Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
My roommate and I were having an interesting conversation about nobility and celebrities last night and this was the choice quote.
Celebrities vs. Nobility
- Thread starter Theoretical
- Start date
- Status
InevitablyReformed
Puritan Board Freshman
That seems pretty accurate.
No Longer A Libertine
Puritan Board Senior
Case by case issue, society has expanded the umbrella it arches over "celebrity".
However men like Ronald reagan turned celebrity into useful platform for great public service.
As did Charleton Heston, Jimmy Stewart and many others.
We are rightfulyl weary of gossip and those that subject themselves to be objects of it, but by and large celebrities rue the day they obtained the status.
As is noted most were not noble before fame and are unfairly expected to be noble simply because they have public attention.
However men like Ronald reagan turned celebrity into useful platform for great public service.
As did Charleton Heston, Jimmy Stewart and many others.
We are rightfulyl weary of gossip and those that subject themselves to be objects of it, but by and large celebrities rue the day they obtained the status.
As is noted most were not noble before fame and are unfairly expected to be noble simply because they have public attention.
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
Puritan Board Junior
Out of interest what are the benefits of nobility?
No Longer A Libertine
Puritan Board Senior
Silence peasant!
turmeric
Megerator
Silence peasant!
They will ask silly questions, won't they?
-----Added 1/28/2009 at 08:54:49 EST-----
It is interesting, though, did society benefit from nobility and royalty, or did it not?
SemperEruditio
Puritan Board Junior
I would think that in theory nobility would have a greater ability to produce and support the arts, literature, music, medical charities, etc. because they do not have a need to work to survive.
That was at least what happened in the past. For example, amost every piece of literature, history, poetry, etc. we have from the Classical Period (Greece and Rome) was produced by nobility.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Also worth noting is that the great Composers of the past all worked at the pleasure of a King or an Emperor or some type of nobility (or even an Archbishop).
PresbyDane
Puritanboard Doctor
nicnap
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
At what could be considered an extravagant cost in the welfare of the peasants, though. Was it really worth it?
And secondly, did Jesus call His followers to be exalted or to be humble?
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
In talking about nobility on this thread, Rev. Winzer made this point about some of their historical responsibilities. The arts have arguably been incredibly impoverished in the western world by the decline of patronage, in addition to the other things.
Every society has elites, and every type of elite has its own problems, but you won't get rid of elites. A member of a landed aristocracy (the nobility) can be "exalted" or "humble" just as any of us can be, whether we have $1,000 in the bank or $10,000,000 or are the richest person in the world.
Nothing about said individual requires or dictates that they opress the poor or that they do by their very existence. Otherwise in our society, Sam Walton and his family have inherently oppressed the poor by the very virtue of making their fortune off a chain of discount merchants that favors the lower incomes. (I don't want to hear about their business practices, this is an example).
I'm not saying nobility was perfect or even inherently a good idea, but I dispute the idea that it only brings a net loss to a nation with those institutions.
Every society has elites, and every type of elite has its own problems, but you won't get rid of elites. A member of a landed aristocracy (the nobility) can be "exalted" or "humble" just as any of us can be, whether we have $1,000 in the bank or $10,000,000 or are the richest person in the world.
Nothing about said individual requires or dictates that they opress the poor or that they do by their very existence. Otherwise in our society, Sam Walton and his family have inherently oppressed the poor by the very virtue of making their fortune off a chain of discount merchants that favors the lower incomes. (I don't want to hear about their business practices, this is an example).
I'm not saying nobility was perfect or even inherently a good idea, but I dispute the idea that it only brings a net loss to a nation with those institutions.
Jonathan,
No one is arguing that life (in a Fallen world) is fair.
But all the same, I'd rather pay Homer to wrote poetry that will last 3000+ years than to pay a complete buffoon like Manny Ramirez to hit a ball, or the latest thug to make three pointers, or Madonna to spout filth.
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
Also, where would the early church have been if it weren't for some wealthy (elite, culturally, financially, and socially in some cases) members with large homes? Clearly there were problems of favoritism and the like that came from it.
However, due to the nature of sin, you still have the same potential for sin-caused problems in economically level societies as you do in stratfied ones. The problems look different, but there are still problems often at least as bad as the ones eliminated.
However, due to the nature of sin, you still have the same potential for sin-caused problems in economically level societies as you do in stratfied ones. The problems look different, but there are still problems often at least as bad as the ones eliminated.
PresbyDane
Puritanboard Doctor
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
That's a good point.
Theoretical said:
Yes, but when was the last time you saw a humble celebrity?
fredgetco said:
^^Seconded.
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
That's a good point.
Theoretical said:
Yes, but when was the last time you saw a humble celebrity?
fredgetco said:
^^Seconded.
Yes, but when was the last time you saw a humble celebrity?
Hence my opening post's quote
- Status
