Philosophy The Necessity of Chivalry

[Navarro]

Some may think I treat the Middle Ages far too harshly. Well, they still have some lessons to teach us even almost a thousand years later. One of which is one of their most important cultural ideals, as discussed by C. S. Lewis:

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Some may think I treat the Middle Ages far too harshly. Well, they still have some lessons to teach us even almost a thousand years later. One of which is one of their most important cultural ideals, as discussed by C. S. Lewis:

Lancelot was a french sack of shit, but the overall point without that context remains.

 

[Aldarion]

Middle Ages were one of *higher points* in history of Western Civilization. But of course, modern man likes to imagine that history is one of uninterrupted progress... which may be true when it comes to technology and accumulation of knowledge, but is false in just about every other way.

 

[Syzygy]

Chivalry only works if it is reciprocated.

 

[Cherico]

Chivalry only works if it is reciprocated.

it came about due to a social contract said social contract was completely destroyed during the 1960s.

A new social contract has to be created because what is currently going around isn't working.

 

[Syzygy]

And the problem with any contract is consent between two or more parties; if one refuses the contract is null. Presently, and for the foreseeable future, it is unlikely that any party will submit to the terms necessary for reinstating the previous standard. The state of most constitutional nations has nurtured an embittered population spurred by ignorance or terrifying awareness.

You cannot close Pandora's box short of wiping the entire slate clean. And even if such were possible it would be the worst outcome.

 

[Yinko]

it came about due to a social contract said social contract was completely destroyed during the 1960s.

A new social contract has to be created because what is currently going around isn't working.

A new social contract cannot come into being under the current geopolitical environment. The nature of the social contract is that there has to be an "opt-out", otherwise it is not a contract but rather an edict. Currently there is no such option which negates any attempt at reforming that ideal.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Chivalry only works if it is reciprocated.

Thats a limited interpretation of what Chivalry is. It's not "be a good boy".

 

[almostinsane]

Chivalry only works if it is reciprocated.

You speak as thought you haven't watched the video. Chivalry is reconciling meek civilized nature with violent, warrior nature. The ideal knight is the paragon of chivalry because he throws himself into battle, but he refrains from harming the innocent. He doesn't just let himself get walked all over, even by the opposite sex as chivalry's detractors. Nor does he allow himself to be provoked.

I would argue that stoicism is an essential part chivalry.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

You speak as thought you haven't watched the video. Chivalry is reconciling meek civilized nature with violent, warrior nature. The ideal knight is the paragon of chivalry because he throws himself into battle, but he refrains from harming the innocent. He doesn't just let himself get walked all over, even by the opposite sex as chivalry's detractors. Nor does he allow himself to be provoked.

I would argue that stoicism is an essential part chivalry.

People cannot easily be divorced from this notion that Chivalry is "holding doors for women" when it's actually "Don't behead literally every peasant child you come across".

 

[Syzygy]

Thats a limited interpretation of what Chivalry is.

That's a limited interpretation of reciprocating chivalry.

You speak as thought you haven't watched the video.

And you speak without thought.

Chivalry is an ideal that only expresses value when it is recognized. The world does not reward restraint, it punishes, and man is ultimately selfish otherwise chivalry would demand no discipline. Without incentive, without reciprocation from any source, few are willing to pursue chivalry. Those who do uphold its standard are ridiculed from every angle, even hated by those that see it as a challenge to their amoral ideal.

That is why chivalry, however necessary it might be, is not a factor in the modern world.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

That's a limited interpretation of reciprocating chivalry.


And you speak without thought.

Chivalry is an ideal that only expresses value when it is recognized. The world does not reward restraint, it punishes, and man is ultimately selfish otherwise chivalry would demand no discipline. Without incentive, without reciprocation from any source, few are willing to pursue chivalry. Those who do uphold its standard are ridiculed from every angle, even hated by those that see it as a challenge to their amoral ideal.

That is why chivalry, however necessary it might be, is not a factor in the modern world.

The world does, in fact, reward apropriate levels of restraint, or else it would never come into being. The reward is having a society that does not, or is less likely to, tear itself apart in a maelstrom of violence. The strongest Chimp cannot infinitely tyrannize the troupe, or else the second and third strongest chimps beat him to death.

 

[Syzygy]

The world does, in fact, reward apropriate levels of restraint, or else it would never come into being. The reward is having a society that does not, or is less likely to, tear itself apart in a maelstrom of violence.

I agree, a functional society is the incentive. I disagree the world grants that as a reward. Restraint, and by association chivalry, are not guaranteed to create a civil society unless they are recognized and in turn adopted. The common man has little motivation to practice chivalrous ideals unless they are incentivized, and the only means of doing so is through social contract. If the terms are rejected, as they are now, then the incentive is lost and the common man acts in accordance with his base desires. Whoever exercises restraint is overrun by the majority who don't, further disincentivizing its practice.

So no, the world does not reward restraint, but endures it.

The strongest Chimp cannot infinitely tyrannize the troupe, or else the second and third strongest chimps beat him to death.

The strongest chimp doesn't need to infinitely tyrannize the troupe if the second and the third and so on engage in their own tyranny.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

I agree, a functional society is the incentive. I disagree the world grants that as a reward.

Those two things are the same.

Restraint, and by association chivalry, are not guaranteed to create a civil society unless they are recognized and in turn adopted.

Restraint and Chivalry, when adopted *produce* structures more likely to survive, less likely to devour themselves, you're the one throwing in the word "guarantee".

The common man has little motivation to practice chivalrous ideals unless they are incentivized

They are incentivized, by the very fact that not pursuing them produces a greater likelihood of the common man being stabbed in the back.

If the terms are rejected, as they are now, then the incentive is lost and the common man acts in accordance with his base desires.

Which is a terrible long term strategy that is outcompeted by chivalry.

Whoever exercises restraint is overrun by the majority who don't, further disincentivizing its practice.

If this was true, no one would ever act with restraint ever, it would have been outcompeted and selected against, generationally.

So no, the world does not reward restraint, but endures it.

Things that the world does not reward do not survive.

The strongest chimp doesn't need to infinitely tyrannize the troupe if the second and the third and so on engage in their own tyranny.

If the second and third Chimps are tyrants they're more likely to beat the first to death, not less, and if the second is a tyrant, the third and fourth will beat him to death, and so on, until the troupe collapses.

This is, in fact, why Chimps exercise restraint, not because it's some unnatural, ex nihilo invention of their genius and philosophy, but because it's a more viable long term survival strategy for a group than "Every man for himself, and the Devil take the hindmost"

 

[almostinsane]

I think that this video is applicable here. People today often do not possess or misunderstand humility. People often think that humility and meekness equals timidity. What they don't realize is that someone can be humble to God and meek to their fellow man, but may be bold when it comes to standing up for what is right. Too often they mistake arrogance (pride) for boldness (bravery) and, so, we have timid weaklings and arrogant bullies.

 

[Syzygy]

Those two things are the same.

No, they are not; a reward is the incentive received. An incentive is just that: the promise of reward unfulfilled.

Restraint and Chivalry, when adopted *produce* structures more likely to survive, less likely to devour themselves, you're the one throwing in the word "guarantee".

I am not arguing the point that restraint and chivalry facilitates a functional society because I agree they do. I am disagreeing on the point that they will produce one without adoption from the general population. The lack of guarantee is a consequence of the majority who - failing to recognize chivalry's long-term benefits - prevent supporting structures from being formed.

They are incentivized, by the very fact that not pursuing them produces a greater likelihood of the common man being stabbed in the back.

They are not incentivized, otherwise we would operate on a code of chivalry not a code of law. The latter is workaround for the former that does not reward success, but punishes failure because the overwhelming majority of people are self-seeking and will act in their best interest to the detriment of others. Chivalry is a luxury unaffordable to the lower rungs of society and every ruling class that ever came to be knew it.

Which is a terrible long term strategy that is outcompeted by chivalry.

I agree that chivalry is the superior strategy for continuity. I disagree on its dominance.

If this was true, no one would ever act with restraint ever, it would have been outcompeted and selected against, generationally.

Things that the world does not reward do not survive.

And yet here we are lamenting the abandonment of chivalry.

If the second and third Chimps are tyrants they're more likely to beat the first to death, not less, and if the second is a tyrant, the third and fourth will beat him to death, and so on, until the troupe collapses.

This is, in fact, why Chimps exercise restraint, not because it's some unnatural, ex nihilo invention of their genius and philosophy, but because it's a more viable long term survival strategy for a group than "Every man for himself, and the Devil take the hindmost"

While I do find the thought experiment entertaining, humans are not chimps and society isn't nearly so simple as a singular tribe. A succeeding tyrant destroying their predecessor in an endless cycle leads to inevitable collapse, hence the tyrants of today aren't individuals but oligarchies actively cooperating between groups and occasionally competing. If their selective restraint qualifies as chivalry I don't see it.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Holding doors for women is chivalrous, but that's not all chivalry is.

Thing is-for chivalry to work, women have to appreciate it and reciprocate with graceful ladylike behavior.

Men have no incentive to be knights and gentlemen when women are bitchy and unappreciative of the sacrifices, large and small(including being late to class because your holding doors) men make for them.