Southpark And Fishsticks

Augustine of Hippo, theorist of private property.

The issue of material goods in the Confessions of St. Augustine, a large part of a Platonic

possession or ethics in the thought of Augustine of Hippo

by Nicolas

Madelenat di Florio

From the Society of Literary History of France.

Research Associate at

Centre for Research in Economic Ethics,

Université Paul Cézanne.

To Jean-Yves Naudet, in memory of exchanges on the thought of that great philosopher,

C. A, because history keeps us-or should-do the folly.

But there are other wings than those that man attaches to blades to overcome gravity, there are the wings, where they are more resistant and more flexible than the Man seeks the heart when the heart is placed high in the mind, as this spirit is noble reputation, to overcome the ignorance of contemporary, malice the jealous and the blindness of the ignorant, those wings then they raise it, they remove it beyond the time of the injustices that are watering, to transport in advance, in imagination, to Future summits repairer where inebriated soul visionary sees and redden on the snow finally melted and the indifference and disdain, reflections, forever glowing, sun next to the Glory!

Robert de Montesquiou, Major and Minor , Precursors and behind.

It is customary to consider Plato thought of as the inspiration flows socialist or Marxist. This error, widespread, based on a simple habit: to confuse the rejection of materialism with the condemnation in principle of all forms of possession and therefore de facto private property. Is to demonstrate the invalidity of such confusion that I wanted to present here the report, strong, between St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, one of the greatest philosophers of Christian thought and the thought of Plato. This demonstration will rely on several fronts: firstly, putting forward a point often ignored, namely that Augustine is among the first to have theorized private property, then, that Plato was not a Communist before the time and that his thinking is opposed to such trends before they even exist, just as he opposes socialism future. Paternity is therefore illegitimate and impossible. Finally, that Plato did not invent the primary rejection of materialism, but it is only a marker of the thought of his time and the time preceding; disciple of Socrates, and inspired by the cynics . Carrefour so happy for the historian of thought and ideas, as it stands at the junction of the father of philosophy as a doctrine of life and death (confer on Trial Socrates as the founding of the philosophical community) and follower of his doctrine, with slightly different approaches from those of cynical philosophers (School founded and supported by Antisthenes, marking the third disciple of Socrates and Plato and Aristotle) but have also greatly inspired School stoic. Plato's thought is therefore naturally irrigate the thought of Augustine, which will then watering Christian thinkers. Ignore Saint Augustine of Hippo is therefore to dismiss centuries of intellectual tradition and also a large part of Christian thought.

Economists do not know often, and here I can only stress again the oh so exciting culture of the academician Jean-Yves Naudet, but the economy was well beyond the periods considered modern. Socrates, already spoke of ethics and trade. In line with one of his teaching methods (Socratic dialogue) to teach, explain, convey and convince the father of philosophy often used allegory or fable. A famous example, although most "recent" was given by a Dutch philosopher Bernard Mandeville in his famous text The fable of the bees (1714). In this illustration of life in society, the author demonstrates how the excesses led to the loss of any society. The example has not been chosen at random. But back to St. Augustine. In the Confessions the author will give a very detailed way, a kind of autobiography. Ill critical place in the line of future biographers writers like Montaigne or Rousseau. It fails the philosophical significance of Socratic dialogue. For Augustine of Hippo does not speak alone, but is addressed to God: "Lord , wipe yourself my secret spots, and forgive the mistakes foreign your servant. I take my trust in your goodness, that's why I have my appeal. You know, Lord, is it not true that I accused myself for my crimes, and that you have forgiven the wickedness of my heart, I enter into condemnation with you which are the truth; me who am but a lie, I do not want to flatter "(Augustine, Confessions , Book I, Chapter V.). So there, throughout the book, a double interest in knowing how to analyze his soul, and to move towards God, ie to the Ethics, perfect order, the ultimate balance of the person, and present doctrine to be his. This idea is confirmed when he confesses sinned (t) so when a desire for the pleasant rather than useful, I prefer the lie to the truth, or rather talk, which I hated it, and liked this one (Augustine, Confessions , Book I, Chapter XIII). In this chapter, the process of the fable is sentenced to discretion, quickly, and will also be the subject of Chapter XVI of Book One, whose title is unequivocally Against shameless fables. Chapter XIII describes in fact the requirement of the masters of Augustine to make him learn the fable, Greek, describing the journey of Aeneas and Dido's suicide, his wife, tired of hope for his return. The illustrious moralist thus uses this example to demonstrate the excesses of sentimentality and indiscriminate loss of his inner compass guided sensible man during his lifetime. Ethics is all powerful here, namely that life should be respected above all (Dido would prevent suicide). The fable, as such, does not fall within the scope of ostracism given by St. Augustine as seen in Chapter XVI of Book One: I do not accuse the words, which are vases of precious and innocent, but the wine of error which we presented it, and if we did not drink, we do it without whipping was permitted to appeal a judge sober. We find the use of metaphor, fable, and this is the key to this, in Chapter IV of Book II, tellingly His larceny. Private property is defined by an interesting technique, namely by the transgression, so your Truly divine law, as well as the other natural that malice will never erase from our hearts, condemned the theft, because even although everything has a love for which resembles that of all the thieves suffers another? This defect is even odious, as the richest in the world would not allow the most needy took anything that belongs to him. And then to present, through images, which he considers worse than anything, however some injustice there to steal, I wanted to make a flight, and I did, not by compulsion of any need but by a loathing of fairness and an excess of wickedness. We can easily judge, because I snatched, not what I did at all, but what I had in abundance wishing to enjoy the only injustice of my sin, without stopping its subject matter. His larceny is very simple, it will fly with a few companions, pears on a nearby tree. Yet the double scope of action is obvious: on the one hand, he steals, he condemns with private property as a law of natural right, according to the will of God, on the other, he steals something he does not, for the sake of committing a reprehensible act. Thus, (...) to pick the pears, which we performed by comparing large loads to give pigs. What if we did test one of those pears, it was only to do what we were forbidden. The relation to ethics is extremely strong since possession is not enough, there is that desire for transgression of a rule-based sacred.

