tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5632476038918806696..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Bruce and Van der Vossen on private propertyEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78393344101579689032012-04-29T23:33:38.817-07:002012-04-29T23:33:38.817-07:00W.LindsayWheeler,
"In my definition of genus...W.LindsayWheeler,<br /><br />"In my definition of genus and species I was not making a comparison."<br />Well, whatever you were doing wasn't what I was asking for; that's okay, I guess, but it's not all that helpful for me.<br /><br />"The real original natural law is NOT the foundation of Catholic morality. Virtue existed amongst the pagan Dorians without a Catholic around. Virtue is not the sole domain of Catholics."<br /><br />While you are correct that virtue is not the sole domain of Catholics, virtue is still part of morality simpliciter. And morality simpliciter is Catholic morality whether you like it or not as all of morality has the same One source. That some of the commands of Christ go beyond what we can know through reason alone through the natural law is besides the point. Whichever mode/origin is used to arrive at the truth still arrives at the truth.<br /><br />"You want to steal the natural law and claim it only does morality."<br /><br />Nope. I want to use the natural law and apply it to human agency.<br /><br />"You have to keep the spheres apart! Morality is Morality. The Natural Law is the Natural Law. You may use the Natural Law to buttress the claims of Catholic Morality through a secular means but you can't subjugate the Natural Law to your Catholic Morality!"<br /><br />The natural law is used to discover a large part of Catholic morality, though in principle such a part is discoverable by both Catholic and non-Catholic alike by reason.<br /><br />"I feel like I'm in a "Free Willy" movie. "Free the Natural Law from Catholicism". The Natural Law stands by itself, Free and Clear."<br /><br />I think you are missing something. There is nothing to free.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10774216493148809022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4374380318267745772012-04-29T16:36:51.547-07:002012-04-29T16:36:51.547-07:00In my definition of genus and species I was not ma...In my definition of genus and species I was not making a comparison.<br /><br />What I think the essence of your "Catholic Natural Moral Law" is that your trying to prove the validity of your morals through a secular way. (which is alright by me)<br /><br />The Ten Commandments don't need proof. They are commanded. <br /><br />Like Dr. Feser's argument on Private Property. To you, me, and Dr. Feser, private property is common sense. You don't have to prove that to me. What Dr. Feser is doing is proving private property through a law of nature of teleology in order to rebut the arguments of socialists and communists. <br /><br />And what does private property have to do with Catholic ethics?<br /><br />The real original natural law is NOT the foundation of Catholic morality. Virtue existed amongst the pagan Dorians without a Catholic around. Virtue is not the sole domain of Catholics. <br /><br />What Dr. Feser was doing was pulling up the Natural Law of teleology as a secular reason to secure private property against a communist state from seizing private property.<br /><br />Instead of using God and the Bible as the validation of morality, you are using a second secular route called the Original Natural Law to prove stuff to the secular world. You want to steal the natural law and claim it only does morality.<br /><br />You have to keep the spheres apart! Morality is Morality. The Natural Law is the Natural Law. You may use the Natural Law to buttress the claims of Catholic Morality through a secular means but you can't subjugate the Natural Law to your Catholic Morality!<br /><br />I feel like I'm in a "Free Willy" movie. "Free the Natural Law from Catholicism". The Natural Law stands by itself, Free and Clear.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60178805455228927482012-04-29T14:03:10.990-07:002012-04-29T14:03:10.990-07:00W.LindsayWheeler,
Thank you for answering my ques...W.LindsayWheeler,<br /><br />Thank you for answering my question about genus and species. However, it's not what I was quite asking. I was asking for a definition of the 'original natural law' and not a comparison with it to 'natural moral law' per se.<br /><br />As an example, a human being is a rational animal. The genus is animal and the species, what differentiates it from the rest of the genus, is rationality.<br /><br />Also, it's interesting that you mention moderation and virtue. I hope you know that such requires final causality and is in conformity with Catholic ethics. At this point in time I'm not all that concerned with you dropping the name natural law for Catholic morality as much as you seeing that 'original natural law' is the foundation of Catholic morality (which I believe is a seemless garment and is also the only true morality).Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10774216493148809022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78776557312893882402012-04-29T09:12:45.135-07:002012-04-29T09:12:45.135-07:00The Church is not above the real, original Natural...The Church is not above the real, original Natural Law! She can not abrogate a single law or principle. Jesus Christ gave the Church the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven----NOT to the Cosmos. <br /><br />No one can break the Natural Law. The Natural Law is Immutable. It stands forever!