Pages

Monday, June 1, 2020

Left and Right


I have been thinking about this topic for some time.  It is clear that the mainstream definitions, such as those describing political parties, are meaningless.  It is also meaningless to offer that communists are left and fascists are right.  Stalin’s communists were international socialists, while Hitler’s Nazis were National Socialists.  Other than who was to be considered as part of the “in” group (not a small matter if you were in the “out” group), there is little separating the two ideologies.

It is clear in the US political scene that left and right (as commonly offered) is meaningless.  There were those traditionally on the left that voted for Trump in sufficient numbers to put him in office.  There are many on the right that hated the idea of him being in office.  Understanding why the groups reacted the way they did might help clarify their reasons – and clarify an understanding of left and right.

I have been paying some attention to this dialogue of the meaning crisis – brought to the fore by Jordan Peterson, carried on by John Vervaeke, Paul VanderKlay, Bret and Eric Weinstein, even Peter Thiel.  Most, if not all, participants can be identified with the political left yet the discussion has attracted many on the political right – so much so that Peterson is labeled a fascist (in the mainstream “right-wing” meaning of the term), and Bret Weinstein loses his teaching position for taking the wrong side in some social justice cause.

How is this possible, that these self-identified liberals are attracting – at least for a good portion – self-identified conservatives?  What I am finding through this dialogue is that the dividing line has nothing to do with left and right as is popularly understood; instead, the dividing line is to be found in the search for natural law.

To oversimplify, natural law (as I see it) is grounded in the following: All human beings are made in the image of God; humans act with purpose toward the good; the good is developed via focus on the four cardinal virtues (and, I believe, cannot be fully realized without also some grasp of the three theological virtues).  If these characteristics better define the right (as I believe they do), then most on the political left and many on the political right will, therefore, be considered “left” in this view.

The four cardinal virtues are wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice.  The three theological virtues are faith, hope, and love.  I have expanded on this here.  I have developed something of what I see as the connection of natural law and liberty here.

Then we come to the protests over the last few days – a perfect demonstration of left and right, divided not by any current concept of political parties, but on this notion of natural law.  We see the exact opposite of the four cardinal virtues on display.  Here, I suggest, is the precise definition of “left.”

The non-aggression principle provides only a few answers here – certainly regarding aggression against person and property in the case of these protesters, but nothing on the virtues that underlie respect for person and property.  Without these virtues, there is no foundation on which one can construct non-aggression.

Why am I writing this now?  Well, besides the events of the last few days that have pushed things over the top?  What I have written on natural law thus far follows a string from Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and Lewis – with a few others thrown in here and there.  I have been reading recently some of G. K. Chesterton and Frank van Dun – on the former, much of what he writes fits into this topic; on the latter, specifically his writing on this topic of natural law.

But I am thinking that the best way for me to frame this as I read through Chesterton and van Dun (at least given my current understanding) is to consider left and right as I have offered here: the dividing line is natural law – with all men made in the image of God, humans act with purpose toward the good, and the good is understood through the virtues. 

If this strikes a chord with you, then consider yourself on the “right” in this discussion.

10 comments:

  1. "humans act with purpose..."

    No and again no. There is no such thing as human action, only divine action. Aquinas again:


    [quote]
    ... just as by moving natural causes [God] does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.
    — Summa, I., Q.83, art.1.
    [end quote]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary...He operates in each thing according to its own nature."

      Well, this must mean something.

      Delete
    2. "There is no such thing as human action, only divine action."

      Right. Try telling that to the people in Minneapolis. It used to be that when people were trying to excuse their 'human action', they would say, "The Devil made me do it." Now they can blame God.

      Delete
    3. "for He operates in each thing according to its own nature."

      Just because the act comes from God does not excuse the instrument of that act. They would be punished for their nature instead, whether in this world, or the next.

      That's why there is no disagreement between occasionalists and others like atheists and deists as regards punishment by the law.

      Atheists and deists say we should lock up so and so because they did an evil thing. We occasionalists would agree that they should be locked up, but not for the same reason.

      Delete
    4. Ahmed, Aquinas is much more nuanced than this - for every fragment of a sentence you point to, it is easy enough to find three that offer more color.

