Aquinas on the Right II

Summa Theologiae 2-2.57.2, my rough translation. The Dominican Fathers translation is here, the Latin is here. The Isaiah quote is interesting; leges iniquas would usually be translated as 'wicked laws', but iniquas literally means 'unequal', i.e. preventing things from being even or level. Thus the laws in question are those that are not adequated to other so as to be equal, and therefore require a work inconsistent with the just or right. The reply to the third objection seems to me to be probably influenced by the Jewish dispute over reasons for the precepts of Torah, filtered through Maimonides, with Aquinas taking a position intermediate between Maimonides and his opponents; but there's not enough here to be definitely sure that this is what Aquinas specifically has in view.

*****

It seems that the right [ius] is not appropriately divided into the naturally right [ius naturale] and the positively right [ius positivum]. For that is natural that is immutable and the same for all. But such a thing is not found in human matters [in rebus humanis], because every rule for the human right in some cases fall short [deficiunt], nor does it have the same force everywhere. Therefore there is not anything that is the naturally right.

Further, that is said to be 'positive' that proceeds from human will. But something is not the just [iustum] because it proceeds from human will, because otherwise human will would not be able to be unjust. Therefore, since the just is the same as the right, it seems that nothing is the positively right.

Further, the divinely right [ius divinum] is not the naturally right, because it exceeds human nature. Likewise, it is also not the positively right, because it is not originated by human authority, but divine authority. Therefore it is inappropriate to divide the right into the naturally so and the positively so.

But contrariwise is what the Philosopher says, in V Ethic., that the politically just is either natural or legal, that is by positive law.

I reply that it must be said that, as was said, the right, or the just, is some work adequated to the other according to some way of being equal. But there are two ways a man can be adequated to something. In one way from the nature of the thing, as when someone gives so much so as to receive so much. And this is called the naturally right. In another way, something is adequated to or commensurated with the other from agreement or from common consent, as when someone counts himself satisfied if he receives so much. And this is able to be done in two ways. In one way, by some private agreement, as when it is established by some contract between private persons. In another way, from public agreement, as when the whole people consent to something being as if adequated or commensurated to the other, or when the prince who has the care for the people and governs on their behalf [eius personam gerit] ordains it. And thi sis said to be the positively right.

To the first, therefore, it must be said that that which is natural to on who has an immutable nature, ought to be so always and everywhere. But human nature is mutable. And so that which is natural to man can in some way fall short, as when natural equality involves the deposit being returned to the depositor, so that if human nature were always right [recta], this would always have to be done. But because it can happen that the human will is corrupted, there are cases in whcih the deposit is not to be returned, so that it is not used for evil by a man having a perverse will,  as when a madman or enemy of the common good [reipublicae] demands his deposited weapons [arma].

To the second it must be said that human will from common agreement is able to make something the just insofar as it does not involve something repugnant to natural justice. And in this is the place for the positively right. Wherefore the Philosopher says, in V Ethic., that the legally just is that in which originally there is nothing that makes a difference one way or another, but when it is put forward, makes a difference. But if something from itself involves repugnance to the naturally right, human will cannot make it to be the just, as when statute permits the committing of theft or adultery. Wherefore it is said in Isaiah X, Woe to those who make unequal laws [leges iniquas].

To the third it must be said that the divinely right is said of that which divinity promulgates. And such things are partly those that are naturally the just, but the justice of them is hidden to human beings, and partly those that are made the just by divine institution. Wherefore the divinely right can be distinguished according to these two, just as the humanly right. Therefore in divine law there are some enjoined [praecepta] because good and prohibited because bad, and also some good because enjoined and bad because prohibited.

Links of Note

 * Aaron Segal, Crescas, Hard Determinism, and the Need for Torah (PDF)

* Jonathan Egid, How does philosophy learn to speak a new language? (PDF)

* Andrew Youpa, Leibniz's Ethics, at the SEP

* Philippe Schlenker, Jeremy Kuhn, Jonathan Lamberton, Sign Language Semantics, also at the SEP

* Michael Walschots, The Principle of Morality in Eighteenth-Century German Philosophy (PDF) -- I especially enjoyed this article.