<br /><br />You may commit adultery. You may steal all you want. You may piss on Christ. You may blaspheme God all you want. You may even sin against the Holy Spirit. You may covet, you may tell falsehoods.<br /><br />But what you can't do---is break the Natural Law. The World is Perfect, the best of all worlds. But, God has also designed the Cosmos to take out fools. God and Nature do not suffer fools. Nature will kill you. She has no mercy! God has orderd Nature so. <br /><br />NO ONE can break the Natural Law. God supercedes the Laws of Physics occasionaly with miracles but the Natural Law---Never. <br /><br />The whole of the Natural Law is embodied in the Trinity. <br /><br />The Church is <b><b>not</b></b> above the Natural Law. And the Church sadly is going to learn this lesson the hard way. Nature kills and God has ordained all who break her laws shall die.<br /><br />God doesn't suffer fools. All the prayers, sacrifices and masses, won't help you. God will not pull your irons out of the coming fire. God only loves a Wise man, A Wise man who obeys the Logos in all of its manifestations. The Cosmos operates on Wisdom alone. Don't---Mess---With---Nature.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69980280058637868332012-04-28T12:26:33.636-07:002012-04-28T12:26:33.636-07:00W,
Somebody needs to be taken out and shot! Here ...W,<br /><br /><i>Somebody needs to be taken out and shot! Here is another proof positive, that you guys have no clue! You don't know what the natural law is.</i><br /><br />I see. And who should be 'shot'? Certain authors of Catholic literature on, say, virtue?<br /><br /><i>My previous reading of Catholic literature on virtue and what it was, based on the golden mean, gave me the concept that when I met it, I recognized it.</i><br /><br />Secretly expressing gratitude for something Catholic, eh?<br />. . . . .<br /><br />Here are seven example instantiations of the 'Golden Mean':<br /><br />1. Pasta: don't overcook; don't undercook.<br />2. Driving: don't go too slow; don't go too fast.<br />3. Flowers: don't water too much; don't water too little.<br />4. Shaking hands: don't be limp; don't crush.<br />5. Normal conversation: don't shout; don't whisper.<br />6. Hot beverages: not cool; not scolding.<br />7. Screwing things together: not too tight; not too loose.<br /><br />Example instantiations 8 through 9,364,521 are left to the reader's experience and/or imagination.<br /><br />I'm not sure--the range is rather limited--but there may be room for: a) "not too subjective; not too objective"; and, b) "not overly emotional; not overly intellectual".<br /><br />. . . . .<br /><br />I appreciate your hay-farm story; thank you for relating it. <br /><br />No doubt you're aware of this regarding Aquinas: "When asked why he stopped writing, he replied, 'I cannot go on.... All that I have written seems to me like so much straw compared to what I have seen and what has been revealed to me.'" <br /><br />NOw, I could be wrong, but I think this goes directly to your real complaint, the unarticulated one underlying all the articulated straw-dog complaints you've been railing against.<br /><br />To put it another way, consider what JA had to say in another thread,<br /><br /><i>For Aquinas, there are relations. All things are really composites: of form and matter, neither of which exists on their own, but in a unity of distinctions through relation; of essence as the unity and relation of substance and accident; and of anything instantiated as the unity of existence and essence. To know about these relations that stand apart from us is to participate in them, not mirror the object in our minds.</i><br /><br />If I were to be charged with coming up with a motto or slogan for you, I'd probably come up with something like this:<br /><br /><i>Life more is to be lived and experienced, and less to be thought and talked about.</i><br /><br />'course, the 'Golden Mean' likely would apply here as well.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21227990866837175142012-04-28T10:03:22.041-07:002012-04-28T10:03:22.041-07:00"The Declaration of Independence established ...<i>"The Declaration of Independence established <b><b>the new nation on the foundation of natural law</b></b>, justifying its very independence by an appeal to the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Thomas Jefferson would later claim no originality for the language and ideas of the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, he would state quite rightly that its authority rested in the fact that the Declaration of Independence was "an expression of the American mind, . . . the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc." 3 The authors cited by Jefferson were not chosen haphazardly. They reflect the twin sources of the Declaration of Independence and, later, the Constitution: the unique legacy of English liberty, stretching back to Magna Carta and beyond, and the common European heritage of Greece and Rome. 4 <br /><br />No part of that common heritage has been more influential than the idea of natural law. Our exploration of this heritage will take us over the course of a millennium, from the intellectual revolution of Athens in the fifth century."</i> (from: <i>Common Truths: New Perspectives on Natural Law</i>. Contributors: Edward B. McLean - editor, ISI Publishers, Wilmington, DE., 2000. 19-20.)<br /><br />Somebody needs to be taken out and shot! Here is another proof positive, that you guys have no clue! You don't know what the natural law is.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12613852183526315902012-04-28T07:35:02.172-07:002012-04-28T07:35:02.172-07:00To Michael.
