Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3275
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Fooloso4 » April 20th, 2018, 12:08 pm

Dachshund:
Lets transliterate this Greek term into English letter by letter and see what we find…
You have missed the point. It is not a question of the transliteration but the fact that it is a Greek not a Roman term. As I said, oi polloi and hoi polloi are both English transliterations. Whichever one you prefer makes no difference. You really have blown this out of proportion. It was a comment made in relation to the fact that you left Athens off your list. When talking about great civilizations what Rome owes Athens should not be ignored.

But none of this is what motivated your tirade, is it? A friendly word of advice: if you are going to launch a polemical attack , a "challenge to the forum", you should not make yourself so vulnerable by making your weakness so obvious. It makes you very easy to manipulate. You will not understand this if you think it has anything to do with the content of our discussion rather than what prompted you to go off in the way you have here and elsewhere.
For example, when Socrates refers to Milides and Cimon as leaders of the "oi oligoi", he means that they were the leaders of the "better classes" of society
Where does he say this? I found only one reference to Cimon and Miltiades in the Socratic literature. It is from Plato’s Gorgias:
Callicles:

Why, do you hear no mention of Themistocles and what a good man he was, and Cimon and Miltiades and the great Pericles, who has died recently and whom you have listened to yourself? (503c)

Socrates:

Or can it be, then, that you will let us see you concerning yourself with anything else in your management of the city's affairs than making us, the citizens, as good as possible? Have we not more than once already admitted that this is what the statesman ought to do? Have we admitted it or not? Answer. We have: I will answer for you. Then if this is what the good man ought to accomplish for his country, recall now those men whom you mentioned a little while ago, and tell me if you still consider that they showed themselves good citizens— Pericles and Cimon and Miltiades and Themistocles. (515c-d)

And now about Cimon once more, tell me, did not the people whom he tended ostracize him in order that they might not hear his voice for ten years? (516d)

And Miltiades, the hero of Marathon, they sentenced to be flung into the pit, and had it not been for the president, in he would have gone. And yet these men, had they been good in the way that you describe them, would never have met with such a fate. (516e)

My admirable friend, neither do I blame the latter, at least as servants of the state; indeed, I consider they have shown themselves more serviceable than those of our time, and more able to procure for the city the things she desired. But in diverting her desires another way instead of complying with them—in persuading or compelling her people to what would help them to be better they were scarcely, if at all, superior to their successors; and that is the only business of a good citizen. (517b-c)
Whatever class they may have come from they are not considered to be good leaders by Plato's Socrates. Perhaps it is something from Plutarch? If so, two things must be taken into consideration: context and audience. Plutarch’s rhetoric should not be overlooked.
… in contradistinction, the humble, the poor,the common/vulgar general assortment of "plebs" ( in English slang) who constituted the more populous lower, less dignified and less honourable or virtuous, rank/s of society. This was the point I was endeavouring making in my recent post relating to the natural phenomenon of ranked hierarchy that has characterized all stable and enduring civilized human societies past and present.
And yet it was Socrates, of the hoi polloi, who Plato and Xenophon wrote about as the teacher of their aristocratic peers.

Nor was Jesus a member of the aristocracy. It is not the wealthy or the aristocracy but the meek who shall inherit the earth.

You are conflating the notion of a “natural aristocracy” with an economic or inherited aristocracy. The prevalence of hierarchical social structures does not establish a causal connection between social hierarchy and greatness or between social hierarchy and a well ordered society.


The hound has lost the scent. I am still waiting for your explication of the common principles that links Burke and Trump

Dachshund
Posts: 441
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 21st, 2018, 9:55 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
April 20th, 2018, 12:08 pm
Nor was Jesus a member of the aristocracy. It is not the wealthy or the aristocracy but the meek who shall inherit the earth.

You are conflating the notion of a “natural aristocracy” with an economic or inherited aristocracy. The prevalence of hierarchical social structures does not establish a causal connection between social hierarchy and greatness or between social hierarchy and a well ordered society.


My dear fellow,

I will let Edmund Burke respond to your comments (above) on my behalf. Like myself, Burke viewed political equality to be, in some sense, unnatural; and aristocracy, on the other hand, to be in a certain sense natural. He admired the aristocracy though only, it should be noted, with many and large reservations Thus he tells us...


