Is Humility a Virtue, or Being Unfair to Yourself?

Bölüm metni

You finished the work, and in the meeting nobody said your name — and neither did you. One voice inside you said "it's better this way"; another whispered "you let yourself be walked over again." So which of them is virtue, and which is cowardice in polite dress?

Picture a meeting. A project that has taken months is finally finished, everyone around the table is pleased, and someone turns to thank the person who carried the real weight of it. What does that person say? Almost always the same thing: oh, don't be silly, it was nothing, the team did the work, I just sketched a few things. Then the meeting ends. Two weeks pass, and the same person walks into a salary negotiation, where the individual across the table asks: what exactly do you bring to this company? Now what will they say? Someone who, half an hour earlier, could let the sentence "I didn't do anything" fall out of their mouth so easily — why do they suddenly begin to sweat when they have to answer that question?

Turkish is one of the richest languages in the world on this subject. We have a whole arsenal at the ready for deflecting praise: heaven forbid, oh come now, you're exaggerating, you're embarrassing me. Nobody explains what these formulas are for while we are learning them; we only see what happens when they go unused. And there is a ready-made adjective waiting for the person who doesn't use them: full of himself, pleased with herself. Notice how heavy an accusation that phrase carries in Turkish. To be pleased by something is an innocent verb. You can be pleased by a shirt, pleased by a view. But the moment you are pleased by yourself, the verb turns to poison.

The word for humility in Turkish, tevazu, tells us something too. It comes from the Arabic root wad', meaning to put, to lower, to place something further down. By the very structure of the word, humility means placing yourself lower. And here is the crux: the word does not say how much lower. One step? Two? All the way down under someone's feet? There is no measure. And a virtue with no measure always ends up, in practice, in the hands of whichever party demands the most of it.

Today's psychology has measured both ends of this ambiguity. In 1999, Justin Kruger and David Dunning looked at how people assess their own competence and noticed something: those who knew the least in a given field predicted their own performance in the most inflated terms. As knowledge increased, what grew was not confidence but awareness of one's own limits. That finding led us to read humility almost as a sign of intelligence. The certain are suspect; the hesitant are deep.

But the other side of the coin has been on the table since 1978. When Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes worked with some 150 women who were plainly successful in academia and professional life, they found that most of these women did not regard their achievements as their own. It was luck, it was timing, someone had made a mistake, and soon they would be found out. In their own words, there was a feeling of being an impostor. These people were measuring themselves not as too much but as too little. And notice: nobody was penalizing them for it. On the contrary, the people around them probably loved them for how modest they seemed.

This is where a logical error announces itself. If measuring yourself as more than you are is a mistake, why is measuring yourself as less than you are not a mistake? The virtue of an act of measurement must lie in its producing the correct result. If we criticize a tailor for cutting too much cloth and applaud him for cutting too little, the subject is no longer tailoring. So our question is simple, and uncomfortable: is humility telling the truth about yourself, or telling less than the truth about yourself? Because these two are not the same thing, and we give them the same name.

The first person to set up a proper scale and weigh this question seriously was Aristotle. In the fourth book of the Nicomachean Ethics, he treats the matter of assigning value to oneself as a heading under virtue, and describes exactly how character goes wrong at this point. The order he builds is this: every virtue is a mean between two vices. Courage is the mean between cowardice and recklessness. Generosity is the mean between stinginess and wastefulness. So what is the mean in assigning yourself your own worth?

Aristotle calls it greatness of soul, magnanimity. The condition of a person who claims great worth for himself and genuinely deserves that worth. There is a deviation on either side. One claims a worth he has not earned: the vain man, the type we call arrogant. The other fails to claim the worth he has earned: in Aristotle's phrase, the small-souled man. And now comes the most startling sentence in the text. Aristotle says that smallness of soul is more opposed to greatness of soul than vanity is, because it is both more common and worse.

