Of all of Aristotle's twelve virtues, this one is the biggy. In 1828, Noah Webster in his Dictionary of the American Language put it like this:
MAGNANIMITY, n. [L. magnanimitas; magnus, great, and animus, mind.] Greatness of mind; that elevation or dignity of soul, which encounters danger and trouble with tranquillity and firmness, which raises the possessor above revenge, and makes him delight in acts of benevolence, which makes him disdain injustice and meanness, and prompts him to sacrifice personal ease, interest and safety for the accomplishment of useful and noble objects.
Yep, that's quite a virtue. Remember that a virtue is a positive habit. So being magnanimous is to be in the habit of greatness. It sounds impossible, doesn't it?
One of the key philosophical questions is, "What is the nature of man?" Are we as a species basically good or basically evil? Your answer to that fundamental question forms the bedrock of most of your beliefs and behaviour. Everyone has an answer to that question, though they may not be aware of it consciously. They may even espouse, and truly believe, one answer, but unconsciously believe the opposite. Before we can understand magnanimity we must first understand good and evil and determine where mankind fits the equation.
In the Aristotelian ethics the good is that which promotes flourishing and the evil is that which hinders or destroys it. Since man flourishes through the use of his mind, then it is the "great mind" that leads to greater flourishing. There is more than that. Through his flourishing he allows others to flourish.
For example, look at how the flourishing of an inventor and entrepreneur like Bill Gates has allowed millions of other people to flourish in their lives. Love him or hate him, you must admit that the corporation he built has employed either directly or indirectly millions and millions of people, not to mention how his products have allowed others to flourish and also employ people.
I do not subscribe to the mainstream ethics of altruism that states that the good man is the man who sacrifices for others. I do not believe in the concept of the "greater good". However, every man judges another according to how they benefited from this man's actions and when the many benefit from the actions of the single man then there is a common consensus that he is great.
When people are asked who the great men of our age are they will usually point to spiritual or moral leaders, such as Gandhi or Martin Luther King. The men of industry, such as Gates, are seen as just being in it for the profit motive. Well, when you are unemployed and starving would you benefit more from the preacher giving you spiritual sustenance out of the kindness of his heart or the businessman offering you a job for his own selfish end?
People like Gandhi and King courageously opened the doors of opportunity for millions of people. That can be considered good and great. However, people had to walk through those newly opened doors. For all intents and purposes inspirational men such as these are basically just cheerleaders encouraging others to act. It is the unsung people who followed their calls, did the work, and flourished who are the real creators of a new world.
All rational men seek to flourish, so therefore we might say that mankind is basically good. However, everyone has a different idea of how to go about flourishing and what it means to flourish. So the ends may be good, but the means can be evil.
The problem occurs when people are completely convinced that their evil actions are moral and justified. I believe it was Willem Dafoe who said that the key to playing a villain is remembering that the villain thinks that he is the hero.
In my life, every thief that I have ever encountered has always has the same excuse. "I needed it". There may or may not have been a genuine need, such as when a homeless man steals food from a supermarket. But generally there is confusion between need and want. "I took it because I wanted it" in most cases is the truth of the matter. They wanted it because it added value to their life.
According to the trader principle, all human relationships are based upon the mutual exchange of values, be they material or emotional. That trade relationship is soured through the use of force or fraud. This is fraud in the general sense of the word to include concepts like the use of deceit or theft to acquire values thus bypassing the informed, rational, and mutually beneficial exchange of values which is the ideal.
Humanity has been arguing over the nature of evil for thousands of years. One theory is that the most prevalent form of evil comes from a real or imagined scarcity of values. The homeless man steals food because he lacks the values needed for trade, so he steals the values he needs to relieve his scarcity, or the man who sees other men with a better standard of living than he has, so he steals to relieve his perceived scarcity.
Did you hear the story about the rich man who broke into someone's house and stole their television? No? Because it doesn't happen. The rich man has the money to buy a very nice television through the proper exchange of values. People with values in abundance generally do not try to circumvent the trading process. It is the people with a real or imagined scarcity of values who do so.
