Tumgik
#illegitimacy
gravitascivics · 1 month
Text
THE ONGOING FACTORS AFFECTING NIHILISM
To date, this blog has been presenting the argument, through a historical lens, that American culture has evolved to promote a highly individualistic view with little concern for communal interests and demands.  This has led, as compared to other societies, for Americans to engage in deviant behaviors.  That is, they are more likely to behave in ways that go contrary to more communal norms and laws.
Upon reviewing that history, one can detect adherence to a set of constructs which encouraged this progression toward deviance.  The constructs are transcendentalism, pragmatism, and perceptual psychology, with an assistance from the effects of TV.  The reader is encouraged to review the last four postings of this blog which describe this development.[1]
The claim here is that what has resulted from this development among many is a general sense of illegitimacy, mostly revolving around political issues, and even encouraging a strong dose of nihilism.  Individualism has gone a long way to render asunder meaningful community living from contemporary American life.  Instead, a growing sense of societal conflict seems to have perforated the nation’s social landscape.[2]
The concept of individualism, used freely in this series of postings, needs more substance than what has been given it up to this point.  Individualism does not make itself known similarly in all situations.  Robert Bellah, et al., looked at individualism in the American social make-up.  They wrote, in Habits of the Heart, “[i]ndividualism is more moderate and orderly than egoism”[3] and go on to quote Alexi Tocqueville:
Individualism is a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends; with the little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself.[4]
They describe individualism as a habit of thought well ingrained in America’s historical psyche.
          While the mass phenomena to find true self, ala perceptual psychology, and the extravagance attached to that quest is recent, Americans are basically a people who look to themselves as individuals, as opposed to members of society or community, and they rely on their personal resources for social and personal goals and the source of meaning for those goals.  These resources include those derived from personal characteristics as well as material assets.
          Those writers, Bellah, et al., cite Ralph Waldo Emerson (who wrote an essay entitled “Self-Reliance”), the Puritans, John Winthrop, and Thomas Jefferson as repeating the same theme.  Among the middle class, individualism is highly tied to work ethic, something still strongly felt in America.
“The problem is not so much the presence or absence of a ‘work ethic’ as the meaning of work and ways it links, or fails to link, individuals to one another.”[5]  And this invites one to question how work affects Americans.  Work, which forces the individual to have a public life, has become, due to a large-scale industrial/service society, segmental and a self-interested activity.[6]  With that, individualism can express itself in two modes:  utilitarian individualism and expressive individualism.
Utilitarian individualism tends to be single-minded, and goal driven toward advancing careers.  Expressive individualism values relationships, forms of art, and even social improvement goals.  In either form, Bellah, et al. are concerned that goodness is defined by one feeling good.  “Acts, then, are not right or wrong in themselves, but only because of the results they produce, the good feelings they engender or express.”[7]
They continue that this forms a basis of morality and ethics which is highly subjective; therefore, the distinguishing character of individualism remains ineffable.
The touchstone of individualistic self-knowledge turns out to be shaky in the end, and its guide to action proves elusive … [T]o what or whom do our ethical and moral standards commit us if they are “quite independent of other people’s standards and agenda”?[8]
From the American experience, one can surmise that without external standards of morality, either of a secular or religious nature, a sense of nihilism pervades among many.  Is there proof of this nihilism?
          When this blogger first worked on these ideas, by doing research for a paper, the Waco tragedy unfolded.  Since then, other tragedies have hit the American society to varying degrees of human suffering – school shootings, shootings in theaters, town centers, places of worship, etc.  Why were these people in the Waco case so willing to be led to their deaths by a religious fanatic?  Why are others willing to engage in disastrous events that often end in violent death often to themselves?
          Is meaning for life so hard to find in this nation’s common lot?  Or perhaps the report by various writers on the detrimental and accumulative effects of trends, e.g., the divorce rate, on the children of this country can provide further insight.[9]  A bit of literature among the press and published articles and books have documented how popular it has become to encourage adults to take on more self-centered goals which then manifests in irresponsible behaviors on the part of adults who are often parents.
          American society, over the last number of decades, has experienced several disruptive events and trends.  Along with the divorce rate, there have been riots, increasing crime rates (currently going down), suicide rates, drug use, etc.  And with that disruptive setting, this posting will end and promise that the next one in this series will address the implications of the above challenges to those charged with developing curriculum for American schools.  Surely, these societal challenges should influence what schools plan for their students.
[1] The series of postings begins with “Early On,” and can be accessed on the URL, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/.  Readers can use the archive feature to see this posting and the three that follow.
[2] Aidan Connaughton, “Americans See Stronger Societal Conflicts Than People in Other Advanced Economies,” Pew Research Center, October 13, 2021, accessed February 23, 2024, URL:  https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/10/13/americans-see-stronger-societal-conflicts-than-people-in-other-advanced-economies/.
