Talk:Hubris

Older discussion has been moved to the talk archive.

Not really what hubris means...

I think hubris in ancient Greek basically has very little to do with pride and not all that much to do with over-confidence. The literary and mythological handbooks of the early and mid-20th century that propagated the idea that, for instance, Oedipus is a "hubristic" character tend to ignore how hubris is actually used. "Hubris" was a legal term for "rape", and in general could refer to mistreating someone with disregard for their personal space simply to indulge your own impulses. I suppose there's an element of pride in there somewhere, but it certainly doesn't seem to be as prominent as people have made it out to be. Having looked at all the uses of the word "hubris" in the Odyssey, I can safely say that Odysseus is never called "hubristic" a single time. I'd personally like to wipe the page clean and start over because the whole thing seems to have been flawed from the beginning. The whole "hubris in modern times" is pointless; something like that belongs in a dictionary. Anyway, we should wipe it clean. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Campbel2 (talk • contribs) .

As an ancient Greek legal term, hubris means the unjustified use of violence against a person; sexual assaults fall under this definition, but so too would what modern law would call assault and battery, and most occurences of hubris in a legal context (e.g. Demosthenes 21, 54) deal with physical assault, not sexual. The notion of "personal space" is pretty fuzzy and seems un-Greek to me. I'd rather say that the crime of hubris involves inflicting undeserved shame and dishonor on others--the worst part about the crime isn't the physical harm, it's the social harm the act causes. More broadly, behavior that is called hubris is connected with persons who overstep boundaries, who have insufficient regard for their place in the social hierarchy, and in general behave like jerks--Pentheus in the Bacchae, the suitors in the Odyssey. Odysseus himself is usually seen as doing something hubristic when he taunts Polyphemus in Book 9--a taunt which gets Odysseus in a lot of trouble with Poseidon. Akhilleus 08:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of that, Akhilleus. As far as 'personal space' goes, I was referring to, for instance, the case--is it found in Demosthenes?--where someone is said to have acted hybristically by barging into the women's chambers of another man's household. As an aside, I think 'personal space' is arguably a very significant category in the Greek way of thinking about dignity and shame; we could perhaps point e.g. to the importance of the active and passive roles in sexual relations. As for the broader definition of hubris as a transgression of boundaries, be they physical or social, I think that's exactly right. The Homeric usage seems to me to convey that idea especially consistently.

In re of Odysseus taunting Polyphemus in Od. IX: Is the word hybris or one of the cognates actually applied to him there? I don't have an edition or a concordance at my fingertips right now, but I don't remember it there. Whether it is or not, one of the more general problems I noticed on this page was the tendency to project later ideas about hubris onto Greek texts without regard for the way the word is actually used there. Charlie

Sorry, but hubris means setting yourself up as greater than you really are. A classic example is flying too close to the sun, like Icarus. Other examples might be claiming to be as beautiful as a particular goddess, boasting that you will destroy a city single-handedly, opposing the will of Dionysus or some other god, and really anything that merits a come-uppance because you have been overweaning or presumptuous, not knowing your place as a mortal or a mortal of a particular rank. It has nothing to do with invading someone's personal space. Standing too close to someone while you talk to them is not an act of hubris. Thinking you are worthy of marrying the king's beautiful wife is, but not because it's his person space (in the modern sense) that you're invading (though I fear a terrible pun may be used against me here). There are countless well-known examples in Greek mythology, and they bear little relationship to the definition as I encountered it here. The current definition would seriously mislead people who have encountered the word in, say, works of literary criticism and want to know what it means.

I've only changed the definition slightly so far, but I will change it much more unless I see good arguments to the contrary.

