scrubbedexpat141

I don't even consider pride as part of a comparison. I think they're separate...I think it might just be one of those topics that is easily misinterpreted or whatever. Who knows. As usual I've said my bit regardless.

Cheers buddy, something I'll always be grateful I got the chance to do. They stopped it a year or so later for a few, then resurrected, then dropped etc.
(I was obviously joking with all the guff in the last post)

weasel decentral

In terms of work I certainly don't have any project I am proud of, I do have a few that I have a sense of professional satisfaction about completing them. However it's not wrapped up in bluster or a sense that without me it would not have happened.

I was paid to get the job done, that's where my motivation mostly comes from.

I think the more self assured you are, external recognition, outward broadcasting of achievements or pats on the back are not required as Millhouse has pointed out. I don't think that means you go through life as some kind of unfeeling automaton though

Bahtatboy

Then, to a large extent, we're discussing semantics. And Hell yes it's deliberate -- words and their usage matter, otherwise we end up in a grey whirl of imprecision.

Quite how it's sensible to have one word, that from antiquity always had a purely negative connotation (and I'm talking from pre-biblical times) can now have both negative and positive connotations when applied to the same basic matter (how one feels about one's own achievements), is beyond me. Well, it's beyond me as a construct of a free (and linguistically-free) society, but in truth we are partly into an Orwellian Newspeak era, where it suits many to remove -- or at least blur the edges of -- precision in speech.

The seven deadly sins (which don't originate in the Bible) are commonly recognised as pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth. I'm not sure whether the "sensible and modern" usage of pride is to redefine it in a way that it makes it essentially different from the usage that held good for thousands of years, or to consider now that the essentials of pride are not "sinful". The Mail is already well down the path to de-sinning envy; Gordon Gekko said "Greed is Good" -- which one's next?

But, if you take the current definition of the word itself (which doesn't consider how that definition is or isn't connected to the reasons for pride being considered a sin) - "a feeling or deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one's own achievements, the achievements of those with whom one is closely associated, or from qualities or possessions that are widely admired" - I think you might find that, on a superficial level, it's identical to the definition that's always held good. Maybe one should take a peek to see where those "feelings or deep pleasure" really lead. Was your chest just a little puffed when you said, "I'm proud to have represented England"?

scrubbedexpat141

Words matter greatly, which is why it's totally barmy to think they should mean what they once all meant or that we should still use words, phrases and exact meanings / definitions from thousands of years ago. Even decades can cause change.
Language develops, changes, grows, shrinks, morphs. It doesn't stay still. Expecting people to treat one word the way it was intended thousands of years ago is like expecting a pyramid to be light.

Not sure if it was puffed out or not, but what's that got to do with anything? My possible 'feelings or deep pleasure' lead where?
If it's worth surreptitiously suggesting then it's worth just saying isn't it?

Bahtatboy

I had a similar discussion with a group of teachers (from a religious school). They saw no irony whatsoever in starting off sentences with "We're very proud of ...". They're chests were a bit puffed, too... Do I really have to spell it out?

scrubbedexpat141

Yep. If you want to be rude about someone, you have to have the balls say what you mean

Bahtatboy

There are many ways of doing it, but seeing as I had no intention of being rude about you or anyone else...

As with the teachers, I'm just trying to stimulate thought about words and how we use them. “Pride”, until very recently, has always been intrinsically linked with “sin”. We could get into all sorts of debate about whether or not sin actually exists, and if it does then the nature of it. But – as this is certainly not from a religious perspective – the seven deadly sins are generally considered to be” wrong”; some patently so (gluttony, for example), but some require further inspection. Why is sloth wrong? If your life consists of people around you doing everything that needs doing, and your input needs to be only minimal for everything to continue to be ok even though it’s less than everyone else’s, where’s the harm? Most people can work out where that line of argument will, eventually, fall down. Envy, to some extent, falls in the same camp, yet we now have a culture where envy is seen to be acceptable (certainly for the masses who read the Daily Mail). And so with pride: if, when one uses it, it contains an element of “I did better than others”, then one doesn’t have to follow a long logical path to arrive at the conclusion that it also contains an element of “I am better than others” – and that’s the essence of the original meaning of pride, because noting oneself as better than others automatically notes others as not as good as oneself.

If usage of the term perpetuates with only the meaning of “I’m happy with what I did, and I tried my best to achieve it” then we’ve knocked pride off the list of seven (well, already down to five or six, depending on envy’s and greed’s current standings) deadly sins, with only lust, gluttony, wrath and sloth to be re-packaged.

Scamp, it’s semantics, you know me well enough to understand I’m not having a serious go at you.

scrubbedexpat141

No, I know you're not and I enjoy proper discussions about English Language a lot, even if I do my best to abuse it as often as possible...I come at it differently which is why we are where we are, I think.

I don't see the sins as hugely relevant to the modern world. I had no idea they were pre-bible. I don't see the as the route of meaning for modern 'pride'. I can accept your point that x years ago pride meant something else less favourable...because it did. But I don't think it's genuinely applicable today to the masses.

I think usage of the term has already perpetuated with the positive meaning.
Some people misunderstand it though and it becomes arrogance.
Maybe in our lives we'll see a full circle? SUddenly it will 'mean' something negative again.

Dubaiexile

Taking pride in your work, or pride in your appearance are hardly negative!

jam25mack

Personally, I'm not convinced that the term pride has soley had negative connotations. Just because it was included in the 7 deadly sins, be they biblical or not (that would only make them worse in my eyes) doesn't mean diddley.