Definition Of A Gentleman

[Innocent]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 July 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1278051640' post='2136895']
I'm not terribly worried about ever being in such a situation since, unfortunately, I cannot ever see myself acquiring the millions of dollars I would like to have without working for them. In which case I wouldn't be a leisurely gentleman, but rather an overworked professional.
[/quote]

All the same it's safer not to entertain such fantasies. Knowing this chink in your armour, the devil might send a financial windfall your way just to tempt you.

[CatherineM]

I'd recommend the book "Millionaire Next Door." Becoming rich is more about not spending than it is about making more. I had a pastor who never touched the money or finances at church because he never wanted to know who gave how much because as a human being, he might let that knowledge affect him. One year on a lark when the tax receipts were being prepared, he asked who gave the most money to the parish that year, and was stunned by the answer. He had eaten dinner in their home, and it was small, modest, and not what he'd have thought a rich person would own.

If you think you would like to be a millionaire, and never reach that, you may never be truly content with the life you have. My mother never believed she had the life she deserved, or wanted, or should have been able to have. It made her truly unhappy and bitter, and she still is. She has a gaggle of kids, grandkids, and greatgrandkids who love her, but she never learned to be content with less. Having an attitude of gratitude is what makes life sweet. My husband serves on a board with a very wealthy man, the kind that owns resort hotels and multiple businesses kind of wealth. We're poor but very content. This guy actually got mad at Austin for being so happy. He is ostracized from his kids because he was so busy making money he had no time for them. If money is happiness, and you don't get the money, you are unhappy. If you do get the money, and still aren't happy, that's even worse.

[Era Might]

You do not need to be a millionaire in order to practice leisure. In fact, I would suggest that from a Christian perspective, the people in the best position to practice true leisure are monks (who, ironically, have taken a vow of poverty):

[quote]...the word [i]vacare[/i] is a crucially important technical term used for the definition of the Christian monk. Rufinus (ca. 435-510) was the first to define the monk as someone "who in solitude makes himself free for God alone," [i]solus soli Deo vacans[/i].

[i]Vacare[/i] means "to have been set or become free." When Christian authors use the term the stress is not on the release a person gets, but on the freedom he takes of his own volition. The term stresses "the desire to be engaged" in a new way of life rather than the release or flight from one's old habits of bondage and lifestyle. The verb is also used in classical Latin. Seneca, the stoic tutor of Nero and contemporary of Peter and Paul, distinguishes three ways of life in which a person might choose to "engage" himself: lust, contemplation, or (political) action. With generosity, he urges, one should choose what to be free for. True leisure can be found only by those who give themselves to wisdom ([i]sapientiae vacant[/i]). In this classical sense, the verb was still used in [Hugh of St. Victor's] time. It meant being "absorbed" by wine, "immersed" in a life of carnal pleasure, "engrossed" in studies. However, no author of the twelfth century could have used the term to designate these "deviations" without connoting that they were disorders, in contrast to the true freedom which the Christian ought to take. This last sense was first given to the term by St. Augustine. Shortly after his baptism in 387 he went to Africa, feeling God's calling to practice [i]otium[/i] (leisure), and founded a small community in the town of Thagaste. He declares the purpose of the group's common life is "to be deified by leisure." He strongly urges his dear friends "love leisure, that you might refrain from all earthly pleasure, but remember that there is no place free from snares." He says elsewhere, "My leisure is not spent in nurturing idleness, but in exploring wisdom...I draw back from distracting activities, and my spirit devotes itself to heavenly desires."

Hugh [of St. Victor] thus demands that the reader who desires to reach perfection engage himself in leisure ([i]otium[/i]). "This especially is that which takes the soul away from the noise of earthly business and makes it have, even in this life, a kind of foretaste of the sweetness of eternal quiet." Meditative reading brings the soul to rest.

--Ivan Illich, "In the Vineyard of the Text" pp. 61-63[/quote]
Also, here's a passage from Henry David Thoreau's "Walden" that I think is relevant to this thread:

[quote]Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind. With respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meagre life than the poor. The ancient philosophers, Chinese, Hindoo, Persian, and Greek, were a class than which none has been poorer in outward riches, none so rich in inward. We know not much about them. It is remarkable that we know so much of them as we do. The same is true of the more modern reformers and benefactors of their race. None can be an impartial or wise observer of human life but from the vantage ground of what we should call voluntary poverty. Of a life of luxury the fruit is luxury, whether in agriculture, or commerce, or literature, or art. There are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers. Yet it is admirable to profess because it was once admirable to live. To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically. The success of great scholars and thinkers is commonly a courtier-like success, not kingly, not manly. They make shift to live merely by conformity, practically as their fathers did, and are in no sense the progenitors of a noble race of men. But why do men degenerate ever? What makes families run out? What is the nature of the luxury which enervates and destroys nations? Are we sure that there is none of it in our own lives? The philosopher is in advance of his age even in the outward form of his life. He is not fed, sheltered, clothed, warmed, like his contemporaries. How can a man be a philosopher and not maintain his vital heat by better methods than other men? [/quote]

Edited July 2, 2010 by Era Might

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 July 2010 - 01:28 AM' timestamp='1278048512' post='2136872']
My dream, on the other hand, is to be so wealthy that, although I do not work, I am still able to live extravagantly.
[/quote]


Lame.