Worse. A sentence written 2300 years ago turns all of our social reflexes upside down. Why should it be worse? Aristotle's reasoning is not moral but almost practical: the small-souled man does not use what he has. He does not reach for the work he is suited to, does not ask for the position he has earned, does not do the fine thing he is capable of, because he does not consider himself fit for it. The arrogant man at least attempts something, in the wrong place, and makes a fool of himself; the small-souled man attempts nothing anywhere, and nobody notices. The first error is loud, the second is silent. It is entirely understandable that a society should punish the loud error and reward the silent one, but that does not turn the second error into a virtue.

Aristotle goes far enough in describing the magnanimous man to raise a smile: he walks slowly, his voice is deep, he speaks without haste. That portrait looks too self-assured to us today, even slightly comic. But Aristotle does not leave the matter there. In the same book, he treats the way a person speaks about himself as a separate virtue, and calls it truthfulness. On one side stands the boaster, who describes himself as having what he does not have. On the other stands the self-deprecator, who describes himself as lacking what he does have. Socrates, with his famous posture of knowing nothing, is offered as an example of the second class. And in the middle? Neither more nor less: the person who tells the truth about himself. Which is to say that for Aristotle it is impossible for humility to conflict with honesty, because humility is a branch of honesty itself.

And he adds a very fine warning: the person who goes to excess in belittling himself ends up boasting again. He is saying that plainness can turn into display. He has noticed that putting on the barest costume can, in front of the right audience, be a stronger claim than the most ornate one. That observation stands like a warning sign over this whole question.

Did Aristotle's scale disappear? No, it was rebuilt in the Islamic world, and in a sharper form. In the 11th century, Ibn Miskawayh carried the doctrine of the mean into Arabic thought in his work Tahdhib al-Akhlaq, The Refinement of Character, and when he attached the virtues to their main headings, he placed humility among the sub-virtues of iffa, of temperance, of mastery over one's own appetites. In The Refinement of Character, virtue stands, just as in its Greek source, as a balance held between two extremes.

But the clearest formula comes from al-Ghazali. In his great work Ihya Ulum al-Din, The Revival of the Religious Sciences, in the section where he takes up arrogance and self-conceit, he says this: humility is the mean between arrogance and mahana. Mahana means lowering yourself, fitting yourself out with abjectness. So for al-Ghazali, placing yourself too high and placing yourself too low are both vices. Neither one is a virtue. It is worth pausing over the fact that a moralist speaking in religious language writes down the state of throwing yourself on the ground as a defect. Because it means humility was never one of those things where more is always better. Mercy is like that; justice is like that; humility is not. An excess of humility is not humility but something else.

Al-Ghazali makes one further distinction, and it moves the whole question somewhere new. For him, at the core of arrogance lies self-conceit, and the essence of self-conceit is claiming as your own something that does not belong to you. You did not make your voice. You did not build your intelligence. You did not arrange the city you were born in, the people who put you through school, the opportunity that appeared in front of you at the critical moment. If so, humility is not denying what you hold; it is knowing correctly where what you hold came from. This is not a question of quantity but a question of ownership. You have a talent; but it is not your invention. Erasing the first half of that sentence is not humility, merely bad accounting.

Now a sledgehammer comes down on this whole delicate scale. What if there is no such virtue as humility? What if the centuries spent searching for that measure were nothing but an effort to dress a weakness in the costume of a virtue?

In the 18th century, David Hume draws up a list in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, published in 1751. Fasting, penance, mortification, self-denial, humility, silence, solitude. He calls these the monkish virtues, and explains in cold terms why they do not count as virtues: they neither improve a person's condition in the world nor make him a more valuable member of society. For Hume, these states dull the understanding, harden the heart, and sour the temper. So he takes them out of the column of virtues and writes them into the opposite column, the list of vices. Humility included.