I suppose the counterargument is that (it might be claimed that) the actual uses of the word in certain Greek texts are different from this "popular" understanding. That would be an interesting argument, but the "popular" usage is certainly not modern in the sense of recent. Whether it is as old as the Homeric texts might be debatable, but it is very old. It is certainly the common meaning of the word now, whether applied to events in Greek mythology or to the actions of modern-day mad scientists. If someone wants to argue that it appeared in late classical times, or early medieval times, or something, and distorts the meaning in (say) pre-classical texts such as The Odyssey, that might be open to you, but it had better be referenced because it is not the ordinary way that even Classics scholars talk. Remember not to rely on original research. Check what the mainstream meaning is when the word is used by scholars who write about ancient myth, Athenian tragedy etc. Metamagician3000 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, actually, Metamagician, you might want to source your own statements, since it appears you're relying on a "common meaning." The classical definition of hubris has been the subject of recent books and articles (unfortunately only one, Fisher, is cited by this article), which is in fact where "personal space" came from. I agree, though, that the phrase "personal space" sounds new agey, and if you're not familiar with the sense in which it was used (e.g., coming into the women's quarters of someone else's house uninvited), it's misleading. Let me quote the entry in the Oxford Classical Dictionary:

  The common use of hubris in English to suggest pride, overconfidence,
  or any behavior which may offend divine powers, rests, it is now generally
  held, on misunderstanding of ancient texts, and concomitant and over-
  simplified view of Greek attitudes towards the gods have lent support
  to many doubtful, and often over-Christianizing, interpretations...

The solution is to clearly distinguish between the ordinary language sense of the word, which is probably what most people are looking for, and the current debate within the field of classics over what the word "hubris" meant to the ancient Greeks. So perhaps the initial paragraph can be rewritten thus:

  Hubris or hybris (Greek ‛′Υβρις), according to its modern usage,
  is exaggerated pride or self-confidence, often resulting in fatal retribution. In Ancient
  Greek, however, hubris referred to a reckless disregard for the rights of another person
  resulting in social degradation for the victim.

Here's how Aristotle defined hubris (Rhet. 1387b):

  Hybris consists in doing or saying things that cause shame to the victim,
  not in order that anything may happen to you, nor because anything has
  happened to you, but merely for your own gratification. Hybris is not the
  requital of past injuries; this is revenge. As for the pleasure in hybris, its
  cause is this: men think that by ill-treating others they make their own
  superiority the greater.

and the defintion of Douglas MacDowell in his commentary on Demosthenes' Against Medias (Oxford 1990; see also MacDowell, "Hybris in Athens," Greece and Rome 23 (1976), 14-31):

  I argued that hybris has several characteristic causes: youthfulness,
  having plenty to eat and drink, and wealth. It also has characteristic
  results: further eating and drinking, sexual activity, larking about, hitting
  and killing, taking other people's property and privileges, jeering at people,
  and disobeying authority both human and divine...its essence consists of
  having energy or power and misusing it self-indulgently.

Fisher's definition of hybris is "the committing of acts of intentional insult, of acts which deliberately inflict shame and dishonour on others." (p. 148)

Another article is Douglas L. Cairns' article "Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big," JHS 116 (1996): 1-32, which defines hubris as "excessive self-assertion in the face of others' claims."

Something to notice is that several of these definitions have to do with behavior towards other persons, while the modern definition is more about a psychological state and the behavior that results from it--the effect on other people isn't an essential component of the modern definition. Akhilleus 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll think about this some more. However, as further information, here is the definition given in the Encyclopedia Britannica (2005 CD-ROM version), which one would expect to be pretty uncontroversial rather than expressing the POV of a particular school of thought: "hubris also spelled hybris, in classical Greek ethical and religious thought, overweening presumption suggesting impious disregard of the limits governing human action in an orderly universe. It is the sin to which the great and gifted are most susceptible, and in Greek tragedy it is usually the hero's tragic flaw. Perhaps the simplest example occurs in the Persians of Aeschylus, in which the arrogance of Xerxes in building a bridge of ships across the Hellespont flaunts nature by turning sea into land. He is punished by the crushing defeat of the Persians at Salamis. In most other Greek tragedies the hero's hubris is more subtle, and sometimes he appears wholly blameless."

(I do wish people wouldn't write "flaunt" when they mean "flout", though. It's tough when even the Encyclopedia Britannica people make a simple, if common, error like that. :) )

My old Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon starts with: "wantonness", "wanton violence" or "insolence", which covers a wide range of ideas. It then goes on in a way that suggests it was used in quite a wide range of situations, some violent, some not so, some just involving acting in an outrageous way, some involving injury. I can't see any evidence that it had the kind of cosmic overtone that is so often given to it by modern writers (even when they are writing about Greek tragedy). If that is entirely a (more) modern idea it is very interesting.