      "Puppets on a string" was not what one can conclude from reading Aquinas - or more appropriate for me, reading those who have made a lifetime of studying Aquinas.

      Man's nature is different than the nature of non-human animals or of plants.

      Delete
  2. re: Physical premotion

    [quote]
    In the theory developed by Domingo Báñez and other 16th and 17th century Thomists, physical premotion (praemotio physica) is a causal influence of God into a secondary cause (especially into a will of a free agent) which precedes (metaphysically but not temporally) and causes the actual motion of its causal power (e.g. a will): it is the reduction of the power from potency to act. In this sense, it is a kind of divine concursus, the so-called concursus praevius advocated by the Thomists.

    In Thomism, the theory of physical premotion helps to explain divine providence (foreknowledge) and universal rulership; on the other hand, it is seen by its critics (chiefly Jesuits defending the alternative theory of Molinism) as leading to theological determinism.
    [end quote]

    Apparently, this caused a lot of trouble...

    [quote]
    Although claimed by Báñez to have its roots in Aquinas, the theory was first explicitly formulated in Domingo Báñez's Apologia Fratrum Predicatorum (1595), in reaction to Luis de Molina's Concordia; and it was further elaborated by Diego Álvarez in his De auxiliis.

    A violent controversy ensued between the Dominicans and the Jesuits, leading to a papal intervention). At first (1594) the Pope simply enjoined silence on both parties so far as Spain was concerned; but ultimately, in 1598, he appointed the Congregatio de auxiliis Gratiae for the settlement of the dispute, which became more and more a party one. After holding very numerous sessions, the congregation was able to decide nothing, and in 1607 its meetings were suspended by Paul V, who in 1611 prohibited all further discussion of the question de auxiliis and of discussions about efficacious grace, and studious efforts were made to control the publication even of commentaries on Aquinas.
    [end quote]

    As for Molinism:

    [quote]
    Molinism, named after 16th-century Spanish Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, is a view about the providence of God in light of human free will. Prominent contemporary Molinists are William Lane Craig, Alfred Freddoso, Thomas Flint, Kenneth Keathley, and Dave Armstrong. The view affirms a strong notion of God's control of events in the world, alongside an equally firm view of human freedom.
    [end quote]

    "Compatibilism" is how those two views mentioned in the last sentence of the above quote fit together.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Apparently, this caused a lot of trouble..."

    Yes, it sure did. I read the quote numerous times and still don't understand anything about it. Can you convert that into plain English, please?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Believers are of two types, deists and occasionalists.

      Deists believe in a creating God, but not a sustaining God. A clockwork universe if you will, where God, after creating the world, allows it to run of its own accord, with a sometimes intervention here or there.

      Occasionalists, on the other hand, see the Hand of God in everything.

      The debates are among people who haven't made up their minds yet, or have taken a middle position.

      I'm currently reading an article from a website with the name: Eclectic Orthodoxy. The article is titled: St. Thomas Aquinas: Is God Making It Snow? Here is a quote:

      [quote]
      As readers of Eclectic Orthodoxy know, I am obsessed with the relationship between divine causality/agency and creaturely causality/agency and have devoted several blogs to it, including a five-article series that begins with the physicist Stephen Hawking and ends with the metaphysician Austin Farrer. I keep reading and writing on the topic, but my understanding hasn’t gotten much further than the mysterious notion of "double agency". Yet as unfathomable as double agency may be, I find it a more satisfactory “explanation,” both philosophically and spiritually, than any view that pits divine agency over against creaturely agency.
      [end quote]

      Anyway, the key term here is "double agency". Here is a link to the full article from which I quoted:

      https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/st-thomas-aquinas-is-god-making-it-snow/


      Delete
    2. Well, this is better. It certainly is easier to read and understand. Thank you. However, what does any of this have to do with Bionic's essay above? Other than that deists and occasionalists can't agree with each other either, much like the rest of humanity.

      Delete
  4. Natural Law as described in mnany places online seem to confuse most folks...thsy ask where can I find a CLEAR and understandable explanation of it. Here it is.
    Mark Passio's NATURAL LAW seminar...search it on YT.

    ReplyDelete