The Fred Martinez Report

Posts

Google AI: Michel Villey’s theory diagnoses the shift in Western legal philosophy from "classical objective right" to "modern subjective rights," viewing human rights as an ideological distortion that divorces law from reality.Core ConceptsClassical Objective Right (Iustum): Rooted in Aristotelian and Thomistic natural law. It views the law as a cosmic or social objective order. "Right" was not a possession of a person, but rather the just proportion or balance to be discovered in the external world (e.g., giving each person their due in a specific relationship or transaction).Nominalism: A philosophical movement championed by thinkers like William of Ockham that denied the existence of universal truths or inherent natures. It posited that reality consists only of isolated particulars.Modern Subjective Right (Facultas): Because nominalism denied objective meaning in nature, the foundation of reality shifted to the individual will. Law was thereby inverted from an objective cosmic order into a personal, arbitrary power, property, or claim inherent to a subject.The Transition to "Human Rights"Villey argued this semantic revolution completely redefined the concept of ius (law/right) in the Western world.From Action to Power: Ius shifted from meaning "that which is just" (objective) to "a power possessed by an individual" (subjective).The Will as Creator: In the modern formulation (seen in thinkers like Hobbes, Locke, and later natural rights theorists), the individual’s subjective will becomes the source of moral and legal authority, irrespective of the external, natural order.Villey's Critique: Villey was fiercely critical of this development. He viewed modern human rights as dangerous fictions that atomized society, stripped law of its relational and objective character, and ultimately led to self-defeating subjective claims of personal power.

Michel Villey’s theory diagnoses the shift in Western legal philosophy from "classical objective right" to "modern subjective rights," viewing human rights as an ideological distortion that divorces law from reality. [ 1 , 2 ] Core Concepts Classical Objective Right ( Iustum ): Rooted in Aristotelian and Thomistic natural law. It views the law as a cosmic or social objective order . "Right" was not a possession of a person, but rather the just proportion or balance to be discovered in the external world (e.g., giving each person their due in a specific relationship or transaction). [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 ] Nominalism: A philosophical movement championed by thinkers like William of Ockham that denied the existence of universal truths or inherent natures. It posited that reality consists only of isolated particulars. [ 1 , 2 ] Modern Subjective Right ( Facultas ): Because nominalism denied objective meaning in nature, the foundati...

French philosophers Michel Villey and Pierre Manet critique modern subjective rights. In their view, "woke" or contemporary progressive rights elevate hyper-individual feelings of suffering or entitlement into absolute claims. They contrast this with "real" objective rights rooted in natural order, moral duty, and the common good. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

AI Overview French philosophers Michel Villey and Pierre Manet critique modern subjective rights. In their view, "woke" or contemporary progressive rights elevate hyper-individual feelings of suffering or entitlement into absolute claims. They contrast this with "real" objective rights rooted in natural order, moral duty, and the common good. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ] The Core Contrast Real Objective Rights (The Just Proportion) Definition: Originating from classical Roman law and Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy (which Villey championed), objective right ( id quod justum est ) refers to the "just thing"—a balanced, proportionate distribution of goods and roles within a community. Purpose: Anchored in practical reason, it defines the moral order and the natural purpose ( telos ) of human institutions. [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ] Fake/Woke Subjective Rights Definition: Emerging from later nominalism (William of Ockham) and modern liberalism, subje...

The founders of modernity denied the freedom of self-mastery, the freedom under the law of nature and of God, so that they could establish this new freedom as “the ultimate or main goal” of our humanity. But as C. S. Lewis also recognized, this modern freedom only liberates man’s individual sentient nature. It does this at the cost of denying him the self-understanding of what it truly means to be free as a man. This modern freedom from the natural law, or the Tao, is necessary to make us “like masters and possessors of nature” (122). Unfortunately, it leaves us as mastered and possessed by our concrete animal nature. Natural Right: Not Human Rights For Lewis, it leaves us as “trousered apes” or “men without chests.” For Manent, it leaves us as slaves to human rights. “Once established in its exclusive legitimacy, the idea of rights tends to become an empty form in search of its matter, and everything, literally everything can become matter for this form.

https://humanumreview.com/articles/natural-right-not-human-rights

Zunzunegui: "There was no conquest, the Spanish were received.": The word conquest is a lie. Mexico didn't exist. You can't conquer what doesn't exist. Who brought down Cuzco or Tenochtitlán? The local indigenous people allied with a handful of Spaniards. To call that a conquest or invasion is absurd. In the very specific case of Mexico, the fall of Tenochtitlán was by an army of 100,000 warriors, accompanied by Cortés and 400 Spaniards. Imagine, this army saw that they had already taken Tenochtitlán and realized that united they could take on anyone, even the Mexica. And do you think that once united they didn't think, "Hey, if we stay united we can also drive out the Spaniards"? But they didn't. In Mexico and in Spain, we don't tell this part of the story. All these indigenous peoples who allied with Cortés against the Mexica welcomed the Spaniards. There was no conquest; they were welcomed, signed agreements, forged alliances, made mixed marriages, and thus mestizaje (racial and cultural mixing) was born. The Spanish were welcomed by everyone except the Mexica.

https://www.eldebate.com/historia/20241203/zunzunegui-no-hay-ninguna-conquista-espanoles-fueron-recibidos_243227.html Juan Miguel Zunzunegui, Mexican academic, historian and writer Zunzunegui: "There was no conquest, the Spanish were received." "When you build a cathedral that takes 200 years to construct, that's not a colony, you're settling there to live," Zunzunegui explains. Gonzalo Jiménez Tapia December 3, 2024 - 4:30 AM 10 Share Add The Debate to Save The arrival of the Spanish in what would later be called America has been a subject of debate and misinterpretation, thanks in part to the Black Legend and a lack of knowledge of history itself. We spoke with Juan Miguel Zunzunegui , a Mexican historian, academic, and popularizer of history who has dedicated part of his research and outreach to critically examining the history of America and Mexico that we have been taught in schools and universities. Add us as a preferred source on Google — What is ta...