3 ms·

You'd be surprised. "All men are created equal" was a radical statement, almost blasphemous, when penned; the idea that authority and hierarchy were inherent wa

You'd be surprised. "All men are created equal" was a radical statement, almost blasphemous, when penned; the idea that authority and hierarchy were inherent was just something about the world that was accepted, like the sun or even the existence of God, because how could the state of things be otherwise? And post hoc, we rationalized this implicit assumption by inventing the theory that differences in authority were not arbitrary, but based on the quality of the individual. More powerful people were better somehow. The word "aristocracy" means "rule by the best".

yoyohello13 3y ago
> More powerful people were better somehow. This is still the case in modern society as well. We've just substituted noble blood for money.
RationalDino 3y ago
The historical context for this was the belief that those in positions of authority were put there by God's will. And so to question the rightness of them being placed over you was to question God. With the most extreme form of this being the idea of divine right of kings. Because kings were given the most extreme authority, they must have the strongest sanction of God supporting them. It would be a mistake to think of this as a purely Christian notion, either. Divine right very closely parallels the Chinese notion of the Mandate of Heaven for the emperor. And Christian notions owe a lot to Plato. In particularly the Neoplatonic idea of the Great Chain of Being. Which (though the phrase has a separate history) can be summed up with, "As above, so below." So we are reflections of our rulers. If our rulers are just, we will be. If our rulers are unjust, we will also be unjust. If we upset the natural order by overthrowing our rulers, chaos will descend upon the land. Shakespeare did a great job of capturing the mindset in The Tempest.

3 ms·

You'd be surprised. "All men are created equal" was a radical statement, almost blasphemous, when penned; the idea that authority and hierarchy were inherent wa

by bitwize 3y ago

yoyohello13 3y ago
> More powerful people were better somehow. This is still the case in modern society as well. We've just substituted noble blood for money.
RationalDino 3y ago
The historical context for this was the belief that those in positions of authority were put there by God's will. And so to question the rightness of them being placed over you was to question God. With the most extreme form of this being the idea of divine right of kings. Because kings were given the most extreme authority, they must have the strongest sanction of God supporting them. It would be a mistake to think of this as a purely Christian notion, either. Divine right very closely parallels the Chinese notion of the Mandate of Heaven for the emperor. And Christian notions owe a lot to Plato. In particularly the Neoplatonic idea of the Great Chain of Being. Which (though the phrase has a separate history) can be summed up with, "As above, so below." So we are reflections of our rulers. If our rulers are just, we will be. If our rulers are unjust, we will also be unjust. If we upset the natural order by overthrowing our rulers, chaos will descend upon the land. Shakespeare did a great job of capturing the mindset in The Tempest.