Era, As soon as I have a +1 you get it for quoting Walden.

[tinytherese]

This is the definition of gentleman.



[img]http://charlesfisher.net/assets/images/Christ_Crucified.jpg[/img]

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='30 June 2010 - 11:51 PM' timestamp='1277963476' post='2136501']
For those of you who have read some of my posts or who know me, I have a philosophic bend. Recently, I have overheard people complaining (and rightfully so) about most men and how they fail to respect those around them (I even spotted a topic that one phatmasser started that had a video of a few good men trying to get the message out that people should be respected and not treated as objects). I started re-examining my understanding of what a gentleman was and thinking about it in order to make my understanding a coherent and systematic whole rather than just a random assortment of axioms and went back to this little speech, which I had come across while I was in college. I thought perhaps we could discuss this topic together in hopes that we all might replace axioms for a coherent, systematic whole. I propose we start with this article I have been re-reading. Any ideas or additions?

[b]"Definition of a Gentleman"[/b] by Cardinal Newman, from [i]The Idea of a University[/i], a series of lectures given in Ireland, 1852.
[/quote]

nice. I'm going to borrow this.

[princessgianna]

*A gentleman need only to be rich in manners. (Materials are nothing if the guy is a jerk and/or Mama's boy (and gee are there ever so many!!!!!). Right now in my life I would find it harder to marry a rich man over a man of normal means).

*A gentleman treats all women (whatever their situation) with upmost top respect. Holding door, offering chair ect...
*A gentleman is humbled before God.
*A gentleman is one who provides more than "the paycheck".
*A gentleman will risk all for a woman's honor.


[quote]"The population of baby boys is at an all time uprise:
the population of grown men is near extinction".
-PG
June 29, 2010[/quote]

[princessgianna]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='02 July 2010 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1278049607' post='2136877']
Yep, that's the new American Dream. Used to be to work hard, and do a bit better than your parents, and to save money to leave some to your kids, so that they could do a bit better than you have.
[/quote]
Frankly for me, the idea of an average country nice mannered young man is more attracting than a rich city man(even if he is nice mannered) who has already "made it big".

[Mary Veronica]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='02 July 2010 - 02:53 AM' timestamp='1278048210' post='2136871']
Personally, I'd be more than happy to be Cardinal Newman's understanding of a Gentleman. To be like that, that sounds to me like a life lived well. To truly be noble and virtuous, whether I have land or not, to cast myself in to the mind of my opponent and account for their mistakes by knowing weaknesses and strengths of reason, and to be too clear headed to ever be unjust even if I am mistaken in my opinion, what a perfection of the soul to strive for! Imagine, to achieve being a one who has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. I strive for this patience, forbearing, and resignation to life and its suffering, on philosophical principles, and thus to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is our destiny. But to achieve it, what a blessing that would be to oneself and even to one's loved one's, since one would bring comfort to others by being such a gentleman. Ah, to achieve such a dream...
[/quote]

*cough* excuse me, Although there were true gentlemen who have lived and died honorably, there were also true gentlemen who lived courageously and met tragic but victorious ends. Our Lord for example was the most meek and loving. and in the end was violently scorned and crucified by almost all of jerusalem. And many other gentlemen saints in a similar way. As a kind of reassurance, not every gentlemen is able to bring peace and comfort around them.

Would you consider that a great part of being a true gentlemen is having a purpose, a calling (to teach truth, or encourage love, unite people, or honor God, etc) ? So whether people love you or want to kill you, you know in your heart what you're called to stand for and what you're called to do.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='princessgianna' date='04 July 2010 - 01:41 AM' timestamp='1278218476' post='2137599']
*A gentleman need only to be rich in manners. (Materials are nothing if the guy is a jerk and/or Mama's boy (and gee are there ever so many!!!!!). Right now in my life I would find it harder to marry a rich man over a man of normal means).

*A gentleman treats all women (whatever their situation) with upmost top respect. Holding door, offering chair ect...
*A gentleman is humbled before God.
*A gentleman is one who provides more than "the paycheck".
*A gentleman will risk all for a woman's honor.
[/quote]

I would agree with all of these axioms greatly, but I would expand the last to the honor of others who are threatened with a means (whether force or other coercion) which they themselves cannot repel. The gentleman always assists such as these.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Mary Veronica' date='04 July 2010 - 02:57 AM' timestamp='1278223048' post='2137619']
*cough* excuse me, Although there were true gentlemen who have lived and died honorably, there were also true gentlemen who lived courageously and met tragic but victorious ends. Our Lord for example was the most meek and loving. and in the end was violently scorned and crucified by almost all of jerusalem. And many other gentlemen saints in a similar way. As a kind of reassurance, not every gentlemen is able to bring peace and comfort around them.