Genus. The Natural Law or Laws of Na...To Michael. <br /><br />Genus. The Natural Law or Laws of Nature is the reason steering nature from within, i.e. The Logos. The Natural Law is the principles/maxims/laws that guide, build, run the cosmos. The Natural Law is the '<i>politeia</i>' (constitution) of the cosmos. <br /><br />Species. The Natural Moral Law is the principles and laws that guide human action and morality. <br /><br /><br />(But my personal opinion and my gut feeling is that there is no such thing as a "Natural Moral Law" and that "justice" is a sentiment that is inbuilt in humans. All humans have a conscience and a sense of justice and being affronted. But is there laws and principles embeded in human nature? I don't know. As animals have instinct, humans have a sense of justice. In some regards, humans also have instincts, drives just like animals do. But a Natural Moral Law? This is my personal opinion and for me, I think you guys are on a wild goose chase. That is why we have Divine Revelation. Furthermore, unlike the rest of creation, humans are damaged material with original sin. How does that harm our cognition of what is natural? I don't know. <br /><br />What I do know, is the real, original natural law. That I do know for a certainty. Your natural moral law, that, I am not certain. Maybe a Natural Moral Sentiment, but not a natural moral law. That is my two cents.)W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9266824944351725012012-04-28T07:10:05.734-07:002012-04-28T07:10:05.734-07:00All of Spartan culture and civilization was built ...All of Spartan culture and civilization was built around the Golden Mean.<br /><br />And that is what a Classical Republic is, The Golden Mean. The Golden Mean between Oriental Monarchical Despotism and the ochlocracy of democracy. <br /><br />This is why Socrates and Plato both hated democracy.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26987493449000494662012-04-28T07:03:58.264-07:002012-04-28T07:03:58.264-07:00Glenn, I've got a story for you.
I've ha...Glenn, I've got a story for you. <br /><br />I've had a personal experience with it. <br /><br />I lived in the Canton of Ticino, Switzerland for a summer and I helped a farmer make hay by hand, with a scythe. Four hours every morning, we would cut the hay and in the afternoon we would go to past cuttings and turn it over which took anywhere from four to six days to dry. After the hay was dried, we would pack it into rope nets that when done looked like a huge straw wheel that stood about 3.5 feet high and about 18 inches thick. Then, we would roll it up the next retaining wall and lean it onto our backs and hike it through the village to his cable system. I spent four months doing this.<br /><br />I would go across in his cable car, 800 ft above the stream/valley floor to his farm. Then, he would send his bales across. I'd unload them. And then roll them into his hay loft and empty the rope nets and then spend an half an hour stomping the hay down. <br /><br />One day we came to a field and I blurted out, "Let's pick this up"! He said, "It's not ready". And I asked "Why?". He explained that if the hay is too green, it would rot in the barn. Just a little, and the rot would spread throughout the hay destroying it all. (He was dirt poor, did not own a vehicle, and had no way to buy hay or bring it in during the winter, since there was no road to his house.) He coninued, that if the hay was left outside too long in the sun, the sun would cook out the nutrients in the hay making it worthless. <br /><br />And then it hit me. <br /><br />He was talking about the Golden Mean and he didn't even know what he was talking about. <br /><br />My previous reading of Catholic literature on virtue and what it was, based on the golden mean, gave me the concept that when I met it, I recognized it. <br /><br />Hay, in order to be good, had to be in the Golden Mean--not too wet and not too dry. It is carved on the Temple at Delphi, "Nothing <b><b>too</b></b> much". He actually used the words "too dry" and "too wet". I also immediately recognized that he was not even cognizant of what he just said. <br /><br />I just recieved my introduction to the real, original Natural Law. All things are in the Golden Mean. The Good, the Truth, and the Beautiful, all exist in the Golden Mean. The Trinity is in the Golden Mean. As Apostolos Makrakis pointed out, the Trinity is the middle (the mean) between the strict monotheism of the Semites and the polytheism of the gentiles. The Trinity is the Golden Mean. Jesus Christ is the Golden Mean himself; the mean between God and Man. <br /><br />On the mountainside in Ticino, up in the Italian Swiss Alps, above the shrine to the Madonna Del Sasso, I learned the Natural Law and the Golden Mean. Life existed in the Golden Mean for this farmer. If the hay was too dry, the nutrients would be cooked out, the cows would get sick and then his boys who drank the milk would not be healthy. If too wet, the hay would rot in the barn. His life and his family's life depended on the scientific application of the Golden Mean, yet he was not even cognizant of what he was doing. <br /><br />I just had a class in the Natural Law. It was one of the most important lessons I have ever learned. I worked for room and board and 100 Swiss francs for four months. On top of that, I got an education as to "What does Nature teach". I earned my degree in the Natural Law. <br /><br />The Dorians were a mountain people who first resided in the mountains around Mt. Olympus. As farmers originally and the need to make hay for winter, the Dorians would have recognized this. The scythe was an emblem of award in Sparta in which Sparta was a huge grain growing community. The saying on the walls of Delphi, "Nothing too much" is the embodiement of the Golden Mean.