Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Suave
Saying that all you do is go "I have worth" is a cop-out. Worth and value, although vague concepts, are still heirarchies; you have created your own heirarchy and exist within it whether you are willing to admit it or not.
|
That's assuming that my worth is measured in relation to the worth of others. What if I measure my worth by something else, such as my ability to make money, or my ability to keep myself fed and clothed? Perhaps it's a reflexive thing; my worth is proven by the mere fact that I know more and am more capable than I was yesterday or a week ago or a year ago. This is actually how I operate, if you're interested.
Bill Gates has made far more money than I ever will. This does not make him a better person. George and Gracie had perhaps the best marriage of anyone in Hollywood, ever. Again, they are not better people than me for it. Ghandi has made a much larger mark on the world than I ever will. Again...
The tricky thing to the concept of value is that it requires a context. A pet dog, for example, may be worth very little financially if it comes from the pound. Emotionally, however, it may be the most valuable thing you own. Your own sense of self-worth and the confidence or lack thereof derived from it also depends largely on how you choose to measure it. You may choose to measure it financially and not be happy until you make the most money and have the most expensive car. You may choose to measure it in terms of renown and want to be famous. I choose to measure it by my own growth; so long as I continue to learn I continue to have value. I know more today than I did yesterday and I will know more still tomorrow. This, to me, is proof that I have value as a human being. I don't need to contrast it to others, because I may choose instead to measure others in a context that changes their standing. A man in a coma does not learn and thus has no value on that scale. However, he has people who love him, giving him an emotional value. The two are apples and oranges and there's myriad scales for comparing yourself to others; therefore, I submit that even attempting to make such a comparison is frivolous.
EDIT - I'm reconsidering my decision not to redress the issue of anti-social disorders. Yes, the increased ego (or self-esteem; I tend to use the two terms interchangably, but I do actually know the distinction to be made) will make such behaviour more likely, but that doesn't address the underlying cause. A chronic depressiv is that way due to an underlying physiological issue. A schizophrenic simalarly suffers from an underlying physiological issue and so does a sociopath. I maintain that the high self-esteem is not a cause, but a symptom. Rosa Parks carried a higher than average self-esteem for her demographic. She believed that she was every bit as worthy as the white middle class to sit at the front of the bus. There are very few who would call her ego a bad thing.
I still maintain that you're missing my point, in that you have the cause and effect reversed. The distorted sense of higher worth does not creat the sociopath; rather the sociopath creates the distorted sense of higher worth.