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:
Chivalry only works if it is reciprocated.
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.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.
Thats a limited interpretation of what Chivalry is. It's not "be a good boy".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.Chivalry only works if it is reciprocated.
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".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.
That's a limited interpretation of reciprocating chivalry.Thats a limited interpretation of what Chivalry is.
And you speak without thought.You speak as thought you haven't watched the video.
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.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.
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.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 doesn't need to infinitely tyrannize the troupe if the second and the third and so on engage in their own tyranny.The strongest Chimp cannot infinitely tyrannize the troupe, or else the second and third strongest chimps beat him to death.
Those two things are the same.I agree, a functional society is the incentive. I disagree the world grants that as a reward.
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".Restraint, and by association chivalry, are not guaranteed to create a civil society unless they are recognized and in turn adopted.
They are incentivized, by the very fact that not pursuing them produces a greater likelihood of the common man being stabbed in the back.The common man has little motivation to practice chivalrous ideals unless they are incentivized
Which is a terrible long term strategy that is outcompeted by chivalry.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.
If this was true, no one would ever act with restraint ever, it would have been outcompeted and selected against, generationally.Whoever exercises restraint is overrun by the majority who don't, further disincentivizing its practice.
Things that the world does not reward do not survive.So no, the world does not reward restraint, but endures it.
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.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.
No, they are not; a reward is the incentive received. An incentive is just that: the promise of reward unfulfilled.Those two things are the same.
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.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".
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.They are incentivized, by the very fact that not pursuing them produces a greater likelihood of the common man being stabbed in the back.
I agree that chivalry is the superior strategy for continuity. I disagree on its dominance.Which is a terrible long term strategy that is outcompeted by chivalry.
And yet here we are lamenting the abandonment of chivalry.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.
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.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"