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74011691095942178472012-04-28T06:35:06.569-07:002012-04-28T06:35:06.569-07:00Glenn, throughout this thread, my use of the Princ...Glenn, throughout this thread, my use of the Principle of Identity is based on the natural law of righteousness. That there is only one definition of the natural law is also based on the natural law of righteousness. The principle of consistency that I am constantly referring to is a corollary to the Natural Law of Macrocosm/microcosm.<br /><br />I judge people's responses, like Socrates has done, to see if they are consistent. In every sphere, the same thing occurs; that is the principle of consistency which is based on macrocosm/microcosm.<br /><br />In my personal life, I do not take on many things since one can only concentrate on one thing at a time due to the Natural Law of righteousness. Politically, I'm a monarchist due to the fact that "The Rule of One is best". I uphold the Old Order because the Old Order was built on the Natural Law. <br /><br />In many things I do, I observe due proportion, and/or the Golden Mean. Nothing too much. I don't do things to the extreme. <br /><br />The whole of the Socratic Elanchus is predicated on the Natural Law and I use the elanchus in my discussions.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12585694103754102102012-04-27T21:48:48.612-07:002012-04-27T21:48:48.612-07:00W.LindsayWheeler,
"My concern is Classical S...W.LindsayWheeler,<br /><br />"My concern is Classical Studies. The Present is connected to the Past, the changes in the language have damaged the understanding of Classical Antiquity!"<br /><br />Again, Dr. Feser and others have a great deal of trouble dealing with contemporaries anachronistically reading modern and post-modern philosophical notions back into Aquinas' arguments.<br /><br />Let's get back to basics: I'm not so sure I see the precise difference between a medieval conception of natural law versus an Ancient Greek conception.<br /><br />Can you speak my language by offering a definition of the 'original natural law' using genus and specific difference?<br /><br />And no, you may not suggest that my concern is merely "modern" whether you mean by that contemporary culture or that period of the history of philosophy so named.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10774216493148809022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32448086025830789192012-04-27T20:55:42.431-07:002012-04-27T20:55:42.431-07:00Humans must predicate their reasoning upon the Div...<i>Humans must predicate their reasoning upon the Divine Reasoning found in Nature, i.e. the Logos. Humans borrow the Logos hidden in Nature.</i><br /><br />Can you provide a simple example of how you, personally, have "borrow[ed] the Logos hidden in Nature"?Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73965320155023147612012-04-27T20:30:31.675-07:002012-04-27T20:30:31.675-07:00Human reasoning off the bat is flawed.
Humans mus...Human reasoning off the bat is flawed.<br /><br />Humans must <b><i>predicate</i></b> their reasoning upon the Divine Reasoning found in Nature, i.e. the Logos. Humans borrow the Logos hidden in Nature.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23430022963124192692012-04-27T18:40:34.756-07:002012-04-27T18:40:34.756-07:00I'll repeat my last question to you:
What are...I'll repeat my last question to you:<br /><br />What are you using in lieu of reason?Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65147824159929165572012-04-27T17:52:57.037-07:002012-04-27T17:52:57.037-07:00(Another excerpt)
In the article "The Sparta...(Another excerpt)<br /><br />In the article <a href="http://www.sparta.markoulakispublications.org.uk/index.php?id=105" rel="nofollow">"The Spartan Republic"</a>, I said this: <br /><br />"The Doric Greeks, being a very philosophical people, copied the paradigm of mixed government from the Natural/Temporal Order and applied it to the formation of their city-states." <br /><br />I guess I'm a bloody idiot because I just found where Plato says this: <br /><br /><i>"...that a city <b>established on principles of nature would be wise as a whole</b>"</i>. (Republic, Paul Shorey translation in Hamilton's Collected Dialogues, 428, e) <br /><br /><i>"And so by reason of the smallest part or class, and of the knowledge which resides in this presiding and ruling part of itself, <b>the whole State, being thus constituted according to nature</b>, will be wise; and this, which has the only knowledge to be called wisdom, has been ordained by nature to be of all classes the least.