Members banned from this thread: Ethereal and jet57


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Taking the Founders’ Moral Ideas Seriously

  1. #11
    Points: 466,213, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 83.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397802
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    150,864
    Points
    466,213
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,690
    Thanked 45,377x in 33,375 Posts
    Mentioned
    1725 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Uh, kinghts were vassals...
    Vassals to lords who were in turn vassals to the king--your King's Vassals.



    Again, all in a relationship of mutual dependence.

    Are you trying to advance a topic or just play games here? You were trying to make a point about individualism...
    Last edited by Chris; 01-12-2020 at 07:52 PM.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  2. #12
    Points: 11,439, Level: 25
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 311
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registeredSocial10000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    649
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    3,438
    Points
    11,439
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    520
    Thanked 639x in 495 Posts
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Vassals to lords who were in turn vassals to the king--your King's Vassals.



    Again, all in a relationship of mutual dependence.

    Are you trying to advance a topic or just play games here? You were trying to make a point about individualism...
    Hmmm, how do I educate you on this? Your silly graphic comes long after the time I'm speaking of. And your Randian "individualism" is getting in the way of reality.

    A knight was a mercenary: created as such when nobility, in Western Europe, began in France during the first crusade. "Knighthood" recognized the individual for his fighting talents: these were men who were outside the noble family, thus the "individual" began to climb the ladder based on his own abilities.

    Are you catchin on at all here?

  3. #13
    Points: 466,213, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 83.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397802
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    150,864
    Points
    466,213
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,690
    Thanked 45,377x in 33,375 Posts
    Mentioned
    1725 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Hmmm, how do I educate you on this? Your silly graphic comes long after the time I'm speaking of. And your Randian "individualism" is getting in the way of reality.

    A knight was a mercenary: created as such when nobility, in Western Europe, began in France during the first crusade. "Knighthood" recognized the individual for his fighting talents: these were men who were outside the noble family, thus the "individual" began to climb the ladder based on his own abilities.

    Are you catchin on at all here?

    And you were the one griping about being condescending?

    It's the same system, lords were vassals to the king, knights to lords. It was a social order of mutual interdependence. The individual was defined by his place in the social order, there was no ladder to climb. The social contract you speak so highly of, undermined all that, especially the immediate feudal order. Why? We return to Rousseau: "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains."

    You're categorically confusing individual, who exists, with individualism, an ideology. Recognizing the individual for his fighting ability is not individualism, rather it defined the knight's place in the hierarchy of king, lords, and peasants.

    When you proclaimed "Individualism, it could be argued, really took off with the King's Vassals," I didn't ask you to explain where the individual fit in the feudal social order but how individualism fit, to explain how it "really took off.". It did not. It "really took off" with the Enlightenment. --Rand Rand was centuries later, speaking of anachronisms.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  4. #14
    Points: 466,213, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 83.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397802
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    150,864
    Points
    466,213
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,690
    Thanked 45,377x in 33,375 Posts
    Mentioned
    1725 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Individualism, it could be argued, really took off with the King's Vassals.
    Recall, jet, that is where the discussion turned to you to back up what you claimed. The King's vassals were not even knights, they were lords. You didn't like the diagram, so here it is in words:

    At the top of feudal society was the king. To protect his kingdom and its people, he needed fighting men. He built his army by granting land to men of his kingdom. This land grant was called a fief....

    The person who received a fief was called a vassal. The king was his lord. In return for this great gift, the vassal supplied the king with soldiers called knights....

    Sometimes a vassal was required to give his lord more knights than he personally had. In this case, the vassal granted pieces of his own fief to other knights in exchange for a pledge of service. This made the king's vassal a feudal lord, and his fief-holders became his vassals. (But he remained a vassal to his king.)

    ...This relationship between a lord and his vassals was cemented by an oath of fealty, or loyalty....