I am by no means saying that the wealthy do not engage in force or fraud to increase their values. Questions of abundance and scarcity are largely a matter of relativity and perception. A man with a 50k salary has more abundance than a man with no salary; the 50k man may feel scarcity when compared to the 100k earner; and the 100k earner may feel lacking when he compares himself to the millionaire. It is not unknown for the wealthy to "feel" poor and some will do whatever they might believe is necessary to increase their values or avoid a perceived scarcity.
In his influential 1989 book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen R. Covey coined the term abundance mentality. This is a mindset in which a person believes there are enough resources and success to share with others. The opposite is the scarcity mentality in which a person believes that resources are scarce and must be hoarded and protected from others.
If we hold to the notion that most of human evil stems from a real or perceived scarcity of values and the resulting battle to gain and protect these limited resources, then we can also accept the opposite to be true that the abundance mentality promotes both the flourishing of the individual and the resulting flourishing of others. According to Covey, the abundance mentality stems from a high self worth and security, and leads to sharing profits, the recognition of others, and personal responsibility. Such people are inclined to celebrate the success of others rather than feel threatened by it.
This is because abundance is not simply a question of material values, but also emotional values. There is always more love, more credit, more worth, and more opportunities to go around for everyone. He can afford to be understanding, kind, and more importantly he aims for that win/win situation because he has nothing to prove and he has nothing to loose that cannot be replaced. There is always more.
Another definition of magnanimity is generosity and the antonym is pettiness and meanness. The man who believes that emotional values, like material ones, are scarce is more inclined towards what is commonly seen as greedy, selfish or self-centred behaviour. Screw them before they screw you. He sees others as a means to his ends or potential challengers rather than potential trading partners. In relationships, he succumbs to desperate co-dependency or jealousy because he is afraid of losing what little he has. If he does loose it, then he becomes spiteful and mean-spirited.
St. Columba wrote, "The man to whom little is not enough will not be satisfied by more". But the Romantic is all about more: more love, more experiences, more life. When we think of successful people who have made their fortunes ten times over we may notice that many of them are still working. Why? It is because they enjoy the work. It is not about the money, or even the public success. The Romantic notion of "more" is not born of a perceived need or scarcity or lacking, on either a material or emotional level. It is the love of creation and the pleasure of the process.
In this sense the virtue of magnanimity ties in with the value of love. Love pertaining to the creation and appreciation of values both in yourself and others. In that we have the keys to flourishing and therefore goodness.
Have you ever stopped to open the door for someone, and then someone else, and then someone else, and the next thing you know you're the bloody doorman. It's easy for magnanimous people to be taken advantages of by the inconsiderate. Over time you become more and more tight fisted in your conduct in an attempt to protect yourself. This too can become a habit and soon you wake-up to discover that you've become David Balfour's uncle from Kidnapped.
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return."
MAGNANIMITY, n. [L. magnanimitas; magnus, great, and animus, mind.] Greatness of mind; that elevation or dignity of soul, which encounters danger and trouble with tranquillity and firmness, which raises the possessor above revenge, and makes him delight in acts of benevolence, which makes him disdain injustice and meanness, and prompts him to sacrifice personal ease, interest and safety for the accomplishment of useful and noble objects.
Yep, that's quite a virtue. Remember that a virtue is a positive habit. So being magnanimous is to be in the habit of greatness. It sounds impossible, doesn't it?
One of the key philosophical questions is, "What is the nature of man?" Are we as a species basically good or basically evil? Your answer to that fundamental question forms the bedrock of most of your beliefs and behaviour. Everyone has an answer to that question, though they may not be aware of it consciously. They may even espouse, and truly believe, one answer, but unconsciously believe the opposite. Before we can understand magnanimity we must first understand good and evil and determine where mankind fits the equation.
In the Aristotelian ethics the good is that which promotes flourishing and the evil is that which hinders or destroys it. Since man flourishes through the use of his mind, then it is the "great mind" that leads to greater flourishing. There is more than that. Through his flourishing he allows others to flourish.
