Humble Stance Quotes

We expect populists to be popular. However, what can be more inconsistent and nonsensical than “unpopular” populists. They start doing everything to fit the job and are gritting their teeth so hard that they shatter them all and are chewed to bits. The moral … let us be genuine, humble, and coherent instead of stumbling from a vainglorious stance into the opposite. ("Keeping up with the Joneses" )

our greatest enemies are those who are without certainty. The ones with questions, the ones who regard our tidy answers with unquenchable scepticism. Those questions assail us, undermine us. They…agitate. Understand, these dangerous citizens understand that nothing is simple; their stance is the very opposite of naivety. They are humbled by the ambivalence to which they are witness, and they defy our simple, comforting assertions of clarity, of a black and white world.

a perfect stance, which is wrong yet supported by enough plausible misconceptions that it is possible to argue about it at length

That is the ultimate alternative: is the opposition between Loveand Law to be reduced to its “truth,” the opposition, internal to theLaw itself, between the determinate positive Law and the excessivesuperego injunction, the Law beyond every measure—that is to say,is the excess of Love with regard to the Law the form of appearanceof a superego Law, of a Law beyond any determinate law; or is theexcessive superego Law the way the dimension beyond the Law ap-pears withinthe domain of the Law, so that the crucial step to be ac-complished is the step (comparable to Nietzsche’s “High Noon”)from the excessive Law to Love, from the way Love appears withinthe domain of the Law to Love beyond the Law? Lacan himselfstruggled continuously with this same deeply Pauline problem: isthere love beyond Law? Paradoxically (in view of the fact that thenotion as unsurpassable Law is usually perceived as Jewish), in thevery last page of Four Fundamental Concepts,he identifies this stance oflove beyond Law as that of Spinoza, opposing it to the Kantian no-tion of moral Law as the ultimate horizon of our experience. InEthics of Psychoanalysis,Lacan deals extensively with the Pauline di-alectic of the Law and its transgression13—perhaps what we shoulddo, therefore, is read this Pauline dialectic together with its corol-lary, Saint Paul’s other paradigmatic passage, the one on love from 1Corinthians 13. Crucial here is the clearly paradoxical place of Love with regard to All(to the completed series of knowledge or prophecies): first, SaintPaul claims that love is here even if we possess all of knowledge—then, in the second quoted paragraph, he claims that love is hereonly for incomplete beings, that is, beings who possess incompleteknowledge.When I “know fully . . . as I have been fully known,” willthere still be love? Although, in contrast to knowledge, “love neverends,” it is clearly only “now” (while I am still incomplete) that“faith, hope, and love abide.” The only way out of this deadlock isto read the two inconsistent claims according to Lacan’s feminineformulas of sexuation:14even when it is “all” (complete, with no ex-ception), the field of knowledge remains, in a way, non-all, incom-plete—love is not an exception to the All of knowledge, but preciselythat “nothing” which makes incomplete even the complete series/field of knowledge. In other words, the point of the claim that, evenif I were to possess all knowledge, without love, I would be nothing,is not simply that withlove, I am “something”—in love, I am also noth-ing,but, as it were, a Nothing humbly aware of itself, a Nothing par-adoxically made rich through the very awareness of its lack.Only a lacking, vulnerable being is capable of love: the ultimatemystery of love, therefore, is that incompleteness is, in a way, higherthan completion. On the one hand, only an imperfect, lacking beingloves: we love because we do notknow all. On the other hand, evenif we were to know everything, love would, inexplicably, still behigher than completed knowledge. Perhaps the true achievement ofChristian is to elevate a loving (imperfect) Being to the place ofGod, that is, of ultimate perfection. That is the kernel of the Chris-tian experience. In the previous pagan attitude, imperfect earthlyphenomena can serve as signs of the unattainable divine perfection.In Christianity, on the contrary, it is physical (or mental) perfectionitself that is the sign of the imperfection (finitude, vulnerability, un-certainty) of you as the absolute person. becomes a sign of this spiritual dimension—not the sign of your“higher” spiritual perfection, but the sign of youas a finite, vulner-able person. Only in this way do we really break out of idolatry. Forthis reason, the properly Christian relationship between sex and loveis not the one between body and soul, but almost the opposite...

