In defence of Arrogance

Some individuals in this forum accuse me of arrogance. What follows here is a defence of arrogance and an attempt to clear the irrational stigma attached to arrogance.

The following is Nietzsche's philosophy of the "Superman" briefly described here by Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D. This clearly shows that Nietzsche advocates arrogance, egoism, violence, etc.:

"Nietzsche's replacement for God is the Übermensch. This was originally translated "Superman". The Superman, indeed, is supposed to be the next evolutionary step beyond mere man -- where we really must say "man," and not "humanity" or any of the politically correct alternatives, since Nietzsche was not very interested in women and clearly despised the sort of liberal culture where equality for women was coming to hand. When Nietzsche says "man" (Mensch), he means it -- someone egotistical, brawling, aggressive, arrogant, insensitive. The Superman is not vulnerable to taming and domesticity. He has broken free of it entirely.

The Superman is free because all his own values flow from his own will. Value is a matter of decision, a matter of will. Because the Superman is free, he takes what he wants and does what he likes. He is authentic. And since what everyone really wants, if they could have their way, is power, the Superman will seize power without remorse, regret, or apology."

Some more quotes by Nietzsche which carries his approval of arrogance:

"Courageous, untroubled, mocking and violent-that is what Wisdom wants us to be. Wisdom is a woman, and loves only a warrior. "

"Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul."

"He that humbleth himself wishes to be exalted." - this one is exactly what I said in the Thread: Arrogance, a definition and a philosophical response:

Originally posted by Philosophicus
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!"

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!"

Seriously, what is wrong with arrogance? Isn't it just an expression of one's own strong beliefs and passions? Just imagine how pathetic the world would have been if everyone was just so scared to offend others or to feel superior over their competitors. All truly great things came into the world by violent, remorseless revolutions!

Arrogance is as much an aspect of aggression as it is of pretension, which is unwarranted pride. An arrogant person is not merely unjustifiably confident in their own ability and value, but one actively seeking to cow or belittle other "lesser" people in order to achieve their ends.

Arrogant people come across like there’ s nothing else to learn, while there’ s a positive, open attitude that comes with confidence. The confident person is willing to try anything, work hard and learn. Arrogance is usually met with anger, hostility and distrust.

I disagree with your view on arrogance, and do you think Nietzsche, one of the greatest philosophers, didn't know what he was talking about?

Originally posted by Philosophicus
There are no facts - only opinions/interpretations - Nietzsche

You only quoted something - where's your opinion?

Nietzsche wasn' t infallible.

So, do you think you are infallable? You have just proven the non-existence of fact by displaying your own opinion about arrogance - a proof that the world is made up of interpretations.

No one is infallible. I never stated that how I see arrogance was a fact nor denied that it was merely an interpretation.

No one is infallable. (exept me) 😉

Storm - In other words it might be your fallable side speaking now?

IMO there never ever was a need for arrogance

Seriously, what is wrong with arrogance? Isn't it just an expression of one's own strong beliefs and passions?

NO it isn't arrogance is believing you are better than other people and rubbing it in their faces.

Is this how you counter a reply, by stating that a member' s fallible side might be speaking? Once again, you' re implying that only you hold the truth.

What is the value or meaning of having an opinion/belief if one does not have a firm belief that one is right and others are wrong?

But some refuse to take other opinions into consideration, rejecting everything form the first word while others keep every possibility open.

That's the difference between greatness and goodness. Greatness is to follow your own heart, form your own original, unique thoughts, art, etc. without having being influenced by someone else. We should strive to be original.

Even the greatest people were inspired by and listened to others

Yes, but they listened to and was inspired by other Great figures in history.

True, but who is to say who is a great figure and who is not, except for history itself?

Greatness is exchanging views and completion without losing one' s identity.

If we all strive to be original, we'd run out of "good" original things and turn to "evil" to satisfy tha need to be original. thats why a lot of people take good original ideas and add their own remix to make it their own.