Pride - the worst sin according to C.S.Lewis

[Fake Messiah]

"According to CS Lewis?" - What, can't they check it in the Bible? Christianity is every Christian weighing in his opinion on the "reality" of its doctrine.

[John 6IX Breezy]

This review article on pride just got published. Previously I had mentioned that pride seemed to be a status detector, here they see it as the emotional foundations for attaining social rank:

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10...720-040321

[Objectivist]

According to the (in)famous book by C S Lewis (an English author) "Mere Christianity", pride is the worst. Yet I feel/think/deduce that having pride in one's deeds and behaviour is central and fundamental to living a decent life. No pride = fail, basically.

I will say another thing.  I applaud C. S. Lewis for his consistency.  As long as he accepts the Christian ethics of self-sacrifice, he must hold pride as the primary sin because pride is essentially self-worth.

[GrandizerII]

By all means, be proud of the things you have accomplished, or of the kind of person you are, or whatever -- as long as you're realistic about the causal factors involved that led to these accomplishments or to the kind of character you are. If you disregard the support of other people who were there for you as you were still working towards your goal, or forget that you are who you are because of genetic/environmental factors beyond your control, then this kind of pride in one's self can become delusional and cause harm to your relationships with others (many people tend to find that kind of pride quite off-putting, after all).

[Belacqua]

I will say another thing.  I applaud C. S. Lewis for his consistency.  As long as he accepts the Christian ethics of self-sacrifice, he must hold pride as the primary sin because pride is essentially self-worth.

I think I mentioned before that Lewis was a medievalist and a Dante scholar. When he says that pride is a sin, he is using the word in the way that Dante and others use it.

This is the definition he used, from Wikipedia's page on the Seven Deadly Sins:

Pride is identified as dangerously corrupt selfishness, putting one's own desires, urges, wants, and whims before the welfare of others. Dante's definition of pride was "love of self perverted to hatred and contempt for one's neighbor". 

So it's clear that this is NOT a sense of gratification at one's real accomplishments, which as far as I know is not condemned anywhere. 

As so often happens, part of the problem comes from translation. "Pride" here is a translation of the Latin "superbia," for which there is no exact English equivalent. If I were in charge I would just leave the Latin untranslated, but nobody asked me.

Dante's system is based on Aristotle more than on the Bible. One of Aristotle's recurring themes is the importance of having accurate knowledge of oneself. If I believe I'm the best guy in the world (which I'm clearly not), then I don't have a clear picture. If I furthermore think that being the best guy in the world makes me entitled to special treatment, and that my neighbors are worthless in comparison, then I'm guilty of pride as Lewis defined it. 

Likewise, when I feel good about my own accomplishments, it would be bad for me to forget about the shoulders of all the giants I stand on.

I think it's appropriate that the psych paper John 6IX Breezy linked us to speaks of two kinds of pride: the "authentic" kind, which is being justified in being pleased about real accomplishments, and "hubristic" kind, which is pretty much what Lewis means.

[Belacqua]

Just now I got a pdf of Mere Christianity to check what Lewis says about pride. Unsurprisingly, he is very clear what he means by "pride" and why he thinks it's bad.

Of course we can say that the way we use the word is not the way he used it. But it's not fair for us to say he's wrong if we don't really know what he said.

---

The vice I am talking of is Pride or Self-Conceit: and the virtue opposite to it, in Christian morals, is called Humility. You may remember, when I was talking about sexual morality, I warned you that the centre of Christian morals did not lie there. Well, now, we have come to the centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.

