THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANCIENT ARISTOCRATIC AND MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY (IMPORTANT)
(FWIW: In a previous post, I stated the abrahamic sequence in both supernatural and pseudoscientific frauds and sophistries. I was not trying to attack christianity per se.)
RESPONSIBILITIES
TLDR; “Persists Today: Masculine National Political vs Feminine Global Social”
1) Greco-Roman Era Responsibility (Nationalism)
Civic Engagement, Military Service, and Public VirtueCivic Engagement: In the Greco-Roman world, active participation in public life was considered essential for the well-being of the state. This included involvement in political discourse, governance, and public decision-making. The idea of ‘civic virtue’ was crucial, where citizens were expected to contribute to the common good and engage in matters of state.
Military Service: Military prowess and service were highly esteemed. Being a soldier or a military leader was not only a duty but a significant source of honor and prestige. This emphasis on military capability was rooted in the frequent wars and conflicts of the period, where strength in arms was essential for survival and expansion.
Public Virtue: Public virtue in this context meant living in a way that benefitted the polis or the republic. It included qualities like courage, discipline, and loyalty to the state. The ideal citizen was one who placed the interests of the community above personal desires.
Roles and Responsibilities of Various Social Groups
Free Male Population: The privileges and responsibilities of civic engagement and military service were largely reserved for free males. This group was considered the backbone of society, actively participating in governance, public debate, and defense.
Women: In general, women in the Greco-Roman world were excluded from public life and political activities. Their roles were primarily domestic, focusing on managing the household and raising children. While women of higher social standing could wield influence indirectly, direct participation in civic affairs was limited.
Children: The role of children was to be educated and prepared for their future roles as citizens (for boys) or as keepers of the household (for girls). The focus was on inculcating virtues that would make them effective members of society once they reached adulthood.
Slaves and Lower Classes: Slaves had no political rights or social standing and were considered property. The lower classes, although free, often lacked the means or the social status to participate fully in public life. Their contributions were more economic (through labor) than political or military.
Measurement of Individual Worth
In this societal structure, a person’s worth was significantly measured by their ability to contribute to the state’s military and civic life. Honor and social standing were closely tied to public service and martial achievements. This value system reinforced a societal hierarchy where the upper classes, especially those capable of military leadership or political influence, were highly esteemed.
2) Christian Era Shift in Responsibility (Globalism)
The good:
– Role of Free Will: While a european disposition proior t christianity, but upon introduction of the abrahamir religion it survived, so contrary to Islam, the concept of free will in Christianity underlines the importance of individual choice and moral responsibility, countering the notion of evasion of responsibility.
The Bad:
– Personal: Emphasis on spiritual equality and salvation for all
– Anti-Political, Universal: Universal moral responsibility irrespective of class or status
– Emphasis on Faith over Works: In some Christian teachings, salvation is said to be attained through faith rather than deeds. Leads to a belief that actions are less important than faith, potentially diminishing the sense of personal responsibility for one’s actions.
– Charity and Assistance vs. Systemic Change: While Christianity strongly advocates for charity, the focus overshadows the importance of addressing systemic issues, leading to a limited engagement with broader social responsibilities.
– Divine Forgiveness and Absolution: The concept that sins can be forgiven through confession and penance might lead some to believe that they can evade responsibility for their actions, as long as they seek forgiveness.
– Doctrine of Original Sin: Implies that individuals are powerless to overcome their sinful nature without divine intervention, reducing the sense of personal moral agency.
– Eschatological Beliefs: Belief in an imminent end of the world (eschatology) leads to a lack of concern for long-term solutions, under the assumption that worldly conditions are temporary and of lesser importance.
– Delegation of Responsibility: The delegation of moral authority to church leaders leads to a dependency on clergy for moral guidance, diminishing individual responsibility in moral decision-making.
– Undermining Political Virtues: Marginalization of traditional civic virtues in favor of spiritual virtues
– Anti-political, Social, Feminine: Responsibility in a religious context implies adhering to divine commandments and moral teachings. In Christianity, this includes both personal conduct and responsibilities towards others and the world.
Individual Responsibility in Greco-Roman vs. Christian Contexts
– Responsibility in the Greco-Roman world: Public life, civic duty, military valor: Masculine Eugenic. Evolutionary.
– Christian redefinition of responsibility: Spiritual well-being, charity, humility: Feminine Dysgenic. Stasis to Devolutionary.
So, masculine national political social economic familial responsibility vs Feminine Globalist interpersonal self focus.
Had christianity not been monopolistic and not had poltical amibitions it could have integrated into the traditional civilization without creating a dark age of ignorance supersition and destroying the political and economic and aesthetic virtues of the ancient world.
Cheers.
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
HAYEK VS MARX IN JUST ONE BOOK
–‘Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion’– FA Hayek. “I just came across this quote from Hayek. I think I sort of know what he’s trying to say. I was hoping someone here was more familiar with the guy and could elaborate.–(Anon From Reddit)
Old post, but came up in search, so I’d offer an answer.
Hayek started with epistemology in the sense of the state of neuroscience of his age. He then understood the problem of economics as a constraint on the misbehavior of man. And then he understood and moved on to law as a constraint on the misbehavior of man. And the insight was really quite early in a simple pamphlet he wrote that would become very popular.
Hayek’s innovation in his pamphlet “A Road To Serfdom” was accounting for informal capital and especially informal capital in the commons that is the West’s competitive advantage, that of course Marx didn’t account for, and if he did it would falsify his entire framework even more so than the falsehood of the labor theory of value;
Or the pretense that a ‘society’ is a involuntary organization such as a family rather than superpredators who find convenience in peaceful cooperation until they don’t;
Or the false possibility of the failure of rule of law leading to market economies and the extraordinary wealth produced indirectly that is the opposite of what rule-by-man’s communism and socialism produce directly;
Or the even more absurd pretension that competence is distributed other than in by painful empiricism of demonstrated competency by survival in adversarial markets.
Or worse, that classes are not a reflection of genetic load and therefore ability.
Or worse, that credentialist intellectuals are capable of defeating the efforts of the pricing system, the credit system, the rule of law, and the decisions of those who, because of demonstrated competency in such a system defend that system and it’s continuous massive parallel computation of the optimum allocation of everything in everyone’s service of one another by selfish incentives.
It’s somewhat difficult to imagine why any interest in Marx as other than an attempt a pseudoscientific reformation of the abrahamic religion survives despite the evolutionary failure of class marxism, cultural marxism, sex marxism, truth marxism (postmodernism), Libertarianism (middle class marxism), Neoconservatism (upper class marxism), and the present resulting race marxism.
The marxist sequence is, as was the abrahamic sequence before it, feminine magical thinking in a desperate attempt to avoid individual responsibility for self, private and common, and the feminine and beta war against european civilization’s aristocratic, heroic, militaristic, expansionist, hierarchical, paternal, technological, sky worshipping, meritocratic foundations that demand individual responsibility of all in exchange for individual sovereignty and self determination – the most correspondent with the laws of nature man has developed, and the reason for the evolutionary velocity of the west in the bronze, iron, an steel ages, despite the abrahamic occult dark ages and this second attempt at the second abrahamic pseudoscientific dark ages.
The middle east is feminine in its foundations and it has been rebelling against the indo europeans since the beginnings of the recovery from the bronze age collapse. Marx’s feminism in cognition is simply a continuation of the feminine abrahamic means of baiting into hazard – the art of seduction applied to deception and submission in a war against the laws of nature – especially darwin.
Cheers.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1749213895888179444