Self-righteousness as the perfection of error

[fpb]

As if the collapse of my bookcases were not enough to make me feel depressed, I have found, in an answer thread on a community on my friends page, the following statement:

What IS a great leader? Was Churchill a great leader? He was astoundingly cruel, even to his own men. He was drunk most of the time. Other people were was paying the horrible price for his incompetence.

I will not say who wrote it, because the creature deserves no publicity. What does one do with such a mind? It is not just the depth of error and ignorance s/he revels in. It is not just that s/he has read one piece of inimical propaganda and based his /her ignorant and stupid assessment on that. It is that he or she exists in a world where it is natural to judge and condemn others on wholly inadequate bases, in which one does not seek out any reason to doubt one's views, and in which one's views are always negative, because one the self-righteousness one cultivates is really a way to feel superior to others by condemning them without appeal. It is a world in which history serves merely as ego-boost, in which the past is one great depth of error until the luminous insight and presence of **oneself** royally appears among the darkness, shining its own critical light into its darkest corners to vaingloriously show how inferior they are to **one's** mighty, judging, central Self. A person like that is a potential public danger and a certain pest. And, unfortunately, at large in LJ.

Comments

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

Without knowing anything else about this post, I can only say this much: from the bit you've quoted, it doesn't sound like he/she is making a judgement. They seem to be asking a question. I don't know history. I don't know how right or wrong what they're saying is. But if I'm phrasing something like that, it usually means "Open for discussion! Come and tell me if you think I'm right or wrong!"

We're not all historians, Fabio. If you think they're saying something that's wrong, go and correct them. Politely.

*dons asbestos suit*

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Take it from me, PM, there is no correcting anyone who would say this sort of shit about Winston Churchill. It is a vile soup of misrepresentation, cooked on the fire of egotism. If I had seen any point in challenging him/her, I would have done so, politely or not; but this is like dealing with someone who says Shakespeare was a cheap, popular jingle-make and vulgarian. Or, to get into your subject, who obstentatiously rejects the germ theory of disease. I mean, what could I correct? To set this person straight on matter of fact would take a large book; and such books exist, from Martin Gilbert's to Roy Jenkins'. S/he has shown no interest in them; preferring to turn the miserable, overwrought odds and ends of stale gossip to rot into this putrid stew. There is nothing here that could reasonably be argued with; nothing that is worth replying to. But to discover (once again) this kind of mind depressed me further, and angered me, and I was not in a mood to be silent about my feelings.

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe. As I said, I don't know a thing about Winston Churchill, and I haven't got a clue what this person wrote. I dunno, it just seems like you get really worked up about stuff - to my eye, needlessly. I mean, if someone came and told me Shakespeare was a cheap, popular jingle-make and vulgarian, I'd think they were an idiot and have a good laugh about them. I wouldn't bother correcting them either, but I wouldn't get depressed about it. I'd just roll my eyes.

The things I would get worked up about would be more immediate. For example, someone thinking it's a good idea to drink and drive. Or someone thinking it's okay for a 28-year-old man to date a 14-year-old girl. That, I think you'll agree is worth a lot more ranting.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The thing is, for me, and for a lot of people, Churchill is the prime instance of a politician who stood up for the truth, paid for it, and eventually went on to win. He is a moral example, and therefore this has more to do with your instance of the people who think it is all right to drink and drive or to date underage children. This was an assault upon the common sense of morality, built on ignorant gossip and fuelled by egotism that cannot bear to see anyone placed higher than oneself. (Whereas I for one know no pleasure greater than admiration.) Think of someone you really respect so highly that it would hurt you personally to hear him/her slandered; and think of your feeling if the slander were not only vile, not only ignorant, but arrogantly treated as obvious. This is what it is about.

Are you still up? What time of day is it over there?

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

I supoose you have a point. And yes, if someone slandered a person I admire... All bets are off. I like to think I'm a pretty patient person, but... :)

Point well taken.

It's actually quite early - 7:00 p.m. What's the time over there?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Eight o'clock in the morning.