reply to post by My_Reality
I don't think our conclusions are valid. You are basing your argument on Judeo-Christian morality.
I'm not basing my argument on Judeo-Christian morality. Rather, Judeo-Christian morality is an expression of that metaphysic, best enunciated in the
philosophy of Hegel.
Furthermore, you make it sound like paganism is somehow a detriment to a society
It's a detriment to mans ability to maintain his freedom.
There are two possible paths before us: the immoral, which disregards issues of practical morality; this is obviously the path taken by radical
feminists, moral relativists etc; this philosophy uses evil means, evil actions, lies, distortion, slander etc, for some determined end.
Let's tackle the issue of woman having different laws to abide by with regard to public dress. Am I wrong in diagnosing the problem with it? No. I'm
absolutely justified. What you take offense to - which itself is symptomatic of a despotic attitude to how others should live - is my desire to follow
a Jewish ethic: my appreciation of monogamy, which COULD NOT be preserved in a culture which permits women to walk topless in public. Imagine the
effect such a license would have on future generations. Complete submission to the passions! Complete immobility of the will.
You have this twisted idea, I'm sure, that to control the passions is 'bad'. Why?? It's either one way or the other. If I'm slave to my passions, I'm
a slave to the FEMININE, who, btw, already controls my heart in the patriarchal context, as John Adams wisely noted:
Abigail Adams grated on her husband John in letters demanding full legal rights for women: “we are determined to instigate a rebellion” she
declared, echoing the women of Athens in Lysistrata. John Adams’ reply was only too apt: men’s legal privileges were essential, he wrote,
“we dare not exert our power [in the home] in its full latitude…in practice, you know, we are the subjects. We have only the name of masters. To
give up on this would subject us completely to the despotism of the petticoat. ”
The only way to preserve autonomy of self would be to do act as Schopenhauer, Buddhism, Hinduism etc suggests - to disregard the objective world -
whether to cast it as 'illusory' as the Easterners do, or relativize it to the point of oblivion as modern moral relativists do.
In any case, submission to the passions undermines a persons individual freedom.
Activities such as torture are commonplace in Judeo-Christian societies throughout history
Are you seriously going to go to torture to prove how immoral "judeo-christian society" is??? UMM. The Romans, INVENTORS of crucifixion and a medley
of all sorts of other types of physical torture. No governments or societies show as much creativity here as the relativistic, or the Godless.
It is almost unknown in matriarchal egalitarian societies.
You seem to be likening matriarchy to 'egalitarianism'. Egalitarianism may be a type
of matriarchal society, but it is not the only type.
Further, what type of society behooves the use of torture?? It's not simply a patriarchal society.
Patriarchal at root, is the political application of the metaphysical concept of differentiation; multiplicity and unity. Hence, Judaism - the chief
progenitor of this metaphysical and political perspective, became the salvation to so many people in the Greco-Roman world who were fed up with the
vile corruption of the Roman political system, and found in Judaism a belief system that ennobled an objective good, which gave them belief in
humanities ultimate salvation.
Lets just take a look at contemporary pagan societies. Hinduism, which subscribes to a moral relativity, firmly and inexorably places all people in
certain social contexts; s slave laborer is forever a slave laborer. He cannot move up in society. He is ineluctably determined for life by his/her
This too is an expression of a matriarchal order. No restriction is put upon the people to live according to an objective morality. Consequently,
there is very little justice for Hindus of low birth.
As for egalitarianism. This ignores the reality of the particular. In any democratic society, all people are given basic, fundamental - generalized -
rights. However, those rights cannot be equal in the particular - anymore than human beings are themselves equal in the particular. Differentiation
exists within the created order.
Some people are smart and have a natural aptitude towards science; becoming doctors, scientists etc. The work that goes into becoming such a
professional - and givens it's especial importance to societies pedigree - merits them to be rewarded more for their services to society than common
Thus, people get paid differently, live differently, all according to a system of merit that metes out each according to his just deserts. Agree? If
no, than your a communist/socialist.
If yes, then you acknowledge difference. Why can't difference be preserved in the outer order? Why can't human beings in their different traits - and
biology - be treated according to their biological situation? Since many men - and women - desire to live in a world in which people are free from
over-sexualization, from the oppression of salacious thoughts, which means a society in which a man and a woman can meet, fall in love, and stay true
to each other for the whole of their lives, in both spiritual and physical terms, then that requires laws that preserve those basic rights. Those
rights to be free from external influence
Nobody is forced to be a saint; no one is required to abide by a moral code that he or she doesn't agree with. Thus, you'll be the first to admit that
divergence from the imposed moral order of man is an EASY matter. Anyone can be debauched and lead such a lifestyle even if society frowns upon it.
The society we live provides that right. However, a society which defends rights in the terms you suggest strips the moral order of it's traditional
value, which gives primacy to reason over the passions; in such an order, it would be borderline impossible, far harder than it would be for a
debauchee to be moral, to abide by a moral code that society makes virtually impossible to abide by.
In other words, the matriarchal society you envision is the apogee of despotism. It is the complete submission of mankind to external factors, which
means, not coincidentally, forfeiting the very divine idea usually denoted by the concept of "man" - a being invested with reason, able to impose
reason on the chaos of natural existence.
edit on 9-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)