* Paul Marshall, Canada as America's Post-Liberal Counterpart, at "Providence"

* Daniel N. Gullotta, John Quincy Adams's America, reviews Randall Woods's John Quincy Adams, at "Law & Liberty"

* Claudio Calosi & Robert Michels, Graded Qualities (PDF)

* Daniel Shussett, Group Agency (PDF)

* Joseph M. Keegin, Philosophy of the people, on the Illinois Platonists and the St. Louis Hegelians, at "Aeon"

* Kenneth Sayre, Alasdair MacIntyre's Adventures in Philosophy at Notre Dame, at "Church Life Journal"

* Jesse Tomalty, The Link between Subsistence and Human Rights (PDF)

* Richard Y. Chappell, Philosophers should blog!, at "Good Thoughts"

Dashed Off XXI

 The line between the mind-independent and the mind-dependent is not sharp.

Given what is classified as evidence, there remains the question of how it is to be classified with respect to other evidence; this is usually worked out prudentially in the course of inquiry.

possible vs. actualesque
-- these overlap, but some things that are actualesque are not actually possible despite their likeness to actual things, and some things that are possible are so divergent from the actual that they are not actualesque.
-- the difference between the two plays an important role in the history of mathematics.
-- consider thought experiments in this light.

the negotiable credit instrument as the key discovery of modern banking
-- this presupposes the invention of the terminal partnership (which allowed firms to have many branches) and the Italian method of accounting (which vastly improved record-keeping).

(1) formation of status by classification
(2) imputation of thing to status by declaration or regulation
(3) use of status as functional means to end

proposition, illustration, confirmation, conclusion
subject, specification, illustration, conclusion

Society may be sustained by relics of positive purpose long after it has begun to ruin.

Ontic/alethic powers in social contexts generate deontic powers.

contextual capabilities of animals and plants within ecosystems

the gospel as public good, nonrivalled and nonexcludable

evidence we-know-not-for-what (unexpected anomalies seem a good example of this)

Guala takes the perfectly controlled experiment to instantiate Mill's Method of Difference and takes it to presuppose a manipulation account of causation, in which we discover new causes against a field of causes already known or at least reasonably suspected.

inductions within the experiment vs inductions from the experiment

Controlled experiment seems to have its privileged place in science largely due to pragmatic convenience, as simplifying the reasoning required to use the experiment.

Part of a scientific field is the formation of an 'archive' of established phenomena. (This is something the early Royal Society understood very well, since they had a profound need for expanding their archive, but tends to be overlooked by people following after, who have not experienced the limitations of lacking a developed archive.)

acts of teaching: administrative, suggestive, instructive, judicative

passions as modes of overlapping the world

'evidence' as an ascription of function to something in a cognitive system

bishop : Moses :: priest : Aaron :: deacon : Hur

Ecclesial teaching is infallibly certain in teaching continually, in teaching universally, and in teaching solemnly.

ANGEL
interior concept of the mind -- concept as word of the heart -- speech by concept becoming intelligible sign (nutus)
CHURCH
Word in itself as received -- intelligible Word in gospel and prayer -- Word in sensible proclamation
MAN
interior concept of the mind -- concept as word of the heart -- speech by framing sensible sign for concept

"When the mind turns itself to actually considering what it habitually possesses, one is speaking to oneself: for the concept itself of the mind is called 'inner word'." Aquinas

In communication our mind is hidden by will and by body.

To say that something is realistic is to say it has noticeable features which are associated with real things, in a more noticeable way than other things do.

