Tradition vs. Liberalism/secular humanism

[Thomas777]

Are Traditional societies superior to cosmopolitan ones?

Does Traditional class stratification (as was practiced in feudal Europe) cultivate superior culture?

What is the benefit of Traditional systems of social order? Do such systems have a significance/value beyond mere aesthetics?

[Fade the Butcher]

Are Traditional societies superior to cosmopolitan ones?

Yes. I have in mind the triumph of Sparta over Athens (although I am not sure if Sparta could be called "traditional").

Does Traditional class stratification (as was practiced in feudal Europe) cultivate superior culture?

Absolutely. Has America ever produced a Dante?

What is the benefit of Traditional systems of social order?

Cosmopolitan societies are constantly in flux and this causes them to degenerate from within. Morality begins to lose its salience as social bonds appear more and more voluntaristic and consensual. In traditional societies, every man has a place and a well defined social role. This type of social organization does not lend itself very well to the type of nihilism and relativism that destroys culture.

Do such systems have a significance/value beyond mere aesthetics?

Yes. Cosmopolitan societies have a tendency to degenerate into tyrannies.

[Himmler II]

Absolutely. Has America ever produced a Dante?
You seem to be conflating two kinds of elites here - the intellectual elite and the social elite. The social elite has declined; the aristocracy have lost most (but not all) of their privileged position within society, and have been largely replaced by the capitalist class. This was primarily a development of political economy, and the ideological and political replacement only occurred after that economic development had been largely completed. And most aristocrats in the medieval period could barely write their own names. They were a military elite rather than a cultural elite - literacy was the preserve mainly of the clergy at that period. Even now, the British aristocracy in particular are notorious for their philistinism. I think part of the problem you have is that you live in a society which does not have and never has had a genuine aristocracy. You simply don't know what a real aristocracy is like, what its values are, or how it behaves. They are not the paragons of virtue you seem to think they are - they are a class which has outlived its usefulness to society, a class which stinks of decay and corruption.

And you have to ask why almost every great hero and deep thinker came from the aristocratic class before industrial capitalism developed. Was it because the aristocracy was genetically superior to the masses? In that case, why would their rule ever have ended? Why would the 'inferior' bourgeois masses ever have been able to develop capitalism, a vastly more efficient economic system than feudalism? No, clearly there was no inherent or genetic superiority to the aristocratic class. They produced all the great heroes and thinkers simply because no-one from the other classes had the resources or the opportunities to become a great hero or thinker. This is an incredibly wasteful and inefficient system for producing heroes and thinkers. Imagine how many potential Newtons, Shakespeares and Platos were lost to us, merely because they had the misfortune to be born into a lowly peasant family. They spent their lives herding sheep, or labouring for pennies in a factory, when they could have been writing great sonnets or developing profound scientific theories. It is this obscene waste of human potential which the capitalist class had the merit of at least partially ending. By introducing the idea of 'social mobility', the capitalist rabble shattered forever the idea that only the hereditary principle should decide who becomes a hero or a thinker.

[tempus fugit]

Are the countries of Africa Traditional? What about Asian countries?

Which current countries or societies are Traditional?

[Jonathan]

They produced all the great heroes and thinkers simply because no-one from the other classes had the resources or the opportunities to become a great hero or thinker.
True.

It is this obscene waste of human potential which the capitalist class had the merit of at least partially ending.
While I don't necessarily agree with Fade's whole Aristocratic idea, I can't accept this statement either. I don't think that Capitalism will creat more great thinkers. Captitalism will produce consumerism, which, if anything, will also dumb down culture.

P.S. I know you used the word "partially" but it must be one hell of an overstatement.

[Fade the Butcher]

I don't recall saying anywhere that medieval aristocrats were genetically superior to the masses.

[Jonathan]

I don't recall saying anywhere that medieval aristocrats were genetically superior to the masses.
That's not what I was refering to. When I said that I didn't necessarily agree with you Aristocratic ideas, I was refering to the type of "Society of Orders" that you seem to agree with. When you make statements like "In traditional societies, every man has a place and a well defined social role." you seem to imply that a particular class (pressumably an Aristocracy, in the original meaning of the word, not necessarily the medieval type) will produce great pieces of culture. Or in the thread where we were discussing your ideal society you seemed to be suggesting that a "class of Statesmen", who were a class/order themselves, would rule etc.

[jcs]

Was it because the aristocracy was genetically superior to the masses? In that case, why would their rule ever have ended? Why would the 'inferior' bourgeois masses ever have been able to develop capitalism, a vastly more efficient economic system than feudalism? No, clearly there was no inherent or genetic superiority to the aristocratic class.
This doesn't really work. You seem to be applying something quasi-Darwinistic to ideologies. Evolutionarily speaking, there is not something going on that means the strongest necessarily survive; that would be teleological. It is a matter of circumstance, mostly, and probabilistically speaking, over many, many years, the weakest will be weeded out.
Meaning: the genetically superior can be overcome by their inferiors. The dinosaurs died out, not because they were genetically inferior, but because a comet (or asteroid or whatever) hit them. The Aryans in India diminished, not because they were inferior, but because their caste system was not wholly racial and miscegenation was thus possible. And I'm sure you know at least one person of reasonable intelligence who has made some mistakes--a single mistake, whether individually or from a whole population, can be destructive. It is just that the 'weak' will either make more mistakes or fail in coping with said mistakes more often than the strong.
Considering that you're a Nazi, maybe this will serve to demonstrate my point:
Jews are alive and well, have a fair amount of power, and will be around for a long time to come (unless Israel gets nuked or something). The Germans, on the other hand, lost WWII (though to the Allies more than Jews), and have since invited a large number of Turks into their nation; they lost and won't be around in 1000 (or, hell, a couple hundred) years if they keep following this path.
In the case of the aristocracy in the middle ages, memes, not genes, were the main problem. They became too materialistic and thought too much about short-term success.

