Lawnmowerman

Wasnt there a Chinese Emporer whom declared himself God, and when he died his ministers carried him around the counrty for months untill the smell finally convinced them that he really was dead and not just resting???

Thessalonian

Whether Gilgamesh was real or mythical is still debatable. An epic poem is not a historical document.

athena

I said earlier this is the result of scholastic education promoted by the church. The scholastic education deleted all the pagan (classical Greek and Roman) writings except Aristotle. Reading Aristotle would give us the reasoning for this belief in kings as gods, and the idea that questioning his authority was an offense to god. The rebellion against scholastic writing included the other classical writing, like Cicero.

By the way do you know what Louis XIV's stockings are made of? They are very impressing for the technological of the day. Would they be silk stockings?

clement

I don't know you where you saw that scholasticism created the notion of the king as a representative of God. This idea was present centuries before them. For centuries, the roman emperor had been a God himself. But when they converted to christianity, they could not be God so they had to choose something else, and they said that they weren't God but that they were chosen by God to rule (according to what St Paul said, every authority is chosen by God).

Scholastics were not interested in politics. In the middle ages, those who revived this theory of divine power where not scholastics working in monasteries or universities but jurists who were present at the kings' courts. Scholastics were hugely intellectuals, they created a very complex philosophical system with concepts difficult to grasp. This is very unattractive to most people. The theory of royal power had to be simple in contrast to this. So the jurists created something very simple :
- one theory : the christian king is the representative of God on earth and in his kingdom.
- A ceremonial : the figure of the king became more sacralized than before with great ceremonies, lavish costumes etc.
- Some sort of magical powers : In France, for example, the king was expected to heal people by touching them.
- A sacralization of his justice : The king was seen as a "fountain of justice" (an image that appeared in england I think).

athena

We have so much gain in understanding our history by studying the history of education, and also by studying Aristotle. Your knowledge of scholasticism is incomplete, and this incompleteness is misleading. It is like knowing water is good, but not realizing too much of it kills, and drowning all the pretty house plants. Arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, was ideal for the intellectuals of scholasticism, but these intellectuals did not have a good grasp of empirical information and the need to experiment, to validate if something is true or not. Your argument that scholasticism was highly intellectual is right in there with the argument that kings are as gods. How could anyone question the truth of these highly intellectual people, right?

Frankly, I find Aristotle very wordy and therefore boring, so I neglected reading him. Just recently I discovered he praised the Spartans and my alarms started going off. I always knew I didn't him, because he equated having a wife with owning an ox and a slave. These are just things a man should own, you know. This is getting off topic, except that, the whole notion of master and slave is carried through the bible and Aristotle, and it is by reading Aristotle that we understand the reasoning. Seriously, it is by reading Aristotle that we come to understand the reason for believing a slave should accept his place in life is the the will of God, and he honors God by being a good slave. You will find this in the bible as well. Martin Luther, who played a huge role in opposing scholasticism, was equally sure that is God's will that some are born to be masters and others to serve, and that we should obey this will of God. I mean, this is not only a biblical truth, but also an intellectual truth. Ah, there is a reason those peasants don't trust the intellectuals. Yes, scholasticism was highly intellectual, but it was not science, and it most certainly did not question authority! It 100% supported the tyranny of authority.

clement

It is surely interesting but I fail to see how you relate this to the notion of "kings as gods". I may have limited knowledge on scholasticism but that it is fact the proof that there is no need to use scholasticism to understand why the notion of kings as a representative of God emerged. And the "support of authority" of the scholastics is just not relevant here. Scholasticism was not a political philosophy or a theory of power, so it could not have invented the notion that I mentioned.

Scolasticism was not science (but did not oppose it, it did not claim any place in a scientific debate), it was philosophy. If you fail to see the difference between those two notions, I can be of some help in spite of my limited knowledge.

This is not relevant either. IT would have been if the scholastics had had political power. They did not. Power was held by far less intellectual but more practical people : the kings and their jurists. And they did not use scholasticism because this was an intellectual movement that most of them did not know or understand fully and that was too complex to be converted in a political theory.

