Contempt

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 82 of 253 · 20 per page

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  If people are successful, notice how they act in more private moments. Are they able to relax and laugh at themselves, letting go of their public mask, or have they so overidentified with their powerful public image that it carries over into their private life? In the latter case, they have come to believe in their own myth and are in the grip of powerful grandiosity. Grandiose people are generally big talkers. They take credit for anything that is even tangential to their work; they invent past successes. They talk of their prescience, how they foresaw certain trends or predicted certain events, none of which can be verified. All such talk should make you doubly dubious. If people in the public eye suddenly say something that gets them into trouble for being insensitive, you can ascribe that to their potent grandiosity. They are so attuned to their own great opinions that they assume everyone else will interpret them in the right spirit and agree with them. Higher grandiose types generally display low levels of empathy. They are not good listeners. When the attention is not on them, they have a faraway look in their eyes and their fingers twitch with impatience. Only when the spotlight is on them do they become animated. They tend to see people as extensions of themselves— tools to be used in their schemes, sources of attention. Finally, they exhibit nonverbal behavior that can only be described as grandiose. Their gestures are big and dramatic. At a meeting, they take up a lot of personal space. Their voice tends to be louder than others, and they speak at a fast pace, giving no one else time to interrupt. With those who exhibit moderate amounts of grandiosity, you should be indulgent. Almost all of us alternate between periods in which we feel superior and great and others in which we come back down to earth. Look for such moments of realism in people as signs of normalcy. But with those whose self-opinion is so high they cannot allow for any doubts, it is best to avoid relationships or entanglements. In intimate relationships, they will tend to demand adoring one-sided attention. If they are employees, business partners, or bosses, they will oversell their skills. Their levels of confidence will distract you from the deficiencies in their ideas, work habits, and character. If you cannot avoid such a relationship, be aware of their tendency to feel certain about the success of their ideas, and maintain your skepticism. Look at the ideas themselves and don’t get caught up in their seductive self-belief. Don’t entertain the illusion that you can confront them and try to bring them down to earth; you may trigger a rage response. If such types happen to be your rivals, consider yourself lucky. They are easy to taunt and bait into overreactions. Casting doubts on their greatness will make them apoplectic and doubly irrational. Finally, you will need to manage your own grandiose tendencies.

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  us, and tried to dominate these siblings, we will be the envious type and resort to passive aggression. We may want to monopolize the leaders’ attention as we once tried to do with our mother or father. And so we can say that courtiers tend to fall into certain types, depending on deep patterns stemming from childhood. Some of these types can become quite dangerous if they accumulate power within the court, and they are usually adept at disguising their negative qualities in order to rise from within. It is best to be able to identify them as early as possible and take necessary defensive action. The following are seven of the more common types you will find. The Intriguer: These individuals can be particularly difficult to recognize. They seem intensely loyal to the boss and to the group. No one works harder or is more ruthlessly efficient. But this is a mask they wear; behind the scenes they are continually intriguing to amass more power. They generally have a disdain for the boss that they are careful to conceal. They feel they could do the job better, and they yearn to prove this. Perhaps they had competitive issues in childhood with the father figure. In the court of Richard Nixon, Alexander Haig (1924–2010) epitomized this type. A graduate of West Point and a decorated war hero in Vietnam, he was hired as one of several assistants to Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s national security adviser. Kissinger’s own little court was filled with men with brilliant academic backgrounds. Haig could not compete on this level; he stayed away from policy arguments. Instead, he so expertly tailored himself to the desires and needs of Kissinger that he quickly rose from within. He organized Kissinger’s desk, streamlined his schedule, and would do the lowliest task, even helping his boss dress for an important evening. He silently suffered Kissinger’s numerous and volcanic temper tantrums. But what Kissinger did not realize was the depth of Haig’s ambitions and his contempt for his boss. He was continually playing to the real boss in the game, Nixon himself. While Kissinger was out most evenings attending some party, Nixon would see the light on in Haig’s office at all hours. Nixon, a workaholic himself, could not help but admire this. Of course, Haig made sure he worked evenings when Nixon was there and would notice him. Soon Nixon was borrowing him for his own tasks. In 1973, as the Watergate scandal blossomed, Nixon appointed Haig as his chief of staff. This infuriated Kissinger—not only did he feel Haig had used him for his own purposes, but he was now having to report to Haig as a superior. To make matters worse, Haig had seen up close all of Kissinger’s weaknesses and had a lot of dirt on him, and Kissinger was certain he would be sharing this information with Nixon, who loved such gossip. To colleagues Haig could be chummy