</i>" (Republic, B. Jowett translation, 429) <br /><br />(There is a difference in sections. In Hamilton it is the last sentence in 428 and in Jowett it is several sentences into 429.) <br /><br />Hear that? "a city established on principles of nature". oooh-oooh. If you take the principles of nature, what are you? a philo-sophier. <br /><br />Why did Plato hate democracy? for it was unrighteous, adikia. All democracies fall into tryanny. What are the principles of Nature? Does anybody know? <br />(End of excerpt)<br /><br />Plato's <i>Republic</i> is taken from the Cretans and the Spartans. Tell me how can the Natural Moral Law counterdict and countermand the real, original Natural Law?W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69449929568148317072012-04-27T17:30:12.542-07:002012-04-27T17:30:12.542-07:00Now, in answer to you Glenn, this is an excerpt fr...Now, in answer to you Glenn, this is an excerpt from a thread at Sparta Journal forum:<br /><br />The FFofA borrowed heavily from Hugo Grotius who said: <br />Quote: <br /><i>The law of nature [said Grotius] is a dictate of right reason which points out that an act, according as it is or is not in conformity with rational nature, has in it a quality of moral baseness or moral necessity; and that, in consequence, such an act is either forbidden or enjoined by the author of nature, God.</i> <br /><br /><br />The Law of Nature is NOT the dictate of right reason. The Laws of Nature are those principles/laws/maxims that form, build, maintain the Natural Order. It is the Logos hidden within the Natural Order. That is the definition. "Right" reason is when Human Reasoning is PREDICATED upon the logos that built the Natural Order. "Right" reason is when Human reasoning BORROWS the logos, the Wisdom that built the Natural Order. (end of excerpt)W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27649836518261593732012-04-27T17:23:14.639-07:002012-04-27T17:23:14.639-07:00Here is another quote:
"For the American col...Here is another quote:<br /><br /><i>"For the American colonists, the natural law justified the Revolution against the established and otherwise legitimate authority of King George III. It justified the foundations of our new government under the Articles of Confederation and, later, the Constitution. For the founders of our republican and democratic form of government, the natural moral law pre-existed the foundation of our Government, was the basis of that Government, and defined both the duties and the limits of that Government." (from <a href="http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/weiner/X0023_9110_Natural_Law.html" rel="nofollow">The Natural Law as the US Constitutions ghost</a>)</i><br /><br />If you call something a "Novus Ordo Secularum" how in anybody's name can you say that it is based on the Natural Law when the Old Order that the Novus Ordo replaces is based on the Natural Law? Is there any LOGIC out there? Do Aliens really run this planet? Are the real parents of George Bush II, Martians? <br /><br />If the FFofA purposely rejected the Old Order that has been since time immemorial, how then can they be following the Natural Law? How is it that the Natural Moral Law nullifies the Natural law? How does something counterdict itself? <br /><br />If all the Old countries of Europe developed "au naturale", where they not formed, unconsciously, around the Natural Law? Is this not called the Natural Organic Theory of the State? If the Old Order was Organic and Natural---thus meaning the Natural Law was involved upon its making (Unconsciously, of course), how is the Novus Order, Planned out of thin air from the minds of men, be following the natural Law? Can someone out there more smarter than I point out to me where I am going wrong. Did they not seat "Reason" at the Notre Dame Cathedral's Altar as ruler and please tell me how they have come to have FIVE (5) republics? What Reason? <br /><br />(posted earlier and an excerpt from the thread at Sparta journal forum.)<br /><br />As you can tell, we have a problem. A Major problem.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22358959014519521032012-04-27T16:49:55.116-07:002012-04-27T16:49:55.116-07:00This is for Michael. Dr. Paul A. Rahe found this q...This is for Michael. Dr. Paul A. Rahe found this quote from Machiavelli:<br /><br /><i>"He who desires or wishes to reform the condition of a city and wishes that it be accepted and that it be able to maintain itself to everyone's satisfaction is forced to retain at least the shadow of ancient modes so that it might seem to the people that order has not changed—though, in fact, the new orders are completely alien to those of the past. For the universality of men feed as much on appearance as on reality: indeed, in many cases, they are moved more by the things which seem than by those which are....And this much should be observed by all who wish to eliminate an ancient way of life (un antico vivere) in a city and reduce it to a new and free way of life (ridurla a uno vivere nuovo e libero): one ought, since new things alter the minds of men, to see to it that these alterations retain as much as the ancient as possible; and if the magistrates change from those of old in number, authority, and term of office, they ought at least retain the name. (kudos to Prof. Paul Rahe for finding this quote.)</i><br /><br />Here is the modus operandi of the so-called Enlightenment. This is called <a href="http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Revolution_within_the_form" rel="nofollow">Revolution within the form</a>. The Form is used but the underlying premises or definitions have been changed.