Skip to main content

Posts

That qualification means that my earlier connection between Wilhelmsen’s philosophy and modern rights theories was an application of his broader philosophical approach, not a verified statement of his specific position on every rights theory. The distinction matters for three reasons: 1. Wilhelmsen’s metaphysics: His Gilsonian Thomism emphasizes esse, the act of existence, and the intelligibility of being. 2. His political philosophy: His account of political authority and the common good must be examined in its own terms, rather than inferred entirely from his metaphysics. 3. Modern rights theories: Whether rights are grounded in human nature, natural law, individual autonomy, or political convention is a further question requiring direct textual evidence. Given your interest in Michel Villey, John Rist, and the classical understanding of justice, the important question is whether Wilhelmsen treats rights as claims grounded in an objective moral order or accepts elements of modern subjective-rights theory. I would not attribute either position to him without examining the relevant passages of Christianity and Political Philosophy. If we pursue this question, the most useful comparison would be Wilhelmsen alongside Villey: does Wilhelmsen's metaphysics lead to a conception of justice centered on objective right and the common good, or does he give a more prominent role to subjective rights?

That qualification means that my earlier connection between Wilhelmsen’s philosophy and modern rights theories was an application of his broader philosophical approach, not a verified statement of his specific position on every rights theory. The distinction matters for three reasons: Wilhelmsen’s metaphysics: His Gilsonian Thomism emphasizes esse, the act of existence, and the intelligibility of being. His political philosophy: His account of political authority and the common good must be examined in its own terms, rather than inferred entirely from his metaphysics. Modern rights theories: Whether rights are grounded in human nature, natural law, individual autonomy, or political convention is a further question requiring direct textual evidence. Given your interest in Michel Villey, John Rist, and the classical understanding of justice, the important question is whether Wilhelmsen treats rights as claims grounded in an objective moral order or accepts elements of modern subjective-r...
Post a Comment
Read more
Recent posts

Orthodoxy: Eighty Years Later By Frederick D. Wilhelmsen

https://media.christendom.edu/1986/08/orthodoxy-eighty-years-later/ Orthodoxy: Eighty Years Later By Frederick D. Wilhelmsen Appeared in 1986, Vol. 12, Nos. 3, 4   Download the PDF here . Every book has a history and the history of my life is the history of a book: Chesterton’s Orthodoxy . In responding to this invitation to write an appreciation of Gilbert Keith Chesterton’s famous work of apologetics, I find it impossible to do so without turning back to my youth. I have read this Christian classic some eighteen times prior to committing myself to this public tribute to its genius. When I was a boy I often haunted second-hand bookstores. One day I pulled out of a shelf a book called Orthodoxy . I had never heard of the author despite my being a student at a Catholic parochial school but I was intrigued by the title. I still own that copy, red cover stamped in gold, old when I bought it. It is laced with my youthful comments. Fortunately they and that book are far from where I wri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Adding Locke makes the critique more directly tied to Weaver’s text: Weaver explicitly traces a line from Ockham’s nominalism to “Hobbes and Locke,” whom he says represent a turn toward reasoning from evidence supplied by nature. In his account, modern thought increasingly privileges sensory experience and particular facts over intellectual knowledge of universals and transcendent truth. (wisc.pb.unizin.org) Locke’s place in Weaver’s critique: Locke’s empiricism—especially his rejection of innate ideas and emphasis on experience as a source of ideas—can be read, from Weaver’s perspective, as part of that shift. The danger, for Weaver, is not studying experience itself; it is treating experience and accumulated facts as sufficient grounds for knowledge, while losing sight of first principles and purposes beyond the observable world. (wisc.pb.unizin.org) Important qualification: Locke is not simply a relativist or a thinker who discards moral truth. He argues for a universal law of nature grounded in God and accessible through reason. So Weaver’s critique is best understood as a criticism of the direction he sees in Locke’s empiricism—not a complete description of Locke’s philosophy. (plato.stanford.edu) In short: Weaver’s broad contrast is between knowledge anchored in objective, higher truth and a modern approach that begins with observable facts and reasons upward. He places Hobbes and Locke in that latter historical movement; connecting Machiavelli to it is more of a broader interpretation than a direct part of Weaver’s central genealogy. (wisc.pb.unizin.org)