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  BEDE. He does not forbid those to sit first in the synagogue, or at the feast, to whom this dignity belongs by right, but He tells them to beware of those who love this unduly; denouncing not the distinction, but the love of it. Though the other also would not be free from blame, when the same men who wish to take part in the disputes in the market, desire also to be called masters in the synagogue. For two reasons we are bid to beware of those who seek after vain-glory, either lest we be led away by their pretences, supposing those things to be good which they do, or be inflamed with jealousy, desiring in vain to be praised for the good deeds which they pretend to. But they seek not only for praise from men, but money; for it follows, Who devour widows’ houses, and for a shew make long prayers. For pretending to be righteous and of great merit before God, they do not fail to receive large sums of money from the sick and those whose consciences are disturbed with their sins, as though they would be their protectors in the judgment. CHRYSOSTOM. Thrusting themselves also into the possessions of widows, they grind down their poverty, not content to eat as it may be afforded them, but greedily devouring; using prayer also to an evil end, they thus expose themselves to a heavier condemnation; as it follows, These shall receive the greater damnation. THEOPHYLACT. Because they not only do what is evil, but make a pretence of prayer, so making virtue an excuse for their sin. They also impoverish widows whom they were bound to pity, by their presence driving them to great expenses. BEDE. Or because they seek from men praise and money, they are punished with the greater damnation. CHAPTER 21 21:1–41. And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. 2. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. 3. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: 4. For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had. GLOSS. (non occ.) Our Lord having rebuked the covetousness of the Scribes who devoured widows’ houses, commends the almsgiving of a widow; as it is said, And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting into the treasury, & c.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  1132. But a definition which is false in itself cannot be a definition of anything. And a definition is said to be false in itself, or unqualifiedly false, by reason of the fact that one part of it cannot stand with the other; and such a definition would be had, for example, if one were to say “ inanimate living thing. ” 1133. Again, it is clear from this that Antisthenes ’ opinion was foolish. For, since words are the signs of things, he maintained that, just as a thing does not have any essence other than its own, so too in a proposition nothing can be predicated of a subject but its own definition, so that only one predicate absolutely or always may be used of one subject. And from this position it follows that there is no such thing as a contradiction; because if animal, which is included in his notion, is predicated of man, non-animal can not be predicated of him, and thus a negative proposition cannot be formed. And from this position it also follows that one cannot speak falsely, because the proper definition of a thing is truly predicated of it. Hence, if only a thing ’ s own definition can be predicated of it, no proposition can be false. 1134. But his opinion is false, because of each thing we can predicate not only its own definition but also the definition of something else. And when this occurs in a universal or general way, the predication is false. Yet in a way there can be a true predication; for example, eight is said to be double inasmuch as it has the character of duality, because the character of duality is to be related as two is to one. But inasmuch as it is double, eight is in a sense two, because it is divided into two equal quantities. These things, then, are said to be false in the foregoing way. 1135. Then he shows how the term false may be predicated of a man; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he gives two ways in which a man is said to be false. (1) In one way a man is said to be false if he is ready to think, or takes pleasure in thinking, thoughts of this kind, i.e., false ones, and chooses such thoughts not for any other reason but for themselves. For anyone who has a habit finds the operation relating to that habit to be pleasurable and readily performed; and thus one who has a habit acts in accordance with that habit and not for the sake of anything extrinsic. For example, a debauched person commits fornication because of the pleasure resulting from coition; but if he commits fornication for some other end, for instance, that he may steal, he is more of a thief than a lecher. And similarly one who chooses to speak falsely for the sake of money is more avaricious than false.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Reply to Objection 3: Each of those causes amounts to some kind of slight. Thus forgetfulness is a clear sign of slight esteem, for the more we think of a thing the more is it fixed in our memory. Again if a man does not hesitate by his remarks to give pain to another, this seems to show that he thinks little of him: and those too who show signs of hilarity when another is in misfortune, seem to care little about his good or evil. Again he that hinders another from carrying out his will, without deriving thereby any profit to himself, seems not to care much for his friendship. Consequently all those things, in so far as they are signs of contempt, provoke anger. Whether a man’s excellence is the cause of his being angry?Objection 1: It would seem that a man’s excellence is not the cause of his being more easily angry. For the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that “some are angry especially when they are grieved, for instance, the sick, the poor, and those who are disappointed.” But these things seem to pertain to defect. Therefore defect rather than excellence makes one prone to anger. Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 2) that “some are very much inclined to be angry when they are despised for some failing or weakness of the existence of which there are grounds for suspicion; but if they think they excel in those points, they do not trouble.” But a suspicion of this kind is due to some defect. Therefore defect rather than excellence is a cause of a man being angry. Objection 3: Further, whatever savors of excellence makes a man agreeable and hopeful. But the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 3) that “men are not angry when they play, make jokes, or take part in a feast, nor when they are prosperous or successful, nor in moderate pleasures and well-founded hope.” Therefore excellence is not a cause of anger. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 9) that excellence makes men prone to anger. I answer that, The cause of anger, in the man who is angry, may be taken in two ways. First in respect of the motive of anger: and thus excellence is the cause of a man being easily angered. Because the motive of anger is an unjust slight, as stated above [1429](A[2]). Now it is evident that the more excellent a man is, the more unjust is a slight offered him in the matter in which he excels. Consequently those who excel in any matter, are most of all angry, if they be slighted in that matter; for instance, a wealthy man in his riches, or an orator in his eloquence, and so forth.