Yet having to itself, this is the sense of ownership (owning own ) is not unethical, St. Augustine has never condemned the fact that another has a headstand. He also insists on enough responsibility for their comrades who will steal fruit from another. It is the appropriation of the fruits, and a higher degree of guilt is reached when we know they do not need it, which is sin, condemned the act. This idea is found in Plato, very clearly, saying therefore when other desires, this hornet buzzing around [Man] in a profusion of incense, perfumes, wreaths, wine, and all the pleasures found in similar companies, feed it, do grow up to the last term, he and implanting the sting of envy, then the chief of the soul, accompanied by dementia, is transport took furious, and if he puts his hand on opinions or desires held wise and still keeping some shame, he kills them or expelling them from his home until what he has purged his soul and is filled with crazy foreign (Plato, The Republic ). In sum, the possession of material goods is not unethical, immoral or struck by any company (except for future socialists and Marxists, which it seems they are now also find justification for their heinous schemes). The only part of the degraded soul, struck the bucket of sin, corruption is the unbridled pursuit of possession, namely have to possess. Wealth is not an abomination search enrichment either; what is wrong is not to be guided by ethics but by a thirst, inconsiderate and domineering, alienating therefore, always wanting more, for no reason. Condemn what Plato and St. Augustine, this is not to have, but to stop being in favor of the objects possessed. And that, it seems, what the risk to human capital, which is why each of us, leaving aside any other consideration, must above all be concerned and seek to cultivate this, to see if it is able to know and discover the man who will give him the ability to discern and science good and bad conditions, and to choose always and everywhere the better, as far as possible. By calculating what is the effect of the elements discussed above, taken together and separately, on the virtue of a life he knows good and evil that comes a certain beauty, united either poverty or the richness and accompanied by a particular provision of the soul. (...) So that by bringing together all these considerations, and not losing sight of the nature of the soul, he can choose between a bad life and a good life, calling it bad that ultimately result in the soul more unjust, and good one that would make it fairer. (Plato, Republic )

The issue of possession is very important, and Plato, and in St. Augustine. It would be interesting now to present, briefly, a relatively simple historical fact, that we must approach this with Socrates and Ethics, and property as may be corrupting the human soul. For if one recognizes the sanctity of clean, even the character of natural law as stated in St. Augustine, we should not deprive him of the terrible part-cons, ie the risk that the corrupt desire, by In this way, the person. And to avoid this, Socrates is said to advocate a disregard for material things when they are placed in the balance of Ethics. The most striking example of this choice is to have preferred death to escape. Ethics deserves that he sacrificed his body and his life just as it can not be bought by money proposed by the Apology of Plato, a friend of the Master, to do release. Thus formed a scale, a yardstick to measure which situations. And remember, too, that the decision, after reflection, in conscience, allow only the ethical act. Without choice, no decision in conscience therefore not an ethical act. We find the dominance of the Ethics in Antisthenes, third disciple of Socrates, founder of the School cynical for him, the inner compass to guide the wise man should accompany him constantly throughout his life. It is in this idea, presumably, that will frame the demon of Socrates, it was considered to accompany him everywhere and show where an election was needed to assist in the decision, by enlightening. There is no concept of creation by Plato, or Augustine, but simply a flow of ideas, values, unparalleled spurt from a single source, the centrality of human must hold in any system, philosophical, economic, political, and moral. Keeping in mind that the world is still if born evil and so lost, that excites men to vice, so it is shameful not to be infamous ( Augustine, Confessions , Book I, Chapter XIII), whereas it is therefore more than ever, letting the demons in the shadow of our fears and trust again, this internal compass to guide us in charge.

