, Severitas, & Gravitas, very roughly translated: Dignity, Sternness, and Self-Importance.
The OP's views on this particular topic are held by most serious historians of Early Europe. And yet, you lazily jumped into attacking his [presumed] religion instead of calmly stating your reasons why his views are wrong (if your mental capability is enough for you to formulate any such reason, a possibility I strongly doubt).
Within the specific context of the modern secularized world appropriating some of the more compassionate traits of Christianity (namely an appreciation for Humility, Care for the Weak, and a concern for the welfare of others even if they are not members of one's tribe/nationality, etc), I agree with the OP's viewpoint even if I do have some personal antipathy (which I mostly keep to myself) towards Monotheistic religious systems due to the rigid intolerance they tend to breed.
And since I am obviously not against any of the specific points the OP wrote on, what exactly would I be writing the counter-point to?
dude how about you climb off your fucking high faux-intellectual horse
> why his views are wrong
So did you never get the basic lesson in the difference between fact vs opinion or are you just too dense to understand that what he stated was an opinion and therefore can't rightly be labeled "right" or "wrong"? which is why I've been couching my responses in the language of philosophy and epistemology, or can you not read in between those particular lines?
> what exactly would I be writing the counter-point to?
Me, you fucking idiot.
---
how about next time you step away from the insults? I've included them to show you what you look like to others. It doesn't do your writing any favors and it obviously doesn't increase your capacity to come to a common understanding with your fellow man.
Well, humility is inverse of pride; pride is one of virtues in Aristotle's principia nicomachea.
'Christianity (to some extent Judaism), presented an idea, unknown to the world in which it grew, namely the Pagan world of Rome. The idea was that human beings are creatures of God and that they belonged to His domain. He was the dominus or the Lord of the domain. As a result, human beings should not be arrogant, but must be humble instead. (As the ‘Book of Job’ in the Old Testament makes it clear, there is a very heavy price to be paid for arrogance.) Here, it belonged to the opposite spectrum in Ancient thought, which saw arrogance as a moral virtue and humility as a despicable vice. Protestant Christianity, especially Luther and Calvin, very forcefully propagated this idea: Man was a sinner, worse than the lowest worm, because of which God’s Grace becomes unfathomable and ungraspable.' [1]
https://www.hipkapi.com/2017/01/13/humility-is-a-vice/