"Angels acquire knowledge of things through an influx of divine light; in the same that things themselves come forth into being from God, representations or likenesses of things are imprinted on the angelic intellect by God." Aquinas

God --> physical world --> human objective world
God --> angelic objective world

Our 'objective world depends on the physical world; the angelic 'objective world' depends on what is prior to the physical world, and they know the physical world as it were eminently in its intelligibility and providential role.

sources of Catholic doctrine
(1) that which is taught by all Christians
(2) the consensus of the Fathers in interpreting Scripture
(3) that which is shared by all the liturgies of the apostolic churches
(4) that which is determined by provincial councils received by the whole Church
(5) that which is determined by general councils so as to be received by the whole Church
(6) that which is consistently taught by bishops in communion with the pope
(7) that which is taught by the pope in cooperation with all the bishops
(8) that which is determined by the pope acting on behalf of the whole Church

The method of theological censures served the function of making clear that the Church teaches in many ways and not solely with definitions, but some have been confused by it and have thought the censures themselves were the point. The method of censures fell out of favor, but nothing was put in its place, with the result being confusion and many dubious theories of magisterial teaching.

salvage archaeology

Aristotle's account of magnanimity implies a kind of honor, or something that satisfies the desire for honor, that exceeds anything we usually call honor.

"honor is clearly the greatest of external goods" NE 1123b

'We are in need of salvation.'
We: anthropology
are in need: hamartiology
of salvation: soteriology

International law arises out of diplomacy; diplomacy depends on rites.

"All human thought and opinion contain an arbitrary, accidental element, dependent on the limitations in circumstances, power, and bent of the individual; an element of error, in short. But human opinion universally tends in the long run to a definite form, which is the truth." Peirce
"The interpretant of a proposition is its predicate; its object is the things denoted by its subject or subjects (including its grammatical objects, direct and indirect, etc.).' 

Iconic signs may represent either
(1) in simple qualities: images
(2) in relations: diagrams
(3) in representative character: metaphors

the co-phaneron

confession as the sacrament of the fear of the Lord

In Christ, humanity has both subjective and objective union with God.

Friendship is the foundation of civilization.

rites : prudence :: laws : justice

Bureaucracy's effectiveness depends heavily on the agency and responsibility of people who use it.

Self-reliance, despite assumptions people make based on the name, is not individualistic; it is something made possible and built up by a community, in which people deliberately cultivate practices for the purpose of not overburdening others. The self-reliant are in this sense people of maximal public usefulness, each cpaable of pitching something of value into the whole project.

Testimony may suffice to suspect that X is the case even when it is not adequate for knowing or even having a firm opinion that it is the case.

The ecclesial magisterium is commagisterial.

the magisterium of the Church as instrumental teaching agency, as participating teaching authority, as teaching with divine teaching as object

the exitus and reditus of magisterium

principle, purity, purpose

Polyamory in practice seems to tend toward insularity.

Our sign-heritage serves as a reserve of resources and instruments for problem-solving.

It is immensely enlightening to see multiple logical systems working through the same argument.

Memories are not atomistic; they are more like nodes in a network or even overlaps in space.

Many of our pleasures are cases of things such that placent iuxta modum.

Maya abandonment theories
(1) War -- but the 9th century was relatively peaceful (much more so than the previous century)
(2) Drought -- but many of the cities have clear access to major water sources
(3) Environmental Degradation -- certainly occurred, but not throughout the entire region
(4) Volcanic Weather -- changes by abandonments weren't confined to the area of the Maya, although they were sometimes more sporadic and uneven elsewhere; eruption can't explain American Southwest or West Mexico or even Teotihuacan-area abandonments
(5) Pandemic -- would explain a lot, but lacking in positive evidence
(6) Ritual Move -- cities becoming necropolises; this definitely happened on smaller scale -- but why everyone within a a few decades? Could it be Mayan astrology and calendrical divination? This would explain timing (association with long count) but we don't know why they would have done this in particular, and we find abandonment in areas not on Mayan calendar

In a free country with rule of law, the laws must be such as to be tolerable to any significantly large group of the population. This is a weak requirement, but it is often violated, in part because legislation cannot itself guarantee it.

humanitarian traditions as playing an important part in the role of the laity in the Church

Magisterium is always magisterial -- 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary' hav different meaning and scope depending on the 'of' (Church, council, pope, bishop, etc.).

The Church has its magisterium as first student.

