{    Cnytr   }

{Wednesday, August 27, 2003  }

All -- please see http://www.udlassie.blogspot.com/ for brief update and pictures.



p.s. more coming later!
posted by Lauren, 2:17 AM | link | 0 comments

{Tuesday, August 19, 2003  }

Want to read my essay? Magistra loved it:

In the Summa Theologica I-II q.90, St. Thomas Aquinas begins to define law in terms of its most apparent qualities, shaping and adjusting the definition as he explains its nature further. He begins with its essence and moves on to explain its ultimate end, proper use, and practical aspect, finally defining it in art. 4 as "rationis ordinatio ad bonum commune ab eo qui curam communitatis habet promulgata."

In order to say anything about law, Aquinas first needed to establish that law is a rational thing. We can say nothing about law if we cannot understand it. And so Aquinas says that, as it is in the nature of reason to direct (the will) to an end, it is likewise in the nature of law to direct (human acts) to an end. "[L]ex quaedam regula est et mensura actuum, secundum quam inducitur aliquis ad agendum, vel ab agendo retrahitur," says Aquinas in article 1, "...Regula autem et mensura humanorum actuum est ratio." Reason is the rule and measure of specifically human acts, because reason directs the will to the specific end of ultimate happiness, the summum bonum, to which men, the only creatures who are rational (because of the imago Dei), can be ordered.

Since law, for the most part, pertains to act, it is practical; "primum autem principium in operativis, quorum est ratio practica, est finis ultimus. Est autem ultimus finis humanae vitae felicitas vel beatitudo." (S.T. I-II q. 90 a. 2) And since reason orders individual men to an end, in keeping with their relationship within the same genus, law does as well specifically to the common good.

In being ordained to the common good, law is also ordained to the particular good, and vice versa, because "unus autem homo est pars communitatis perfectae, necesse est quod lex proprie respiciat ordinem ad felicitatem communem," (S.T. I-II q. 90 a. 2) and "ordo autem ad bonum commune, qui pertinet ad legem, est applicabilis ad singulares fines." (S.T. I-II q. 90 a. 2 ad 1) This is because, as Aquinas states in article 3 ad. 3, "sicut homo est pars domus, ita domus est pars civitatis, civitas autem est communitas perfecta... Et ideo sicut bonum unius hominis non est ultimus finis, sed ordinatur ad commune bonum; ita etiam et bonum unius domus ordinatur ad bonum unius civitatis, quae est communitas perfecta." (S.T. I-II q. 90 a. 3 ad 3) No man is an island: in acting for his own (true) good, he acts also for the good of his household and his civitas.

When it comes specifically to the common good, it belongs to the community or someone who speaks on its behalf to make laws, since it concerns them. And as a ruler with no authority is no ruler at all, so a law without promulgation is no law. The law can no longer be a "rule or measure" if no one uses it as such: "Regula autem et mensura imponitur per hoc quod applicatur his quae regulantur et mensurantur. Unde ad hoc quod lex virtutem obligandi obtineat, quod est proprium legis, oportet quod applicetur hominibus qui secundum eam regulari debent." (S.T. I-II q. 90 a. 4)

And so we can clearly see that since law is rational, man can comprehend it indeed it is an ordinance of reason. Its purpose and ultimate end is the common good, it only exists when enforced and its proper enforcer and maker is he who has care of the community.


The best compliment I could EVER receive, I received from magister sapientissimus meus, JohnE. Quote, "as to your essay...It is indeed excellent, so far as I am qualified to judge -- although I
think I would never have the patience to write such a thing; composing an
expositional commentary -- which this is, and is so very attractively in the
vein of the Medieval commentaries on the philosophical texts (you must have
been thinking of Aquinas' commentaries on Aristotle; or if not, then truth
has led you, wonderfully but unsurprisingly, to Aquinas' way of thinking) --
requires a discipline and almost ascetic self-circumscription ... Therefore I am doubly impressed."

*puffs self up* John, John Esposito, John Esposito the Thomist and Medieval and Renaissance studies major at NYU and fellow Catholic said I have been lead to Aquinas' way of thinking. I think like Aquinas. Hahahhahhahaha.... :D

*polishes nails*

Random: I was playing Tri-bond with Jon, in which one is given three seemingly different different things and one has to figure out what they have in common. One of the more clever ones:

Miss Muffet, the Iranian plateau, cottage cheese

Give up?

Curds! (Or Kurds) ... hahahahahahahahahahaaa!

My favorite one,

Baron Kelvin, Sir Isaac Newton, Binet/Spearman.

They all invented measurements of something: temperature, force, and I.Q. Quote me, "So the more B.S. you have in you..."


Also, Jon and I played Life, and I think I won. I came out with close to $3 million (more than Jon), and since we were missing the instruction booklet, we kind of guessed. I think something good was supposed to happen in respect to kids -- I had two kids, a boy and a girl. Yaaaay! Jon didn't. Haha. I think something good was supposed to happen in respect to them. If not, we're going to pretend I won anyway, cos I DID. You know, come to think of it, the premise of that whole game isn't exactly moral, is it? The person with the most money in the end wins? Hmmm. Well either way, I won -- I had a happy and fulfilled existence, living in a small cottage despite by $100,000(/mo?) paycheck for being an artist (I used to want to be an artist *so bad* from when I was 3 up till I was about 10), and raising two outstanding (I'm sure) kids. Ha. Ha. I'm cool.

Overall, a tie -- Jon beat me in Tribond, even though he said at the beginning, when I was winnign, "this game should be renamed 'How Much Does Lauren Know?'." Hmm. It's got a ring. I like it.

I went out shooting last night. Mom practically said I *had* to go to the rifle and pistol range with her and dad and Fr. Tom. If I didn't go, I'd be in trouble. Heheheh, mom ordering me to go shoot stuff. Okay! [EG] I really like it, but I never doubted I would. And, if I may say so myself (and others have confirmed), I'm a pretty good shot. Or at least, not bad. I can get pretty accurate with dad's 9mm Ruger. I started out with mom's .22, but I got annoyed with it because the scope was off, and I couldn't remember *which* way it was off all the time. The I shot dad's Ruger which was certainly a change from the .22 in terms of ... everything. [G] Fr. Tom then let me shoot his 7-shooter 357 magnum revolver... and that was *fun*! I felt like I should be drawing that from the hip and shooting. [G] Dad does have a hip-holster... but then I was having too much fun shooting quickly to get accurate, and going from shooting 10 rounds to 7, I kind of felt subconsciously cheated when I would go BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG click click click ... so for a change, I asked to shoot his Springfield (rather like a Glock, I'm told -- it was also 9mm), which I didn't like at *all*, really. I could NOT get accurate with it at all, and that drove me batty. I'm going to find out what the VA regulations are for owning a gun and get me a pistol when I can. Ha. Hahahaa.

I want to go into the Army.
posted by Lauren, 11:55 PM | link