I guess something like the solution given by Akhilleus would be okay with me. We could say what the word means in modern English, and how it is used in literary criticism and in debates about science, politics, etc. We could include how it has been applied by critics over the years to ancient Greek myth and tragedy. Then we could move to pointing out that a lot of Classicists (or a consensus of them, or whatver it is) now think this is not the way the term was originally used by the Greeks themselves.

However, if we do that, it would also be very valuable to say when the "modern" meaning first became dominant, given that it is applied, e.g., to what Xerxes does in The Persians, an act which is not dishonoring any mortals but apparently denying the natural order or something. If the word changed meaning at some point, there must be theories about how this happened. Was the term used in the "modern" way by the Greeks at all? If so, when is the first instance we know of? Was it used in the relevant play? Is it used by ancient commentators on the play? What about the other famous examples that don't fit what is supposed to be the original definition? Was the word applied to them by anyone in classical times? Was the change of meaning affected by the rise of Christianity, with its dislike of the "sin" of pride?

Btw, for reasons of my own I actually quite like the idea that the word is now being used in a way that is not what the Greeks originally meant. I just think that if this is correct we need to be very careful not to use the original meaning as our primary definition that we start off with. The word is too caught up in modern literary criticism and many debates, e.g. about new technology, "playing God", etc. We want people to understand the word as they encounter it, before they get to debates among Classicists. Metamagician3000 11:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Does anyone have a source for the first sentence: "Hubris or hybris referred in Ancient Greece to a reckless disregard for the rights of another person resulting in some kind of social degradation for the victim." That's not my understanding at all of what hubris meant. I understood that it was daring to defy the gods. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked it up and could find no mention of "social degradation for the victim" or "reckless disregard for the rights of another person" (that's way too 21st century for the Greeks), so I've changed it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting your changes. There are references listed in the article and an extensive discussion on this talk page. Please read the discussion (and perhaps the articles referenced; if you have access to a college/university library, you may be able to access them online through the library website). The definition given in the intro is taken from Fisher, and reflects recent scholarship. Wherever you've "looked it up" is probably relying on the popular definition, which is appropriate for the use of "hubris" in modern English, but classical scholars have determined that the sense in which the ancient Greeks used "hubris" is different. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard or read a classical scholar use the word in that way. Reckless disregard for the rights of another person? If you're going to restore that, please use an actual quote from a scholar and cite it, because as things stand, I don't believe you'll find one. Of course, I stand to be corrected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a reference for my intro. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh...the talk page has plenty of cites and quotes from classical scholars. If, as you said, you read the discussion above, then you ran into this bit that I posted:

Fisher's definition of hybris is "the committing of acts of intentional insult, of acts which deliberately inflict shame and dishonour on others." (p. 148)

Another article is Douglas L. Cairns' article "Hybris, Dishonour, and Thinking Big," Journal of Hellenic Studies 116 (1996): 1-32, which defines hubris as "excessive self-assertion in the face of others' claims."

SlimVirgin is correct. In these quotes there is no mention of "reckless disregard for the rights of another person". That is [i]very[/i] 21st century language, coming from a highly legalistic society. The idea of shame is far more native to that era.1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legolasegb (talk • contribs).

I'll add a quote from the latest edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary (3rd ed., 1996), which I also quoted in part above:

hubris, intentionally dishonoring behavior, was a powerful term of moral condemnation in ancient Greece; and in Athens, and perhaps elsewhere, it was also treated as a serious crime. The common use of hubris in English to suggest pride, overconfidence, or any behavior which may offend divine powers, rests, it is now generally held, on misunderstanding of ancient texts, and concomitant and over-simplified view of Greek attitudes towards the gods have lent support to many doubtful, and often over-Christianizing, interpretations, above all of Greek tragedy...

The best ancient discussion of hubris is found in Aristotle's Rhetoric... (note: I also quote Aristotle above) While it primarily denotes gratuitous dishonoring by those who are, or think they are, powerful and superior, it can also at times denote the insolence of accepted 'inferiors'...

