SCHOPENHAUER on National Pride

Arthur SCHOPENHAUER on National Pride 

National pride, often mistaken for patriotism, is a sentiment that many cling to as a source of identity and validation. Yet, as German Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer astutely observes, such pride can sometimes be the refuge of those who lack individual achievements or qualities of their own. In his essay The Wisdom of Life, he argues that true self-worth comes from personal accomplishments rather than an inherited affiliation with a nation. Those with keen intellect and character are often the first to recognize their homeland’s flaws, whereas those with little to distinguish themselves vehemently defend it, ignoring its shortcomings. This thought-provoking perspective challenges us to reevaluate the roots of our pride and consider whether it stems from genuine merit or mere collective association.

This essay is divided into these parts:

INTRODUCTION.

THE WISDOM OF LIFE.

CHAPTER I. — DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT.

CHAPTER II. — PERSONALITY, OR WHAT A MAN IS.

CHAPTER III. — PROPERTY, OR WHAT A MAN HAS.

CHAPTER IV. — POSITION, OR A MAN'S PLACE IN THE ESTIMATION OF OTHERS.

Section 1.—Reputation.

Section 2.—Pride.

Section 3.—Rank.

Section 4.—Honor.

Section 5.—Fame.

Here is the quote from Chapter IV, Section 2. - Pride, translated By T. Bailey Saunders:

"The cheapest sort of pride is national pride; for if a man is proud of his own nation, it argues that he has no qualities of his own of which he can be proud; otherwise he would not have recourse to those which he shares with so many millions of his fellowmen. The man who is endowed with important personal qualities will be only too ready to see clearly in what respects his own nation falls short, since their failings will be constantly before his eyes. But every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud adopts, as a last resource, pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and glad to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority. For example, if you speak of the stupid and degrading bigotry of the English nation with the contempt it deserves, you will hardly find one Englishman in fifty to agree with you; but if there should be one, he will generally happen to be an intelligent man." (Ch.IV. Sec.2 - Pride).

Here is the Hindi translation of this quote by DeepSeek AI tool:

सबसे सस्ता प्रकार का गर्व राष्ट्रीय गर्व है; क्योंकि यदि कोई व्यक्ति अपने राष्ट्र पर गर्व करता है, तो यह साबित करता है कि उसमें स्वयं के कोई ऐसे गुण नहीं हैं जिन पर वह गर्व कर सके; अन्यथा वह उन चीज़ों का सहारा नहीं लेता जो वह अपने करोड़ों साथी देशवासियों के साथ बाँटता है। जिस व्यक्ति में महत्वपूर्ण व्यक्तिगत गुण होते हैं, वह आसानी से देख पाएगा कि उसका अपना राष्ट्र किन मामलों में कमज़ोर है, क्योंकि उसकी कमियाँ उसकी आँखों के सामने लगातार रहेंगी। लेकिन हर दयनीय मूर्ख, जिसमें गर्व करने लायक कुछ भी नहीं होता, आखिरी उपाय के तौर पर अपने राष्ट्र पर गर्व करने लगता है; वह उसकी हर गलती और मूर्खता की पूरी तरह से रक्षा करने को तैयार रहता है, और इस तरह अपनी हीनता की भरपाई करता है। उदाहरण के लिए, यदि आप अंग्रेज़ों की मूर्खतापूर्ण और अपमानजनक कट्टरता के बारे में वही तिरस्कारपूर्ण भाषा इस्तेमाल करें जिसके वे हक़दार हैं, तो शायद ही पचास में से एक अंग्रेज़ आपसे सहमत होगा; लेकिन अगर कोई एक सहमत होता भी है, तो वह आमतौर पर एक बुद्धिमान व्यक्ति ही होगा। (अध्याय IV, खंड 2 - गर्व) 

whataboutism

From Debate to Deflection: Understanding Whataboutism

Whataboutism: The Art of Dodging Accountability

“What about them?” — a phrase we hear all too often in debates, newsrooms, and political discourse. Known as Whataboutism (or whataboutery), it’s a rhetorical tactic where instead of responding to criticism, one deflects attention to a different wrongdoing — usually by pointing fingers elsewhere.

What Is Whataboutism?

At its core, Whataboutism is a logical fallacy, a type of tu quoque ("you too") argument. Instead of addressing an issue directly, it sidesteps the criticism by accusing the other party of similar or worse behavior. This often leads to false equivalence and avoids accountability.

Classic Example:

A: “Your government censors dissenting voices.”

B: “What about your country? Doesn’t it spy on journalists?”

It’s not a defense — it’s a diversion.

A Cold War Legacy

The term gained popularity during the Cold War, when Soviet officials would respond to Western critiques (like lack of free speech) by saying, “What about racism in America?” The aim was not to address the critique, but to discredit the critic.

Modern-Day Whataboutism: Global Examples

Russia: When criticized for jailing political opponents, the Kremlin often retorts, “What about Guantanamo Bay?”

China: In response to international concerns over human rights abuses in Xinjiang, Chinese officials counter with, “What about the treatment of Indigenous people in Canada and Australia?”

India: When faced with questions over rising intolerance or censorship, defenders often reply, “What about Emergency-era censorship under Congress rule?” or “What about violence in other states ruled by opposition parties?”

United States: During debates on police brutality, some deflect by saying, “What about crime in Black communities?” — shifting blame rather than engaging with systemic issues.

Israel-Palestine discourse: Accusations of civilian casualties are frequently countered with, “What about Hamas firing rockets?”, deflecting attention from international humanitarian concerns.

These are not comparisons seeking mutual reform. They are distractions to avoid present accountability.

Why It’s Harmful

It derails dialogue: Shifting focus stops meaningful discussion.

It creates false equivalency: Not all wrongs are equal.

It impedes progress: Blame games replace solutions.

Where You’ll See It

Politics: Politicians use it to deflect corruption or policy failures.

Media: News debates often spiral into “what about them?” loops.

Social media: A hotbed for digital whataboutism, where reason often gives way to reflexive retorts.

Why Recognizing It Matters

Whataboutism might feel satisfying in the moment — it flips the script and spares one from answering tough questions. But in the long run, it weakens public discourse, silences reform, and reinforces division.

Final Thought

Critique is not invalidated by hypocrisy. Two wrongs don’t make a right. The presence of other injustices does not cancel out the one at hand. Recognizing Whataboutism is the first step toward more honest conversations — and more responsible citizenship.