Hume has a positive side as well. In the third book of A Treatise of Human Nature, in the section where he takes up greatness of mind, he defends the usefulness of a measured pride. He says that a person who knows his own worth does his work better, that others trust him, that a confident bearing gives courage to those around him. Excessive humility, for Hume, is a defect; it gets in the way of getting things done.

But in the same place Hume makes a very shrewd distinction. It is useful to carry pride inside you, he says; throwing it in someone else's face is not pleasant. Nobody enjoys being forced to acknowledge another person's superiority. Social life therefore needs an outward language of humility. Do you see what Hume has just done? He has taken humility out of morality and installed it in manners. Not a virtue, but courtesy. It will not be in you; it will be in your behavior. That is the precise philosophical description of our own deflecting formulas.

Nietzsche, for his part, has no interest in courtesy. The well-known scene he describes in On the Genealogy of Morality, written in 1887, is this: lambs hate birds of prey and declare them evil; there is nothing strange in that. What is strange is that the lambs begin to count their own lamb-ness as goodness. Nietzsche's claim is that some part of our moral values is born from making it look as though we do not want to do the thing we cannot do. The condition of the one who has no power to strike back is called forgiveness, the condition of the one who must bow is called the virtue of obedience, and the condition of the one who cannot put himself forward is called humility. Weakness rewrites its own weakness as a choice.

The most uncomfortable part of Nietzsche's suspicion is this: the person who descends the furthest may in fact have secured a position no one can compete for. The sentence "I am nobody" is also a claim, and it immediately places the listener under an obligation: no, don't say that. Literature diagnosed this before philosophy did. In the novel David Copperfield, which Charles Dickens completed in 1850, there is a character named Uriah Heep; the words "I am a humble person" never leave his mouth, his hands are forever wringing each other, he belittles himself without pause. That humility is not a disposition but a climbing tool. Dickens's novel can be read as a manual showing what false humility looks like.

We all know this type. The person who refuses praise but repeats the refusal three times. The person who runs himself down so thoroughly that the other party is compelled to praise him. The person who escapes responsibility by saying "I'm useless at this anyway," because nobody demands an account from someone who has declared himself incompetent in advance, which is why belittling yourself can sometimes be the most comfortable shelter in the world. And the subtlest of them: the person who has turned humility into an identity, and who becomes angrier than anyone when that identity is touched.

So is there no limit to this objection? There is. Nietzsche catches hold of something real, but spreading what he sees over everything means fitting one diagnosis to every patient. That a counterfeit of a virtue is in circulation does not show that the genuine article does not exist; it shows the opposite. Nobody counterfeits something worthless. Uriah Heep gets ahead by imitating humility precisely because humility carries genuine prestige out there. And so the real question becomes: what is the true form of a thing whose imitation is this easy?

Let us come to the answer through the back door of language. The words for humility in Western languages come from the Latin humilitas, and that in turn comes from humus. Humus means soil, earth. So humility, in the memory of the word itself, means being close to the ground.

The first thing that brings to mind is being trodden on. But consider what soil actually is. The thing that is stepped on, yes. But also the thing everything comes out of. Wheat comes out of the soil, trees come out of the soil, everyone we have lost goes into the soil. Soil is not worthless; it is fertile. Lying underfoot does not make it barren; on the contrary, lying beneath everything is exactly what makes it the source of everything.

The border between abjectness and humility stands right here, and to my mind the whole question is settled in this single distinction. The person who casts himself into abjectness considers himself garbage. The humble person considers himself soil. Nothing grows out of garbage; soil yields the entire harvest. Both are down below; one is empty, the other full. Seen this way, the line al-Ghazali draws between arrogance and abjectness is not merely a proposal about balance but a difference between two entirely separate states of soul.