Hubris is most often the insulting infliction of physical force...

And for my final quote, MacDowell (full cite in article), p. 14:

Hybris is one of the most familiar Greek words, often used in English in untranslated form by people who have never learned Greek at all. If you ask for a translation of it, English equivalents commonly offered are 'pride' and 'arrogance'. But 'pride' is not in fact what the Greeks meant by the word; that is just a misunderstanding of it which has grown up in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries....

I noticed that you supplied a citation from the Encyclopedia Britannica, but I hope we can agree that the Oxford Classical Dictionary, plus the articles by Fisher and Cairns that are given in the "references" section are a better reflection of classical scholarship than the Britannica. Aristotle is also a better reflection of what the Greeks thought than the Britannica, when it comes down to it... --Akhilleus (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

-Yeah I think Slim virgin is correct too. Going by the the ancient greek mythologies hubris is daring to better than the gods. There are countless myths that can be cited to support this. If any of these myths are direct translations then they would be a primary source and therefore more relevant than any secondary source. Also I have also never heard any classics lecturer talk about hubris as dishonoring oneself.

Mistaken pronunciation

Did anyone else, like me, at first think the word looked French and pronounce it 'oobree'? Jess Cully 11:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's intriguing.

Hopiakuta 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a french word like 'oobree' in my dictionary, what does it mean? I pronounced hybris as 'highbree', and associated it with 'highbrow', which in English class (I'm not English) I thought was a very funny word. According to my dictionary it means '(pedantic) intellectual' or 'superior'. My 'dictionary of strange words' says: 'hybris' (Greek 'hubris') means 'verwaande trots', 'trotse teugelloosheid', 'buitensporigheid', which litterally translated (I don't know if my translation is perfectly accurate) means 'conceited pride', 'proud unbridledness', 'extravagance'. Could 'highbrow' stem from 'hybris'? (although it could be the same 'wrong' interpretation of the word as mentioned above) Anne

Folks, Jess Cully was making a little joke. The word "hubris" derives from Greek, and has no etymological connection to any English (or French) word but "hubris". --Akhilleus (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael_Scheuer Imperial_Hubris hubris David_Corn Michael_Isikoff

Michael_Scheuer

"Imperial_Hubris":

"Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror".

hubris

David_Corn

Michael_Isikoff

< http://davidcorn.com >:

"Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War".

Hopiakuta 16:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Better Summary

The summary of Aristotle's quote near the top was poorly done. It makes it seem like there was no motive for the shaming except pleasure. "In Aristotle's view, a hubristic act is one that inflicts undeserved shame on the victim for the gratification of the perpetrator." This leaves out the most important part of Aristotle's quote, the explanation of why this type of act caused pleasure; it was for greater honor. It was a kind of sum-zero game, played in the arena of honor. To say it was done merely for self-gratification, inaccurately portrays the Greeks as ruthless barbarians. (Note: I am not saying it was ridiculous nonsense.)

(Note: Here begins a new comment on the unsigned comment directly above. This comment regards the alteration of the *summary* of hubris in general found at the very top of the article, and not the summary of Aristotle's definition.)

In my opinion the article as it stands now is innaccurate. The fact that Aristotle gives a definition is significant and noteworthy, but that doesn't mean it's the be all and end all of definitions. The general summary for the Hubris article was meant to reflect the conclusions of Fisher and McDowell and others (of course incorporating Aristotle as well).

The remark about "ruthless barbarians" vs. honor-loving Greeks is an unsupported personal opinion. In any case, the idea that committing hubris is essentially about gaining honor fails to take account of prominent usages of the word (and this is not my original research, but culled from scholarly sources). Aeschines' Against Timarchus springs to mind. Or the suitors' behavior in the Odyssey: there, there is no suggestion that what is foremost in the suitors' minds is a desire to gain honor; they just want to have a good time and won't let any social boundaries hold them back. (One could go on.) The conclusion of recent classical scholarship seems to be that an act of hubris involves--at least--someone acting on his impulses in violation of a recognized social boundary between him and a person of equal or greater social status, an act which by its nature results in dishonor for the victim. The summary definition--which has now been altered--was written in the first place to reflect this conclusion.