    A person who broke such a solemn oath was seen as dishonorable....stripped...of his fief. The king then granted the land to a more loyal vassal....
    Feudalism: Fiefs, Vassals, and Lords
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  5. #15
    Points: 3,011, Level: 12
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 65.0%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registered
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    551
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1,129
    Points
    3,011
    Level
    12
    Thanks Given
    125
    Thanked 541x in 411 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have to laugh at all of this. If you did not take care of yourself prior to the 1900s then you were going to be dead or reliant on charity.
    Socialism was a 20th century concept. Some proclaim it started with the French Revolution but 10 years later you were still not going to eat if you could not earn the money or grow the food.
    Our Founding Fathers could no imagine a group of Socialists demanding that we pay all their bills because they demand it! LOL

  6. #16
    Points: 466,213, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 83.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397802
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    150,864
    Points
    466,213
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,690
    Thanked 45,377x in 33,375 Posts
    Mentioned
    1725 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina73 View Post
    I have to laugh at all of this. If you did not take care of yourself prior to the 1900s then you were going to be dead or reliant on charity.
    Socialism was a 20th century concept. Some proclaim it started with the French Revolution but 10 years later you were still not going to eat if you could not earn the money or grow the food.
    Our Founding Fathers could no imagine a group of Socialists demanding that we pay all their bills because they demand it! LOL
    Back in the old days, if I might generalize, the family, religion, guild, community you belonged to cared for you. In the feudal system above, landowners took care of those who worked for them because their personal prosperity depended on those serfs, and if you didn't the serf had the right to resist.

    All that was undermined by enlightened liberalism, under which both capitalism and its derivative, socialism, fall.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

  7. #17
    Points: 11,439, Level: 25
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 311
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registeredSocial10000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    649
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    3,438
    Points
    11,439
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    520
    Thanked 639x in 495 Posts
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    And you were the one griping about being condescending?

    It's the same system, lords were vassals to the king, knights to lords. It was a social order of mutual interdependence. The individual was defined by his place in the social order, there was no ladder to climb. The social contract you speak so highly of, undermined all that, especially the immediate feudal order. Why? We return to Rousseau: "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains."

    You're categorically confusing individual, who exists, with individualism, an ideology. Recognizing the individual for his fighting ability is not individualism, rather it defined the knight's place in the hierarchy of king, lords, and peasants.

    When you proclaimed "Individualism, it could be argued, really took off with the King's Vassals," I didn't ask you to explain where the individual fit in the feudal social order but how individualism fit, to explain how it "really took off.". It did not. It "really took off" with the Enlightenment. --Rand Rand was centuries later, speaking of anachronisms.
    I'm citing very early examples of what can be called "individualism. You're going way overboard in some sort of effort to make me wrong...

    You are conflating a great deal there. A man, who became a knight (as an example of an individual being "recognized" as an individual) became an instrument of government. Therefore "individualism" became a goal. Individuals, as you speak of them were not recognized below that level. Such "knighthoods" began around 1070 A.D. "Feudalism" didn't begin until Guillaume le Bâtard.

    I'm also saying that your interest in "individualism" is Rand inspired as well as your interest in epistemology.


  8. #18
    Points: 11,439, Level: 25
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 311
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registeredSocial10000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    649
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    3,438
    Points
    11,439
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    520
    Thanked 639x in 495 Posts
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Recall, jet, that is where the discussion turned to you to back up what you claimed. The King's vassals were not even knights, they were lords. You didn't like the diagram, so here it is in words:



    Feudalism: Fiefs, Vassals, and Lords
    Face Palm.jpg

    What's a lord then...

  9. #19
    Points: 11,439, Level: 25
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 311
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registeredSocial10000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    649
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    3,438
    Points
    11,439
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    520
    Thanked 639x in 495 Posts
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Vassals to lords who were in turn vassals to the king--your King's Vassals.



    Again, all in a relationship of mutual dependence.

    Are you trying to advance a topic or just play games here? You were trying to make a point about individualism...
    You need to read more books dude.

  10. #20
    Points: 466,213, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 83.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    397802
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    150,864
    Points
    466,213
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    15,690
    Thanked 45,377x in 33,375 Posts
    Mentioned
    1725 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    I'm citing very early examples of what can be called "individualism. You're going way overboard in some sort of effort to make me wrong...

    You are conflating a great deal there. A man, who became a knight (as an example of an individual being "recognized" as an individual) became an instrument of government. Therefore "individualism" became a goal. Individuals, as you speak of them were not recognized below that level. Such "knighthoods" began around 1070 A.D. "Feudalism" didn't begin until Guillaume le Bâtard.

    I'm also saying that your interest in "individualism" is Rand inspired as well as your interest in epistemology.


    You don't understand individualism as an ideology, jet, it's not a goal. You confuse it with being an individual.

    I've become mostly anti-individualist, so you don't grasp that either.
    Edmund Burke: "In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse!"

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Single Sign On provided by vBSSO