"...people are said to teach others inasmuch as, by signs, they manifest to the others the reasoning process which they themselves go through by their own natural reason. And thus, through the instrumentality, as it were, of what is told them, the natural reason of pupils arrives at a knowledge of the things which they did not known." Aquinas (DV 11.1)
"The teacher leads thte pupil to knowledge of things he does not know in the same way taht one directs himself through the process of discovering something he does not know."
"It is the duty of all teachers to make themselves easily understood." ST 2-1.101.2

liturgy as the meditation of the Church as a whole

Tradition, like experiences, gives a grasp of principle.

the passive magisterium as the intrinsic potential of disciple as disciple

conservation laws as signs of seminal reasons

The values that matter for moral life are the values of the prudent person.

The judgment of the Church does not replace individual judgment, but frames it.

The self-disclosure of being is not confined to consciousness; as being is disclosed to consciousness, there is never-ending suggestion that this is but a corner of a broader disclosure.

"An example is most efficacious when it both attracts and guides to the height of virtue." Bonaventure
--- note causal structure here.

Lv 7:20 & the eucharist
Nm 10:10 & commemoration

To say that the Body and Blood appear to the *senses* as bread and wine is not to say that they appear to *consciousness* as such; for instance, to the former the eucharist is not even a memorial, but to the latter it is; in consciousness, the senses are experienced as limited sources of information, however important.

the new heaven and new earth as physicality more directly expressive of grace and glory

All power is manifested through intention and gift.

All art is a conversation of sorts between the artisan and the material, including the quasi-material factors of the environment that aid the disposition of the material.

computer programs as products of art/skill that are echoes of art/skill

Computers are artifacts that imitate productive skill; but we cannot make computers that imitate the other intellectual virtues, except insofar as they have a likeness to productive skill.

the perpetual churn of learning

The family is always already a plural subject.

There are multiple kinds of sovereignty; diplomatic sovereignty is not the same as legislative sovereignty.

"Never was any science invented at any particular time, but from the beginning of the world knowledge has grown slowly and is still not complete at this very age." Pierre Duhem

"At the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world." Simone Weil

Rating Party Platforms on Things Other than Politics

 It's Presidential election time again, and we continue a longstanding tradition on the weblog, with the sixth quadrennial rating of party platforms on grounds other than partisan politics! In the first year of competition, the Libertarians won handily with spartan and spare; in the second competition, the Republicans seized the prize with flashy and glossy; in the third competition, the Democrats won mostly on improvement; in the fourth competition, the Greens won on informativeness and accessibility; in the fifth competition, the Democrats won due to a mix of unusually weak competition and having for the first time made no serious blunders. How will things fare this year? Will the Republicans be as lazy as they were last time? Will the Greens still struggle with complicated concepts like 'preamble'? Will the Libertarians stop being boring? Will the Democrats continue to use muddled and unintelligible metaphors? Which parties are capable of figuring out how a cover sheet works? The excitement of this competition is that there is no possible way to tell before you actually look and see.

Democratic Party Platform (PDF)

Republican Party Platform (PDF)

Libertarian Party Platform

Green Party Platform

Cover Sheet

The Republican cover sheet is very, very blue, with a little red and white. There is a picture, not very discernible in all of the blue; they lose points for bad presentation on that. (I suppose the picture is of Milwaukee, where the convention was held? It's hard to tell.) However, there's a little elephant logo in the lower right-hand corner that is just awesome. They should have put that front and center. The Libertarians cover sheet is much more plain, but they continue their idea from last time of having a yellow eagle logo on the cover; it is a very striking logo. The Democrats just have letters and a little circle-D logo at the bottom; it is not very striking, although the color scheme is OK. The Greens provide no easily discoverable PDF of their Party Platform, and therefore are disqualified from the cover sheet competition. If you don't play. you don't win.

Normally, keeping things over from the previous Presidential election only gets you mocked around here, but in this category it worked for the Libertarians; their cover sheet happens to be the moderate middle ground between the boring Democrats and the over-busy Republicans. That seems more luck of the competition than their own excellence, but that's how competitions work.

