In the medieval period, the apprentice would learn from the master, and in time, could move and start his own business, or could take over the master's business.
They could own part of the business, which employee today can't.
Good point. Plus literal cottage industries still existed.
The economics of work outside farming was also very different - when monasteries held something like 30% of the "GDP" there was bound to be an utterly different mentality and reality to work and money.
Which is itself an example of a different mindset. Modern or post-modern leaders are considered fair game, if not figures of fun, which is quite a large change. I know there's an element of being politic to it, but it's certainly an observable trend which changes as we move to modernity.
Perhaps if you equate de-banking with exile it would be similar. I hadn't really considered that, partly because it's such a recent thing. Exile to places isn't really used now, it's strange when I read things about it still being an informal punishment for scandals in Britain in the 1920s.
He fled to a country which wouldn't charge or extradite him. Assange tried the same, perhaps a 21st century equivalent of claiming sanctuary in a church.
I wouldn't agree that either was exiled - they were seeking to avoid punishment, rather than being punished by being forced from the country. For criminals who are non-nationals or dual nationals, there would probably be broad public support for exile.
Great article! The gulf between the modern mentality, and the Medieval (or pre-modern, or traditional) mindset does seem to be unbridgeable. Another rupture between our way of thinking and theirs, I think, is the vividness and immediacy of myth and symbolism in their worldview. Everything in our world seems to be reduced to material causes, or explained away, or otherwise stripped of metaphor and higher meaning. Perhaps that may change in a future dispensation…
You're right, there is definitely a difference in accepting a mystical, mythical or religious explanation rather than a scientific one. To be honest, I don't think modern minds are any deeper on that, as few of us can really engage with science, we just expect a scientific explanation somewhere to exist.
The pandemic was interesting in this regard, as many people still viewed someone someone getting sick as the consequences of them sinning and breaking rules - simply that the rules had changed. I guess no particular human mind likes the fact that some things might be fairly arbitrary.
It might be, the reformation does a lot of the work of that really. Rather than society being formed and run in one certain way, everything becomes part of a discussion and debate.
It's always hard to think of where and when the break between religion and state comes from an English perspective.
You give a great exposition it medieval mindset and then just grind to a halt on why you couldn’t bring it back. You are going to have to flesh that out. The counter example would be middle eastern countries that were modern who did essentially go back to a pre modern mindset with the embrace of fundamentalist Islam.
You can't really put genies back into the bottle. People now see everything as a choice and have a much, much higher value of the individual. You can't really re-instate a belief that society is the way God ordained when personal interpretation and discussion are the order of the day.
I don't really know enough about Islam to consider it here, I've only ever really looked at the Iranian experience. From what I know of that, it's been more a case of imposing rules rather than actually changing people's minds, though I certainly don't have a full picture of it all.
Sure you would probably need something like Christian Madrassas but I think just bluntly stating it's a-prori impossible is a stretch. And most especially if an energy crisis takes out the communication grid.
I think you'd end up with something totally new then. It's not really possible to go back to the idea that the way we live is the only way to live and is immutable and unchanging. You might be able to recreate some aspects and concepts, but you can't delete the idea of choice and replace it with ordination - at least not within a century or two.
Doesn't this presume people are satisfied with the corrosive nihilism of the status quo? The fact that doomer is an archetype now, and more and more people are converting to Orthodox Christianity, which is arguably the most pure to a Medieval mindset form of Christianity shows the question is nuanced IMO.
It's certainly nuanced and people certainly don't like the nihilistic world we have made now. However, my point is that the pre-modern world didn't have ideas like religious choice, or deciding how to live or what job to do. It didn't have debates over the right way to live, or if one viewpoint or lifestyle was better than another. There was only one way, it came from God and it was right.
Much can be recreated, but the very ideas that the system is the only and that everyone within it has only one place aren't compatible with modern minds. It's not because we've evolved, or anything odd like that, simply that once you get knowledge you can't elect to go back. You can go back to medieval technology too, but people would still know that it's not the only technology which can exist.
In the medieval period, the apprentice would learn from the master, and in time, could move and start his own business, or could take over the master's business.
They could own part of the business, which employee today can't.
Good point. Plus literal cottage industries still existed.
The economics of work outside farming was also very different - when monasteries held something like 30% of the "GDP" there was bound to be an utterly different mentality and reality to work and money.
Excellent!!
Thanks for reading!
"Inform" for ἔννεπε. Bold. Like it.