<br /><br />After knowing this, how do you approach language and meaning? The Spartans quite wisely stated <b>"There is NO soothfast art in speech"</b>. Nobody should trust modern books. As Catholics, you have to be ON GUARD. Deceivement enters through language. I am very leery of what is promoted. I ask you Michael, in the face of revolutionary deception in language how does this affect so-called developement--is there development or dissolution?W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44022665304013368422012-04-27T12:02:40.280-07:002012-04-27T12:02:40.280-07:00"Through the use of reason, man can attain a ...<i>"Through the use of reason, man can attain a knowledge of God through natural theology, a knowledge of good through the natural law, and can attain sufficient knowledge so as to guide him even up to the threshold of the Christian Trinitarian and Incarnational Faith. While reason cannot take one beyond Faith's threshold into the bosom of the Church--that requires Faith a gift of God and is a product of Grace--reason can be used as a means to determine which religions are unreasonable and therefore do not merit belief. As Fiore puts it, "Calderón demonstrates that man can know God through natural reason's observance of the governance of things--the natural law." (from Pedro Calderon and Natural Law) <br /><br />This is NOT the Natural Law. The Natural Law is not reason. [blah, blah, blah]</i><br /><br />Yet another fulmination over something you fail to understand.<br /><br />The passage quoted does not say that natural law is reason, but that a knowledge of good through the natural law can be attained through the use of reason. <br /><br />There are at least four things there: good, a knowledge of good, natural law, and reason. <br /><br />And what's being said is just this: using reason one can discern natural law, and, through the discernment of natural law, ascend to a knowledge of good. <br /><br />What are you using in lieu of reason?Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46114616955565364422012-04-27T11:25:07.149-07:002012-04-27T11:25:07.149-07:00W,
1. There is no such thing as the "Doric m...W,<br /><br />1. <i>There is no such thing as the "Doric meaning of the term 'natural law'. Nor is there a 'Doric natural law'.</i><br /><br />Found on your wiki page: <i>The Reconstitution of the Real Original Natural Law (or Laws of Nature or Logos) that the Doric Greeks discovered.</i> <br /><br />If the Doric Greeks discovered the natural law, then it is not inaccurate, inappropriate or improper to refer to 'Doric natural law'.<br /><br />2. <i> Regardless of who discovered it...</i><br /><br />I agree: (assuming) they discovered it doesn't make it theirs, give them a monopoly on it, or indicate that their perception of it was either complete or without flaw.<br /><br />3. <i>Please Glen, "Besides, you elsewhere say that dikaios is specialization, as well as righteousness, and that specialization is a reflection of righteousness, thus a reflection of the Doric natural law." No. there is no 'reflection'.</i><br /><br />It is true, you did not speak specifically in terms of 'reflection', but something else:<br /><br /><i>In the system of macrocosm/microcosm, at every level of nature, righteousness is mirrored in one after another...</i><br /><br />My apologies for having, apparently, misunderstood what you wrote.<br /><br />4. <i>I admit that I am dumber than you because your post went over my head and I don't get it whatsoever. Just more attempts to slide out from a difficulty. More of this Catholic "straining the gnat" and "gaming the system". You are more certainly learned in academicese.</i><br /><br />I can get why some things, or talk about certain things (or even a certain way of talking about some things), may be frustrating for you. But here's the thing: if you don't know what others are talking about, what justifies your claiming that <i>they</i> don't know what they're talking about (or that they're "gaming the system")?<br /><br />o To those who do not understand what is here set down, my answer is, that I am not to be blamed for their want of understanding. -- Augustine<br /><br />Surely you don't mean to suggest that the speech of others be limited to what you're capable of understanding?<br /><br />5. <i>I require that Catholic Academics that deal with their search for a moral law in human nature use different nomenclature or a modified nomenclature to differentiate it from the original.</i><br /><br />What original moral law are you talking about? The one that had Heraclitus cover himself in cow dung on the premise, sound in his mind, that his dropsy thereby would be alleviated?<br /><br />6. <i>The real, original Natural Law is hidden in Proverbs, adages, 'old saws'</i>.<br /><br />Poor Parmenides--he'd likely have a fit over these:<br /><br /><i>Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.</i> Prov. 26:4-5Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30723739015066329782012-04-27T10:28:36.755-07:002012-04-27T10:28:36.755-07:00Michael, Are there different definitions of biolog...Michael, Are there different definitions of biology? differen definitions of chemistry? are there different definitions of the term physics?<br /><br />In the phsycial sciences there is not much wriggle room. They don't have a problem with language. <br /><br />The problem is with metaphysical terms since they have an impact on humans. Metaphysical terms can not be redefined without causing damage.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16776807305632449772012-04-27T10:23:26.520-07:002012-04-27T10:23:26.520-07:00Yes. I understand that.
