u/TaiZhao

Taoism is both a religion and a philosophy; interestingly enough, even before Laozi wrote the Dàodéjīng, Asia was already brimming with the philosophical principles that would give rise to it. Laozi wrote it? That is to say, Laozi is kinda like Socrates: we aren’t even sure of his existence. In fact, precisely because of this pre-condition, the hypothesis was also formulated that the Dàodéjīng is a collection of texts from Dàojiā, the Taoist philosophical current.

Whether Laozi was a man, a God, or a spectre born from the echoes of many, what he left us shaped countless lives. Welcome to the Philosophy of Dàodéjīng.

Do you know Frege? The Ideography tried to revolutionize language, Sinn (sense) and Bedeutung (significance) are kinda essential, he then introduced new symbols too. That is because clear language is essential, every language has its pros and cons. When we do translate, if we do well, we can keep almost all the significance, it is already way harder with sense. Translating from Chinese is a mess; tons of meaning, complexity, and double senses get lost.

When faced with the Dàodéjīng, tons of people say, “What a cute little poetry book!”, and well, it is very light to process if read from a translation. However, it assumes a whole other depth if it is read in Chinese. (During the analysis, you will get a better idea of why from the explanation of some terms).

For that reason, I believe it is impossible to analyze the original book without analyzing the originally chosen terms.

It all starts with Laozi’s explanation of 道 (the Dào), be careful not to confuse it with � (the eternal Dào) because the Tao that can be spoken isn’t the eternal Tao. 道 is composed of 辶 + 首 and they respectively stand for movement/fluidity/walk and first/head/direction. Already that can give a first idea of what we are talking about; a form of “directed movement”. Instead 經 (The Jīng) means… well it actually never appears inside the Dàodéjīng and it’s a super duper secret Logogram, so I won’t tell it to you.

Laozi’s initial explanation of Dào is pretty much the same I gave, though going further 2 other aspects of it get expanded, its adaptability, its opposites, but to be honest, it’s always the same concept. 道 is also 辶 (fluid), and what happens to a liquid when it's poured? Opposites in Dàodéjīng are subservient to the function, and we could simplify by saying that the function is the movement. Let’s do an example: cold and hot; the function and the movement between the two is given by the temperature, temperature is what defines them both. But don’t worry, soon all will get clearer.

Another concept that will help to understand is 無 為 and they respectively stand for void and action, the very concept of non-action, analyzing their semiotics would be fun, 無 it’s basically a Minecraft ritual >!(person over fire ritual = void evocation!)!<, but since it isn’t very important I will spare you this time. Though 無 為 is the ability to grasp events, it is being and observing without the necessity of forcing, with fluidity, yet, still, with direction. To say it in other words, it is just another grasp of 道.

Now, let’s get a few things off our chest: some say, “The Dàodéjīng teaches humility”. It is true that the Dàodéjīng has verses in favor of humility, yet to say something like the statement above is to ignore everything else we have said so far. It’s about the interplay of opposites. The Dàodéjīng also contains some rather arrogant lines; the common thread? Power and appearance. The funny thing is that the text also explicitly says that most people won’t understand.

There are also other elements I could have explored further, like the effortlessness of 無 為 or the political view. Yet I don’t wanna stretch things too far for this article.

If the topic interests you, I don't recommend reading the Dàodéjīng if you don't know Chinese. I tried looking over some translations: they are chaotic and very interpretative. It is worse than studying a philosopher from a philosophy manual, brrrr.

Power dynamics, beautiful aren’t they? It is just human nature: someone on top, someone else down. To me, all that has always, always felt so natural, so clear. Then I woke up, touched the grass, and saw reality: people who consider themselves “pathetic pigs,” people who are terrified that their lives will be destroyed if things come out, and tons who live it in a pathological way. Why?! Just why? I can understand it from some who have a degradation kink, but hell no, this is way more extensive. And it regards Doms too.

Why do people who have power dynamics tend to have such low self-esteem? Is it just my opinion? Is there data about it? And if so, what does it say? Well, welcome to “how low self-esteem plagues BDSM,” and how we shall solve it.

Research such as “Childhood Trauma, BDSM, and Self-Esteem: An Exploration of the Impact of Childhood Trauma on Sexual” shows that the self-esteem of BDSM practitioners who didn’t have any trauma is… normal? Well, let’s do some cherry-picking; this study will surely prove me right: “Psychological Characteristics of BDSM Practitioners.” Oh, how sad, even here they report high well-being. Am I wrong? Just kidding, I can’t be wrong. Let’s analyze the data of these studies deeply: Self-esteem is reported as higher than average, and we show lower rejection sensitivity. No significant correlation has been found between past abuse and BDSM activities; even attachment styles are found to be more secure.

Wonderful, isn’t it? Something to be proud of, I’d say! Let’s tell that to everyone! We do practice BDSM! Our well-being is so high! ¿? Why are you making that face? Aren’t you proud? Wait?! Are you scared of telling others? But y-your low-rejection sensitivity says that… What? I wasn’t blackmailing you, please don’t call the police.

Kidding aside, BDSM practitioners have to reckon with society's judgments; this filters, in principle, those who are brave enough to participate in BDSM activities. Between moralizing social constructs, the fear of others’ judgment, and the threat of life-altering repercussions, the pressure is immense. But that hypocrisy? Pathologizing BDSM is childish, that’s for certain; still, far too often, I see people doing the exact opposite. It is not a therapy. It doesn’t have proven causal psychological benefits. And as noble as standing against social stigma can be, it does have consequences, and negative ones.

Studies like “Perceptions of and stigma toward BDSM practitioners” show how stigma is even higher than for some LGBTQ+ groups. The public misinterpretation of media portrayals is terrible: 33% of practitioners feel they must keep their practices secret, 86% of people agree with at least one stigmatizing phrase, and the pathology narrative is still ongoing.

And that 86 percent includes BDSM practitioners. The study makes this clear.

More self-esteem, you say? Less rejection sensitivity, you say?

Do we talk about the same community? Do we have the same context?

From what I have seen, the BDSM community is very split: one side is populated by beginners and people who just want to have fun, the other by hyper-super-ultra professional healthy consent expert managers who do care and are serious.

Have you ever seen a beginners' space? The femdom-findom drama? The tons of low-effort domination to get some easy NSFW content? The blackmail chaos? Oh, I’m pretty sure you know what I am talking about if you know the underbelly of BDSM.

Or maybe, maybe you are from the other side; maybe you closed yourself in an intellectual ivory tower with a few subs and doms “with a level head.”

The first group, the underbelly/beginner one, of course, can be healthy. You don’t necessarily need life dedication to do BDSM. Yet we know what usually happens to these people. I have met a ton who felt worthless, tons who were cheating, tons who talked about things like “findom addiction.” Blackmail messes, couples' drama, unstable couples.

Then we have the second, serious group, those with experience who take things seriously. They know SCP and FNAF.

Their talks are like: “In my healthy dynamic with my consensual play-partner, I had a consensual play during a BDSM play scene; of course we both agreed throughout the entire duration of the act—a consensual act, I recall.” Normal people don’t do that every time they have sex.

Of course I am dramatizing, but I want to express my astonishment when I see the attempt to therapize or to put all the evident troubles and contradictions of our community in a bin.

I do see tons of low esteem and neglect; it is not a fault, it is not being sick, it is mostly due to society. Still, why do you scream that it is all okay? I do believe there is tons of internalized stigma; it is only natural considering the context. I do believe that BDSM lives in need of justifying its existence, both through hiding or through hyper-formalization. Of course we are capable of genuine, transparent things. Of course hyper-formalizing or hiding doesn’t invalidate us. >!Do you know the reason for these “of courses”?!< >!Because otherwise you would think badly; you would think I am judging you.!<

Yet that doesn’t mean we have to be fine with that situation. Telling us everything is fine won’t improve our situation. It won’t make society accept us. We should expose ourselves and fight for our rights.

I am sure that at least the vast majority of the shit in our community is due to people dissociating BDSM from “real life” and/or having very low self-esteem regarding what they are doing. Solving this won’t mean destroying privacy or outing everyone, but only increasing everyone's self-opinion.

And, talking of stigma, by publishing this, I shall say goodbye to tons of subreddits who forbid accounts with “NSFW” history. Goodbye; y’all would have banned me regardless due to my aura. >!I’m way superior after all.!<

In my life I never gave AI much importance. Yeah, I have studied it with interest since its early development, but it was just one of the many topics I immersed myself in. “Pretty curious, people seem fascinated, well, after all I too like to toy with technology”.

Then some years later, the first public-use LLMs started to pop up; tons of public discussion about AI consciousness, ethics, and the fear of being replaced. And I was like, seriously? How can you be scared of this thing replacing you? It is literally a toy. And even for the sake of argument, wouldn't humanity with less work to do be more free? How can you not see this from an accelerationist perspective?

I've seen the world economy pledge itself to AI, I've seen university philosophy professors stating “I have debates with AI” without feeling cringey at all, I've seen tons of websites adopting crappy AI solutions that don't even work.

Worry not. It's just a bubble, this madness will come to an end, true? I mean, this should be a rational counterargument. How stupid and naive I was, I overvalued humanity so much.

To them, AI was a very serious topic; artists instead of pinpointing their clear superiority started to beg “please, please, don’t let it replace us, it stole our data”, thinkers started to see it as an “intellectual peer”, programmers, oh please don’t make me speak of programmers.

And at every AI update they are like: “Now, now it is better than us! The day 0 is here! Get ready to be replaced!”

But this, all of this is nothing… the worst is the harm it has caused to the general public. AI content lives in a paradox, it is despised, yet deemed superior to most. That saddens me a lot. They are the first to use “AI slop”, yet, 5 minutes later, they are the first to use AI to win a debate or “make money”. They can’t even recognize it and are terrified of it. To them, AI is like a logical fallacy: “It should only be weighed if used by the opponent”.

All this shows me one thing only: how low human standards are. AI is still a toy. If I see a crappy text or work I don’t need to waste time asking myself “is this AI slop?” I simply classify it as garbage.

The darkest truth behind this lies in social rejection. The main reason people use AI is the fear of being wrong. AI is trained on 'normie' content; it is designed to maintain a facade or something formal and functional. When you create something with AI, even if the quality is 'meh', you are never truly exposed. Or maybe, maybe I am wrong. Maybe I am overestimating again: maybe people truly believe that toy to be superior to them.

To conclude, yes, AI terrifies me, because the more it progresses, the more it reveals about humanity.

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? - Matthew 5:13

Human beliefs have always fascinated me; over time and in different forms, they mold individuals, values, and entire societies, and prove to us the intrinsic power of pure thought. Would you like some examples of thinkers who changed the world for better or for worse? Just think of Marx or Pythagoras. And then, there’s a gray area beyond which the impact on the world becomes even more incisive: a subtle, almost non-existent line between philosophy and theology. Beyond it, historical figures like Christ shaped the story of humanity.

Christianity, unlike Judaism, and as its name suggests, shifts most of its focus toward its founder. This simplification is the natural evolution of monotheistic religions; it centralizes power in a single charismatic figure, while everything else falls into the background.

Other Jewish prophets do not disappear; rather, they become an added value. The excessive complexity, which was the primary reason for the rise of monotheism, finally disappears.

But how was Jesus Christ able to build all this? What, realistically speaking, were the main points of his philosophy? Welcome to ‘the philosophy of Christ’.

The first Christians were an apocalyptic movement; they preached that the end of the world was imminent. Christ himself emphasized this repeatedly, as attested by numerous historical and theological sources. He was a radical; philosophically speaking, passages such as “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” aren’t to be interpreted as violent, but as philosophical. To follow him meant leaving everything else behind.

Early Christian values such as radical equality, selfless love, and the community of goods were extraordinary for their time. Moreover, their rejection of wealth set them apart from the rest of the world. So great was Christ’s influence.

There were already several similar cults, like the Essenes, for example. But all of them lacked the universal nature of Christianity.

People like Nietzsche would theorize that this is a servile set of values; whether it still is in our days, I will leave you to judge. But try to imagine the times: Jews were encouraged to convert to the worship of the emperor. Their privileges were miraculously guaranteed, and those still loyal amidst this chaos of false messiahs were strongly encouraged to stay true to tradition.

And then Christ comes and says, “Hey, let’s subvert the hierarchy, let’s all become bros, and let’s start to spread the word among others too.” How to put it... it doesn't seem very servile. This is to say, it required bravery to be a Christian at the time.

In any case, this openness and these values should not be confused with progressivism. The impending apocalypse had inevitable consequences for how outsiders were viewed, and women's conditions weren't so good.