"I am no friend to aristocracy, in the sense at least in which that word is usually understood
". (1) When unchecked, " It is an austere and insolent domination. If it should come to the last extremity, and to a contest of blood, God forbid ! God forbid ! - my part is taken; I would take my fate with the poor, and meek and feeble". (2)


(1) "Thoughts on the Present Discontents", Works, I, 323.
(2) "Speech on a Bill for Repeal of the Marriage Act", 1781, Works, VI, 171.


Regarding your dragging Jesus into the dialogue ( :roll: )... Recall when Pontious Pilate asks Jesus about his Kingdom, Jesus says to him: "My Kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But as it is my kingdom is not from the world".(John 18:36) That is, His religious teachings were, He wanted it made clear - to be understood as being separate from any earthly political activities. Jesus re-emphasises this when he says to a group of Jews( cf: the synoptic Gospels):

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods".

As to the verse from Scripture that you quote (Matthew 5:5)

Blessed are the meek (poor, humble):
For they shall inherit the earth

This an example of one of Christ's religious teachings; it has nothing to do with any worldly politics. In the phrase "inherit the Earth", the Earth does not, of course, mean the physical world; rather it is the eschatological Earth Jesus is referencing - i.e; the ending of the world which would see all believers brought up to the Kingdom of Heaven as promised in Scripture.

As to Jesus and the social aristocracy, you are right that he was not a member any "natural aristocracy" as Burke defined the term; rather,as I briefly mentioned above, Jesus identifies the emperor Caesar (Augustus) as the man in charge of the Roman empire at the time - Augustus was the supreme aristocratic ruler and head of state. But what any of this has to do with Edmund Burke's philosophy or politics escapes me? Burke was a pious Christian, though he was not a theologian nor, for example, an evangelist of any kind. Moreover, he was always predominantly focussed on the concrete "here and now" realities of his life as a career politician, orator and political philosopher (essayist). Burke was a "hands on" thinker, who referred to himself as a"philosopher in action" and was naturally disinclined to engage in any kind of abstract, speculative metaphysical (etc) enquiries. Burke believed that society (the state) was, in fact, ordained by God, and that it ( the state/human society, in turn, been "marshalled by a Divine tactic" which made a natural and just order possible within it. By order in society, (as I have already informed to you in a previous post), Burke's meant the structuring of social classes in the state whereby the least influential/powerful/wise/ virtuous/learned /beloved/respectable/noble/responsible class of citizens were at the bottom of the scale of rank and the most influential/powerful/intelligent/prudent/responsible/learned/noble citizens/respected citizen - i.e. the elite "natural aristocracy" - were at the top. No true society could exist with of this God- ordained natural order and it was the duty of the wise statesman to foster its development. Where men demonstrated no reverence for the natural order established by Providence, and presumed to restructure the state according to their own plans and designs, the consequence would inevitably be be chaos and disaster. Anyway, to ""cut to the chase", re the point I was wanting to make, it seems to me that being a member of the (Burkean) "natural aristocracy" in a society would not at all diminish one's chances of gaining entry to the Kingdom of Heaven, - quite the opposite, I would expect (?!)

You place great importance on the notion of there needing to be some kind of determinate, "causal connection", between the "prevalence of hierarchical social structures" and "greatness" or societies that are well ordered. The need to identify some kind of rational causal mechanism here is a predictable symptom of your preferred political philosophy, which is - correct me if I am mistaken- liberalism ( of the autonomous - free - sovereign individual - social justice crusading - pro- UNUDHR variety?)

My argument is, as per Burke, that any true human society is necessarily hierarchically structured into graduated ranks of social class. That is, there can be no true society - and social mobility - without (a vertical) social hierarchy, the former (i.e. true society) and the later ( i.e. social hierarchy) co-evolve together naturally.

It is self-evident Real human societies are, and havealways been, shaped by competition, conflict, friendship and love, all of them forces that have distinction and differentiation rather than equality as their natural outcome. Real societies are places wherein one may gain or lose, they are places in which skill, talent, industry, conscientiousness, diligence and hard work are rewarded and arrogance, ignorance and sloth deplored. Social hierarchy is the inevitable consequence of this, and I am not suggesting that it is necessarily the fixed/static hierarchy of social class that is inherited, nor the hierarchy of property that has a tendency to replace it, but a social hierarchy all the same; one in which influence, power, honour, privilege and affection are not distributed equally.

I agree with Burke that it is a elementary and obvious fact of nature that men are unequal. They are unequal in mind (intelligence, personality traits), unequal in their physical bodies, unequal in athleticism and energy, unequal in fact, in every conceivable material circumstance.


I will continue this post tomorrow. Time for bed (!)