Anatolian thought settled this difference not with concepts but with a single line of verse. That line of Yunus Emre's that everyone knows is in fact a definition of humility: knowledge is knowing knowledge, knowledge is knowing yourself. Knowing yourself. Not shrinking yourself, not enlarging yourself; knowing. He has reduced the work of the scale to a single verb. And the same poet has a far deeper line: there is an I within me, further in than me. He is saying there is a layer inside us deeper than the self we know. Humility means making room for that layer. Drawing the outer self aside, so that what lies behind it can be seen.

Rumi's Masnavi opens with exactly this image. Listen to the reed, he says; it is complaining, because it was cut from the reed bed. The pain in the poet's opening couplet is a real pain. But consider: for the reed to be able to make a sound, it first had to be cut, and then hollowed out. A reed that is full inside makes no sound at all. That emptiness is not deprivation but a passage. And so humility too is not emptying yourself, not reducing yourself to nothing; it is making yourself into something that another thing can pass through. Stepping out of the way, not disappearing.

Yunus has one more line, one that sorts out the counterfeit in a single stroke: if being a dervish were a matter of crown and cloak, we could buy one ourselves for thirty or forty. It does not work by costume. False humility has an outfit, a tone of voice, a wringing of hands; the true kind has none, because the true kind is not occupied with showing itself.

Today's moral psychology, in trying to make this question measurable, has arrived at a similar place. There is a field of research called intellectual humility, and its criterion is not at all what you would expect. They do not look at how much a person disparages himself. What they look at is this: can this person change his mind in the face of new evidence? Can he say he was wrong? On a subject he does not know, can he say he does not know and stop there? Humility, in other words, is measured not as a feeling but as a behavior. Not how you feel about yourself, but what you do when you come up against the truth.

And looked at from here, it turns out that the opposite of humility is not arrogance. The arrogant person and the person who thinks himself worthless are, very strangely, doing the same work: both are constantly looking at themselves. One with admiration, the other with disgust, but both are standing in front of the mirror. The person in a meeting checking whether his intelligence is being observed and the person who imagines everyone has noticed his mistake are both failing to look at the actual work in the room. Humility is lifting your head from the mirror. Taking your attention off yourself and turning it toward the work, toward the person in front of you, toward the problem that needs solving. Which is why its true opposite is not self-aggrandizement but being stuck on yourself.

How this looks in daily life is perfectly clear. Is the better physician the doctor who tells you she is not certain of the diagnosis and wants to consult a colleague, or the one who never says she doesn't know? Is the more trustworthy teacher the one who says, faced with a student's question, "I never thought about it that way, let me look into it and come back," or the one who invents an answer for every question? Is the engineer who says "you're right, I'm doing it again from the start" when an error is found in his calculation the one taking his work seriously? None of these people is belittling himself. Each of them is stating his own limit, exactly where it lies, correctly. And that is precisely why they are trusted. This is where humility's prestige comes from: the word of a humble person is weighty because it matches the thing it is about.

So let us return to the question we began with, and we can now split it in two. Being unfair to yourself means saying you did nothing when you did in fact do something, not asking for the work you have earned, not walking toward the place you deserve. That is not called humility. For Aristotle it is smallness of soul, for al-Ghazali it is casting yourself into abjectness, for Hume it is a useless monkish habit, and for Nietzsche it is weakness lying to itself. Four thinkers from four different languages say, on this point, astonishingly the same thing. Humility is the opposite operation: saying the truth as it stands, both what you can do and what you cannot, both what you have and what you lack, and then not speaking of it again.

As for the matter of the scale, we have to admit something: Aristotle is asking the right question, but as long as we are the ones still holding the weights, the scale will tilt. There are not many people who weigh their own heft impartially. Perhaps the real solution is not to stop weighing but to hand the weighing over: to the work itself, to the result, to what the person across from you can see. To let the thing you have made speak about you, and to keep your own voice down while it speaks. The soil does not think little of itself, and it says nothing at all; it simply stays where it is, so that something can grow on top of it.

Nöron Philosophy'de bugünkü bölümün sonuna geldik. Yeni bir hikâyede yeniden buluşmak üzere.