Western Ethics and Morals are Antinomian
Jun. 18th, 2021 12:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
causticusThis is something I've been thinking about a lot as of late; the notion that the system of ethics and morality that governs our lives today in the contemporary West, is based not on Sacred Natural Law principles (what I'd term Ancestral Law), but rather a negative ethos based on the rejection of our older value system, which is the medieval European social order.
The so called 'enlightenment' period of Western intellectual culture which followed the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation, largely revolved around the rejection of Clergy and Nobility. Once Roman Catholic church authority was kicked to the curb, next came the various dogmas, theology, and moral presuppositions of mainstream Christianity as a whole.
Now, it doesn't help much here that Christianity itself is antinomian* in character, owing to the fact it rose in opposition of a preceding social order, which was that of the imperial Roman system of polytheistic cults. The old 'pagan' system derived its ethics and morality from various wisdom and mythological traditions which accumulated over a very long period of time; a composite umbrella tradition comprised of divine revelations from myriad sages, oracles, seers, bards, lawgivers, mystics, and other wise men.
So once Christianity was finally jettisoned from the intellectual leading edge of the rapidly-modernizing West, what exactly was there to fall back on? To be fair, the various liberal intellectuals did try to revival the classical Greek and Roman values, but only really in a rationalistic manner, one devoid of any divine pretenses. No one but a tiny handful of weirdos and eccentrics did anything super radical like worshiping the old gods once again! So what we were left with was a dry rationalistic intellectual culture that effectively left anything remotely numinous and magical in the hands of the various competing Christian churches. And the churches themselves were going in a rationalistic, a-numinous direction. No exalted person of 'enlightenment' consequence was really all that interested in renovating and re-distilling the ancient Divine Law for modern times (Thomas Taylor shall get a shout-out here); rather they were more fixated on what they were against rather than what they were for.
What we have today that passes for ethical values is almost entirely negative in nature; it's the ethics of what the individual deserves not to have done to them (the basis of 'negative rights'); very little is said about the duties and responsibilities the individual has to the social order (reciprocity). The infantile ravings of pseudo-intellectual vandals like JJ Rousseau illustrate this general attitude loud and clear. Heirs to Rousseau's 'tradition' (if we dare call it that) like the great scoundrel Karl Marx and his long line of followers, also had zero intention of building anything, much less anything sacred and time-tested. Those on the other side of this coin, like Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, had little to offer in response beyond intellectualized vulgar romanticism of various 'noble savage' fantasies (think: both Warrior and Merchant freed from any obnoxious restraints).
Fast forward to today and we can see precisely how this Lawlessness has been manifesting and wreaking havoc upon 'postmodern' Western civilization. If I may say, the only thing that may save us from total ruin is a rediscovery and re-presentation of the ancient Sacred Laws. Imagine the Delphic Maxims** being taught in elementary schools (Yeah, not gonna happen, as virtue*** and mental slavery mix like oil and water).
Finally, the positive: We do indeed have an Ancestral Law; one that comes from a multitude of sources and cultures which have fed into today's Western civilization. Our 'ancestors,' the Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Romans, Teutonics, Celts, among others, have lots of interesting and insightful things to say on Divine Law and human nature.
__
*Yes, I'd say that Christianity is rather antinomian. The New Testament scriptures barely contain anything that could be construed as law-giving tradition; thus Christians end up punting the legal ball to the Old Testament in search of moral precepts. Of course, thanks to the rabble-rouser Paul of Tarsus, Roman Christians (and all the subsequent offshoots of the Roman Church) have always had a rather awkward relationship with the Mosaic Laws, which is a specifically Jewish code of religious laws. Remember that before the rise of Christianity, the Jews were little more than the inhabitants of a marginal Levantine polis; one of little consequence to the rest of the great Mediterranean civilization of the time, beyond the several diaspora communities they had in a handful of Roman cities. And thus their ancestral laws are of little relevance to the rest of the traditions which form the foundation of Western civilization.
**Meditating on these numinous precepts and aphorisms raises the seemingly-obvious notion that Athens indeed has no use for Jerusalem.