The social worker A.V.Thakkar now wrote to Gandhi that ‘a humble and honest untouchable family is desirous of joining your Ashram. Will you accept them?’ This letter, recalled Gandhi in his autobiography, ‘perturbed’ him. He had taken a public stance against the practice of untouchability. However, in matters of caste the Hindus of Ahmedabad were cautious and conservative. So soon after he had moved to their city, should he challenge their prejudices in so open a manner? A.V. Thakkar’s letter to him had now placed Gandhi in a quandary. Should he accept the ‘untouchable’ family recommended by Thakkar, or would that imperil the future of the ashram? Gandhi decided to accept Thakkar’s suggestion. The family consisted of Dudhabhai, his wife, Danibehn, and their baby daughter, Lakshmi. When they arrived at the Satyagraha Ashram on 11 September, there was much grumbling, not least from Gandhi’s own family members. Kasturba was not happy with this decision to defy the orthodox. Danibehn was prevented from drawing water fromthe common well until Gandhi said in that case he would not use the well either. On 23 September, Gandhi wrote to Srinivasa Sastri about the turmoil caused by the admission of the ‘untouchable’ family. ‘There was quite a flutter in the Ashram,’ he remarked. ‘There is a flutter even in Ahmedabad. I have told Mrs.Gandhi she could leave me and we should part good friends.

our greatest enemies are those who are without certainty. The ones with questions, the ones who regard our tidy answers with unquenchable scepticism. Those questions assail us, undermine us. They…agitate. Understand, these dangerous citizens understand that nothing is simple; their stance is the very opposite of naivety. They are humbled by the ambivalence to which they are witness, and they defy our simple, comforting assertions of clarity, of a black and white world. Yathvanar, when you wish to deliver the gravest insult to such a citizen, call them naive. You will leave them incensed; indeed, virtually speechless…until you watch their minds back-tracking, revealed by a cascade of expressions, as they ask themselves: who is it that would call me naive? Well, comes the answer, clearly a person possessing certainty, with all the arrogance and pretension that position entails; a confidence, then, that permits the offhand judgement, the derisive dismissal uttered from a most lofty height. And

WHEN WE’RE CONVERSING with someone, do we spend the whole time searching for launching points for what we want to say? Or, do we actually listen to appreciate what they are trying to relate? The first stance is the hubris of believing that what we have to say and contribute is primary; certainly my insight is brighter, my interpretation more inspiring, and my perspective more valuable. The root of the Hebrew word for humility (anava) is la’anot, which means “to answer.” When the humble person speaks, he participates as one component of the whole. He truly responds. —RABBI MICHA BERGER (B. 1965)

However, the unapologetic standpoint taken in this project regards the second of these trajectories with its humble identification with the poor, as seen in the Magnificat’s pulling down of the mighty and the Beatitudes’ love for one’s enemies, as the radical Christianity of the gospel testimony. The orientation of the thesis, therefore, is to seek out answers as to how this lowly stance was subverted into support for the higher power and suggests that it happened as the result of an invasion and colonization of the concept of transcendence by sovereignty. As a result, what was originally a single identity for Christianity has been divided through the development of ecclesiastical structures and theologies that have colluded with empire.

As you enter this doorway of womanhood,” they tell her, “you must keep the fire going of vkvsvmkv, or spiritual belief. You must seek and acquire a spiritual understanding of life. Your relationship with your Creator is central. You must tend it with quiet and communion. Turn your eyes and ears inward and listen. Begin every morning, tending this fire. “Emetvl’hvmke is community. Your body is a community of organs, all living with consciousness, that work together to house you in this story. Community is those with whom you live, from home to school, to your tribal nation, city, or state. You must remember to place community interest and benefits ahead of individual and personal gain. “Always be kind and humble. Eyasketv is humility. No one is above the other. “Vrakkueckv means respect. Respect this gift of life, and in doing so we respect ourselves and others. “Fvccetv is integrity. Be honest. Tell the truth. Keep an ethical stance. If you sense that someone calling themself “friend” is not your friend, then be honest with yourself and act accordingly. “Emenhonretv tayat translates as trust. Take responsibility for every act, thought, or dream. “Hoporrenkv is the continual gaining of wisdom. Listen. Study hard, beloved granddaughter.

After the 2016 election, the media did not engage in any of that self-reflection or humble analysis leading to self-improvement. They took a very different approach. After Trump's victory, several media outlets shifted their approach from their cosplaying traditional objectivity towards outright advocacy journalism and taking even more explicit political stances.