If it wasn’t for progressivism, and if they risked their conditions worsening, why did so many people throw it all away to follow him? Was he truly the Son of God?

It is not entirely clear whether Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God in the way we understand it. He kind of said we are all sons of God, yet every time he claimed this for himself, he did so separately. Did he mean he was literally the Son of God? Honestly, we don’t even have many traces of him declaring himself the messiah; scholars believe it was a messianic secret, something known inside the believers' circle, but which he didn't talk much about to others. The Trinity, on the other hand, is something still discussed by modern Christians too.

So why? Well, as I said, the power of rhetoric can change the world. And keep in mind the context: less education, more susceptibility, the wait for a messiah. The chance to take part in something greater.

However, returning to our analysis, he didn’t do it all alone. He chose twelve apostles, matching the exact number of the tribes of Israel. These men were crucial to the movement's administration, and each of them led their own group of followers. All the chosen ones were charismatic, good-looking men of the upper-middle class.

Right among these lies the one later accused of provoking his death: Judas. Whether or not Christ’s death was provoked by him, it is almost a proven fact that it built most of current Christian theology.

The story of Christ's death is told differently in each of the Gospels, but it is also recorded in various historical sources. Most Christian sources exalt the pain of Christ, fulfilling the vision of the sacrificial lamb in his role. Who knows, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Those don’t seem like the words of someone willing to sacrifice himself; and they are from the most ancient of the Gospels. Though in the two more recent ones, he respectively says, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” and “It is finished”.

Maybe he was scared? Maybe after suffering a heavy loss, the years that followed brought this construct upon him to justify the survival of the movement?

A whole lot of other things changed with the construction of the church. As time went on, it became increasingly clear that the end of the world was not imminent. With the increase in popularity, it became increasingly necessary to move away from Jewish origins, and Christ's importance grew into myth.

This also came at a price: radicalism. And whether for better or for worse, even though they gained power, they were forced to make compromises in order to get it. Tons of compromises. Does that mean Nietzsche would be right now? Regardless of everything, they still changed history.

Yet, if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? We can talk and debate over details, but one thing is pretty objective: the first Christians were pretty different from today's.

Messiah or God, Jesus was just a man provided with words. He didn’t do it all alone; Paul, the apostles, and many others played a significant role in his ascent, though he guided everything thanks to his ideology. And it still influences today’s world.

All of that is just a small part of why human beliefs are so interesting.

Truth is objective, yet it is impossible to perceive it from an impartial point of view, and even assuming one day it will be possible, the way we process that information will remain subjective.

We are all similar enough, on a massive scale, to get a similar comprehension of the data we get; however, it is still possible that some people disagree over common sense, both due to logical errors or due to communication misunderstandings caused by brain differences. For example, a colorblind person will process things differently because of his condition, which can be easily fixed through language, while in the case of someone who messes up because of a delusion or a logical fallacy, in theory he could be aligned again with explanations, persuasion, or in case of mental health problems, appropriate therapy could work.

If two subjective views collide, or if a subjective view collides with a more objective truth, there is no difference. While usually a more objective truth has more resources to use to defend itself, in a debate a wrong/subjective truth, if well argued, can easily distort the objective truth. This is because the brain itself works on a subjective basis.

From a purely theoretical standpoint, having more grounded humans who follow a solid logic is the best thing for our species, for scientific progress, and for political and philosophical debate. To summarize: for the world overall. We can and should strive for it.

Yet, in practice, relativism reigns. The human brain is wonderfully good at justifying incoherence; no matter how inconsistent someone's reasoning is, if it is his reasoning, it is his treasure. And when someone gets mentally ill, sadly the prognosis usually isn't good.

That said, there are no differences between someone who is born, lives, and dies believing that 2 + 2 = 4 and someone who is born, lives, and dies believing that 2 + 2 = 5. Both will live and die believing something that is equally true. The objective truth has value only from a utilitarian perspective, but has no influence over the subjective experience.

Of course, striving for objectivity has not only an altruistic purpose; if you understand the world and its objective laws better, probably you will gain advantages more easily. Yet, as this premise says, it is impossible to reach absolute objectivity; you can’t detach reality from how you process it, from your opinions, from your history, etc. It can very easily lead to presumption.

Someone who firmly believes they are strongly objective, objectively speaking, probably is more similar to a relativist.