Regards

Dachshund - hound conservator par excellence Bark, Bark !!

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 314
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by SimpleGuy » April 21st, 2018, 10:46 am

This self structuring of your so called real human societies, is somehow the reason for their doom as well. They become too structured too immobile to change and too corrupt to govern and too over public official populated. As for jesus, the ones that are under yours that are without guilt shall throw the first stone.

Dachshund
Posts: 441
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 21st, 2018, 12:58 pm

? ? ?

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3275
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Fooloso4 » April 22nd, 2018, 12:13 pm

Dachshund:
My dear fellow,
Enough with the ridiculous affectation.

Your quote from Burke says nothing about your conflating the notion of a “natural aristocracy” with an economic or inherited aristocracy.
My Kingdom is not of this world.
I am not going to get into a discussion of John’s Christology or your interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount or how far the New Testament moved beyond the Jewish concept of the messiah. The fact remains Jesus was not a member of the Jewish aristocracy and the Jewish aristocracy were not members of the Roman aristocracy. As Nietzsche correctly notes, Christianity is a slave morality. The “meek” have inherited the earth, although they did so by their weakness became their strength.
But what any of this has to do with Edmund Burke's philosophy or politics escapes me?
It has to do with your dubious claims about “any one of the great civilizations that existed” “over the past 6000 years”. You fault me for bringing politics into your alleged discussion of society but now you reverse course and ask what any of this has to do with Burke's philosophy or politics. Apparently, there is much that has escaped you.
By order in society, (as I have already informed to you in a previous post), Burke's meant the structuring of social classes in the state whereby the least influential/powerful/wise/ virtuous/learned /beloved/respectable/noble/responsible class of citizens were at the bottom of the scale of rank and the mostinfluential/powerful/intelligent/prudent/responsible/learned/noble citizens/respected citizen - i.e. the elite "natural aristocracy" - were at the top.
Except the facts do not bear this out. The concept of a natural aristocracy and the reality of aristocratic societies do not coincide over the past 6000 years. It is one thing to say that in the best society the best should rule, but it is quite another to assume that because a society is hierarchical or ruled by an aristocracy that the best do rule. While a natural aristocracy is a possibility, if it does come about it is an exceedingly rare and short lived occurrence. That is why good laws are essential to a good social order.

Those who have wealth, power, and influence do not coincide with those who are most wise and virtuous. Even when kings and emperors seek wise counsel the wise must be cautious in what they say. Two classic examples are Xenophon’s Hiero and the Chinese philosopher Mengzi’s (Mencius) discussions with King Hui of Liang and King Xuan of Qi.

Mengzi, like Kongzi (Confucius) before him, was a poor commoner. The powerful are a threat to the wise because the wise are a threat to the powerful, and so the wise keep their power, that is their wisdom, hidden even when giving wise counsel.

From Ecclesiastes:
I also saw under the sun this example of wisdom that greatly impressed me: There was once a small city with only a few people in it. And a powerful king came against it, surrounded it and built huge siege works against it. Now there lived in that city a man poor but wise, and he saved the city by his wisdom. But nobody remembered that poor man. (9:13-15)

The other side of the relationship between wisdom and rule is found in Plato’s Republic where the wise must be compelled to rule. This is not be dismissed lightly. It is not simply that the wise have no political ambition but that it is against their interest to rule. In order to rule they must accommodate the desires of the many. In the Apology Socrates says that his daimonion kept him out of politics (31d).
The need to identify some kind of rational causal mechanism here is a predictable symptom of your preferred political philosophy, which is - correct me if I am mistaken- liberalism ( of the autonomous - free - sovereign individual - social justice crusading - pro- UNUDHR variety?)
You are mistaken on three counts. First, I questioned what appears to be your assumption regarding social hierarchy and greatness or “true” or “real” societies. You claim that they “co-evolve”. If so, that is either coincidental or there must be some causal connection, that is, influence of one on the other. Second, a causal connection need not be rational or mechanistic. Third, see my recent discussion on the forum topic “A Moral Argument for Minarchy” regarding my views on liberalism.
I agree with Burke that it is a elementary and obvious fact of nature that men are unequal. They are unequal in mind (intelligence, personality traits), unequal in their physical bodies, unequal in athleticism and energy, unequal in fact, in every conceivable material circumstance.
Such a brave and courageous stance, stating the obvious!