But you also got to unde...Yes. I understand that. <br /><br />But you also got to understand that the English language is not the most precise language in the world. There is a difference between the Greek language and the English language. The Greek language is much more precise than English. You have to take that into consideration!<br /><br />Second, your word "bank" is not a scientific term relating to a specific science or of an item of importance. I don't disagree that bank has several meanings because the word is of little significance. It relates to physical objects. It has no import in the Metaphysical World. The terms 'philosophy', 'republic', and 'natural law' is not in the same league as 'bank'. Furthermore, your illustration of 'bank' is not a classical term. <br /><br />I acknowledge the growth of language but in all your posts Michael you have not answered or posted on the impact changes in words have in Classical Studies. I see the World and history as a whole. May I suggest that your focus is solely on modern times? My concern is Classical Studies. The Present is connected to the Past, the changes in the language have damaged the understanding of Classical Antiquity! <br /><br />When you have your "changing and multiple definitions", (First) is the Catholic Academics in the field making that distinction and (Second) how do you handle of going back into Classical Studies?<br /><br />With my problems with editiing and getting the right info out there at Wikipedia, I was forced to add the adjective "classical" to differentiate it from modern meanings; for instance, "Classical definition of republic", "Classical definition of philosophy", Classical definition of the natural law". Are you not to label the "context"? <br /><br />Michael, As has been noted in this thread, the development in language has harmed Classical Studies and how do people know what they are reading. <br /><br />Michael, do you acknowledge that some people hate Western Culture? That hate drives? That hatred is used to drive obscurantism? Some people have such a hatred of Sparta that they go out of their way to demean. For instance, all forms of hierarchy are now labelled 'oppresion'. Even in classical times many people had a hatred of Sparta. They changed the meaning of words to purposely hide stuff!<br /><br />Another thing, Michael, if your a philologist, you must be aware that people do change the language for revolutionary purposes! Should Catholics go along with revolutionary changes in language or should Catholics fight back and uphold Traditional meanings? Part of Revolution is the changing of language! Antonio Gramsci pointed that out in "Culture defines Politics" and language forms a part of culture. <br /><br />Whether you call it the Modern natural law or the Stoic Natural Law, your context has to be labelled. On top of that, the Real, Original Natural Law has to be restored and taught. <br /><br />My opinion. Metaphysical terms can NOT be changed. If you change metaphysical terms, one changes one's culture and civilization. The terms 'philosophy', 'republic' and 'natural law' can NOT be changed because they were defined ONE way in their own culture 2000 years ago and revolutionaries sought to destroy the patrimony. Changing those terms---steals away meaning from our anscestors and forefathers. If people want to change metaphysical terms, then they must put an adjective in front of it! That has to be a requirement. I require that Catholic Academics that deal with their search for a moral law in human nature use different nomenclature or a modified nomenclature to differentiate it from the original. Otherwise, harm is done. Harm has been done. Great damage has occured.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37989112155417243262012-04-27T08:30:28.954-07:002012-04-27T08:30:28.954-07:00"No science exists without classification and..."No science exists without classification and distinctions. You are taking a species of Natural Law and have made it into the Genus."<br /><br />Absolutely not. I am not confusing the concepts involved and I am not forgetting the place of final causality within the order of the cosmos, let alone that which applies to human nature specifically.<br /><br />The point at issue is whether words can refer to more than one reality given different contexts and whether or not it was morally licit for such developments to take place with regards to the symbols "natural law". <br /><br />Take the word "bank". What if the definition of mound of dirt came before the other definition of financial building, or visa versa. Should one go around and say that you are all abusing the word "bank" and you should all return to the "original bank"? That you are confusing people who don't know any better?<br /><br />In actuality, no one is trying to play a trick on you and no one is trying to substitute one definition for another. All that is needed is the proper education to know the different contexts and definitions. Changing definitions and multiple definitions over the development of culture and through different cultures is a fact of life.