Organization

Organization is often the Libertarians' strongest category, and they stick with what is tried and true. The Party Platform starts with a Preamble and a Statement of Principles, then has a numbered sections with clearly identified headings. To our surprise, they also have a Table of Contents in the PDF version this year, which they usually skip. I like it; it shows that they are not just resting on their laurels. The organization also works equally well in the HTML and the PDF versions.

The Greens also continue their streak of good organization, with their now-standard alphanumeric outlining, well suited to their relatively sprawling set of topics. It also lets them have a very neat and clean Table of Contents.

The Republicans have a very poorly designed Table of Contents, with vague and unexplained general titles. However, when we move from the ToC to the actual chapters, the organization is astonishingly good, far better than one would expect from a Major Party. Each chapter starts with an "Our Commitment" section, then has numbered points on specific topics. This is easily their best organization ever.

The Democratic Table of Contents this year is also genuine contender; it is -- astoundingly -- a clear guide to relatively specific topics. This is not quite so clear in the actual chapters themselves, where the relatively straightforward topics identified in the ToC are replaced by much less helpful sloganish section titles. The inconsistency between the two is a bit annoying.

So the Republicans this year have a bad Table of Contents but good internal chapter organization; the Democrats have a good Table of Contents but mediocre internal chapter organization. Thus it is once again a fight between the Libertarians and the Greens, and I give it to the Greens by a hair.

General Informativeness

General Informativeness is the substance category of our competition, and the one that is of greatest practical importance.

As usual, the Libertarian organization works for them, but their conciseness works against them; the platform mostly stays in a middle ground between general principle and practical policy. The Greens, on the other hand, give us the entire range from general values to particular practical policy proposals. 

The sudden Republican improvement in organization this year mostly works in their favor, by sharply reducing the symptoms of Major Party Disease, in which the platform consists of blah-blah-blah-vague-proposal-blah-blah-blah-slogan. However, they have a serious case of Solution Problem, in which the proposed solution to a problem is 'solve the problem'. For instance, their proposal to rein in government spending is "slashing Government spending". Nonetheless, this is not a consistent problem through the party platform; specific practical proposals, and even more often general outlines for specific practical proposals, do show up semi-regularly. 

The Democrats are somewhat hampered by the fact that they changed candidates after their party platform was finalized. This would not have hurt a party that made its party platform about the issues, but it very much hurts the Democratic Party Platform, which consistently frames the election as being between Biden and Trump. You wouldn't have this problem, Democrats, if you had, like the Libertarians and Greens, and even this year to some extent the Republicans, made the platform more about the party than the candidate. A party platform is neither a political ad nor a loyalty statement.

When we look more closely at the proposals in the Democratic platform, we get an appearance of very practical proposals, but a large chunk of them are things that the Biden Administration has already done; there is a sort of argument, sometimes implied, sometimes made explicit, that these kinds of things should continue to be done. And there's nothing necessarily wrong about explaining what you intend to do by occasionally giving examples of what you have done and intend to keep doing. Nonetheless, it aggravates the problem with this party platform that was already noted: it's often less a platform for a national party, which has to handle local, state, and federal politics, than an advertisement for President Biden. Pretty much all the examples are federal examples, and they are not always helpful for understanding what would be relevant for local and state politics. Usually party platforms err by being too general and vague; but this platform in many ways makes the opposite error: the examples used here make the platform often too narrow to be fully informative. However, the focus on examples does have one benefit: this platform also reduces the symptoms of Major Party Disease. It does not do so to the extent the Republican platform does, by any means, but using specific examples means there's a lot less blah-blah-blah than might be expected, particularly given the length of this platform. Likewise, while the platform doesn't avoid the Solution Problem completely, it at least has something to point to in order to give substance to its more vague proposals. It also helps them cut down the flowery prose that made their previous platform hilarious but uninformative.