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 314
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by SimpleGuy » April 24th, 2018, 11:50 am

Dachshund wrote:
April 21st, 2018, 9:55 am



(1) "Thoughts on the Present Discontents", Works, I, 323.
(2) "Speech on a Bill for Repeal of the Marriage Act", 1781, Works, VI, 171.


Regarding your dragging Jesus into the dialogue ( :roll: )... Recall when Pontious Pilate asks Jesus about his Kingdom, Jesus says to him: "My Kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But as it is my kingdom is not from the world".(John 18:36) That is, His religious teachings were, He wanted it made clear - to be understood as being separate from any earthly political activities. Jesus re-emphasises this when he says to a group of Jews( cf: the synoptic Gospels):

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods".

As to the verse from Scripture that you quote (Matthew 5:5)

Blessed are the meek (poor, humble):
For they shall inherit the earth

This an example of one of Christ's religious teachings; it has nothing to do with any worldly politics. In the phrase "inherit the Earth", the Earth does not, of course, mean the physical world; rather it is the eschatological Earth Jesus is referencing - i.e; the ending of the world which would see all believers brought up to the Kingdom of Heaven as promised in Scripture.

As to Jesus and the social aristocracy, you are right that he was not a member any "natural aristocracy" as Burke defined the term; rather,as I briefly mentioned above, Jesus identifies the emperor Caesar (Augustus) as the man in charge of the Roman empire at the time - Augustus was the supreme aristocratic ruler and head of state. But what any of this has to do with Edmund Burke's philosophy or politics escapes me? Burke was a pious Christian, though he was not a theologian nor, for example, an evangelist of any kind. Moreover, he was always predominantly focussed on the concrete "here and now" realities of his life as a career politician, orator and political philosopher (essayist). Burke was a "hands on" thinker, who referred to himself as a"philosopher in action" and was naturally disinclined to engage in any kind of abstract, speculative metaphysical (etc) enquiries. Burke believed that society (the state) was, in fact, ordained by God, and that it ( the state/human society, in turn, been "marshalled by a Divine tactic" which made a natural and just order possible within it. By order in society, (as I have already informed to you in a previous post), Burke's meant the structuring of social classes in the state whereby the least influential/powerful/wise/ virtuous/learned /beloved/respectable/noble/responsible class of citizens were at the bottom of the scale of rank and the most influential/powerful/intelligent/prudent/responsible/learned/noble citizens/respected citizen - i.e. the elite "natural aristocracy" - were at the top. No true society could exist with of this God- ordained natural order and it was the duty of the wise statesman to foster its development. Where men demonstrated no reverence for the natural order established by Providence, and presumed to restructure the state according to their own plans and designs, the consequence would inevitably be be chaos and disaster. Anyway, to ""cut to the chase", re the point I was wanting to make, it seems to me that being a member of the (Burkean) "natural aristocracy" in a society would not at all diminish one's chances of gaining entry to the Kingdom of Heaven, - quite the opposite, I would expect (?!)

You place great importance on the notion of there needing to be some kind of determinate, "causal connection", between the "prevalence of hierarchical social structures" and "greatness" or societies that are well ordered. The need to identify some kind of rational causal mechanism here is a predictable symptom of your preferred political philosophy, which is - correct me if I am mistaken- liberalism ( of the autonomous - free - sovereign individual - social justice crusading - pro- UNUDHR variety?)

My argument is, as per Burke, that any true human society is necessarily hierarchically structured into graduated ranks of social class. That is, there can be no true society - and social mobility - without (a vertical) social hierarchy, the former (i.e. true society) and the later ( i.e. social hierarchy) co-evolve together naturally.

Well as you already mentioned , pontius pilate couldn't judge about jesus and wanted to wash his hands in "innocence" as you may perhaps know.
But his incapablity to judge with his own measurements, although he was roman governor and master about life and death just imposes the question about god. Although a foe to rebellious sources, he had to give leave to barabas instead of jesus and let him get crucified. This is the paradox, god gives way to get discriminated for himself, for one of his prophets or even sons, and gives leaves to others who are simply a persona non grata for others. this should show you the paradox of human rights, to the viewpoint of a humanistic religion like christianity. The simple denying of gods allmightyness, by his wayward descisions. With it the understanding of human rights in a context of a religiously derived context is simply led to constraints that lead us to implications that are met ad absurdum.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 314
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by SimpleGuy » April 24th, 2018, 1:42 pm

You should see in jesus christ more, than just a simple power for humanism. It's like in tai chi the force to overwhelm something by far more powerful. A spanish torrero is by far more weaker than the bull, but the powerfull bull, who could kill the torrero at once, just runs after the red flag and not the torrero (if not he is not a good torrero but a weak and killed). While the torrero fools with his red flag the far more powerfull bull several times, he kills it with the thinnest but most sharp blade that does exist in one strike (at least in the ideal). Although the bull is that strong , that he can throw the torrero several meters wide , he looses the game fatally , by simple attacking the red flag and beeing guided. This is the magical power of the torrero otherwise he is killed by the bull. This is the tao te king of christendom , the tao force you use to destroy somebody by far bigger, that acts here. If you see jesus in the same way , you begin to understand his words.

