Medieval man's fascination with death is often framed as a product of the Black Plague, but it went much deeper.
Instead of a symptom of being surrounded by death, it was born out of a surfeit of life; an excess of vitality.
Among knights especially, mere life was seen as wasted.
A man of any worth would pursue hardship, battle...
Impossible love, honorable death.
We usually ascribe this more to the Japanese because it is outlined more directly in the Hagakure, but chivalric norms were just as obsessed with the fleeting nature of everything in life.
And they were just as focused on death as a necessary part of life.
A good death was the capstone to a good life.
Geoffroi de Charny — who quite literally wrote the book on chivalry — was fulfilled only in his dying moments on the field at Poitiers.
That was not mere life, but a life well-used.
To medieval people of all strata, life was not meant only to propagate itself, but to be *used* to some beneficial end — either by God directly, or by oneself to further some objective or legacy in service to Him.
There is much to be learned from this.
Life is not something that merely happens, but something that is *given*, with the expectation of honorable and good use.
And to the knightly caste, there was nothing more honorable than dying atop one's horse, overwhelmed by the enemy in the throes of combat.
The reason for the battle didn't matter, but good conduct in it did; that in itself was an honorable and good use of one's life.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The “work” debate is mostly people talking past each other, but it’s very clear that old-type “bootstrap” discourse is just done. Sandblasted into nothing each time it encounters reality. The “deal” for young people only gets worse with each passing day.
Doesn’t mean you should just become a NEET, obviously. But I don’t think most of the people arguing on that side are NEETs, or want to be NEETs. It’s just the premise.
The solution for young people is to exploit any advantage they personally have; to seek marginal living/employment situations that break the “rules” in their favor.
Also high-powered careers — “normal life” is broken, so you have to aspire to something else while it’s repaired.
The passive nature of so many young people is the result of a lifetime of this. Every event has been used as a way to further harangue and limit them. Responding to ie violence is out of the question. If you do, the typically helpless authorities suddenly have infinite power.
Kids aren’t dumb — they know who is protected vs who isn’t. It becomes obvious as early as grade school that some groups have free rein and others do not; the incentive/punishment system exists for normal whites and not for others.
Tyler has a Permanent Record. Tyrone does not.
The school system is an earlier and more radical extension of the legal-cultural system by which anarcho-tyranny is implemented, and tells especially young men of ability and spirit that they must Sit And Take It, no matter what It is.
US public schools consistently underpunish nonwhite students and overpunish white students. It’s where people learn the rules of anarcho-tyranny, and has been far longer than this has been the legal status quo.
This isn’t spread via policy or law. Disparate impact suits are usually brought up in this discussion, but all they did was codify the existing state of affairs.
It happens because “educators” — most people, really — are totally mindcaptured by media.
The results: white kids learn that everything they do will be scrutinized to the highest degree. Even outside of school, they are always Watched in some meaningful way. The Permanent Record exists for them and no one else. Racial violence, for example, can only ever go one way.
The main point of this post is pertinent and good — and of course it’s insane that we have to live like this — but I am begging people to drop the “bullying” frame, really the entire word.
What’s happening is not 80s movie shenanigans, it’s racial gang violence.
In the US, the equivalent is white parents talking about “bullying” from black students, which is really not the case. The cultural image of “bullying” is exclusion, mean names, minor/funny harassment. What’s happening is often attempted murder.
By complaining of “bullying” you’re saying that your child is archetypally the weak outsider, mocked by the “popular.” I don’t think this ever reflected reality (some have pointed out that they’re Semitic mythological tropes inserted via Hollywood) — and it certainly doesn’t now.
How people “learned” to fight is a contentious question. In many cases, it’s very tied into ethnic pride. Here’s a rough sketch of my hypothesis.
In short, I think the better question is when people *forgot* how to fight.
1/
There are many competing claims to being the “originator” of martial arts.
We’re going to define the term as systematized methods of fighting, whether unarmed or with weapons, but particularly hand-to-hand — i.e. archery or atlatl throwing is not a “martial art.”
Martial arts are also a distinctly… well, martial endeavor. They are undertaken exclusively among men, for the purpose of more effectively killing a resisting opponent in battle or single combat.
This includes combat with weapons, open-hand striking, and of course grappling.
This is ripped from David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water.” I know this because a middle school teacher made us watch it on repeat and do (many) assignments on it. Even as a kid, I found it juvenile and stupid. 150 years ago, students at that age would have been reading Latin.
When people brag about their “success” in K-12, it betrays a lack of depth. Basically, that they were good at repeating these kinds of platitudes, and getting pats on the head about it felt like a great achievement.
American public education isn’t really “hard,” in that the material is high-level and fast. A lot of it is embarrassingly flat — mediocre teachers doing Dead Poets Society or Stand and Deliver LARP. Anyone smart realizes this young.