• From Born a Crime: Stories from a South African Childhood (2016)

  We weren’t taught to think critically about Hitler and anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. We weren’t taught, for instance, that the architects of apartheid were big fans of Hitler, that the racist policies they put in place were inspired, in part, by the racist policies of the Third Reich. We weren’t taught how to think about how Hitler related to the world we lived in. We weren’t being taught to think, period. All we were taught was that in 1939 Hitler invaded Poland and in 1941 he invaded the Soviet Union and in 1943 he did something else. They’re just facts. Memorize them, write them down for the test, and forget them. There is also this to consider: The name Hitler does not offend a black South African because Hitler is not the worst thing a black South African can imagine. Every country thinks their history is the most important, and that’s especially true in the West. But if black South Africans could go back in time and kill one person, Cecil Rhodes would come up before Hitler. If people in the Congo could go back in time and kill one person, Belgium’s King Leopold would come way before Hitler. If Native Americans could go back in time and kill one person, it would probably be Christopher Columbus or Andrew Jackson. I often meet people in the West who insist that the Holocaust was the worst atrocity in human history, without question. Yes, it was horrific. But I often wonder, with African atrocities like in the Congo, how horrific were they? The thing Africans don’t have that Jewish people do have is documentation. The Nazis kept meticulous records, took pictures, made films. And that’s really what it comes down to. Holocaust victims count because Hitler counted them. Six million people killed. We can all look at that number and rightly be horrified. But when you read through the history of atrocities against Africans, there are no numbers, only guesses. It’s harder to be horrified by a guess. When Portugal and Belgium were plundering Angola and the Congo, they weren’t counting the black people they slaughtered. How many black people died harvesting rubber in the Congo? In the gold and diamond mines of the Transvaal? So in Europe and America, yes, Hitler is the Greatest Madman in History. In Africa he’s just another strongman from the history books. In all my time hanging out with Hitler, I never once asked myself, “Why is his name Hitler?” His name was Hitler because his mom named him Hitler. — Once Bongani and I added the dancers to our DJ sets, we blew up. We called our group the Black and White Boys. The dancers were called the Springbok Boys.

• From The History of Christianity II: From the Reformation to the Modern Megachurch (2017)

  õ They demanded the right to question everything, even their society’s most sacred authorities, the crown and the church. Here’s how Diderot put it in his famous work, the Encyclopédie: “Facts may be distributed into three classes: the acts of divinity, the phenomena of nature, and the actions of men. The first belong to theology, the second to philosophy, and the last to history properly speaking. All are equally subject to criticism.” õ The French radicals believed the Church had kept Europe in chains. Its bishops had a long history of muzzling geniuses like Galileo and serving as willing pawns in the hands of power-hungry and bloodthirsty kings. õ It’s probably best to call Voltaire a Deist, but he was far more critical of Christianity than most English Deists were. He told Frederick the Great that it was “the most absurd and bloody religion which has ever infected this world.” He published The Bible Finally Explained in 1776, in which he argued scripture was irrational and cruel. The book hit a nerve. It went through nine editions in two years. A NEW MORAL FOUNDATION õ The radical philosophes devoted their careers to searching for alternatives to Christianity as a moral foundation for society. Some found solace in ancient philosophy and believed that the self-denying morality of Greek and Roman Stoicism held the key to peaceful society. õ Many Enlightenment thinkers— from iconoclasts like Diderot and Rousseau to radicals like David Hume—also wrote reams and reams about the role of sympathy. Hume gave us a helpful definition of what they meant by sympathy: Lecture 13—The Enlightenment Quest for Reasonable Faith 129 He said sympathy is “the propensity to … receive by communication [the] inclinations and sentiments” of other people, “however different from, or even contrary to our own” those sentiments might be. õ In other words, Hume noted our remarkable ability to step into another person’s shoes, even if that person sees the world in a very different way, and to understand what they think and feel. This capacity, many philosophes believed, lays the groundwork for our moral imagination. Sympathy binds humans together and provides a non-theological basis for treating each other in ethical ways. SUGGESTED READING Pagden, The Enlightenment. Pincus, 1688. Sorkin, The Religious Enlightenment. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER ä How does national politics influence the work and attitudes of intellectuals? ä Why were so many theologians so keen to prove that Christianity is “reasonable”? ä Is the philosophes’ notion of “sympathy” a viable substitute for the moral law of traditional religions? 130 The History of Christianity II

