Comments on: Carl’s Rock Songbook #6: Bob Dylan, “Blowin’ in the Wind”

By: Carl’s Rock Songbook #8: Bob Dylan, “Masters of War” » Postmodern Conservative | A First Things Blog

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:05:53 +0000

[...] to war, and the “anti-war” stance. Part of the conclusion of Songbook #6 was that the stance of songs like “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “New Years Day” could easily [...]

By: Carl Eric Scott

Carl Eric Scott — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:27:48 +0000

I was wondering, John, where your impression of Delsol as a Schmitt disciple was coming from. Thank you for the correction.

By: paul seaton

paul seaton — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:36:32 +0000

By: paul seaton

paul seaton — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:35:26 +0000

In the judgments of prudence, there cannot be so much certainty that all [anxiety, room for uncertainty, possibility of being in error] is removed.
I don’t have a copy of the Summa theologiae at hand (I’m visiting family in Missouri), but I first came across the passage in Joseph Pieper’s little treatise on Prudence. Its lapidary character inscribed it in my memory.
HT, while you may not have studied Latin in school, you seem to have learned the self-deprecating arts. .;
BTW: Thomas distinguishes different types of prudence: individual; economic (i.e., running a household); political; and even military. They — and the complexities of modern warfare — make a difference, several in fact.

By: HT

HT — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:52:41 +0000

Since I was brought up plebian Protestant, attending a typically down-at-heel public school where furrin languages were less important than typing class, and never studied Latin, perhaps Paul can translate his quote from Thomas (and identify its source text) for me?

Making a wild guess at what is implied here, I’m going to remark that Eleonore Stump cautions against any easy understanding of what he generally meant by “certitudo” (p. 230 of her fat book “Aquinas”).

By: John Presnall

John Presnall — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 04:50:24 +0000

I wrote something in grave error mis-taking Chantal Delsol for Chantal Mouffe. I display idiocy in this mistake.

No problem, I can live with it!

By: paul seaton

paul seaton — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 22:25:08 +0000

Non potest tanta esse certitudo [prudentiae] ut omnino tollatur sollicitudo. St. Thomas

By: HT

HT — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:56:11 +0000

Man, these pomocon philosophers sure can get squishy fast when you try to reason with them.

I didn’t equate prudence and consequentialism: I was pointing out that you did, Peter, in this case, whether you realize it or not. (By the way, rejecting consequentialism doesn’t mean denying that taking consequences into account is ever relevant — again, read Anscombe, if you’re able to: Modern Moral Philosophy). You implied that (at least maybe) Truman was prudent in preventing greater loss of life by committing several acts of massacre. You shouldn’t have to be an explicitly Thomist Catholic to recognize that as contrary to the faith.

My point about prudence is that if we have no real standards even for what constitutes prudent behavior on the part of Christians in really important matters that affect untold numbers of families and innocent victims, even across many generations (people still remember the Crusades, for chrissake, and take them personally), then what sense is there in talking about this “virtue” at all? Virtues need to be exemplified to be taught.

I have not read much by these “new natural law” dudes, but the little I have read about that subject sounds philosophically questionable to me.

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 14:07:24 +0000

It doesn’t bother me that conscientious and smart Thomistic Catholics reasoning from the same first principles could reach different conclusions concerning, say, the death penalty in our day and age. The principles are clear, as St. Thomas says, but how they apply in particular cases in often uncertain or the subject of legitimate controversy. (There, of course, the additional problem of the Thomistic schools: The “new natural law” [of Finnis and Grisez] does even pretend to be simply or all of Thomas.)

The virtue of prudence is not consequentialism. But it’s not Thomism but a kind of Kantianism to feign blindness to the effects of political choices.And can we add that Catholics don’t have be Thomists (and even Thomists don’t have to be Catholics)?

By: Michael Snow

Michael Snow — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 23:33:01 +0000

Thank you, Carl, for your gracious response. I was quoting from Christian Pacifism: Fruit of the Narrow Way, long out of print. A few used copies are still around but I hope to get an ebook out and thus happened to have the quote at my finger tips.