1.2.3-Fizzygingr

ClubNinetyThree 1.2.3: Noble and Plebian in Alliance
…and people who are really pissed about that.

Okay, pretty much everybody has covered that these two are assholes and we’re all really angry about them. So I’ll just make a few other quick notes:


 * The discussion about “a nobleman in France, but a prince in Brittany” does a good job raising the question of national identity.
 * So does the statement that England alone can save France from “the itch of the Third Estate”. You have to wonder how they define France if they need to be saved from the rule of their own people. Well, you don’t have to wonder. They define “France” as “aristocratic France”.
 * "Priests when we want soldiers! Bishops, who are no bishops! Generals who are no generals!" This is an incredibly telling statement. Because the world they’re shooting for, the world that they feel is threatened, is a teleological world. Everything has a true identity, a thing it’s supposed to be: peasant, noble, clergy, man, woman, what have you. And nothing pretends to be anything it’s not. Which…I’m actually fine with that concept in theory. The problem is discerning between the concept in theory and the concept in practice; that is, seeing things in places and assuming they’re in their proper places. Here’s a hint: If the current order is hurting people, then the current order is wrong.

Commentary
Pilferingapples I— think you mean that you’re okay with the idea of everyone doing what they’re best suited to/ most happy in? Which, yeah, okay. I definitely want to discuss that with you sometime soon, because I’m not sure I’m getting you on it, but if that’s what you’re aiming at I can see it! And it has nothing to do with what these two want, which is tied to an idea of stasis; happiness isn’t in there, at allll. Which is kinda another big Hugo Theme.

But I think also there’s a falseness to them even in claiming THAT idealogy; they may well believe that there’s a natural capacity in people from certain stations to uphold the duties of ONLY those stations, but they know it’s no guarantee, and they ALSO know there’s multiple places and stations for people depending on context; which makes it AWFULLY convenient that they’ve decided the “true” order of the world is the one that leaves them comfortable and in power.

Fizzygingr (reply to Pilferingapples)Hmm, okay, to PROPERLY discuss this idea, I’d have to read some Aquinas and read some Church documents and retake that McIntyre class that I don’t know how I passed because I was in a pretty awful headspace and not picking up on much. To discuss the idea at all I’d need to get some coffee in me. But yeah, basically, it’s that there’s something people are best suited to, and they should find that something and be it. To paraphrase Chesterton, ink should be inky and mud should be muddy and whales should be whaley and people should be persony. And if things were really as they should be, it would benefit them and society.I have a feeling that if we actually discuss it you’re going to disagree with me, but yeah.