I'm not going to revert the changes, but this is something that should be discussed further. Generally speaking, I think it would be nice if people posted a comment to the talk page *before* making changes to the article itself. Charlie

"Hubris cycle"

What is the "hubris cycle" in all of this? I have looked high and low and can't find it other than in college syllabi. Is it similar to the aristeia in Homer's work? It seems there is always a little hubris in those episodes.

Paul Bernardo and Hubris?

I would like to say this...remember 12 years ago when Paul Bernardo got life in prison? Well if you really listen to the story, and some of the things he did, you might agree that it sounds like he had Hubris. He definitely showed some of the signs, and I think that it should have been taken into consideration before they tried him in court.

64.231.248.254 23:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand and Objectivism in Links?

Considering that there is no clear reference to either Ayn Rand or Objectivism in the article itself, I find no reason for them to be included in the links section. Is this just some backhanded accusation of hubristic behavior on their part? I'm removing them pending any substantial justification for their inclusion. I've also removed the John Howard link for the same reason. Saxo Grammaticus 18:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested examples of "Hubris in modern times"

Frankenstein, Faust, Don Juan, Don Quixote and Robinson Crusoe are all protagonists in the Western canon which exhibit a single-minded pursuit, most aptly named hubris, as one of their (and in extension, of the Western man's) defining characteristics. In showing contemporary hubris, these might be prime literary examples to begin with. If this suggestion can improve the article in any way, please incorporate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.64.240.184 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree on Frankenstein, Faust. Don Quixote maybe. Dont really see the "over the top" with the rest. --Echosmoke (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggested the recent book by David Owen. The book has been left in the References but the text ("In his book The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair and the Intoxication of Power the British politician David Owen argues that President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair developed a Hubristic Syndrome while in power. In particular their handling of the Iraq War showed their hubristic incompetence.") has been deleted. I think the text is highly relevant to the section and a lot more so than the rest. I can't be bothered to re-insert it if some twit is going to keep deleting it, but that's my opinion for the record. Vacarme (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Any so-called examples of hubris need to be absolutely clear on what exactly they are examples of. We must realise that "hubris" means three entirely separate things: (1) the Greeks appear to have used it to mean "abuse" of or an "offence" against another person, staining their honour and perhaps one's own; (2) in more modern times it has been erroneously thought to mean an "offence of arrogance against the gods"; (3) there appears to be a current fashion (particularly amongst Americans, it seems to me) whereby it is used as a pretentious way of saying "arrogant" in any context. — Chameleon 10:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I was truly surprised that this article -- which also redirects from "sinful pride" -- had so limited an overview of hubris in the medieval/Renaissance context. Faust, in particular, not only exudes hubris, he defines the essence of hubris.

Hubris has two forks, which may possibly be defined by the observer rather than the actor. In the first, a man challenges or otherwise sets himself against the gods/God - ie. he considers himself to be on the same level as the gods/God. In the second, man sets himself as his own measure, indeed as the only relevant measure - ie. still setting himself against the gods/God, in deliberately no longer finding them of personal relevance.

Societies which have structures aimed at approximating moralities traditionally associated with divinity (such as the legal system) often have safeguards to keep any one person from having ultimate decision-making power, such power being relegated to structure and procedure rather than to the individual. To personally overrule such a structure can have overtones of hubris.

Thus re the Bush/Blair comment earlier, their handling of the Iraq war shows various psychological assumptions similar to wishful thinking, groupthink etc, but not hubris. (For example, consider the constant work to find justification beyond "because I say so" -- which would have been adequate for hubris.) Contrast this to the line from Frost/Nixon, where Nixon says, "When the president does it, it is not illegal." This sets up the president as the ultimate authority on right and wrong, traditionally the realm of divinity. - Tenebris

not erroneous to say it's against gods

This does exist in Ancient Greek thought. I particularly studied the myths and tragedies and it's very much the case. So the article shouldn't claim it isn't. That doesn't mean the other definitions aren't right (I wouldn't particularly know, though some of this looks like WP:OR to me) but the one of hubris being acts against the gods, or overwheening for mortals, definitely isn't wrong. Sticky Parkin 01:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)