***Here I specifically mean Arete, not the warmed-over, secularized fire and brimstone craziness that passes for 'virtue' today.
The so called 'enlightenment' period of Western intellectual culture which followed the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation, largely revolved around the rejection of Clergy and Nobility. Once Roman Catholic church authority was kicked to the curb, next came the various dogmas, theology, and moral presuppositions of mainstream Christianity as a whole.
Now, it doesn't help much here that Christianity itself is antinomian* in character, owing to the fact it rose in opposition of a preceding social order, which was that of the imperial Roman system of polytheistic cults. The old 'pagan' system derived its ethics and morality from various wisdom and mythological traditions which accumulated over a very long period of time; a composite umbrella tradition comprised of divine revelations from myriad sages, oracles, seers, bards, lawgivers, mystics, and other wise men.
So once Christianity was finally jettisoned from the intellectual leading edge of the rapidly-modernizing West, what exactly was there to fall back on? To be fair, the various liberal intellectuals did try to revival the classical Greek and Roman values, but only really in a rationalistic manner, one devoid of any divine pretenses. No one but a tiny handful of weirdos and eccentrics did anything super radical like worshiping the old gods once again! So what we were left with was a dry rationalistic intellectual culture that effectively left anything remotely numinous and magical in the hands of the various competing Christian churches. And the churches themselves were going in a rationalistic, a-numinous direction. No exalted person of 'enlightenment' consequence was really all that interested in renovating and re-distilling the ancient Divine Law for modern times (Thomas Taylor shall get a shout-out here); rather they were more fixated on what they were against rather than what they were for.
What we have today that passes for ethical values is almost entirely negative in nature; it's the ethics of what the individual deserves not to have done to them (the basis of 'negative rights'); very little is said about the duties and responsibilities the individual has to the social order (reciprocity). The infantile ravings of pseudo-intellectual vandals like JJ Rousseau illustrate this general attitude loud and clear. Heirs to Rousseau's 'tradition' (if we dare call it that) like the great scoundrel Karl Marx and his long line of followers, also had zero intention of building anything, much less anything sacred and time-tested. Those on the other side of this coin, like Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, had little to offer in response beyond intellectualized vulgar romanticism of various 'noble savage' fantasies (think: both Warrior and Merchant freed from any obnoxious restraints).
Fast forward to today and we can see precisely how this Lawlessness has been manifesting and wreaking havoc upon 'postmodern' Western civilization. If I may say, the only thing that may save us from total ruin is a rediscovery and re-presentation of the ancient Sacred Laws. Imagine the Delphic Maxims** being taught in elementary schools (Yeah, not gonna happen, as virtue*** and mental slavery mix like oil and water).
Finally, the positive: We do indeed have an Ancestral Law; one that comes from a multitude of sources and cultures which have fed into today's Western civilization. Our 'ancestors,' the Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, Romans, Teutonics, Celts, among others, have lots of interesting and insightful things to say on Divine Law and human nature.
__
*Yes, I'd say that Christianity is rather antinomian. The New Testament scriptures barely contain anything that could be construed as law-giving tradition; thus Christians end up punting the legal ball to the Old Testament in search of moral precepts. Of course, thanks to the rabble-rouser Paul of Tarsus, Roman Christians (and all the subsequent offshoots of the Roman Church) have always had a rather awkward relationship with the Mosaic Laws, which is a specifically Jewish code of religious laws. Remember that before the rise of Christianity, the Jews were little more than the inhabitants of a marginal Levantine polis; one of little consequence to the rest of the great Mediterranean civilization of the time, beyond the several diaspora communities they had in a handful of Roman cities. And thus their ancestral laws are of little relevance to the rest of the traditions which form the foundation of Western civilization.
**Meditating on these numinous precepts and aphorisms raises the seemingly-obvious notion that Athens indeed has no use for Jerusalem.
***Here I specifically mean Arete, not the warmed-over, secularized fire and brimstone craziness that passes for 'virtue' today.