For example, look at how the flourishing of an inventor and entrepreneur like Bill Gates has allowed millions of other people to flourish in their lives. Love him or hate him, you must admit that the corporation he built has employed either directly or indirectly millions and millions of people, not to mention how his products have allowed others to flourish and also employ people.
I do not subscribe to the mainstream ethics of altruism that states that the good man is the man who sacrifices for others. I do not believe in the concept of the "greater good". However, every man judges another according to how they benefited from this man's actions and when the many benefit from the actions of the single man then there is a common consensus that he is great.
When people are asked who the great men of our age are they will usually point to spiritual or moral leaders, such as Gandhi or Martin Luther King. The men of industry, such as Gates, are seen as just being in it for the profit motive. Well, when you are unemployed and starving would you benefit more from the preacher giving you spiritual sustenance out of the kindness of his heart or the businessman offering you a job for his own selfish end?
People like Gandhi and King courageously opened the doors of opportunity for millions of people. That can be considered good and great. However, people had to walk through those newly opened doors. For all intents and purposes inspirational men such as these are basically just cheerleaders encouraging others to act. It is the unsung people who followed their calls, did the work, and flourished who are the real creators of a new world.
All rational men seek to flourish, so therefore we might say that mankind is basically good. However, everyone has a different idea of how to go about flourishing and what it means to flourish. So the ends may be good, but the means can be evil.
The problem occurs when people are completely convinced that their evil actions are moral and justified. I believe it was Willem Dafoe who said that the key to playing a villain is remembering that the villain thinks that he is the hero.
In my life, every thief that I have ever encountered has always has the same excuse. "I needed it". There may or may not have been a genuine need, such as when a homeless man steals food from a supermarket. But generally there is confusion between need and want. "I took it because I wanted it" in most cases is the truth of the matter. They wanted it because it added value to their life.
According to the trader principle, all human relationships are based upon the mutual exchange of values, be they material or emotional. That trade relationship is soured through the use of force or fraud. This is fraud in the general sense of the word to include concepts like the use of deceit or theft to acquire values thus bypassing the informed, rational, and mutually beneficial exchange of values which is the ideal.
Humanity has been arguing over the nature of evil for thousands of years. One theory is that the most prevalent form of evil comes from a real or imagined scarcity of values. The homeless man steals food because he lacks the values needed for trade, so he steals the values he needs to relieve his scarcity, or the man who sees other men with a better standard of living than he has, so he steals to relieve his perceived scarcity.
Did you hear the story about the rich man who broke into someone's house and stole their television? No? Because it doesn't happen. The rich man has the money to buy a very nice television through the proper exchange of values. People with values in abundance generally do not try to circumvent the trading process. It is the people with a real or imagined scarcity of values who do so.
I am by no means saying that the wealthy do not engage in force or fraud to increase their values. Questions of abundance and scarcity are largely a matter of relativity and perception. A man with a 50k salary has more abundance than a man with no salary; the 50k man may feel scarcity when compared to the 100k earner; and the 100k earner may feel lacking when he compares himself to the millionaire. It is not unknown for the wealthy to "feel" poor and some will do whatever they might believe is necessary to increase their values or avoid a perceived scarcity.
In his influential 1989 book, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen R. Covey coined the term abundance mentality. This is a mindset in which a person believes there are enough resources and success to share with others. The opposite is the scarcity mentality in which a person believes that resources are scarce and must be hoarded and protected from others.
If we hold to the notion that most of human evil stems from a real or perceived scarcity of values and the resulting battle to gain and protect these limited resources, then we can also accept the opposite to be true that the abundance mentality promotes both the flourishing of the individual and the resulting flourishing of others. According to Covey, the abundance mentality stems from a high self worth and security, and leads to sharing profits, the recognition of others, and personal responsibility. Such people are inclined to celebrate the success of others rather than feel threatened by it.
This is because abundance is not simply a question of material values, but also emotional values. There is always more love, more credit, more worth, and more opportunities to go around for everyone. He can afford to be understanding, kind, and more importantly he aims for that win/win situation because he has nothing to prove and he has nothing to loose that cannot be replaced. There is always more.