Would you consider that a great part of being a true gentlemen is having a purpose, a calling (to teach truth, or encourage love, unite people, or honor God, etc) ? So whether people love you or want to kill you, you know in your heart what you're called to stand for and what you're called to do.
[/quote]

Did not Christ comfort the women of Jerusalem as they wept as He went to Calvary? Was Christ affronted by those who spat on Him? Did He remember their offenses or was He patient and forgiving. This is gentlemanly. Is Christ's victory in death not a comfort for us? It does. I think that even the death of a gentleman, by bearing witness to later generations of what is truly important, can bring comfort. It is a terrible thing, but it bears witness to virtue and to the universals, even if it is a non-violent death. (read the full article, it is on the first post). Yes I would consider a great part of being a true gentlemen is having a purpose, a calling (to teach truth, or encourage love, unite people, or honor God, etc. (In fact, I think to different degrees all gentlemen are called to these things).

[Mary Veronica]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='04 July 2010 - 03:48 AM' timestamp='1278224330' post='2137623']
Did not Christ comfort the women of Jerusalem as they wept as He went to Calvary? Was Christ affronted by those who spat on Him? Did He remember their offenses or was He patient and forgiving. This is gentlemanly. Is Christ's victory in death not a comfort for us? It does. I think that even the death of a gentleman, by bearing witness to later generations of what is truly important, can bring comfort. It is a terrible thing, but it bears witness to virtue and to the universals, even if it is a non-violent death. (read the full article, it is on the first post). Yes I would consider a great part of being a true gentlemen is having a purpose, a calling (to teach truth, or encourage love, unite people, or honor God, etc. (In fact, I think to different degrees all gentlemen are called to these things).
[/quote]

my mistake, I had been speaking about oppositions in particular who do not recognize a gentlemen when they meet one. sometimes those oppositions are very hard to please. Yet thank you for reminding me, I had forgotten. It is very true that Our Lord brought comfort to those who loved Him amidst His suffering. I personally love to contemplate the mystery of when Jesus met His Mother on His way to Calvary.

I think also non-believers are able to carry great purposes, though it may be a spiritual disadvantage not to be able to turn to God and Mother Mary in times when their spirit is being assailed. The devil does hinder our greater purposes, and can easily lead us astray, especially if we feel we stand alone. Bless the Lord, as Christians, we believe that we are not our own strength. We are more feared by our enemies and are unstoppable.

[Slappo]

[quote name='tinytherese' date='03 July 2010 - 02:51 PM' timestamp='1278193898' post='2137485']
This is the definition of gentleman.



[img]http://charlesfisher.net/assets/images/Christ_Crucified.jpg[/img]
[/quote]


No no no no no...


That's the definition of a [b][u]King[/u][/b].

[Resurrexi]

I would just like to say that I was probably too materialist in my comments earlier in this thread. I should probably work being less concerned with material things.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='04 July 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1278271500' post='2137710']
I would just like to say that I was probably too materialist in my comments earlier in this thread. I should probably work being less concerned with material things.
[/quote]

Rexi--I took away your -1, because think I understood what you meant. I have had that fantasy, too, sometimes, of being rich enough to work at what I wanted to work at. I didn't understand your post to say that this was your philosophy of life. I took it as a casual comment, a thought that I think crosses the minds of a lot of us once in awhile, particularly, for example, if we're stuck in a job we hate because we need the money, or we see someone else that would be truly helped by a donation that we can't afford to give. Rexi--I can't ever remember you making any posts that would lead me to believe that you were overly materialistic. Only you and God know what's in your heart, and it is an issue that is between the two of you, and not my business.

Your comment made think of Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof." He had fantasies of being a rich man, but it was to make his family more comfortable, and it's clear from the play/movie that he was not materialistic. Tevye was a good man who sometimes wished he wasn't so poor.

I also have had fantasies of being so rich that I could do the work I wanted to do. And, my fantasy is that my "work" would be to give the money away. Unlike so many "philanthropists," I would do as much as I could to make the donations anonymous, and forbid plaques with my name on them, or buildings named after me. Money can't make you happy, but sometimes there are problems that money can help, and money can be used to reduce others' suffering. I wish sometimes that I could afford to be so generous.

"God provides," but often it's through the generousity of donors that God provides the money for building monasteries or to pay off debts so that a person can enter religious life. I wish I could afford to be a donor more often. Not for my own glory, because I believe strongly in "doing good in stealth," but because I see people and causes who depend on the monetary generousity of others and I wish I could help.

I'm very clear in my mind that it is a fantasy. Perhaps saints never have that fantasy, but I am not a saint. I'm not even a person who has taken a vow of poverty or plans to take one. I'm just an ordinary person trying to get by, who sometimes wishes money wasn't an issue. For me at least, I think my fantasy is a harmless escape. If I made life decisions based on a fantasy, that would be harmful. But, I don't.

Edited July 4, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola