3 ms·

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2097.htm#article3 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2097.htm#article3

some_random 3y ago
I don't have the time to decode this borderline schizophrenic nonsense, what's the point and how does it relate to the right to access currently inaccessible land?
- opheliate 3y ago
  Dismissing the Summa Theologica as “borderline schizophrenic nonsense” makes me believe you’re just trolling here.
- FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
  It's saying that custom can obtain the force of law. This is relevant to the Right to Roam, because some areas are open to public use by custom, and this can challenge strict interpretations of property rights. I think mjh2539 is trying to gain a rhetorical toehold for traditional Commons rights. Since those rights are traditional and very old, it somehow seems fitting that the argument should be expressed in old-fashioned Catholic theological language. I appreciate that an intensely "conservative" cultural form is used here to make a pro-populist argument for "liberal" rights. This lines up well with the kind of stances that the Anglican Church ended up taking in theology. That Church follows both Scripture and Tradition. (By contrast, and generalizing a bit, I think an extreme Protestant stance would tend to value only Scripture.) This feels like a more secular version of same.
  - seabass-labrax 3y ago
    Over time I've come to appreciate more the way in which the Anglican Church, as you put it, "follows both Scripture and Tradition". A single clever person can manipulate with relative ease the interpretation of a written document (for instance, scripture), but to manipulate an entire custom is much more challenging, although arguably not impossible. Thus, although evil customs can certainly emerge gradually over time, a given custom is, in my opinion, more often than not founded on an older course of reasoning that was righteous in origin. To put it more concretely: a written document from a thousand years ago is almost unintelligible to all but specialist linguists, and its accurate interpretation difficult for all but specialist social historians. Yet the customs displayed by a people that long ago would still seem very familiar today. Which would you trust to form the basis of your community's sense of justice - the faded old document in a strange language, or the equally ancient tradition passed down habitually across generations?
seabass-labrax 3y ago
Very interesting; thank you for linking to it. I quite agree with Thomas that "...by actions also, especially if they be repeated, so as to make a custom, law can be changed and expounded". This is essentially the same foundation as the English Common Law for the trial by jury - that a group of 'twelve men good and true' have as much justification for determining right and wrong as does a written document. The jury must be drawn from the community of the accused; otherwise, they would not necessarily be of the same custom as the accused and would, therefore, effectively not be making a judgement in the correct jurisdiction.

I don't have the time to decode this borderline schizophrenic nonsense, what's the point and how does it relate to the right to access currently inaccessible land?

opheliate 3y ago
Dismissing the Summa Theologica as “borderline schizophrenic nonsense” makes me believe you’re just trolling here.
FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
It's saying that custom can obtain the force of law. This is relevant to the Right to Roam, because some areas are open to public use by custom, and this can challenge strict interpretations of property rights. I think mjh2539 is trying to gain a rhetorical toehold for traditional Commons rights. Since those rights are traditional and very old, it somehow seems fitting that the argument should be expressed in old-fashioned Catholic theological language. I appreciate that an intensely "conservative" cultural form is used here to make a pro-populist argument for "liberal" rights. This lines up well with the kind of stances that the Anglican Church ended up taking in theology. That Church follows both Scripture and Tradition. (By contrast, and generalizing a bit, I think an extreme Protestant stance would tend to value only Scripture.) This feels like a more secular version of same.
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  Over time I've come to appreciate more the way in which the Anglican Church, as you put it, "follows both Scripture and Tradition". A single clever person can manipulate with relative ease the interpretation of a written document (for instance, scripture), but to manipulate an entire custom is much more challenging, although arguably not impossible. Thus, although evil customs can certainly emerge gradually over time, a given custom is, in my opinion, more often than not founded on an older course of reasoning that was righteous in origin. To put it more concretely: a written document from a thousand years ago is almost unintelligible to all but specialist linguists, and its accurate interpretation difficult for all but specialist social historians. Yet the customs displayed by a people that long ago would still seem very familiar today. Which would you trust to form the basis of your community's sense of justice - the faded old document in a strange language, or the equally ancient tradition passed down habitually across generations?

seabass-labrax 3y ago

Very interesting; thank you for linking to it. I quite agree with Thomas that "...by actions also, especially if they be repeated, so as to make a custom, law can be changed and expounded". This is essentially the same foundation as the English Common Law for the trial by jury - that a group of 'twelve men good and true' have as much justification for determining right and wrong as does a written document. The jury must be drawn from the community of the accused; otherwise, they would not necessarily be of the same custom as the accused and would, therefore, effectively not be making a judgement in the correct jurisdiction.