Does this seem to you exaggerated? If so, think it over. I pointed out a moment ago that the more pride one had, the more one disliked pride in others. In fact, if you want to find out how proud you are the easiest way is to ask yourself, ‘How much do I dislike it when other people snub me, or refuse to take any notice of me, or shove their oar in, or patronise me, or show off?’ The point is that each person’s pride is in competition with every one else’s pride. It is because I wanted to be the big noise at the party that I am so annoyed at someone else being the big noise. Two of a trade never agree. Now what you want to get clear is that Pride is essentially competitive—is competitive by its very nature—while the other vices are competitive only, so to speak, by accident. Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. We say that people are proud of being rich, or clever, or good-looking, but they are not. They are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better-looking than others. If everyone else became equally rich, or clever, or good-looking there would be nothing to be proud about. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone. That is why I say that Pride is essentially com- petitive in a way the other vices are not. The sexual impulse may drive two men into competition if they both want the same girl. But that is only by accident; they might just as likelyhave wanted two different girls. But a proud man will take your girl from you, not because he wants her, but just to prove to himself that he is a better man than you. Greed may drive men into competition if there is not enough to go round; but the proud man, even when he has got more than he can possi- bly want, will try to get still more just to assert his power. Nearly all those evils in the world which people put down to greed or selfishness are really far more the result of Pride.
Take it with money. Greed will certainly make a man want money, for the sake of a better house, better holidays, better things to eat and drink. But only up to a point. What is it that makes a man with £10,000 a year anxious to get £20,000 a year? It is not the greed for more pleasure. £10,000 will give all the luxuries that any man can really enjoy. It is Pride—the wish to be richer than some other rich man, and (still more) the wish for power. For, of course, power is what Pride really enjoys: there is nothing makes a man feel so superior to others as being able to move them about like toy soldiers. What makes a pretty girl spread misery wherever she goes by collecting admirers? Certainly not her sexual instinct: that kind of girl is quite often sexually frigid. It is Pride. What is it that makes a political leader or a whole nation go on and on, demanding more and more? Pride again. Pride is competitive by its very nature: that is why it goes on and on. If I am a proud man, then, as long as there is one man in the whole world more powerful, or richer, or cleverer than I, he is my rival and my enemy.

The Christians are right: it is Pride which has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began. Other vices may sometimes bring people together: you may find good fellowship and jokes and friend- liness among drunken people or unchaste people. But pride always means enmity—it is enmity.

---

So it's clear that he's not talking about justified pleasure at one's real accomplishments.

[Fake Messiah]

If I am a proud man, then, as long as there is one man in the whole world more powerful, or richer, or cleverer than I, he is my rival and my enemy.

Ah, "enemy". Lewis is being overdramatic. You can easily tag the other person in these circumstances as a rival, he doesn't have to be the enemy.

Not to mention that you don't need pride to have natural enemies, you can also say that people are natural enemies competing for food, job positions, university enlisting, etc.

[GrandizerII]

Just now I got a pdf of Mere Christianity to check what Lewis says about pride. Unsurprisingly, he is very clear what he means by "pride" and why he thinks it's bad.

Of course we can say that the way we use the word is not the way he used it. But it's not fair for us to say he's wrong if we don't really know what he said.

---

The vice I am talking of is Pride or Self-Conceit: and the virtue opposite to it, in Christian morals, is called Humility. You may remember, when I was talking about sexual morality, I warned you that the centre of Christian morals did not lie there. Well, now, we have come to the centre. According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride. Unchastity, anger, greed, drunkenness, and all that, are mere fleabites in comparison: it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.

Does this seem to you exaggerated? If so, think it over. I pointed out a moment ago that the more pride one had, the more one disliked pride in others. In fact, if you want to find out how proud you are the easiest way is to ask yourself, ‘How much do I dislike it when other people snub me, or refuse to take any notice of me, or shove their oar in, or patronise me, or show off?’ The point is that each person’s pride is in competition with every one else’s pride. It is because I wanted to be the big noise at the party that I am so annoyed at someone else being the big noise. Two of a trade never agree. Now what you want to get clear is that Pride is essentially competitive—is competitive by its very nature—while the other vices are competitive only, so to speak, by accident. Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. We say that people are proud of being rich, or clever, or good-looking, but they are not. They are proud of being richer, or cleverer, or better-looking than others. If everyone else became equally rich, or clever, or good-looking there would be nothing to be proud about. It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone. That is why I say that Pride is essentially com- petitive in a way the other vices are not. The sexual impulse may drive two men into competition if they both want the same girl. But that is only by accident; they might just as likelyhave wanted two different girls. But a proud man will take your girl from you, not because he wants her, but just to prove to himself that he is a better man than you. Greed may drive men into competition if there is not enough to go round; but the proud man, even when he has got more than he can possi- bly want, will try to get still more just to assert his power. Nearly all those evils in the world which people put down to greed or selfishness are really far more the result of Pride.
Take it with money. Greed will certainly make a man want money, for the sake of a better house, better holidays, better things to eat and drink. But only up to a point. What is it that makes a man with £10,000 a year anxious to get £20,000 a year? It is not the greed for more pleasure. £10,000 will give all the luxuries that any man can really enjoy. It is Pride—the wish to be richer than some other rich man, and (still more) the wish for power. For, of course, power is what Pride really enjoys: there is nothing makes a man feel so superior to others as being able to move them about like toy soldiers. What makes a pretty girl spread misery wherever she goes by collecting admirers? Certainly not her sexual instinct: that kind of girl is quite often sexually frigid. It is Pride. What is it that makes a political leader or a whole nation go on and on, demanding more and more? Pride again. Pride is competitive by its very nature: that is why it goes on and on. If I am a proud man, then, as long as there is one man in the whole world more powerful, or richer, or cleverer than I, he is my rival and my enemy.