[3] Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, A. Swindler, and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart:  Individualism in American Life (New York, NY:  Harper and Row, Publishers, 1985).
[4] Ibid., 37.
[5] Ibid., 55-56.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., 78.
[8] Ibid., 78-79.
[9] For example, see Daniel Siegel, “Generation Doomer:  How Nihilism on Social Media Is Creating a New Generation of Extremists,” Global Network on Extremism and Technology, December 16, 2022, accessed February 24, 2024, URL:  https://gnet-research.org/2022/12/16/generation-doomer-how-nihilism-on-social-media-is-creating-a-new-generation-of-extremists/#:~:text=Because%20of%20digital%20echo%20chambers,and%20humanity%20is%20inevitably%20doomed.  To illustrate how long this concern has been addressed, see Barbara Dafoe, “Dan Quayle Was Right,” The Atlantic Monthly, 274, 4 (1993), 47-84.
0 notes
immaculatasknight · 1 year
Link
Ottawa crime syndicate
0 notes
yashley · 7 days
Text
anyway laerryn would've released predathos by now
60 notes · View notes
doodlerh · 1 year
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
RRRRGRGRRRGGG THEM
216 notes · View notes
fideidefenswhore · 3 months
Text
@bunniesandbeheadings I might misunderstand the text you linked. How could Mary call Edward a bastard? KoA was dead by then, and of course widowers can remarry. Calling Jane a legitimate Queen in no way would take away KoA’s status as Queen?
all of hviii's marriages after catherine of aragon were not recognised by the catholic church/pope. when he needed dispensations for these marriages, like for affinity (his marriage to jane was one of them), they were granted by the anglican church, whose authority the pope and other catholic monarchies of christendom did not recognise (the last real 'papal' henrician appointment, irony of ironies, was thomas cranmer's). there was also the matter of all marriages taking place when the realm was in schism, thus "all other women of henry concubines and not wives". prince edward was (legitimate) heir as reified by parliament; both retroactively from the succession act of 1536 and in name by the one of 1543.
foreign dignitaries of course, when they visited, would honour whoever henry's wife was as queen to maintain good relations and as matter of diplomacy (this wasn't, of course, done by the imperial until the last weeks of AB's time as queen, but otherwise, she was, even if 'frostily' by the french as in 1534). but they were often under instruction to treat this status as transient, as lauren mackay has summarized in her biography of chapuys, for example, charles v was rather mercenary in his attitude towards jane seymour, continually referring to her as henry's 'mistress' well into their marriage in his own instructions to chapuys:
"It appears Charles [V] was at times rather ruthless in regards to Jane, despite the fact that her being in power benefitted Mary. Charles referred to her in several dispatches as Henry's mistress rather than queen [...]" Inside the Tudor Court, Lauren Mackay
#bunniesandbeheadings#replies#there's like the question of why mary did not attempt to overthrow edward while he was king if she didn't believe his reign was legitimate#which is an interesting one...#but 1) her biographers really discount how much of a dissembler she was#2) loades theorized that she actually did buy into the henrician supremacy and her own illegitimacy and simply had a turnaround once#edward died believing that was god's sign she was the rightful heir thus legitimate...which i find an oversimplistic explanation. to say#the least...#i think psychologically in the last years of the edwardian regime she had something of a redeux of the AB years?#this belief england was going to fall into perdition due to 'evil councilors' but she couldn't do anything to reverse it#which is why there's an escape attempt not just an escape plan as in the former but she also decides against this in the last hour#so yes. what was her plan? or hope? it might've been that edward vi would be excommunicated as he reached his majority#and that charles v took up the call to invade and england became one of his dominions#and she would be set up as regent as he set up his other female relatives as regent in his absence#idk if i'd say jane being in power benefitted mary. all the 'benefits' she received came from her swearing to oaths she'd been pressurized#to swear to for the past two years...?#anyway this was illuminating and instructive. to me. it best explains imo why she took such a defiant attitude towards edward. she wouldn't#have seen it as defiant if she didn't believe in his authority in the first place
11 notes · View notes
maidensfancy · 4 months
Text
there is some very real criticism of the way some people talk about rhaenyra's kids and their bastardry but the term bastardphobia will always make me giggle. its never that serious
8 notes · View notes
aurpiment · 1 year
Text
There are no canonical ages for Ashe and Estraven’s two children—they could even be twins!—but I choose to imagine whichever ages imply that the elder was the reason they got married and the younger was part of an attempt to fix their marriage.
13 notes · View notes
adamsvanrhijn · 1 month
Text
Thinking about Maud again. I just think if you're going to establish that everyone knows everyone's family background for the last two hundred years and keeps out anybody who doesn't meet the criteria. Which is true to life. that you shouldn't then go back on that to serve as of now one (1) plotline.
Oscar will believe anything he's told and then some because he is detached from reality. I have zero issue with Oscar being stupid. But the rest of old New York is going to actually ask the Stuyvesants!
