Taking the Founders’ Moral Ideas Seriously

[Chris]

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...

[jet57]

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?

[Chris]

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.

[Chris]

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

[carolina73]

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

[Chris]

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.

[jet57]

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.

[jet57]

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...

[jet57]

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.

[Chris]

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.