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  When it comes to other people in their lives, deep narcissists have an unusual relationship that is hard for us to understand. They tend to see others as extensions of themselves, what is known as self-objects . People exist as instruments for attention and validation. Their desire is to control them like they control their own arm or leg. In a relationship, they will slowly make the partner cut off contact with friends—there must be no competition for attention. Some highly talented deep narcissists (see stories starting on this page for examples) manage to find some redemption through their work, channeling their energies and getting the attention they crave through their accomplishments, although they tend to remain quite erratic and volatile. For most deep narcissists, however, it can be difficult to concentrate on their work. Lacking the self-esteem thermostat, they are prone to continually worrying about what others think of them. This makes it hard to actually focus attention outward for long periods of time, and to deal with the impatience and anxiety that comes with work. Such types tend to change jobs and careers quite frequently. This becomes the nail in their coffin—unable to attract genuine recognition through their accomplishments, they are forever thrown back on the need to artificially stimulate attention. Deep narcissists can be annoying and frustrating to deal with; they can also become quite harmful if we get too close to them. They entangle us in their never-ending dramas and make us feel guilty if we are not continually paying them attention. Relationships with them are most unsatisfying, and having one as a partner or spouse can be deadly. In the end, everything must revolve around them. The best solution in such cases is to get out of their way, once we identify them as a deep narcissist. There is one variety of this type, however, that is more dangerous and toxic, because of the levels of power he or she can attain— namely the narcissistic leader . (This type has been around for a long time. In the Bible, Absalom was perhaps the first recorded example, but we find frequent references in ancient literature to others—Alcibiades, Cicero, and Emperor Nero, to name a few.) Almost all dictator types and tyrannical CEOs fall into this category. They generally have more ambition than the average deep narcissist and for a while can funnel this energy into work. Full of narcissistic self-confidence, they attract attention and followers. They say and do things that other people don’t dare say or do, which seems admirable and authentic. They might have a vision for some innovative product, and because they radiate such confidence, they can find others to help them realize their vision. They are experts at using people. If they have success, a terrible momentum is set in place—more people are attracted to their leadership, which only inflates their grandiose tendencies. If anyone dares to challenge them, they are

• From The History of Christianity II: From the Reformation to the Modern Megachurch (2017)

  310 The History of Christianity II õ But by this point, conservative Christians had realized that if they wanted to protect their vision of the traditional family, sexual ethics, gender roles, and the all-around authority of scripture as they interpreted it, then they had to get involved with the United Nations because it had enormous global influence. õ One of the founding principles of the UN charter is equality between men and women. Since the 1970s, the United Nations has convened periodic conferences to discuss the empowerment of women around the world, and in 1995, one of these happened in Beijing. õ As reports from the conference filtered out, some activists in the Christian right did not like what they heard, especially the call for national governments to treat men and women as socially equal, able to fill equivalent roles in the workplace, public sphere, and at home. õ Evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons got organized. At the United Nations’ follow-up conference on women’s issues in New York five years later, some people passed out fliers that warned of the spread of the “homosexual agenda” and “widespread abortion.” õ One of the leaders of this bloc of conservative Christian organizations was a man named Austin Ruse, who ran the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (now called the Center for Family and Human Rights). õ Ruse realized he could prevent the conference from reaching consensus on women’s issues by creating a “pro-family” voting bloc of conservative, religious countries that did not want to be bossed around by Westerners. That alliance included the Vatican—which sent a representative to the conference—and also Sudan, Iran, Libya, and Syria. õ These countries are not exactly renowned for their records on human rights—particularly the rights of Christians. But the American activists were pragmatists, and the strategy worked. They kept the New York conference stuck in debates over abortion and homosexuality, and prevented serious discussion of poverty and violence against women. 311Lecture 31—Culture Wars and the Christian Right õ The Christian right got a boost in this global alliance building when George W. Bush won the 2000 presidential election. Bush appointed conservative Christians to key leadership positions in government and at the United Nations. Conservative think tanks and ministries like Focus on the Family—which had started out only concerned about the American culture wars—started devoting money and time to building international networks of likeminded activists. SUGGESTED READING Butler, Born Again. Jenkins, The New Faces of Christianity. Kruse, One Nation Under God. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER ä When Americans use the phrase “the Christian right,” what do they mean? ä Why did conservative activists argue that liberals’ defense of women’s equality in foreign countries is a kind of cultural imperialism? ä How might the Christian right’s campaign to build international alliances influence America’s domestic culture wars? 312