This category is highly competitive this year; Libertarians and Greens both continue to be good, and Democrats and Republicans both significantly improve over the past few elections. Of the four, however, the Greens seem to have the best overall balance, so I give the category to them.

Preamble

The preamble is the glamor category of our competition, because it's the preamble that captures the spirit of the party. Nothing crowns a party platform like a good preamble.

Whoever wrote the Republican Party Platform Preamble really likes Capital Letters. Here is the Opening:

Our Nation’s History is filled with the stories of brave men and women who gave everything they had to build America into the Greatest Nation in the History of the World. Generations of American Patriots have summoned the American Spirit of Strength, Determination, and Love of Country to overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges.

Other People might find this Annoying, but I confess that as Someone Who Reads Early Modern Texts I find this Charmingly Familiar. The Entire Platform is actually like this, so it is Good that they have introduced the Practice so that the Reader can get used to it. Mostly the Capital Letters are only at the Beginnings of Words, but there are two places an Entire Phrase is capitalized: we are told that the Nation is in "SERIOUS DECLINE" and that we will "DRILL, BABY, DRILL"; I'm not sure these are the Concepts one really wants to be giving the Honor of All Capitals, particularly in a Preamble, which serves to identify the Essential Issues and to express Party Optimism. This Preamble is in fact quite Negative, and although it is more Practical than Preambles usually are, its primary Emphasis is on Stopping the Democrats.

The Democratic Preamble, on the other hand, is surprisingly lean; it is not just shorter, it is much more focused on statistics and campaign slogans. It makes for less interesting reading. But it does share the property of negativity with the Republican Preamble. The primary emphasis is on stopping the Republicans. But, particularly as the Democrats focus much more on the Presidency than on general political issues in the way the Republicans do, this reads as a much weaker position for the party that has incumbency. The Democrats hold the Presidency; they shouldn't be sounding this much on the ropes, as if they were underdogs in desperate need of help.

The Greens, as is their tradition, struggle with the concept of a preamble by putting in a bunch of non-preamble preambular material. They have a Call to Action, a Preamble, the Four Pillars, and the Ten Key Values. Of these, the Call to Action should be part of the Preamble; a case could perhaps be made for keeping the Pillars and Values distinct from the Preamble, but they should at least be combined with each other. The actual Preamble is not well written; the author seems to like four- and five-syllable words as much as the Republican author liked capital letters. However, one refreshing thing about the Preamble is that for the first time in a long while it does not claim that 'Never has the country faced so many challenges'. On the contrary, it is easily the most optimistic of the preambles this year.

The Libertarians do what the Greens should have done; they have a short, clear, clean Preamble, and then a separate Statement of Principles, and that is it. It is not as optimistic as that of the Greens, but is more optimistic than those of the the other two Major Parties.

I give this category to the Libertarians, who actually seem to understand what a Preamble is and are the only party who managed to avoid any weird writing choices.

Page Formatting

The Democrats have a nicely formatted PDF this year; this is a massive improvement over their previous platforms. They have a nice header image, clear page numbers, and readable type. The Republicans take a step down this year in this category, at which they usually excel, but this is mostly for chosing a much less readable type than necessary. The Libertarians as usual have excellent page formatting on every point, and I like that their page nambers are of the "Page # of 10" format. The Greens don't have an easily discoverable PDF version, and so forfeit this category. That makes it a contest between Libertarians and Democrats; I give the victory narrowly to the Libertarians.

Principles and Values

The Greens always have Ten Key Values; they also have Four Pillars, which is nicely architectural. It's not particularly clear how Values and Pillars are related. The Libertarians have a Statement of Principles. The Major Parties again seem not to think either values, or principles, or, for that matter, pillars, are important. 

