To realize the difference between arbitrary hierarchies based on money and fame and true aristocracy, just think of the following words. As far as the first type is concerned, for the ambitious man who seek to position himself on the top, there is no true gap between him and those who occupy the desired place except certain material conditions.
Hence, it's legitimizable in his eyes to see his position as a consequence of injustices and arbitrariness, and indubitably defensible to hold grudges and rely upon resentment and hatred. Whatever may result from this crude competition has no deep positive effects upon his true self. Worse, all of its gains can vanish in a moment, leaving one more psychologically dependent and personally inferior.
On the contrary, with regard to true aristocracy, the first step demanded from our ambitious man would be to purify himself from the constraints that contradict the position he seeks. If he models his ideal upon a man whose value is based upon mere material conditions, he will not find himself obliged to transform himself or impose upon it any constraint to be consistent with his endeavors.
But if he modeled his ideal upon, for instance, a knight or a scholar, the first step would be to overcome his lower urges in order to be consistent with the ideal eagerly desired, for this very ideal stimulates one's freedom and interiorize the struggle as a value-laden psychological battle between two forms of existence more antecedent and fundamental to any exterior results.
What differentiates true hierarchical aristocracies and secures them from plebeian envy and resentment is that it's mainly built upon an over burdensome and voluntary oppression. It seeks a goal that by its very nature fortified against all attempts of usurpation and immune to arbitrariness.
One esurient gaze at a knight widens the distance between you and the honor of knighthood, for the legitimate desire here is neither to usurp a status nor to take a possession of an ownership, but to appropriate oneself to a higher impersonal ideal that obliges and binds.
What appears to be the case is that “the people” is a gelatinous term invented to beautify the mob. You do not find a ruler who was saved by the support of the masses or their defense of him from the aggression of the people of power and the empowerment of those with power, while you find in rulers many examples who were saved by the cooperation of the people of power and the empowerment of those with power.
The masses, by their nature, have short memories, weak resolve, and weak constitutions. Their condition varies from hour to hour. They fall under the temptation of the smallest appearances and unfortunate temptations. Even if the individual raises his voice among the crowd, he only speaks with the mouth of a person from whom the responsibility of the individual has been removed in the name of “the group,” the word thanks to which anyone can say whatever he wants without swallowing the bitterness of responsibility, which, once placed on the group, disintegrates it irrevocably.
#Essays
Hence, it's legitimizable in his eyes to see his position as a consequence of injustices and arbitrariness, and indubitably defensible to hold grudges and rely upon resentment and hatred. Whatever may result from this crude competition has no deep positive effects upon his true self. Worse, all of its gains can vanish in a moment, leaving one more psychologically dependent and personally inferior.
On the contrary, with regard to true aristocracy, the first step demanded from our ambitious man would be to purify himself from the constraints that contradict the position he seeks. If he models his ideal upon a man whose value is based upon mere material conditions, he will not find himself obliged to transform himself or impose upon it any constraint to be consistent with his endeavors.
But if he modeled his ideal upon, for instance, a knight or a scholar, the first step would be to overcome his lower urges in order to be consistent with the ideal eagerly desired, for this very ideal stimulates one's freedom and interiorize the struggle as a value-laden psychological battle between two forms of existence more antecedent and fundamental to any exterior results.
What differentiates true hierarchical aristocracies and secures them from plebeian envy and resentment is that it's mainly built upon an over burdensome and voluntary oppression. It seeks a goal that by its very nature fortified against all attempts of usurpation and immune to arbitrariness.
One esurient gaze at a knight widens the distance between you and the honor of knighthood, for the legitimate desire here is neither to usurp a status nor to take a possession of an ownership, but to appropriate oneself to a higher impersonal ideal that obliges and binds.
What appears to be the case is that “the people” is a gelatinous term invented to beautify the mob. You do not find a ruler who was saved by the support of the masses or their defense of him from the aggression of the people of power and the empowerment of those with power, while you find in rulers many examples who were saved by the cooperation of the people of power and the empowerment of those with power.
The masses, by their nature, have short memories, weak resolve, and weak constitutions. Their condition varies from hour to hour. They fall under the temptation of the smallest appearances and unfortunate temptations. Even if the individual raises his voice among the crowd, he only speaks with the mouth of a person from whom the responsibility of the individual has been removed in the name of “the group,” the word thanks to which anyone can say whatever he wants without swallowing the bitterness of responsibility, which, once placed on the group, disintegrates it irrevocably.
#Essays