Forwarded from Dull Academic Incessant Liturgical Yapping: Philosophical Orations on Order & Reaction
Human rights? You mean those abstract universals that mysteriously emerged once we'd destroyed all concrete human bonds and obligations?
First, "positive rights" — universal claims that bind no one in particular. A medieval serf had no abstract "rights" but had a lord with concrete duties to protect him, feed him in famine, and ensure justice. Today's atomized individual has an endless list of theoretical ennoscriptments but no one with any actual obligation to fulfill them. We traded specific duties between real people for universal claims that bind everyone (which means, in practice, no one).
Second, "negative rights" — the even more absurd notion that humans are naturally isolated atoms whose highest moral principle is leaving each other alone. As if we aren't born into families, communities, and obligations. As if a child has a "right to be left alone" rather than a role to be actively guided and formed by his parents and community.
"Human rights" are what remain when you strip away all real human relationships and duties. The father has obligations to his children, the lord to his subjects, the master to his apprentice — concrete bonds creating concrete responsibilities. But your modern rights? They're ghosts of duty haunting the ruins of proper order.
This is what happens when you replace divine hierarchy with enlightenment fairy tales. At least chains of duty bound people together. Your "rights" leave each man floating free — and alone. True freedom comes from fulfilling your proper role in the order of things, not from pretending you're a sovereign individual with either infinite claims on others or no obligations beyond non-interference.
"But Professor Poor, what about human dignity?" Indeed. What's more dignified: having real people with real obligations to protect and guide you, or having a piece of paper declaring your theoretical ennoscriptments to an indifferent universe, populace, government, &c?
First, "positive rights" — universal claims that bind no one in particular. A medieval serf had no abstract "rights" but had a lord with concrete duties to protect him, feed him in famine, and ensure justice. Today's atomized individual has an endless list of theoretical ennoscriptments but no one with any actual obligation to fulfill them. We traded specific duties between real people for universal claims that bind everyone (which means, in practice, no one).
Second, "negative rights" — the even more absurd notion that humans are naturally isolated atoms whose highest moral principle is leaving each other alone. As if we aren't born into families, communities, and obligations. As if a child has a "right to be left alone" rather than a role to be actively guided and formed by his parents and community.
"Human rights" are what remain when you strip away all real human relationships and duties. The father has obligations to his children, the lord to his subjects, the master to his apprentice — concrete bonds creating concrete responsibilities. But your modern rights? They're ghosts of duty haunting the ruins of proper order.
This is what happens when you replace divine hierarchy with enlightenment fairy tales. At least chains of duty bound people together. Your "rights" leave each man floating free — and alone. True freedom comes from fulfilling your proper role in the order of things, not from pretending you're a sovereign individual with either infinite claims on others or no obligations beyond non-interference.
"But Professor Poor, what about human dignity?" Indeed. What's more dignified: having real people with real obligations to protect and guide you, or having a piece of paper declaring your theoretical ennoscriptments to an indifferent universe, populace, government, &c?
🔥8☃2👍2🤓2🗿1
Forwarded from Wulfgar's Onion Fields 2: Jocular George Droyd's Serendipitous Summer Soirée
This was comedically overpriced in 2002
👏2
Forwarded from Christian Tactics Vol. 3
"I think, actually, that the US deep state doesn't actually care about terrorism; because they make their money off terrorism."
"When I was fighting ISIS, we would kill a thousand a day. But they would always come back. New faces, new weapons, new names, same funders."
"Actually?"
"When I was fighting ISIS, we would kill a thousand a day. But they would always come back. New faces, new weapons, new names, same funders."
"Actually?"
Lol just had my first interaction in a year at Jags House of Spews which led to an immediate banning. Apparently a gentle rebuff of the man made theology of KJV only (despite stating I still prefer the version) causes them to recoil like pharisaical jews.
I'm torn, as I strongly dislike Christian in-fighting, but I also really can't stand these whacked out KJV-onlies and repentance rejecters. How many have wished to come to the fold only to be rebuffed and rejected by such types, workers of iniquity.
I'm torn, as I strongly dislike Christian in-fighting, but I also really can't stand these whacked out KJV-onlies and repentance rejecters. How many have wished to come to the fold only to be rebuffed and rejected by such types, workers of iniquity.
🔥8💯6