Internet Accessibility

To find the Democratic Party Platform, you have to search the Democratic Party homepage, and find a little link at the very bottom, which takes you to the Democratic Party Platform page, which has the wrong Democratic Party Platform. Yes, the Democratic Party Platform page does not have the 2024 Party Platform; it still has the 2020 Party Platform. Bad Donkeys! Take this category seriously! The Republicans, on the other hand, make their Party Platform very easy to find; it's a clearly identified link that only requires scrolling down a little bit. The link only takes you to a PDF; they have no HTML version. The Greens, on the other hand, have no easily discoverable PDF version, only an HTML version. Libertarians have a platform with both HTML and PDF versions, as all of them should. Both Libertarians and Greens have links from their main webpage, but neither make them obvious. The Libertarians, who have more than one link explicitly to the platform (although both are small, one at top and one at bottom), I think edge out the Greens, whose homepage links to the platform are not explicitly labeled as such.  Not a category in which anyone shines this year, I'm afraid, but the Libertarians come closest to making their platform as accessible as it should be.

Miscellaneous

* The Democrats once again have a Land Acknowledgement. I gave them some credit for it last time, because it gave an interesting distinctive element to their platform in a way that tied it to actual American history. It still does this. However, they botch it a bit by ending it with self-congratulation, which seems to miss the point of a Land Acknowledgement; Land Acknowledgements don't exist to congratulate yourselves on how good you are at recognizing Native American association with the land. Stop making it about you! I still give them some credit, but definitely not as much as last time.
* The Green Call to Action is as absurd as usual. "If not now, when?" This would have a great deal more impact if you didn't use it every election, because it makes it look like you're desperate.
* The Democratic Party Platform is 91 pages long in PDF. I think it probably could have been tightened up a bit. Contrast this with the Republicans, whose platform is under thirty pages, a number of which are full-page photographs or filler.
* The Republican Party Platform is written in light blue. Why would you do this to the eyes of your readers?
* The Republicans continue their tradition of dedications for their party platform: "To the Forgotten Men and Women of America". They also have a sort of epigraph before their Table of Contents.

This has been a surprisingly strong year for party platforms, which is especially nice after some relatively poor party platform years. The Major Party platforms in particular are significant improvements, and I hope that such improvements continue. I also like that both Democrats and Republicans are clearly trying new things. The experiments don't always work, but experimentation is better than continuing to do badly. Nonetheless, this year there has emerged a clear winner, by dint of narrow victories across several categories combined with no serious failures.  Congratulations, Libertarians, for winning this year's Party Platform contest. As we are not in any way subsidized, if they want a cash prize for it, they will have to earn it by free market means.

Music on My Mind

 

Leaves' Eyes, "Jomsborg".

Aquinas on the Right

 Summa Theologiae 1.57.1, my very rough translation. The Domincan Fathers translation is here, the Latin is here. This passage is quite tricky to render into English! English, unlike some European languages, has long since dropped the distinction between 'right' and 'law' -- what we call 'philosophy of law', for instance, is called 'philosophy of right' in some other languages. We usually use 'right' terms for what is sometimes called 'subjective right', not, as they would originally have been used, for 'objective right', as here. And we have no word at all that corresponds to fas; perhaps in some very limited contexts, a word like 'religion' is used in something like this sense, and in others 'divine law' or 'eternal law', but there is no consistency at all on the point. In addition, in this article Aquinas is sorting through words that are closely related, and sometimes nearly but not exactly synonymous, and the shades of similarity and difference are difficult to preserve in translation. There are also a few words that have both common meanings and technical meanings, and sometimes they are both in view.

*****

It seems that the right [ius] is not the object of justice. For the jurist Celsus says that the right is the art of the good and equitable. But an art is not the object of justice, but is by itself an intellectual virtue. Therefore the right is not the object of justice.

Further, law, as Isidore says (Etym.), is a kind of right. But law is not the object of justice, but rather of prudence; thus the Philosopher posits 'legislative' as a part of prudence. Therefore the right is not the object of justice.

Further, justice principally subordinates man to God; and Augustine says (de mor. Eccles.) that 'justice is love serving God alone, and from this ruling well all other things that are subordinate to man'. But the right does not pertain to the divine, but only to the human; thus Isidore (Etym.) says that 'the divinely ordered [fas] is divine law, but the right [ius] is human law'. Therefore the right is not the object of justice.