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Reply to Objection 1: Those words are spoken by the husbandmen of the vineyard; and these signify the rulers of the people, who knew Him to be the heir, inasmuch as they knew Him to be the Christ promised in the Law, but the words of Ps. 2:8 seem to militate against this answer: “Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance”; which are addressed to Him of whom it is said: “Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.” If, then, they knew Him to be the one to whom the words were addressed: “Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance,” it follows that they knew Him to be the Son of God. Chrysostom, too, says upon the same passage that “they knew Him to be the Son of God.” Bede likewise, commenting on the words, “For they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34), says: “It is to be observed that He does not pray for them who, understanding Him to be the Son of God, preferred to crucify Him rather than acknowledge Him.” But to this it may be replied that they knew Him to be the Son of God, not from His Nature, but from the excellence of His singular grace. Yet we may hold that they are said to have known also that He was verily the Son of God, in that they had evident signs thereof: yet out of hatred and envy, they refused credence to these signs, by which they might have known that He was the Son of God. Reply to Objection 2: The words quoted are preceded by the following: “If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin”; and then follow the words: “But now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father.” Now all this shows that while they beheld Christ’s marvelous works, it was owing to their hatred that they did not know Him to be the Son of God. Reply to Objection 3: Affected ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but seems, rather, to aggravate it: for it shows that a man is so strongly attached to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning. The Jews therefore sinned, as crucifiers not only of the Man-Christ, but also as of God. Whether the sin of those who crucified Christ was most grievous?Objection 1: It would seem that the sin of Christ’s crucifiers was not the most grievous. Because the sin which has some excuse cannot be most grievous. But our Lord Himself excused the sin of His crucifiers when He said: “Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34). Therefore theirs was not the most grievous sin.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  AUGUSTINE. (Cont. Faust. xix. 29.) Behold now out of the books of Moses it is proved to the Jews that a wife may not be put away. For they thought that they were doing according to the purport of Moses’ law when they did put them away. This also we learn hence by the testimony of Christ Himself, that it was God who made it thus, and joined them male and female; which when the Manichæans deny, they are condemned, resisting the Gospel of Christ. PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. This sentence of chastity seemed hard to these adulterers; but they could not make answer to the argument. Howbeit, they will not submit to the truth, but betake themselves for shelter to Moses, as men having a bad cause fly to some powerful personage, that where justice is not, his countenance may prevail; They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? JEROME. Here they reveal the cavil which they had prepared; albeit the Lord had not given sentence of Himself, but had recalled to their minds ancient history, and the commands of God. CHRYSOSTOM. Had the Lord been opposed to the Old Testament, He would not thus have contended in Moses’ behalf, nor have gone about to shew that what was his was in agreement with the things of old. But the unspeakable wisdom of Christ made answer and excuse for these in this manner, He saith unto them, Moses for the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives. By this He clears Moses from their charge, and retorts it all upon their own head. AUGUSTINE. (ubi sup.) For how great was that hardness! When not even the intervention of a bill of divorce, which gave room for just and prudent men to endeavour to dissuade, could move them to renew the conjugal affection. And with what wit do the Manichæans blame Moses, as severing wedlock by a bill of divorce, and commend Christ as, on the contrary, confirming its force? Whereas according to their impious science they should have praised Moses for putting asunder what the devil had joined, and found fault with Christ who riveted the bonds of the devil. CHRYSOSTOM. At last, because what He had said was severe, He goes back to the old law, saying, From the beginning it was not so.

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  If you ignore the pattern it is your own fault. You must always keep in mind the primary corollary of this law: people never do something just once. They might try to excuse themselves, to say they lost their heads in the moment, but you can be sure they will repeat whatever foolishness they did on another occasion, compelled by their character and habits. In fact, they will often repeat actions when it is completely against their self-interest, revealing the compulsive nature of their weaknesses. Cassius Severus was an infamous lawyer-orator who flourished in the time of the Roman Emperor Augustus. He first gained attention with his fiery speeches that attacked high-ranking Romans for their extravagant lifestyles. He gained a following. His style was bombastic but full of humor that pleased the public. Encouraged by the attention he received, he began to insult other officials, always raising the tone of his attacks. The authorities warned him to stop. The novelty wore off and the crowds grew thinner, but this only made Severus try harder. Finally the authorities had had enough—in AD 7 they ordered his books to be burned and him to be banished to the island of Crete. To the dismay of the Roman authorities, on Crete he simply continued his obnoxious campaign, sending copies to Rome of his latest diatribes. They warned him yet again. He not only ignored this, but he began to harangue and insult local Cretan officials, who wanted him put to death. In AD 24 the Senate wisely banished him to the unpopulated rock of Serifos in the middle of the Aegean Sea. There he would spend the last eight years of his life, and we can imagine him still concocting more insulting speeches that no one would hear. It is hard for us to believe that people cannot control tendencies that are so self-destructive, and we want to give them the benefit of the doubt, as the Romans did. But we must remember the wise words in the Bible: “Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool that repeats his folly.” You can see eloquent signs of people’s character in how they handle everyday affairs. If they are late in finishing simple assignments, they will be late with larger projects. If they become irritated by little inconveniences, they will tend to crumble under larger ones. If they are forgetful on small matters and inattentive to details, they will be so on more important ones. Look at how they treat employees in everyday settings and notice if there are discrepancies between the persona they present and their attitude toward underlings.

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  comes to their defense, and because their rise did not depend on any special skill, they often have nowhere else to go. Try to avoid being lured into taking this position. Make your power dependent on your accomplishments and your usefulness, not on the friendly feelings people have for you. Much as in any children’s playground, in the court there is almost always a person who plays the role of the Punching Bag, whom everyone feels encouraged to laugh at in some way and feel superior to. People today are more politically correct and careful, and yet this human need for a Punching Bag is too embedded in our nature. People will base their feeling of superiority on the Punching Bag’s supposed incompetence, or unorthodox opinions, or lack of sophistication, whatever makes them seem different and somehow inferior. Much of their ridicule will be behind the back of the targets, but they will sense it. Do not engage in this dynamic. It will coarsen and debase you. See everyone in the court as your potential ally. Within the ruthless environment of the court, try to befriend the Punching Bag, showing a different way of behaving and taking the fun out of this cruel game. The Reality Group When a group of people fails in some enterprise, we often see the following dynamic play itself out: The first reaction is to look at the actors involved and affix blame. Perhaps it was the overambitious leader who led the group into failure, or the incompetent lieutenant, or the very shrewd adversary. Perhaps some bad luck was involved as well. The leader or lieutenant may be fired and a new team brought in. Leadership learns a few lessons from the experience, and these are shared. Everyone in the group feels satisfied and ready to move on. Then, a few years down the line, nearly the same problem and the same type of failure recurs, and the same tired solutions are recycled. The reason for this common pattern is simple: what is really at fault is the dysfunctional dynamic of the group, which tends to produce incompetent lieutenants and grandiose leaders. And unless it is fixed, the problems keep recurring with different faces. In a dysfunctional culture, the members are often confused about their roles and the overall direction of the group. Amid such confusion, people start to think more of their own interests and agendas, and they form factions. Worried more about their status than the health of the group, their egos become touchy, and they obsess over who’s getting more. In this contentious atmosphere, the bad apples—the Stirrers, the men and women of low character—find numerous ways to stir trouble and promote themselves. Those who excel at schmoozing and playing politics but little else often thrive, rise to the top, and become lieutenants. Mediocrity is preferred and rewarded. Leaders find themselves dragged down by all the internal dissension and gamesmanship. Feeling vulnerable, they surround

