Is arrogance ever warranted?

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Can you defend the proposition that it behooves some people to be haughty? Does some people's arrogance help others or help the world in some way? If so, who merits the license to be arrogant, and why?

Or is there really no excuse for arrogance ever, and it's merely a sinful liberty taken by those who aren't often in positions to be criticized for it? Confucius taught that it behooved an authority figure to treat those under his authority with respect, so long as they were loyal and didn't undermine him, and that an authority figure who didn't follow this deserved to be betrayed and undermined, and generally would be. This is easy to see in situations where the power relationship was not freely chosen by either party, or within any worldview that never brings anything like free will to the table. In the olden days, for example, a serf didn't choose to be born a serf any more than a king chose to be born royalty. But what about situations where the power relationship has been freely chosen? What if you do believe in free choice? It's harder to argue on purely utilitarian grounds that it behooves a professor to refrain from arrogance toward his students, since they choose to take his course, they want what he's got to give, and they're free to terminate the relationship at any time (accepting all consequences, of course). Similarly, in democracies founded on Enlightenment principles, what grounds do we have to complain about arrogant loudmouths speaking for us and refusing to listen to us, if technically we put them there, and we could just as easily vote them out?

An old wise saying has it that pride cometh before a fall. Is this really true, in your estimation?

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

I think arrogance is something inherent in many, many, people's dispositions, most just usually are in a position to be criticized about it and so they keep their comments and sneers to themselves. What you are talking about, the Confucian thing, where one party is subordinate to another in a real and tangible sense, isn't the most common instance of arrogance IMO. Often it's a dilettante making some inane comment about something, and his fellow dilettantes who agree, and jump on the one person who might disagree. And, when a person with an inflated ego feels challenged, they can resort to arrogant nastiness to try and put his opponent "in his place." I feel this dynamic is common in many many social circles, not just people arguing that Jackson Pollock is the most revolutionary 20th century artist. As far as a Confucian relationship is concerned, that might fall loosely under the "friend/friend" situation where everyone is equal. The only unevenness would be in people's heads. A person who gets laid a lot, or landed the big time job, might feel more at ease among his peers to make nasty arrogant comments, but everyone at the table is equal in that situation and there isn't anything holding anyone back from calling that person out.

What you talk about, professor/student, boss/employee, is obviously different from what I just talked about, but I think in those cases I just comes down to a matter of style. Most people chafe mightily when they have to put up with an arrogant superior, which is why I think lots of bosses do not try to throw their weight around unless it is absolutely necessary. I've had bosses I didn't like, obviously, but I don't really think arrogance played any part of that. They were pretty good not to appear arrogant. Most people who know how to manage others seem to realize that they need more than just rank to motivate.

When it comes to teachers, I think it's more about what I talked about earlier: lots of people just have that arrogance as a part of them, and they see no reason to try and hide it.

Ultimately I feel, though, that many a silence or blank face is hiding something truly arrogant behind a placid front. With that in mind, I'd prefer outright arrogance, so at least you'd know where you stand.

 

[jazz hands]

I think self-righteousness is what is at the center of this concept. I feel that self-righteousness is both a good and bad quality depending on the circumstances. Self-righteousness involves a person believing they have been wronged and aggressively trying to make right the wrong. If the person is incorrect in their belief of having been wronged, their behavior is arrogant and negative thing. If the person has actually been wronged and is trying to assert themselves, their behavior conveys strength and righteousness and is positive.

 

[thesoundofmotion]

I think people become arrogant when they know they are right about something but they just aren't getting the recognition or credit they deserve.

It's very subjective on what is important, but I suppose if someone feels that what he needs to do is important he may need to be arrogant to get his way.

If someone truly knows the answer, let him be arrogant.

 

[moonyham]

It is warranted. Definitely.

If i know something to be true or right, for example a friend asks where the nearest xstore is, and i say, oh its like 5min down the road, and another friend interrupts and is like 'hey maan na, the closest one is on the other side of town' and i know hes fucking wrong cause ive been to the xstore everyday and the man at the counter even knows what cigarettes i buy, IM NOT GOING TO JUST GO 'OH OK, YEAH IM WRONG, GO DO WHAT HE SAYS, THERE ISNT ONE 5 MIN UP THE ROAD'.

duh.

 

[alasdairm]

^ i'm not sure your hypothetical example has anything to do with arrogance.

as with everything, this is a definition of terms but arrogance has nothing to do with aggressively standing your ground when somebody disagrees with you.

arrogance is, simply put, the exaggeration of ones own importance. i think jazz hands touched on it when he spoke of self-righteousness but i don't think it's narrowly limited to people believing they've been wronged.

so who defines ones importance? if everybody thinks i'm not that important but i believe i am important am i, by definition, arrogant? is it possible that the very belief that arrogance is warranted, makes one arrogant?

alasdair

 

[jazz hands]

i think jazz hands touched on it when he spoke of self-righteousness but i don't think it's narrowly limited to people believing they've been wronged.

You're right-- I guess it would be more accurately apply when someone feels they have the right to broadcast their selfish emotions to others. If one is wronged is one of the few conditions under which I can see this behavior being justified. I guess it could also be justified in situations like war, when benefiting one's self also benefits others in the process. Still though, the arrogant side of the self-righteousness certainly comes about by directing selfish attention on one's self when having no logical right to do so.

 

[califrog]

Better than arrogance ( its a douchy posit). Is to be strong and earnest. Arrogance is a sure sign of insecurity.

 

[CoffeeDrinker]

It is warranted. Definitely.

If i know something to be true or right, for example a friend asks where the nearest xstore is, and i say, oh its like 5min down the road, and another friend interrupts and is like 'hey maan na, the closest one is on the other side of town' and i know hes fucking wrong cause ive been to the xstore everyday and the man at the counter even knows what cigarettes i buy, IM NOT GOING TO JUST GO 'OH OK, YEAH IM WRONG, GO DO WHAT HE SAYS, THERE ISNT ONE 5 MIN UP THE ROAD'.

duh.

That's petulance, not to be confused with pestilence, and not to be confused with arrogance.