But contrariwise is what Isidore says, in the same, that the right [ius] is so called because it is the just [iustum]. But the just is the object of justice; thus the Philosophers says (Ethic. V) that 'all call justice the disposition by which just things are done'. Therefore the right is the object of justice.

I reply that it must be said that it is proper to justice among other virtues to order man in those things in which he is 'to the other'.  Thus it implies a sort of equality, as its name shows, so that it is commonly said that what is made adequate is just, for equality is 'to the other'. But other virtues complete man only in the things which befit him in himself. Therefore what is right [rectum] in the works of other virtues, to which the disposition of virtue tends as to its proper object, is not attributed except by comparison to the agent. But what is right [rectum] in the work of justice, besides being by comparison to the agent, is constituted by comparison to the other, so that what is said to be just in our works is that which is according to some equality to another, like the payment of a wage owed for a performed service. Therefore something is said to be just [iustum], as having the rightness [rectitudinem] of justice, which is that in which the act of justice terminates, even without considering the way it is done by the agent, but in other virtues nothing is determined to be right [rectum] save in that way that it is done by the agent. And because of this justice is specifically determined beyond other virtues according to its object, which is called 'the just' [iustum]. And this is the same as the right [ius]. Thus it is obvious that the right is the object of justice.

Therefore to the first it must be said that it is customary for names to be turned from their first imposition to another meaning, just as the name 'medicine' is in the first place imposed to mean that which is given to the sick to make them healthy, but is then applied to meaning the the art by which it is done. So also this name, 'the right', is first imposed to signify the just thing itself [ipsam rem iustam], and afterward is applied to the art which knows what is just; and further to note the place in which the right is administered, as when someone is said to be in jure; and even further to saying that the right is administered by one whose office it is to do justice, even if his judgment is wicked [iniquum].

To the second it must be said that just as there preexists some proportion [ratio] in the mind of the artisan for what is done externally by an art, which is said to be the rule of the art, so also for the just work itself there preexists in the mind some proportion [ratio] by which its proportion [ratio] is determined, as it were some rule of prudence. And if this is collected in writing, it is called law, so that law, according to Isidore, is written system [constitutio scripta]. And thus law is not the same as the right, properly speaking, but a sort of proportion of the right [ratio iuris].

To the third it must be said that because justice implies equality, but we are not able to give God equivalent recompense, therefore we cannot give what is just, according to complete proportion [secundum perfectam rationem], to God. And because of this, 'the right' [ius] is not properly said of divine law, but 'the divinely ordered' [fas], because God is satisfied if we do what we can. But justice tends toward man, insofar as he can, giving recompense to God, by totally subordinating his soul to him.

James Earl Jones, 1931-2024

 James Earl Jones died today, in Dutchess County, NY; he was 93. With his passing, it seems like an entire era has passed. He received a B.A. in drama in 1955, and did various theatre gigs before and after a stint in the U.S. Army. During the Army he became Catholic, and continued to be for the rest of his life. After some moderate success on stage, he had his film debut with Dr. Strangelove in 1964 (Kubrick had liked his stage portrayal of Othello), but his career really began to take off with his role in 1970 with The Great White Hope (he had starred in the stage version a few years earlier). He was quite busy from then on, but of course had his most iconic voice role in 1977, when he was dubbed in for Darth Vader in Star Wars. It was an uncredited role, as would be the same role in Empire Strikes Back, and the first movie earned Jones a grand total of $7000, although he did receive credit in The Return of the Jedi. (Jones himself would always say that he didn't think of it as an ordinary acting role, but more as a contribution to special effects, so he didn't mind not being credited for it, but by the third movie thought he might as well be, given that everyone knew it was him, anyway.) But this was far from Jones's peak as an actor; he contributed to a long string of very successful movies in the 80s and 90s, becoming one of the most recognizable actors of the era. 

In the past several years, James Earl Jones signed a few contracts to allow certain rights-holders to continue to use his voice, as imitated by computer software, for new parts. But the world is less for the loss of the warmhearted and famously approachable man behind the voice.