[Thomas777]

Are the countries of Africa Traditional? What about Asian countries?
I think of Traditional societies to be ones in which the national ethos is rooted in the sacredness of linear natality, communitarianism, and a commitment to approximating (for lack of a better term) certain metaphysical forms. As opposed to societies where politics are completely subjugated to economic expediency, and the national ethos is rooted in some kind of civic patriotism and "freedom" is defined in terms of superficial participation in the market and the political process which (in theory) posits all people as identical and equally entitled to participate (in short, cosmopolitan societies are anti-parochial and "national identity" is a bureaucratic construct).

IMO, Japan is a perfect example of a Traditional society...as is the Republic of Korea. In the case of Africa, I think that Sub-Saharan African cultures by and large have not progressed beyond tribal organization, and that we cannot utilize them in this analysis. We need to not confuse Tradition with atavism and the primordial with the primitive.

[Kodos]

Absolutely. Has America ever produced a Dante?

Twain, Vonnegut, Kubrick, Matt Groening

You don't give them any "culture" points Fade?

[Petr]

Yes. I have in mind the triumph of Sparta over Athens (although I am not sure if Sparta could be called "traditional").

Absolutely. Has America ever produced a Dante?

Did Sparta ever produce anything in the cultural front? It actually took an Athenian like Plato to write sophisticated works to praise Spartan virtues, much like today it is mostly White authors who try to find something positive about "noble savages".


Petr

[Basil Fawlty]

Did Sparta ever produce anything in the cultural front? It actually took an Athenian like Plato to write sophisticated works to praise Spartan virtues, much like today it is mostly White authors who try to find something positive about "noble savages".


PetrWhat an absurd analogy. The Athenians and Spartans belonged to the same etho-cultural world unlike the contemporary authors and their subjects you mention.

[Petr]

What an absurd analogy. The Athenians and Spartans belonged to the same etho-cultural world unlike the contemporary authors and their subjects you mention.
Picking nits, picking nits. My main point was Sparta's arrested cultural development.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Did Sparta ever produce anything in the cultural front? It apparently inspired The Republic.It actually took an Athenian like Plato to write sophisticated works to praise Spartan virtues, much like today it is mostly White authors who try to find something positive about "noble savages".Plato hated democratic Athens.

[Basil Fawlty]

Picking nits, picking nits. My main point was Sparta's arrested cultural development.


PetrThe phrase is nit-picking. But this is a standard response whenever your errors are pointed out.

[Petr]

The phrase is nit-picking.
I knew that, nitpicker. :p


Petr

[infoterror]

Does Traditional class stratification (as was practiced in feudal Europe) cultivate superior culture?

Karmic cycles always do. Traditional civilization preserves natural selection and holistic thinking. Modernity is excremental.

[Petr]

Karmic cycles always do. Traditional civilization preserves natural selection and holistic thinking.
Quasi-Hindu BS.


Petr

[infoterror]

Did Sparta ever produce anything in the cultural front?

Most culture from that era was lost. The best tribes seem to record little in permanent format; why would they need to?

[infoterror]

Quasi-Hindu BS.

Quasi-white Slav.

[tempus fugit]

I think of Traditional societies to be ones in which the national ethos is rooted in the sacredness of

linear natality,

By the way, a Google search if "linear natality" brings up on one result:

http://www.esajournals.org/esaonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0012-9658&volume=053&issue=05&page=0797

Delay-Line Models of Population Growth
E. R. Lewis
Abstract.Replacing the usual principle of conservation of numbers with the equivalent principle of continuity of flow (or rates) leads to a very heuristic approach to modeling time lags in populations. The approach allows the direct use of unequal time lags (or age classes of unequal lengths) without the implicit assumption of a stable age distribution. Furthermore, for simple, linear natality processes, it allows direct estimation of the biotic potential and of the frequencies of inherent oscillations.

Perhaps you could explain your definition of the term? Given that African tribes are pretty much nothing but a tribe (little immigration or emigration), I would think that linear natality is all they have.

communitarianism,

Again, given that African tribal societies have no real economic or human external interactions, it seems that they more communitarian that say the US is, where essentially I have NO interaction with, or obligation to, the neighbor who lives 10 feet from me.

and a commitment to approximating (for lack of a better term) certain metaphysical forms.

Not sure what this means.

In the case of Africa, I think that Sub-Saharan African cultures by and large have not progressed beyond tribal organization, and that we cannot utilize them in this analysis. We need to not confuse Tradition with atavism and the primordial with the primitive.

But isn't tribalism the epitome of traditional, where there is no real chance of non-traditional infiltration? If one goes to an art museum, the art of Africa looks the same whether it's from 4000BC or last Wednesday. It seem, to me, that they are NOTHING but traditions (ill ones, of course, but traditions nonetheless).

Great post.