Relativism also has its bright side; it makes debate possible, lets us build our beliefs, and make up our delusions. Still, it should not become an excuse to refuse logic. I believe two smart people have all the means to understand each other. I will go further: I do believe that if two people are intelligent and disagree over something, at the end of the discussion one will change his mind, or they aren’t both intelligent/the discussion wasn’t in good faith.

To conclude, I believe relativism is an objective truth.

We all perceive the world in a relative way; a “true” truth is not intrinsically superior to a “false” truth. We all should strive to mimic objectivity, yet we should stay away from presumption.

Nietzsche theorized the Übermensch as someone able to create their own values and follow them with courage, regardless of others’ judgement. The Übermensch became a myth, with strict requirements beyond the core concept, and an aura of impossibility. (Speaking of superfluous requirements, why should the Übermensch desire the Eternal Return? He was supposed to make his own values)

Many have missed the point; some think they are close to the Übermensch concept just because they understand it. Others blindly accept Nietzsche’s definition. People who do that wouldn’t even be Camels, but part of the Herd. The Übermensch, by definition, wouldn’t give a heck about how others define him.

I think we should stop viewing the ideas of past philosophers as unquestionable dogma. Let’s read them, let’s discuss them, and afterwards, we shall make our own values. The Übermensch shall be an emblem of renewal and nonconformity. Seeing him as someone out of reach is useless.

We all can strive beyond humanity.

Nietzsche is dead. It is time to surpass him.

I have always felt different from others. Actually, I am different from others. I'd be lying to say they never tried to make me feel inadequate about it, yet they always failed.
Why do people have to be like this? Why do they try to impose themselves on each other at the first sign of vulnerability? I've never understood it; they aren't even psychologists and often mistake nonchalance, lack of interest, or simply confidence for `vulnerability`.

I admit, with regret, that no matter how much I studied psychology or the human mind, I never fully understood their social act. And all that distance mixed with a fair dose of success, alienated me tons. Maybe it even made me arrogant, judgmental, and careless. But what matters? I have success after all, the measure of all things.

However, each time I look at myself, each time I look at others I do feel dissatisfaction. Why can't we be better? Why shall we settle for what we have? Some people look at me as someone who, starting from a truly terrible situation, achieved the unthinkable. I instead see all my errors so clearly and can't help but ask myself: What if I were even a bit better? What if I start to be a bit better now? There are no limits beyond ambition.

To those who feel mediocre, to those who feel crushed: I do feel you all. The world can be cruel, yet I can attest that humanity is also capable of extraordinary things. You are potentially capable of extraordinary things. And the best part of it? You don't owe anything to anyone; you aren't meant for anything extraordinary. You may start by becoming a bit better too.

I also have a suggestion for everyone reading this: simply put a stop to the show.
Radical transparency and indifference to the judgment of others will make the difference.

Imagine that all your ideals are wrong. Maybe they are logical. Maybe they prevent suffering. Maybe they are simply important to you. Well, all that no longer matters: God himself has declared them wrong. Truly, are your ideals wrong?

How consistent are we with what we believe? How much are we willing to compromise for the sake of convenience? Many religions exist, each one with tons of interpretations. Yet, many of them have a few controversial points in common: some groups of people are favored, while others are punished. Each time the criteria vary depending on the interpretation with each one adjusting them to their own tastes.

But if God exists, there will be only one God of a single religion. And he will not conform to your tastes. And in this, even if he declares himself good, even if we shall say he is good, will we still be able to recognize good?

The idea of hell has always seemed absurd to me; an endless punishment for a finite wrong can only be sadistic. And even if I behave, what if one of my relatives or of my friends comes to hell? But, even assuming that all my relatives and friends are saints, should I be just fine while strangers are tortured for eternity? There are theological solutions some people adopt, like the apocatastasis for Christians or the fana' al-Nar for Islam. However, if God were to reveal Himself, we might have to accept that these theories are false. (Or, in another, more positive hypothetical scenario, their confirmation)

Generally, people don't worry about these things, not even when it comes to their own situation; imagine doing so for friends and relatives, and even more rarely for criminals and sinners. Personally, I don’t believe in other gods, so I’ve never really cared that much, but the inconsistency has always struck me as odd.