  Adding Locke makes the critique more directly tied to Weaver’s text: Weaver explicitly traces a line from Ockham’s nominalism to “Hobbes and Locke,” whom he says represent a turn toward reasoning from evidence supplied by nature. In his account, modern thought increasingly privileges sensory experience and particular facts over intellectual knowledge of universals and transcendent truth. ( wisc.pb.unizin.org ) Locke’s place in Weaver’s critique: Locke’s empiricism—especially his rejection of innate ideas and emphasis on experience as a source of ideas—can be read, from Weaver’s perspective, as part of that shift. The danger, for Weaver, is not studying experience itself; it is treating experience and accumulated facts as sufficient grounds for knowledge, while losing sight of first principles and purposes beyond the observable world. ( wisc.pb.unizin.org ) Important qualification: Locke is not simply a relativist or a thinker who discards moral truth. He argues for a univer...
Post a Comment
Read more

If you mean Weaver’s contrast between “facts” and “truth,” his point is that collecting empirical details is not the same as understanding reality or knowing what is good. Hobbes: In Ideas Have Consequences, Weaver explicitly places Hobbes in a turn toward explaining the world through reason applied to evidence from nature, rather than asking about a transcendent purpose. Weaver sees that as part of modern thought’s move away from first principles. (wisc.pb.unizin.org) Machiavelli: Be careful about attribution: Weaver’s central historical culprit in Ideas Have Consequences is William of Ockham and nominalism, not Machiavelli. You can connect Machiavelli’s practical, power-focused political analysis to Weaver’s broader critique of worldly, experience-centered thinking, but that is an interpretation—not a direct critique of Machiavelli in the book’s central argument. (rhetoricring.com) What “facts” means: Weaver is not simply saying facts are false or useless. He argues that facts without interpretation and first principles can leave people with lots of information but little wisdom. His phrase is that modern thought substitutes “fact” for “truth.” (wisc.pb.unizin.org) In short: Weaver’s criticism is that political knowledge reduced to observable facts, interests, and technique loses sight of objective moral truth and higher purposes. That fits his reading of Hobbes more directly than it does a specifically documented critique of Machiavelli. (wisc.pb.unizin.org)

  If you mean Weaver’s contrast between “facts” and “truth,” his point is that collecting empirical details is not the same as understanding reality or knowing what is good. Hobbes: In Ideas Have Consequences , Weaver explicitly places Hobbes in a turn toward explaining the world through reason applied to evidence from nature, rather than asking about a transcendent purpose. Weaver sees that as part of modern thought’s move away from first principles. ( wisc.pb.unizin.org ) Machiavelli: Be careful about attribution: Weaver’s central historical culprit in Ideas Have Consequences is William of Ockham and nominalism , not Machiavelli. You can connect Machiavelli’s practical, power-focused political analysis to Weaver’s broader critique of worldly, experience-centered thinking, but that is an interpretation—not a direct critique of Machiavelli in the book’s central argument. ( rhetoricring.com ) What “facts” means: Weaver is not simply saying facts are false or useless. He argues...
Post a Comment
Read more

Fernando: PART of ONE PAGE PLAY OUTLINE - and PLAY CONTINUED

  Working on a ONE PAGE OUTLINE we talked about.  I rely on the internet for info. on the battles as I forgot most of what I read in the book. I looked up how Shakespeare staged battles.  While sword fights take place on stage,  most military battles occur behind a scrim.  Audience will see silohuette of the troops in action. with loud sound effects. Also drums, trumpets, Cannon fire using blanks, etc It also says one of the Characters in the battle describes what is occurring. (Narrator) When you get a chance , google The Battle of Jaen,  It relates to the premise of the play. One or two tips.  Make characters different--one is reckless, another careful--always wants more troops,  another wait for good weather.  A doubting Tomas which i I  included in previous email.  However, all want victory over the enemy. On the dialog, fewer words in a sentence the better.  A play needs conflict which fuels dramatic tension.  The goa...
Post a Comment
Read more