Eduk
Posts: 1925
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Eduk » April 24th, 2018, 2:11 pm

Like the way I am faster than the strongest man in the world even though he is far more powerful than me.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 314
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by SimpleGuy » April 24th, 2018, 2:20 pm

It's more like Mathew 10:16 : Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

This is like one ji of the chinese san chi liu ji:

With a light hand lead away the sheep.

Alias
Posts: 2353
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Alias » April 25th, 2018, 2:00 pm

SimpleGuy wrote:
April 24th, 2018, 1:42 pm
You should see in jesus christ more, than just a simple power for humanism. It's like in tai chi the force to overwhelm something by far more powerful. A spanish torrero is by far more weaker than the bull, but the powerfull bull, who could kill the torrero at once, just runs after the red flag and not the torrero (if not he is not a good torrero but a weak and killed). While the torrero fools with his red flag the far more powerfull bull several times, he kills it with the thinnest but most sharp blade that does exist in one strike (at least in the ideal). Although the bull is that strong , that he can throw the torrero several meters wide , he looses the game fatally , by simple attacking the red flag and beeing guided. This is the magical power of the torrero otherwise he is killed by the bull. This is the tao te king of christendom , the tao force you use to destroy somebody by far bigger, that acts here. If you see jesus in the same way , you begin to understand his words.
You mean Jesus is waving a false flag in our faces in order to goad us to slaughter?
That's not very nice, but at least it's egalitarian: he waves it at kings and cardinals, as well as hedge-priests and milk-maids. Too bad the former have the cunning of serpents, while the latter have only the innocence of doves to defend them!

Dachshund
Posts: 441
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 27th, 2018, 4:22 pm

Dear Foolosoph4,

To begin with, I say to you again that every true human society that has ever existed over the past 6000 years has been structured hierarchically in terms of the social classes that comprise it. Now, before I proceed, let me clearly define the term "society". A "society" is basically defined in any reputable lexicon as an aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community, where "ordered", in turn, primarily means to be arranged in a systematically/methodically well-organized and well-regulated, coherent, neat/tidy manner. Just as reality possesses an ordered diversity, a hierarchy of being, there is likewise an ancient hierarchical social grading that in part reflects the needs of human society insofar as it facilitates a capacity for individuals to know their particular "station" in life and the consequent duties that attend it.

I put it to you that this is an incontrovertible fact, and one thing that this ancient social ordering clearly suggests to me (and to Edmund Burke) about human nature is the existence of a natural equality and inequality. This is not a contradictory claim because the human equality and inequality I refer to occur at two different levels. Man's natural equality occurs at the level of his humanity, in the sense that we all share in those singular qualities which make us human. Yet , our humanity obviously bears in its essence those very qualities that lead to a natural inequality.

This being the case, it follows, Burke concludes, that politicalequality is, in a sense, unnatural, while aristocracy, on the other hand , is, in a sense natural. (And) just as it is a fact of nature that the majority of men are ill-qualified for the exercise of political power, so it is written in the eternal constitution of things that only a few men , from various causes: mental, spiritual and physical, are suited for social leadership. These few men - the aristocracy - are in part, Burke says, "the wiser, the more expert and the more opulent" and they are to conduct, enlighten and protect "the weaker, the less knowing and the less provided with the goods of fortune." He stresses that it is primarily nature ,and not the accident of birth, that has made these men aristocrats; - and that it is, furthermore, wise and just and in accord with the real law of nature that such men should exercise a social influence much superior to that of the average citizen. Moreover, the ascendency of this aristocratic class was truly natural because domination of society by mediocrity is contrary to nature as Providence has clearly revealed human nature to us throughout history.
Fooloso4 wrote:
April 22nd, 2018, 12:13 pm
It is one thing to say that in the best society the best should rule, but it is quite another to assume that because a society is hierarchical or ruled by an aristocracy that the best do rule. While a natural aristocracy is a possibility, if it does come about it is an exceedingly rare and short lived occurrence
No; not in the sense that for Burke, the foundation of that "true natural aristocracy", which, as he said in 1791, " formed an essential integrant part of any large body rightly constituted" was the gentleman[/b] - the man of gentle manners. Burke's conception of the gentleman was a blending of the humanistic and social ideals of Aristotle's Ethics with the courtly traditions of chivalry, Castiglione and Elyot, and he saw the gentleman - as natural aristocrat - to be the conserving force of civilization. This natural aristocracy of gentle -mannered men was, moreover, not an ephemeral phenomenon of , as you put it, an "exceedingly rare and short-lived occurrence", but rather one enduring across "all ages". And Burke emphasises in "Reflections on the Revolution in France" just how much European civilization, throughout its history, has owed to the good manners inculcated by Christian chivalry:

"It was this (chivalry) which, without confounding ranks, had produced a noble equality...which mitigated kings into companions, and raised private men to be fellows with kings. Without force or opposition, it subdued the fierceness of pride and power; it obliged sovereigns to submit to the soft collar of social esteem, compelled stern authority to submit to elegance, and gave a dominating vanquisher of laws to be subdued by manners. ... Nothing is more certain than that our manners, our civilization, and all the good things, which are connected with manners and with civilization, have, in this European world of ours, depended for ages upon two principles; and were indeed the result of both combined; I mean the spirit of a gentleman and the spirit of (the Christian) religion."

History records how for centuries in the strongly localised autonomies of medieval life, chivalric manners worked wonders in transforming tyrants into gentlemen who submitted their arbitrary wills to Christian moral manners and laws. There is no need at all here to re-trace the progress of the Christian religion and chivalry upon the social life of Europe. But there is no doubt that Burke conceived the social function of the Church - which was the refinement of civil manners - to be the same in all ages. In all of his defenses of the Church against the French Jacobins and the English Nonconformists, nothing is so evident that Burke's conviction that Christianity and "the ancient chivalry" has established "a system of manners ...which softened, blended and harmonised" the entire character of modern Europe.

Despite all of this, the contemporary West, is currently well advanced in the process of recklessly and precipitously repudiating its Christian traditions; the dominant ideology of so-called "progressive" liberalism is presumptuously substituting in their place a misguided and decadent, atheistic moral and social egalitarianism in the form of what has now acquired the status of a quasi-religion in the false doctrine of universal, equal , individual human rights. These "rights" -set out in legal documents like the UNUDHR - are, as Jeremy Bentham correctly observed, utter "nonsense on stilts". And while they are absolutely impossible to justify, there is, tragically, no doubt that the liberal human rights juggernaut is nonetheless proceeding apace to decivilize and disintegrate modern-day Western society in the nation states of the European Union (including the UK), the United States and other major Western societies like Australia and Canada. In short, unless the West today, comes to understand the absurd folly that the the human rights movement entails and appreciate the urgent need that now exists for it to firmly re-embrace its reverential Christian traditions, I predict that it will simply sink further into the phase of decline that it has already entered; and that it has indeed entered a phase of decline is an undisputed fact.

Regards

Dachshund

Dachshund
Posts: 441
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 27th, 2018, 4:33 pm

NB: this idiotic system has bold-faced the last 4 paragraphs of my post (above) I did not intend them to be highlighted like this (!)

Regards

Dachshund

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7225
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Greta » April 27th, 2018, 5:47 pm

It's not actually the system that is idiotic, thus others on the forum don't regularly mangle their BB code tags. It's fun to watch.

Dachshund
Posts: 441
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Dachshund » April 27th, 2018, 5:58 pm

Greta wrote:
April 27th, 2018, 5:47 pm
It's not actually the system that is idiotic, thus others on the forum don't regularly mangle their BB code tags. It's fun to watch.
Yes I'm sure it does amuse you, Greta; small things amuse small ( squirrel-sized) brains.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7225
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum

Post by Greta » April 27th, 2018, 6:43 pm

Dachshund wrote:
April 27th, 2018, 5:58 pm
Greta wrote:
April 27th, 2018, 5:47 pm
It's not actually the system that is idiotic, thus others on the forum don't regularly mangle their BB code tags. It's fun to watch.
Yes I'm sure it does amuse you, Greta; small things amuse small ( squirrel-sized) brains.
:lol: Indeed young D, and a squirrel sized brain is the minimum requirement for comprehending basic BB code.

Post Reply