Arrogance - a definition and a philosphical response

Arrogance (n) : overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward percieved inferiors

"Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive. " -Friedrich Nietzsche

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." -Socrates

"I always try in the judgments I make on myself to lean to the side of self-depreciation rather than to that of arrogance" -RENE DESCARTES

I am interested in all opinions regarding this subject, please discuss.

Arrogance - a definition and a philosphical response

Arrogance (n) : overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward percieved inferiors - in other words, arrogance can also apply to an instance when someone is overbearingly proud about his/her most humble behaviour and in thinking how much more humble he/she is compared to the inferior others with arrogance. Arrogance is simply a view of one's self inwhich you think higher of yourself in a certain respect - as in: "I have accomplished more self-depreciation than you have, whaaa!"

Two of the greatest artists, Michelangelo and Da Vinci was utterly arrogant in their dealings with each other, other fellow artists and normal people, yet they did not cease to be one of the greatest geniuses ever. In fact, Michelangelo is generally seen as the greatest artist ever. Arrogance means nothing in itself, some people can tollerate it, others can't. The great composer Beethoven - another emminent genius, was also arrogant - he even said in his own words that his behaviour is justified because he is Beethoven - there was 20000 people at his funeral!

Arrogance is a personality trait, so what?

Socrates was arrogant himself when he said: "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

Because, there is arrogance in utter self-depreciation, just like altruism is selfishness at bottom: it's attention-seeking in essence - it's a sort of exhibition of "wow, look how humble I am!"

Ultimately it is a meaningless concept.

and for anyone who cares to see what a genius looks like in blue

Philosophicus originally posted
In fact, Michelangelo is generally seen as the greatest artist ever.

As an art history major (actually no longer a major as I graduated back in '93) I have to disagree. Most art historians don't bestow the title "greatest artist ever" as it not a quantifiable discipline that can be easily defined.

That being said, your thought regarding arrogance as "Ultimately it is a meaningless concept." is very interesting.

If your arrogant behaviour shapes others perception of you, and other's perceptions of you contributes to how an individual defines him/herself, then is there not meaning?

There can only be meaning in it if I see meaning in it myself, and I don't.
What is meaning for one person is not meaning for another.

What I'm saying is that Michelangelo is definately regarded by the most art critics and other artists to be the greatest - even in his own time he was deemed as being divine! Just look for your self - do you honestly think there is any artist greater than him? His art is alive!

Arrongance is not limited to Philosophers. You can find certain marks in Relious people, Scientists, Educators, Artists,.....etc...etc..ETC....

What I'm saying is that Michelangelo is definately regarded by the most art critics and other artists to be the greatest - even in his own time he was deemed as being divine! Just look for your self - do you honestly think there is any artist greater than him? His art is alive!

Socrates was arrogant himself when he said: "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." That is not an arrogant statement.. he belittled himself by admitting he knew nothing, the wise part in the beginning was to emphasise how much knowledge there is to be had in the world.

Philosophicus originally posted
What I'm saying is that Michelangelo is definately regarded by the most art critics and other artists to be the greatest - even in his own time he was deemed as being divine! Just look for your self - do you honestly think there is any artist greater than him? His art is alive!

As an artist and art historian I'll say that he was pretty amazing. But though most people passionate about art can claim a favourite, not many will not say who is "the best ever". Art is not like that. One could say that Franz Marc was the best because he mastered the vibrant colours indicitive of the fauvists. One could say that Caravagio was the best because of how he mastered light. One could say that Picasso was the greatest because of his step of deconstruction and cubism. One could say that the artist who masters ultra realsim is superior to one who chooses not to. You could even put forth that the greatest artist of all time would be the first cromagnon or neandrathal who first put charcoal, mud, blood or the juice of a berry to rock in order to render an image or thought.

There can only be meaning in it if I see meaning in it myself, and I don't.

So what you are saying that if you do not see the meaning in something, whether by choice or ignorance, then is no meaning? Would it not be more prudent to say, "that concept is meaningless to me"?

No, he's saying that an idea only means something if you can see the meaning in it yourself. He's talking about people in general, not himself only.

Originally posted by Philosophicus
There can only be meaning in it if I see meaning in it myself, and I don't.
What is meaning for one person is not meaning for another.