People tend to choose a religion whose principles they share, or one that ‘fortunately’ has a benevolent God. There are also sad cases of gay people who have to believe in a very homophobic God, or women believing in a very misogynistic God, but these are exceptional cases. And from what I know, when they can, they usually switch religion.

What if God appeared before humanity and said that women are inferior and that gay people should be exterminated? Would that be right?

When I was little and read the story of the Garden of Eden for the first time, I thought, “Was he afraid we’d eat the fruit of life too?” And “So if he was afraid, was he not all-powerful? Is that a chance? If Satan was the brightest of all and yet rebelled, was he mad, a hopelessly evil being, a hopeless idealist, or a rebel with hope?”.

In short, the doubt I want to raise is this: if there is a God who claims to be good, but doesn’t seem good, and that God also claims to be all-powerful, who can guarantee that he actually is? Maybe he is just very powerful? But even if he isn’t, to rebel against him could mean an eternity of suffering. Given this situation, is it worth the risk?

Or would it be way easier to just go along with his morality, forget about our loved ones, and start all over again? After all, human ethics is so fragile.

I, personally, don’t believe in other gods, and in the end, that’s nothing more than a sophism. However, I believe it is more important now than ever to reflect on the consistency and moral value of our beliefs. Superficial beliefs, fake empathy, distorted beliefs, all these things sicken me.

If a God were real, I wouldn’t renounce my coherence, just as I don’t with society. No matter what.

How many times have you heard of Socratic humility cited as an example of virtue? The ever-popular "I know that I know nothing" is still used to summarize "Socratic thought" and to silence the presumptuous and the arrogant. Yet, I’d ask why we are quoting it so often? Where does it come from? What would Socrates think about it?

Let's start with the basics; that phrase reminds us that there is always something new to learn; because with some humbleness and an open mind, we can always improve ourselves, right? So why was Socrates, the emblem of this much-praised concept according to his story, prophesied by the Oracle herself as the wisest of all men? Did he not believe her? Yet he repeatedly and firmly declared his belief in the Gods.

True, true, he started his philosophical game after the Oracle’s pronouncement, questioning everyone to show them their limits. How very humble of him! However, it is a distortion to say that this happened because he did not believe in the Oracle.

Socrates' philosophy has fallen victim to the Sophists and those who quote him (or better Plato, not that it makes a difference) out of context; The very sentence “I know that I know nothing” is believed to come from a translation of Plato’s Apology 21d, which literally says: “I do not think I know what I do not know.” It has been distorted by all the sophistry it has been subjected to.

Socrates himself was never humble, quite the opposite! His thinking was extremely elitist!

Women? In practice, they can’t think like men. Workers? Good only at their jobs, and they shouldn't be allowed in political life. Artists? Well, at least they're inspired. Philosophers—ah, those enlightened, superior saints. (Oh, look at that, Socrates was a philosopher.)

We would also have to address the fact that coincidentally he often changed his views depending on what suited Plato, but that’s another matter

And what about Socratic irony? I dare anyone who knows what it is to call it humble without bursting out laughing.

So why do we like to invoke Socratic humility? To feel superior. And that is quite the opposite of humility.

Is it? Is true humility different? Or is every form of humility an act? Plato argued that we are elevated through virtue. And of course, to most ‘humility’ is a virtue. Can an uplifting virtue be both humble and consistent? Can an act be truthful? Every time we exhibit it we declare ‘I am humble, I am better, I am superior’ […] ‘I know how to behave, you don’t’.

Every time we quote Socrates out of context; we spit on his “I do not think I know what I do not know” in support of our “I know that I know nothing”, and well, we know nothing with pride; Socrates would be very disappointed by this.

I, on the other hand, would like to suggest a different perspective: let’s leave Socrates to those who love philosophy, to those who love to know and debate.

Humbleness and humility can be virtues in their own context and with both feet on the ground. A wealthy person who hides their wealth is putting on a show to make their unjust privilege seem legitimate. A genius who limits himself is putting up a theater designed to get approval while making a mockery of everyone. Those are no virtues; those are vicious acts.

Nor should these virtues ever limit ambitions or aspirations. Instead, I hope they will be useful as a safeguard against presumption, like the presumption that makes some feel unfairly superior to others or that makes us assume things that were never said.

While arrogance, well, I think it can even be a virtue in an appropriate context. Why? To put an end to the repugnant social charade that thrives on a false sense of social equality. But that is an argument for another time.