5 notes · View notes
cerulianvermillion · 9 months
Text
Enemies (with benefits) to lovers Guili hostage prince au where zhongli is the sickly prince of a small kingdom married off to the empire as a consort for a political alliance and Guizhong is the grand empress, rumoured to be heartless and calculating who only wants power.
14 notes · View notes
allyriadayne · 4 months
Note
Real talk, to you think Daemon would have questioned the legitimacy of the Jace, Luke and Joff or had them killed in order to pave the way for his his sons to become heirs? Or do you think he was fine with Jace inherenting and Baela becoming queen?
hi. i don't think he would publicly or privately question rhaenyra's kids' legitimacy because it's already obvious they are not laenor's. but the thing is, even if daemon is outraged or angry about rhanyra putting jace on the throne after her, he's not going to the king and complain about it. daemon is a man of action, if he's discontent with something, he's going to go and do something about it. vaemond velaryon calls rhaenyra a whore > daemon doesn't like it and won't stand for it > daemon kills vaemond. it is that simple for him.
which brings the case of would daemon kill jace, luke and joff so his son inherits after rhaenyra? the answer is no. if he had wanted to do it, he would've done it in those ten years they spend in dragonstone together. an accident is easy to stage, and more when rhaenyra is busy ruling and dragonstone the island seems to be a place with a lot of cliffs and a lot of wild dragons. why wait if his goal was to put aegon as heir? it doesn't make sense unless he was okay with jace inheriting. and again, it's pretty inconvenient, because it's not only jace, it's luke and joff, the two kids small enough to think of him as their only father figure. that he in some way helped raised too.
in ep 10 while he doesn't respect jace as a person (he is still a young adult without proper war experience wanting to make daemon heel), he threatens the kingsguard and makes them swear oaths, not to rhaenyra and him as her consort, which he might be in his right to do, but to rhaenyra AND jace:
Swear anew your oath to Rhaenyra as your queen... to Prince Jacaerys as the heir to the Iron Throne.
he acknowledges him as rhaenyra's heir, and while we might say "oh it's just words" but they aren't. daemon is showing jace he supports his claim the only way he knows. this is the same thing he did for viserys back in 101 AC. he became his commander, he amassed an army, he did everything in his power to put him on the throne. 30 years later he's doing the same.
it's simple, at least to me: daemon loves rhaenyra. rhaenyra loves her children. daemon would never hurt rhaenyra in this way. that jace and co ARE rhaenyra's blood also goes a long way for him btw
the logic some people have that daemon would want a son of his own blood on the throne doesn't hold when it's with his tacit agreement that baela is to marry and rule alongside jace. baela who is more daemon than anyone else. and who for sure is his favorite child. that's daemon's blood on the throne.
5 notes · View notes
corpsebrigadier · 1 year
Text
Really loving how the Golgorland Execution Site battle functions on some level as a recreation of Zeakden, only the imperiled girl is an illusion that falls away and all the exhortations Ramza submit to the demands of his rank come from a villain going out of his way to be friendly instead of one going out of his way to be abrasive. Ramza's given this softer, easier, less threatening version of the narrative's central traumatic event, and it's so interesting that it's this setup that leads him to both an admission of personal responsibility with regards to Teta's death and an acknowledgement of his original name (and it's this event that does--in fact--switch his bio entry from Ramza Ruglia/Lugria back to Ramza Beoulve again).
18 notes · View notes
captmuldoon · 1 year
Text
Mary I: ....h-
Henry VIII, Jane Seymour, Edward Seymour, Thomas Cromwell: GIVE THAT GIRL A HORSE!!
12 notes · View notes
ellynneversweet · 1 year
Text
Pet irritation of the day is how HotD has nerd Reddit running around saying pregnant characters ‘sired’ children. No.
10 notes · View notes
faintingheroine · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
(From Clare Dunkle’s site)
2 notes · View notes
fideidefenswhore · 3 months
Text
The elite of the Benedictines at their Oxford studium were vocal critics of the divorce and lampooned the person of the king. They made the king's marriage the subject of their skit in December. Outside the university but still within its social networks, at the Cistercian Rewley Abbey (Oxfordshire), Abbot Nicholas Austen fumbled in his effort to hush a row between the monks on the rights and wrongs of the divorce. It is difficult to imagine the sharp rebuke of the king for 'bastardyng the Lady Marie,' made by a Wiltshire burgess, Thomas Temys, had not resonated at Lacock Abbey where his kinswoman Joan was head. It seems that casual critical chatter was widespread and communities were none too careful to keep it inside their enclosures. William Copley, a lay brother of Roche Abbey, was called before the court of [the] King's Bench after calling Queen Anne a 'bawd' and disparaging the marriage as being 'under a gusshyn [cushion]'. Copley apparently made the matter worse by absconding; he was detained at Spalding some seventy-five miles south of his house.
The Dissolution of the Monasteries: A New History, James G. Clark
5 notes · View notes