The Christians are right: it is Pride which has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began. Other vices may sometimes bring people together: you may find good fellowship and jokes and friend- liness among drunken people or unchaste people. But pride always means enmity—it is enmity.

---

So it's clear that he's not talking about justified pleasure at one's real accomplishments.

Yeah, I suppose, broadly speaking, there are two senses of the term "pride" that I often see being used.

The first sense is, as what is described in your C. S. Lewis quote, something that is akin to narcissism. That kind of pride is indeed very competitive, seeing others as threats to one's success. In this sense, pride is excessively selfish, unempathetic, disregarding of the wellbeing of others, having an often unwarranted sense of superiority to others (in terms of indicators of power and high status) and an intense focus on how to maintain that sense of superiority (even if at the expense of others).

The second sense of pride is far more joyful and hopeful. In this sense, when one feels pride at one's accomplishments (for example), it is more of a feeling of joy and relief than a feeling of superiority. It is inclusive rather than exclusive, readily and willingly acknowledging the support of others and showing gratitude towards them. It's a circumstantial feeling one feels when specific events occur that invoke such pride, not a strongly ingrained personality trait/disposition.

So yes, you're correct to suggest we first ask what C.S. Lewis himself meant by the word "pride". And in this case, I actually agree with him that pride (as he describes it) is very bad.

[Belacqua]

Yeah, I suppose, broadly speaking, there are two senses of the term "pride" that I often see being used.

The first sense is, as what is described in your C. S. Lewis quote, something that is akin to narcissism. That kind of pride is indeed very competitive, seeing others as threats to one's success. In this sense, pride is excessively selfish, unempathetic, disregarding of the wellbeing of others, having an often unwarranted sense of superiority to others (in terms of indicators of power and high status) and an intense focus on how to maintain that sense of superiority (even if at the expense of others).

The second sense of pride is far more joyful and hopeful. In this sense, when one feels pride at one's accomplishments (for example), it is more of a feeling of joy and relief than a feeling of superiority. It is inclusive rather than exclusive, readily and willingly acknowledging the support of others and showing gratitude towards them. It's a circumstantial feeling one feels when specific events occur that invoke such pride, not a strongly ingrained personality trait/disposition.

So yes, you're correct to suggest we first ask what C.S. Lewis himself meant by the word "pride". And in this case, I actually agree with him that pride (as he describes it) is very bad.

I wonder if there's been a kind of drift in the meaning of the word "pride." Like maybe it used to be more clearly about hubris, and now it's closer to "self-esteem." 

(I mean, in Henry James novels, "make love" means "flirt." But now it means "fuck," so that's a pretty big change in less than 100 years. You have to stop and think when you read in a novel that "the young couple was seen making love on the sofa at the party." So words can change.)

The first translations of Dante into English were made in the mid-1700s. In those translations, and in every one that I'm aware of since then, the first sin that needs purging in Purgatory has been called "pride." Though the translators could conceivably have used "hubris" or just kept the Latin "superbia." 

Japanese translations use 高慢. The first character means "high," and the second covers a lot of ground -- from "chronic" to "conceited" or even "lazy." (Boasting is "自慢" -- "self" + "conceit.") The dictionary entry for 高慢 gives "haughty; arrogant; proud; stuck-up." So it's clearly the bad kind of pride. 

America is famous for being an individualistic sort of place, where Ayn Rand, for example, could find a home. I wonder if this tendency has contributed to the word "pride" getting a more positive meaning over time.

[GrandizerII]

America is famous for being an individualistic sort of place, where Ayn Rand, for example, could find a home. I wonder if this tendency has contributed to the word "pride" getting a more positive meaning over time.

Yeah, individualistic cultures are likely to foster a sense of self-esteem in individuals (and treat that as a positive thing, which I would of course agree with). But I suspect that a lot of it also has to do with the modern secular (or antitheistic) attitude towards the central premises of Christianity, and so have turned what is seen as bad according to Christianity (such as pride) into something that is good.

Basically, the thinking in response goes like this: I am not a sinner, but a person of value (and I should be proud of that).