• From On Earth We're Briefly Gorgeous (2019)

  “You gonna man me now, huh? You big, that it? You think I’m gone in my mind but I ain’t, boy. I hear you. I see things.” He coughed; a spray of liquor. “Don’t forget I was the best seal trainer at SeaWorld. Orlando ’85. Your mother was in the stands and I lifted her off her seat with my routine. My Navy Seals, them pups. I was the general of seals. That’s what she called me. The general. When I told them to laugh, they laughed.” An infomercial buzzed on the set, something about an inflatable Christmas tree that you could store in your pocket. “Who the hell would want to walk around with a goddamned Christmas tree in their pocket? Tired of this country.” His head rolled to one side, making a third fat roll appear on the back of his neck. “Hey—that boy with you? That China boy with you, huh? I know it. I hear him. He don’t talk but I hear him.” His arm shot up and I felt Trevor flinch through the couch cushion. The old man took another swig, the bottle long empty, but wiped his mouth anyway. “Your uncle James. You ’member James right?” “Yeah, sort of,” Trevor managed. “What’s that?” “Yes, sir.” “That’s right.” The old man sank further into his chair, his hair shining. The heat from his body seemed to be radiating, filling the air. “Good man, made of bone, your uncle. Bone and salt. He whooped them in that jungle. He did good for us. He burned them up. You know that, Trev? That’s what it is.” He went back to being motionless, his lips moved without affecting any part of his face. “He told you yet? How he burned up four of them in a ditch with gasoline? He told me that on his wedding night, can you believe it?” I glanced at Trevor but saw only the back of his neck, his face hidden between his knees. He was aggressively tying his boots, the plastic stringheads ticking through the eyelets as his shoulders jerked. “But it’s changed now, I know that. I ain’t stupid, boy. I know you hate me too. I know.” [TV laughter] “Saw your mom two weeks ago. Gave her the keys to the storage in Windsor Locks. Don’t know why took so long to get her damn furniture. Oklahoma don’t look too good on that one.” He paused. Took another phantom swig. “I made you fine, Trev. I know I did.” “You smell like shit.” Trevor’s face went stone-like. “What’s that? What I say—” “Said you smell like shit, dude.” The TV lit Trevor’s face grey save for the scar on his neck, whose reddish-dark tint never changed. He got it when he was nine; his old man, in a fit of rage, shot a nail gun at the front door and the thing ricocheted. Blood so red, so everywhere, it was Christmas in June, he told me.

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  As part of this process, you need to reflect on the effect you have on people: Are you constantly arguing, trying to impose your will, finding much more resistance than you expect to your ideas and projects? Do people nod as they listen to your advice and then do the opposite? If you are just starting out, sometimes this cannot be helped—people generally don’t respect the ideas of those lower down in the hierarchy; the same ideas promulgated by a boss would have a different effect. But sometimes it could stem from your own actions, as you violate many of the principles described above. Do not take people’s smiles and expressions of assent for reality. Notice their tension as they do so; pay particular attention to their actions. Take any grumbling as a reflection on your authority. In general, you want to heighten your sensitivity to others, looking in particular at those moments when you can feel people’s disrespect, or your authority on the wane. But keep in mind that there are always bad apples within any group, people who will grumble and not be won over by you no matter what you do. They live to be passive- aggressive and undermine anyone in a leadership position. Don’t bother with empathy; nothing will work on them. The art is to recognize them as quickly as possible and either fire or marginalize them. Having a group that is tight and committed will also make it much easier to control such malevolent types. Third and most important, you must not fall for the counterproductive prejudices of the times we live in, in which the very concept of authority is often misunderstood and despised. Today we confuse authority with leaders in general, and since so many of them in the world seem more interested in preserving their power and enriching themselves, naturally we have doubts about the very concept itself. We also live in fiercely democratic times. “Why should we ever have to follow a person of authority, and assume such an inferior role?” we might ask ourselves. “People in power should simply get the job done; authority is a relic of kings and queens. We have progressed far beyond that.” This disdain for authority and leadership has filtered its way throughout our culture. We no longer recognize authority in the arts. Everyone is a legitimate critic, and standards should be personal— nobody’s taste or judgment should be seen as superior. In the past, parenting was considered the model of authority, but parents no longer want to see themselves as authority figures whose role is to inculcate children with particular values and culture. Instead, parents like to see themselves more as equals, with a bit more knowledge and experience, whose role is really to validate their children’s feelings and make sure they are continually entertained and occupied. They are more like older friends. This same leveling dynamic applies to teachers and students, where learning must be fun.