Another definition of magnanimity is generosity and the antonym is pettiness and meanness. The man who believes that emotional values, like material ones, are scarce is more inclined towards what is commonly seen as greedy, selfish or self-centred behaviour. Screw them before they screw you. He sees others as a means to his ends or potential challengers rather than potential trading partners. In relationships, he succumbs to desperate co-dependency or jealousy because he is afraid of losing what little he has. If he does loose it, then he becomes spiteful and mean-spirited.
St. Columba wrote, "The man to whom little is not enough will not be satisfied by more". But the Romantic is all about more: more love, more experiences, more life. When we think of successful people who have made their fortunes ten times over we may notice that many of them are still working. Why? It is because they enjoy the work. It is not about the money, or even the public success. The Romantic notion of "more" is not born of a perceived need or scarcity or lacking, on either a material or emotional level. It is the love of creation and the pleasure of the process.
In this sense the virtue of magnanimity ties in with the value of love. Love pertaining to the creation and appreciation of values both in yourself and others. In that we have the keys to flourishing and therefore goodness.
Have you ever stopped to open the door for someone, and then someone else, and then someone else, and the next thing you know you're the bloody doorman. It's easy for magnanimous people to be taken advantages of by the inconsiderate. Over time you become more and more tight fisted in your conduct in an attempt to protect yourself. This too can become a habit and soon you wake-up to discover that you've become David Balfour's uncle from Kidnapped.
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return."
The miser of love, like the miser of profit, suffers in his solitude and misery. He no longer takes the chance to love for fear of loss and soon he looses that wonderful childlike glee of love. The scarcity mentality takes root and like Captain Barbossa's apples, all life loses its pleasure, crushed by his insatiable ego.
If you possess a large bag filled with pound coins and you drop one you might just let it go. However, if you have only three coins and one accidentally falls into the toilet, then by god you're fishing for it.
The man who possesses the abundance mentality is naturally magnanimous. He can afford to be giving in both material and immaterial values. His cup overflows and allows others to flourish. This is the mark of a great man, a noble man, a loving man.
The man who possesses the scarcity mentality is always on guard. He hoards his values from those he fears might take them while he himself takes. He is petty, mean, vindictive, and vengeful. He is always fishing in life's toilet to see what he might recover to ease the emptiness of his soul.
So is man basically good or basically evil? Humans are creatures of need, as are all living creatures. We need the means to produce food, shelter, and clothing. We need the means to protect these material values. We need to reproduce. We need emotional values, like a sense of self-worth, efficacy, and yes – love. There are many ways to satisfy these needs. Some means lead to flourishing and some to destruction. Wisdom is knowing which is which and developing the habits necessary to flourish. The alternative is destruction.
I believe that all mankind has the potential for greatness. We can all be magnanimous. It is not beyond us. Yet, so many fall short. They fear that there is not enough to go around. They fear others having more than they do. They fear others having too little. Ultimately, they fear for their own values. It is their fear that drags them, and all who believe their cries of wolf, into the abyss.
Just remember that there is always more love, more money, and more success to go around. If you make this a habit, then life's little losses seem utterly insignificant, like dropping that single pound coin when you have an entire bag of values at your pleasure.
Addendum:
Addendum:
After posting this article I did a quick YouTube search on the subject of the abundance mentality. Most of what I found would be classed as self-help. Now back when I worked bookstores I developed a real dislike of self-help. I saw it as something for the weak and pathetic. My views have changed. The Victorians invented self-help.
The first self-help books were part of a type of writing called self-improvement books designed to help people to live better and more profitable lives by imparting wisdom. I have since learned that all philosophy is fundamentally self-help. A person cannot say that they enjoy philosophy but hate self-help. Self-help is the purpose of philosophy.
Hail Logan! Absolutely beautiful and empowering, like a sermon for the harts of the dreamers that never let anybody convince them that wanting to create wondrous and transcending values out of imagination is impossible
ReplyDelete