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10774216493148809022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34404860340266152932012-04-27T08:24:22.322-07:002012-04-27T08:24:22.322-07:00And to clarify the history of the Natural Law. Whe...And to clarify the history of the Natural Law. When reading books about the Natural Law, these professors look to where there were instances of the phrase. Here is a section from my book/research that explains what happened in history:<br /><br /><i>"After mentioning places where Plato uses the term 'law of nature', he writes of the corresponding instance in Aristotle, "Closely allied terms occur in the Aristotelian texts at De Caelo 268 a 10, where the order of beginning, middle, and end is referred to as one of the 'laws of nature';…. (pg 136) Here is the quote from De Caelo:<br /><br />"For, as the Pythagoreans say, the world and all that is in it is determined by the number three, since beginning and middle and end give the number of an 'all', and the number they give is the triad. And so, having taken these three from nature as (so to speak) laws of it…" (McKeon, De Caelo 268 10) <br /><br />So here a specific law of nature is referred to as a 'law of nature'. Interestingly, going to that reference refers you to where it is used by Plato! <b>But Plato does NOT use the phrase 'law of nature', he uses another term to label that law:</b><br /><br />"My friends! This is what I would say to them-God, who as <b><b>the old saw</b></b> has it, holds in his hands beginning, end, and middle of all that is, moves through the cycle of nature, straight to his end, and ever at his side walks right, the justicer of them that forsake God's law." (715 e)<br /><br />Notice the phrase 'the old saw'? Whereas Aristotle uses the term 'law of nature', Plato refers to this as 'the old saw'. This is the other half of the puzzle! The 'old saw' can also be referred to as 'apophthegms', 'adage', 'proverbs', 'maxims', etc. Ancient Wisdom was composed in apophthegms! They were not labeled with the phrase 'law of nature'! Everybody is looking in the wrong direction and looking at the wrong philology! Plato makes a point about God be recalling an 'old saw'; some thirty or so years later, Aristotle uses the same maxim but calls it a 'law of nature'. Was it a 'law of nature' when Plato used it? Most certainly!</i><br /><br />Many people don't realize that in the beginning, the teachings of nature were composed in proverbs. It was only much later that the term "laws of nature" and "natural law" were conjoined with the concepts. <br /><br />The real, original Natural Law is hidden in Proverbs, adages, 'old saws'. <br /><br />----<br />I have not finished my book nor is it likely. I don't have access to a library nor skilled in writing a professional academic book of this scope. If anyone wants an unfinished copy of it, or wants to continue it or flesh it out I will send you a copy. My email is wheelerplatsis(at)hotmail(dot)com.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2246526630192505092012-04-27T06:55:24.585-07:002012-04-27T06:55:24.585-07:00I'm being a little too harsh. that natural law...I'm being a little too harsh. <i>that natural law as used in Catholic morality has ties to the original natural law that you rant about.</i> Yes, you are right; sprinkled throughout Plato and Aristotle is the Natural Law. Their reasonings are predicated upon the Natural Law and thru Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, the Church always had this. But, the Natural Law has never really been separated out and clearly defined. <br /><br />Things need to be separated and more clarification. No science exists without classification and distinctions. You are taking a species of Natural Law and have made it into the Genus. This is the error in the Natural Law field as it now stands. The Natural Moral Law that you talk about is a category within the Natural Law Science. Morality is NOT the sum-total of the field. <br /><br />The Sum-Total of the Natural Law is the Natural Law itself----<b><b>in its purity!!</b></b> The Natural Law must stand by ITSELF. The Natural Law must stand as itself without the Predicates overwhelming it! Yes, morality is the pet project of Catholics in the Natural Law but they can't let their pet project OVERWHELM the Science of the Natural Law. <br /><br />Please be specific. <br /><br />Well, it is time that specificity be entered into the Field. The Natural Law is a S-C-I-E-N-C-E.<br /><br />We have got to end the confusion in the Natural Law Field. A is A. B is B. The Natural Law is the Natural Law. The Natural Law is NOT in essence morality! The Natural Law was built by the Logos to operate and guide the Natural Order. That is all it does. It is the reason FOUND in nature. <br /><br />What then Catholics do is then they borrow, let's say teleology, and then apply the Natural Law of Teleology to the problem/question of private property. This is how it is supposed to work. <br /><br />The only development in the Natural Law is the finding of more precepts and reasonings in Nature. You """apply""" it in many different ways. For instance, this "No man can serve two masters" comes from the Logos itself. It is from the Horse's mouth. Adding that to the List is a development. How you apply it is not a development. You can apply the natural law to morality all day long but **you can't name the moral reasonings as "The Natural Law".** Your field must be renamed to classify a sub-field, a species of the Natural Law. <br /><br />As outgrowth, Michael, it is up to you TO CLASSIFY the development from the Original! Natural Law is the Genus; the moral reasonings that the Catholic "Natural Law" field is engaging in is a """species""" of the field but not the sum total. This is the error. As development grows, the developments can NOT usurp the Queen, i.e. the real, original Natural Law.W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.com