What I'm saying is that Michelangelo is definately regarded by the most art critics and other artists to be the greatest - even in his own time he was deemed as being divine! Just look for your self - do you honestly think there is any artist greater than him? His art is alive!

"Discoveries make you be remembered... To compare greatness to one of another is in the eye of the viewer."

Is that a proverb?? or what is it?

In my opinion, there is no such thing as 'arrogance'. There are only differing opinions on personalities.

Ou Be Low hoo - you are brilliant! It is INDEED merely a personality or a trait - nothing else. "My" so-called arrogance is only good or bad in "Your" opinion.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
As an artist and art historian I'll say that he was pretty amazing. But though most people passionate about art can claim a favourite, not many will not say who is "the best ever". Art is not like that. One could say that Franz Marc was the best because he mastered the vibrant colours indicitive of the fauvists. One could say that Caravagio was the best because of how he mastered light. One could say that Picasso was the greatest because of his step of deconstruction and cubism. One could say that the artist who masters ultra realsim is superior to one who chooses not to. You could even put forth that the greatest artist of all time would be the first cromagnon or neandrathal who first put charcoal, mud, blood or the juice of a berry to rock in order to render an image or thought.

So what you are saying that if you do not see the meaning in something, whether by choice or ignorance, then is no meaning? Would it not be more prudent to say, "that concept is meaningless to me"?

Michelangelo was the master of every single aspect of the art of painting and sculpture - if you don't see that you're a pathetic art historian and an ignorant artist, by the way, Raphael was an imitator, the moment he saw the works of Michelangelo, he changed his own style to resemble that of Michelangelo's!

Meaning is only meaning while it has meaning!

if you don't see that you're a pathetic art historian and an ignorant artist

I am glad that you feel so very confident to not only speak for the general population of artist's, art historians and art lovers with such conviction, but that you feel that you have the insight set the art world straight. I notice that you have a particular thing for Michaelangelo, so feel proud to wave that flag. I notice you have no love for Raphael, what are your informed opinions on Phidias, Franz Marc, Caravagio or any others who apparently have contributed so very little to the world and history of art.

I have tried to be nice, and I apologize to the administrators, but I must respond to this slight. Actually I will not respond to the comment as much as I will the commenter. Every time you open your mouth, you show your lack of maturity, knowledge and wisdom. It seems quite apparent that you hide your self in philosophy in order to defend your lack of ability to accept others' opinions and the realities of the world in order to cocoon yourself in a veil of personal superiority and security. What a scary world you live in.

Insults, arrogance and aggression do not foster intellectual reflection. Intelligence and the ability to communicate thoughts and perceptions in a rational discourse better serve to provide an environment for academia or learning.

Try to grow up and display the maturity that should accompany your all knowing wisdom.

Michelangelo was so great, it doesn't take an 'informed' person to recognise that. Actually, I read in an art encyclopedia that Raphael is generally seen as a brilliant imitator, but that he did not posess original artistic vision - you're suppose to know that, right? I also know that great art is in the eye of the beholder, but those with great eyes will never doubt the 'divine' artistic power of Michelangelo. And surely as an art historian you must have read, as I have, in every book on the history of Western Art, that Michelangelo is regarded as the greatest artist ever - it's common knowledge - I can't imagine that you are not aware of this. Another thing, did you know that most great artists had the traits of "Insults, arrogance and aggression [which] do not foster intellectual reflection"?

Put down your art encyclopedia, a little knowledge is dangerous. And no, "most great artists" were not arrogant or aggressive. I am never suprised at your ability to generalize about entire populations of people in order that you may prove your point. You confuse ignorance with confidence and aggression with personal drive.

Common knowledge? Weren' t there only opinions/interpretations?

To generalise means to say "All", but I'm saying "Most". Anyway, Michelangelo, if not the greatest artist then, but surely one of the greatest, was very arrogant, he was hit on the nose by a fellow artists who had such an opinion about him, he also swore and cursed at people when they 'disturbed' him, he also felt himself to be superior to Da Vinci and shouted that out in public, Picasso was extremely arrogant even when people complimented him, Gauguin thrived on agression - he said "Barbarism for me is a rejuvination". There are manyothers I can name, oh yes, Tintoretto was a murderer.

Are you saying you have a lot of knowledge when you warn me against the danger of little knowledge?