And you did not answer to my previous objections : that this theory existed centuries before scholasticism.

jeroenrottgering

Yes I know all of that, but what has that to do with my point?

And do please tell me more about your stockings theories?

athena

Given what you all don't know and the failure of someone more knowledgeable stepping in, I feel like my challenge in this thread is equal to being given a thimble to told to empty a lake with it. No one reads long post, but where do I begin with so much misinformation or complete lack of information?

"The blind acceptance of Aristotle as an infallible authority in the realm of nature is one of the greatest intellectual tragedies in history." I am quoting Mulhern from "A History of Education".

Come on, why do you think Locke and Jefferson, and others, spoke so much about nature. Do you understand nothing of these political arguments?
Well, why would you, unless you have read Aristotle, and know more about scholasticism.

When Rome fall there was no centralized government, but only decentralized political authority called feudalism, and kings were legitimized by church, right? So was slavery legitimized by the church, as it was God's will some be born to be masters and others to serve.

All the fighting and inability to establish centralized government, kept this region of the world in the Dark Ages, unable to get their act together and advance humanity as only centralized government can do. Aristotle was the answer to this problem. The church used his teachings for the political purpose of uniting the kingdom of God. You know, that vast territory that had been Christianized, but was still troubled with pagans, and threaten by pagans such as the invading Mongols, and then Muslims who took control of the holy land. Come on folks, the church was fighting for its life and it used Aristotle precisely because of political power! If it could not secure a strong army and fight back the invaders, God's kingdom may have been completely swallowed by the powers of darkness and evil. Note, this church power is the Holy Roman Church, based in Germany, not based in Rome.

Perhaps you all are aware of Hegel, everyone must obey the state and the state is God. This is Aristotle, and Hegel was only repeating him. Perhaps you know a member who can help out here? Someone who knows something about Aristotle and the church and changing political power.

Oh, I just had to google the stockings, and yes, they are silk. That means trade with the east, and given how finely these kings are dressed, these are not feudal kings are they? Might we believe that the Roman Holy Roman Empire (Germany) achieved a good deal of success in developing a centralized power of authority? We should darn well be aware of the difference between this (German, Sparta) church Scholastic education and the later (Roman,Athens) church Classical education.

Now catch this twist in fate. The Holy Roman Empire Rome was ruled by Germans, and it was using Aristotle to secure its power, and rejected all the other "pagan" documents. However, Rome, regained its power, by finding ancient documents, proving it had legitimate, separate political authority. Remember this conflict between the Holy Roman Empire and Rome? The base in Rome, regained power and reverted by to Roman law. It came on the scene with more pagan writing than Aristotle, but our account of history gets all confused, because we know Martin Luther turned against the church based in Rome, and our thinking is not clear about the conflict between the Holy Roman Empire and the church based in Rome. Classical education, promoted by the church based in Rome, is the education of our forefathers, who fought for our liberty and Justice. Paradoxical isn't?

Sorry, this all is very complex, because at first the (Germany based) church rejected all these "pagan" documents except Aristotle, and then it was these "pagan" documents that restored power to the church based in Rome. To write of the church as though it is completely separate from politics is an error. To not understand what Scholasticism had to do with political power, is to not understand Scholasticism.

clement

I won't answer, because my opinion is :
- that you have something against scholasticism, which clearly is your right (I myself find scholasticism quite boring at times, and it it always when you deal directly with the texts). Maybe against Aristotle.
- So you are trying to make responsible of everything things that now seem archaic in our society and that have happened before.

IMO, you are seeking complex answers where there is no need for this. Don't forget the Ockham razor : the simpler, the better.

I've already said what is the simplest explanation for this theory of royal power, feel free to agree or not of course.

sylla1

The Makedonian derived ("Hellenistic") monarchies from Philippos II onwards were a prime example; the despotic Alexandros III did still face some significant opposition, but after his death it quickly became general standard practice.