• From The Laws of Human Nature (2018)

  flash mobs. In using this strategy, think of the repressive elements of the past that people are yearning to shake free of. This could be a period of stultifying correctness or prudery, or rampant conformity, or the overvaluing of individualism and all the selfishness that breeds. The group you establish will let flourish a new spirit and even offer the thrill of breaking past taboos on correctness. Subvert the spirit. You might find yourself at odds with some part of the spirit of your generation or the times you live in. Perhaps you identify with some tradition in the past that has been superseded, or your values differ in some way because of your own individual temperament. Whatever the reason, it is never wise to preach or moralize or condemn the spirit of the times. You will only marginalize yourself. If the spirit of the times is like a tide or a stream, better to find a way to gently redirect it, instead of fighting its direction. You will have more power and effect by working within the zeitgeist and subverting it. For instance, you make something—a book, a film, any product— that has the look and feel of the times, even to an exaggerated degree. However, through the content of what you produce, you insert ideas and a spirit that is somewhat different, that points to the value of the past you prefer or depicts another possible way of relating to events or interpreting them, helping to loosen up the tight generational framework through which people view their world. After World War II, the great European fashion designers felt a great deal of disdain for the American market that now dominated the world. They disliked the emerging popular culture and its vulgarity. The fashion designer Coco Chanel had always emphasized elegance in her designs and certainly shared some of this antipathy. But she went in the opposite direction of other designers of the time: she embraced the new power of American women and catered to their desire for clothing that was less fussy and more athletic. Gaining their trust and using their language, Chanel now had great power to subtly alter American tastes, bringing in more of her true sensibility and imparting some elegance to the streamlined designs American women loved. In this way she helped redirect the zeitgeist in fashion, anticipating the changes of the early 1960s. That is the power that comes from working with the spirit rather than against it. Keep adapting. It was in your youth that your generation forged its particular spirit, a period of emotional intensity that we often remember fondly. The problem that you face is that as you get older, you tend to remain locked in the values, ideas, and styles that marked this period. You become a kind of caricature of the past to those who are younger. You stop evolving with your thinking. The times leave you behind, which only makes you hold on more tightly

• From Heptaméron (1559)

