Firstly, I am posting this in here because I feel that the intelligence pool is highest and I have the most chance of getting to the bottom of this. Unfortunately, it's also not the nicest place in the world so I am hoping a good discussion can come out of it. Probably never have any thought to what I'm about to say but my friends and I spent hours discussing and arguing it and came to no final conclusion. Now I told everyone that they represent the most intellectual corner of GC and left out that it's full of assholes so please help me. Oh wait, I just screwed up but since I, under the umbrella of a feeble attempt at humor got to call everyone an a-hole and I gotta say, it feels good. Ok, on to the serious business of definitions. In the fifth of a 2 part series discussing pride, proud and hubris I give you what I have discussed for hours. I'm going to try and bias you with my thoughts right off the bat because I need to be proven wrong. I am not after being right. I don't care about winning a discussion/argument, I just want to end up with the correct knowledge. So far, nobody has been able to explain to me this. Pride (noun) - 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. Proud (adjective) - feeling deep pleasure or satisfaction as a result of one's own achievements, qualities, or possessions or those of someone with whom one is closely associated. Hubris - excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance. Okay, now it seems real obvious to me. The noun of pride is the quantitative noun that describes a level of pride which then should in theory if things work out, relate to the act (the adjective) of being proud. Hubris is a defined word that expresses that too much pride can be negative because as the bible says pride goeth before the fall. The bible aside, certainly too much pride can lead to arrogance. I'll explain my issue with this in a moment and see if anyone agrees (that is if anyone reads it as I'm well aware this isn't the most exciting thing until you really start thinking about it and questioning it.) So EVERYONE I ended up in this argument with was saying that there are very marked differences between pride and proud when to me they are the exact same word but modified to express the act and the quantity. I used this anology for my point. If you love someone you must also have love for them. Having love being the qualifier a kin to "pride" and loving someone the act, a kin to "being proud". Now just because of the nature of the word the act of loving is a verb vs. the act of being proud which is an adjctive. A person actively loves but a person IS proud. Everyone was saying (I think because of the definition of hubris using pride) that pride is wholly different than proud because it has a negative connotation behind it. I thought my above analogy was dead on and would sway everyone over to my logic, but no. Instead there were 10 people that seemed to all be wrong and two of them are the most intelligent people I know so I questioned myself and wanted to be educated but nobody could convince me. That's why I'm here. I would love confirmation that I'm not wrong or for someone to better explain what I'm missing. Now back to hubris, why do we have a defined word to give us philosophy? I can't think of another single word in our language where we are told and warned of the negative impact of having too much of it can produce. I don't think anyone would disagree that too much love can smother someone, that too much faith can lead to dissapoibtment, too much intelligence can make us all assholes . And hey, literally 100 percent of sociopaths have extremely high self asteem yet I don't recall a word giving us this philosophy so why do we have one for pride? It would seem to me that we should be left to our own vices in deciding our own philosophies in life. Since when is a qualitative characteristic such as good or bad defined for us??? It's bizarre and to make matters stranger as these concepts that never once crossed my mind were putting me at odds with everyone, it was this negative context that was being cited for pride as opposed to proud. Upon just reading the definition, there is no mention of good or bad in the words pride or proud, only pride in the definition of hubris because of course you would use the quanative version to define when too much of something could be bad. Never mind that the definition of hubris itself is an anomaly and makes no sense to me. Now to me proud and pride go hand in hand like faith and trust and having love and loving. Fact or false: I must have love for myself to love myself. I must have love for you to love you. --- I must have pride in myself to be proud of myself and I must have pride in you to be proud of you. Let's use an example of when too much pride can bite you. We all love our Gators and take pride in everything Gators and we were let down last season and were not proud so our abundance of pride led to a major dissapointmebt (fall). But that same pride was rewarded many times as we watched Tim Tebow make the promise and win the NC or when we won a SECCG. Indeed we feel more proud when we have more pride. They go hand in hand so why is EVERYONE telling me their different? Again, if you assert they are, please tell me why. I also kept hearing that with pride as opposed to "love" or "trust" that you need the context of the sentence to determine do it's "good or bad pride" but this makes no sense. It's not the context that makes the pride good or bad, it's the result. It's stupid to even talk about it being too much or not because I can't think of another word that has a whole other word to definine the dangers of being overly proud. My examples of too much intelligence or too much self asteem can also be bad is a fine example. Pride fits in to the definition of hubris when the final result is bad which can come in the form of arrogance or dissapointment. If your pride in yourself rises to the level of arrogance than that could be bad (unless you want to be arrogant in which case it's perfect) leading me to the mind numbing definition of a qualitative characteristic in hubris. Even words like murder or hate are not defined with a qualification. Murder is a premeditated, willful act of killing another human. We are left to our own brains to know that's bad. Hubris says that too much pride can lead to arrogance but no qualifications of murder. Negative connotations aren't defined, they either exist for you or not. Emos strive to feel sadness, sadists yearn for pain. Hubris is a bizarre word and I think it's rooted in the bible. I'm gonna get to the bottom of this but I don't see how the context of the sentence defines the connotation. For two reasons, we decide that on our own, and anyway it's the result of our placed pride that results in us being a level of proud or disappointment. Same with love. If we love too much, we can get hurt more. There are lots of these examples but I can't think of a single word that has it's own definition warning of the dangers. Anyway, it still doesn't add a negative to pride or proud. Look at the definitions. They are identical. It's hubris that uses pride and of course because it's the word that uses quantity not because it's inherently negative. So hubris is the negative word, and pride and proud are perfectly innocent and are just different modes of the same exact definition. Just look at the definition. Please explain how any of what I just said is wrong. Again, I am baffled and just want to know. I think that it's just a misnomer that pride is associated with negative because of hubris and the biblical phrase. I'm sure this is really boring and if you got this far, I hope you learned something and then please tell me what you learned. Okay, this all seems obvious but everyone was against me. Ironically you might think it's because I have too much pride in myself but no, I just want to know what everyone else does or know how to correct them. I think I'm gonna start a petition to remove hubris from the language. What a useless word. We are quite capable of deciding what words end up being bad. Thanks anyway Webster but could you leave the philosophy to Socrates because your word is confusing people I think.