> One constant you see in rebellions, from Wat Tyler up until the Russian revolutions of 1917, is a focus on eradicating “bad councillors”.
That's because criticizing the ruler directly was lèse-majesté and seen as blasphemous.
Which is itself an example of a different mindset. Modern or post-modern leaders are considered fair game, if not figures of fun, which is quite a large change. I know there's an element of being politic to it, but it's certainly an observable trend which changes as we move to modernity.
> It’s why exile existed as a punishment - what would only be an inconvenience today was something that removed social protection and status then.
Um, exile, a.k.a., deplatforming and debanking, still works today.
Perhaps if you equate de-banking with exile it would be similar. I hadn't really considered that, partly because it's such a recent thing. Exile to places isn't really used now, it's strange when I read things about it still being an informal punishment for scandals in Britain in the 1920s.
> Exile to places isn't really used now,
See Snowden.
He fled to a country which wouldn't charge or extradite him. Assange tried the same, perhaps a 21st century equivalent of claiming sanctuary in a church.
I wouldn't agree that either was exiled - they were seeking to avoid punishment, rather than being punished by being forced from the country. For criminals who are non-nationals or dual nationals, there would probably be broad public support for exile.
Deportation of migrants still happens, or used to as recently as a decade ago.
Great article! The gulf between the modern mentality, and the Medieval (or pre-modern, or traditional) mindset does seem to be unbridgeable. Another rupture between our way of thinking and theirs, I think, is the vividness and immediacy of myth and symbolism in their worldview. Everything in our world seems to be reduced to material causes, or explained away, or otherwise stripped of metaphor and higher meaning. Perhaps that may change in a future dispensation…
You're right, there is definitely a difference in accepting a mystical, mythical or religious explanation rather than a scientific one. To be honest, I don't think modern minds are any deeper on that, as few of us can really engage with science, we just expect a scientific explanation somewhere to exist.
The pandemic was interesting in this regard, as many people still viewed someone someone getting sick as the consequences of them sinning and breaking rules - simply that the rules had changed. I guess no particular human mind likes the fact that some things might be fairly arbitrary.
Interesting. You make some good points but I'm still mulling this one over. Is the key the break between religion and the state? Lots to think about.
It might be, the reformation does a lot of the work of that really. Rather than society being formed and run in one certain way, everything becomes part of a discussion and debate.
It's always hard to think of where and when the break between religion and state comes from an English perspective.
You give a great exposition it medieval mindset and then just grind to a halt on why you couldn’t bring it back. You are going to have to flesh that out. The counter example would be middle eastern countries that were modern who did essentially go back to a pre modern mindset with the embrace of fundamentalist Islam.
> You give a great exposition it medieval mindset and then just grind to a halt on why you couldn’t bring it back.
Well, the WEF is certainly trying to bring it back with us as the serfs.
You can't really put genies back into the bottle. People now see everything as a choice and have a much, much higher value of the individual. You can't really re-instate a belief that society is the way God ordained when personal interpretation and discussion are the order of the day.
I don't really know enough about Islam to consider it here, I've only ever really looked at the Iranian experience. From what I know of that, it's been more a case of imposing rules rather than actually changing people's minds, though I certainly don't have a full picture of it all.
Thanks for reading!
Sure you would probably need something like Christian Madrassas but I think just bluntly stating it's a-prori impossible is a stretch. And most especially if an energy crisis takes out the communication grid.
I think you'd end up with something totally new then. It's not really possible to go back to the idea that the way we live is the only way to live and is immutable and unchanging. You might be able to recreate some aspects and concepts, but you can't delete the idea of choice and replace it with ordination - at least not within a century or two.
Doesn't this presume people are satisfied with the corrosive nihilism of the status quo? The fact that doomer is an archetype now, and more and more people are converting to Orthodox Christianity, which is arguably the most pure to a Medieval mindset form of Christianity shows the question is nuanced IMO.
It's certainly nuanced and people certainly don't like the nihilistic world we have made now. However, my point is that the pre-modern world didn't have ideas like religious choice, or deciding how to live or what job to do. It didn't have debates over the right way to live, or if one viewpoint or lifestyle was better than another. There was only one way, it came from God and it was right.
Much can be recreated, but the very ideas that the system is the only and that everyone within it has only one place aren't compatible with modern minds. It's not because we've evolved, or anything odd like that, simply that once you get knowledge you can't elect to go back. You can go back to medieval technology too, but people would still know that it's not the only technology which can exist.