  the door to listen, but, hearing her niece's voice, she pushed open the door, which was held by the young monk. When she entered the dormitory, the prior, pointiuLj to her niece, said, " You did wrong, mother, not to acquaint me with Sister Marie's constitution : for, not knowing her weakness, I made her stand before me, and while I was reprimanding her, she fainted away, as you see. Vinegar and other remedies being applied, Sister Marie recovered from her faint ; and the prior, fearing lest she should tell her aunt the cause of it, found means to whisper in her ear, " I command you, my daughter, on pain of disobedience and eternal damnation, never to speak of what I have done to you. It was my great love for you that made me do it ; but since I see that you will not respond to my passion, I will never mention it to you while I live. I may, however, assure you, for the last time, that if you will love me I will have you chosen abbess of one of the best abbeys in this kingdom." She replied that she would rather die in perpetual imprisonment than ever have any other friend than Him who had died for her on the cross ; deeming herself happier in suffering all ills with Him than in enjoying without Him all the pleasures the world can afford. She warned him once for all not to speak to her any more in that manner, if he did not wish her to complain of it to the abbess ; but if he desisted, she would say nothing of what was past. Before this bad shepherd withdrew, in order to appear quite different from what he was in reality, and to have the pleasure of again gazing on her he loved, he turned to the abbess and said, " I beg, mother, that you will make all your daughters sing a Salve Regina in honour of the Virgin, in whom I rest my hope." The Salve Regina was sung ; and all the while the fox 220 THE HEPTAMERON OF THE [Noz'd 22. did nothing but weep, not with devotion, but with regret at having so ill succeeded. The nuns, who attributed his emotion to the love he felt for the Virgin Mary, regarded him as a saint ; but Sister Marie, who knew his hypoc- risy, prayed to God in her heart to confound a villain who had such contempt for virginity.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  b. There are some so hardened in sin, so obstinate in malice, that their hearts are harder than rock, nay, harder than flinty adamant. Though this cannot be broken by any other thing, yet it may be cleft by the blood of a goat. Far harder are these souls, which will not be softened and will not be turned from evil by the power of our Lord’s Blood. Truly they are harder than rock, however hard it may be; for at the voice of Jesus on the Cross and the shedding of His Blood, the earth trembled and the rocks were rent. But these souls neither listen to the voice of the preacher when he speaks of the terrors of God, nor will they be softened and turned from sin by the justifying Blood of Him who died for them. c. The prophet denounces woe on those who build their houses in injustice and paint them with vermilion, that is, with the redness of the Precious Blood. He who builds up a house with wicked gains, or adorns it superfluously with the Blood of Christ, that is, with goods of the Church which have been bought with our Lord’s Blood, sins mortally. But far more fearful is his sin who builds up a spiritual house, that is, a bad family unjustly, or adorns it with the Blood of Christ; for then there are bad women, sons, and daughters, as parts of the house. They are as windows by which the devil and his thieves enter; and as beams, which are the devil’s traps. Woe is denounced against these, that is, a heavy rebuke, and threats of the punishment of hell.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  JEROME. The camel I suppose to mean the weighty precepts, judgment, mercy, and faith; the gnat, the tithing of mint, anise, and cummin, and other valueless herbs. The greater of God’s commands we swallow and overlook, but shew our carelessness by a religious scrupulousness in little things which bring profit with them. ORIGEN. Or, straining out a gnat, that is, putting from them small sins; swallowing a camel, that is, committing great sins, which He calls camels, from the size and distorted shape of that animal. Morally, The Scribes are those who think nothing else contained in Scripture than the bare letter exhibits; the Pharisees are all those who esteem themselves righteous, and separate themselves from others, saying, ‘Come not nigh me, for I am clean.’ Mint, anise, and cummin, are the seasoning, not the substantial part of food; as in our life and conversation there are some things necessary to justification, as judgment, mercy, and faith; and others which are like the seasoning of our actions, giving them a flavour and sweetness, as abstinence from laughter, fasting, bending the knee, and such like. How shall they not be judged blind who see not that it is of little avail to be a careful dispenser in the least things, if things of chief moment are neglected? These His present discourse overthrows; not forbidding to observe the little things, but bidding to keep more carefully the chief things. GREGORY. (Mor. i. 15.) Or otherwise; The gnat stings while it hums; the camel bows its back to receive its load. The Jews then strained off the gnat, when they prayed to have the seditious robber released to them; and they swallowed the camel, when they sought with shouts the death of Him who had voluntarily taken on Him the burden of our mortality. 23:25–2625. Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. JEROME. In different words, but to the same purport as before, He reproves the hypocrisy and dissimulation of the Pharisees, that they shewed one face to men abroad, but wore another at home. He means not here, that their scrupulousness respecting the cup and the platter was of any importance, but that they affected it to pass off their sanctity upon men; which is clear from His adding, but inwardly ye are full of ravening and uncleanness.

• From Buddenbrooks: The Decline of a Family (1901)

  "How may I serve you," she said politely but firmly. Then the gentleman put his hat and cane on the lid of the harmonium with a determined movement, then rubbed his free hands contentedly, looked at the consul innocently out of his bright, swollen little eyes and said: "I beg your lady's forgiveness on account of that the card I didn't have anything else to hand. My name is Permaneder; Alois Permaneder from Munich. Perhaps the madam already knew my name from the daughter—" He said all this aloud, with rather coarse intonation, in his gnarled dialect, full of sudden constrictions, but with a familiar twinkle in the cracks of his eyes that suggested, "We understand each other..." The Consul was now fully on her feet and approaching him with her head bowed to one side and her hands outstretched... "Mr. Permaneder! is it you? My daughter must have told us about you. I know how much you have contributed to make her stay in Munich pleasant and entertaining... And you were cast up in our city?" "Go ahead, look!" said Herr Permaneder, sitting down next to the Consul in an armchair she had pointed to with a distinguished gesture, and began rubbing his short, round thighs comfortably with both hands... "How popular?" asked the consul... "It's good, that's it," replied Herr Permaneder, stopping rubbing his knees. "Nice!" said the Consul blankly, leaning back, hands in her lap, with feigned satisfaction. But Herr Permaneder noticed that; He leaned forward, made circles in the air with his hand, God knows why, and said with great exertion: "Your lady is... wondering!" "Yes, yes, my dear Herr Permaneder, that is true!" replied the consul happily, and when this was done there was a pause. But in order to fill in this pause, Mr. Permaneder said with a groaning sigh: "It's just a Kreiz!" "Hm... how popular?" asked the Consul, letting her bright eyes slide a little aside... "It's great!" Herr Permaneder repeated extraordinarily loudly and rudely. "Nice," the consul said approvingly; and thus this point was also closed. 'May I ask,' she went on, 'what brought you so far, dear sir? It's a tough trip from Munich..." "A business," said Herr Permaneder, waving his short hand back and forth in the air, "a kloans business, madam, with the brewery to the fulling mill!" »Oh, right, you are a hop dealer, my dear Herr Permaneder! Nub & Comp., right? Be assured, I have heard many good things about your company from my son, the Consul,' said the Consul politely. But Herr Permaneder said, "It's all right. There's no talk about that. Ah, well, the main thing is that I always have the wish raised to pay my respects to the gracious lady and to see Frau Grünlich again! Dos is Sach' gnua, to shy away from the trip!" "Thank you," said the Consul cordially, extending her hand again, the palm of which she waved wide.