(an astute reader will notice that the quotes are not in their entirety, placed in italics and this is not a typographical error but respect, careful, presentation of study text)

Ibs Symptoms More Condition_symptoms

Ethics and spontaneous order, the principle of amorality to immorality of the intervention

Ethics and spontaneous order, the principle of amorality to immorality of the intervention

By

Nicolas Madelenat di Florio

From Company Literary History of France.

Research Associate

Centre for Research in Economic Ethics,

Université Paul Cézanne.

To my friend and mentor in things economic, Jean-Yves Naudet.

A C., who I hope will find here material to (re) thinking about the humanities Rights.

Although germination of oak gives less immediate results, will be more but wait, a hundred years later, several centuries later, about the freshness of the weary pilgrims, lovers, a favorable shade, among which birds sing, which will be designed by performing the gesture seriously, who, many years below, the pad will be hidden in the soil.

Robert de Montesquiou, Major and Minor , Precursors and behind.

Above all it should be noted that cuts across the notion of spontaneous order. Because it has already been given in the past, many definitions of ethics, from Aristotle to the more contemporary, offered in an article written by me From Ethics and moral, ending the confusion of the senses . Mix these concepts, confused, or even admit that they blend one into another, is a serious error, although recurrent. For the discerning, it is clear from relativity, ie changes over time, concepts. Ethics is from everlasting, timeless, the compass that should guide the intellectual, the Sage, if you want to echo thinking of cynical philosophers, largely inspired by Socrates. Respect for life, to take a concrete example, belongs to ethics, that spark of humanity that should prevent us from expectations. Why? Because life can not be created, man has no control over it. A doctor, even the greatest, is just the guardians of life, not its creator. He can surround the patient good care, he can give it back if she leaves. The moral, in turn, form a set of rules for living together. Catallactic interacting directly with the company, they adapt and contribute to its evolution, it changes, even the appearance of new uses, new manners. The term spontaneous, meanwhile, is that one makes oneself, without being pushed by outside influence ( Nouveau Petit Larousse illustrated , 1934). The spontaneous order is the order in which members of the society of men without putting any pressure to guide them. This approach has been theorized by Friedrich August von Hayek, among others.

But then, what about this spontaneous order? For if one refers to the previous article mentioned, act ethically, or moral necessity conscious action, preceded by a decision process. This idea was already present in the thought of Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in the fourth century AD, when he wrote " But nobody is doing much against his will, although he does is good " (Saint Augustine, Confessions , Book I, Chapter XII). There is therefore a reflection prior to the act which allows or not, hitting the bucket ethical or moral. The spontaneous order can not be ethical or moral is enshrined in humanity, and that this was no exception to the mandatory condition that the external force away from it (dictatorship statism, or interventionism, namely a complex form of dictatorship disguised) or prevents it. The market, since it refers to him in any intellectual habit that is poured into the economy or business policies, this term is neither ethical nor moral, it can not be neither an individual endowed with reason - a human being or an organization- composed of individuals acting for each other (within the meaning of a college thinking together). The market is just one illustration of the intellectual encounter multiple factors, both offers, as applications, subject to external requirements (sometimes here, morality is involved, so it is preferred in general by consumer products "clean", ie environmentally friendly and those who make them). This is not the market that decides, since its total absence of mind there is an absence of will, and therefore, accountability. That amount that the market caused the seizures, or pollution tantamount to accusing an illustration intellectual wishes to wear it may have in the real world. The only people responsible are the men, producers, and consumers. If tomorrow, the consumer continues to buy cheap goods made by children with poor-quality raw material plants close. The market is there for nothing. It is neither more nor less, than a way to represent the needs and desires. It is distorted by advertising is undeniable. Nobody, really need a phone laptop or the latest garments in the same tissue a hypothetical Russian astronaut sixties. Yet, advertisers tend to make people believe. It is no longer matter, then, but consumption of consumerism. Consumerism is it moral? From a personal point of view, so clean, with material things with marked disdain, I am inclined to say no. But that is irrelevant.

The market is therefore an emanation of natural rights, namely the order in which it takes place when no external stress never diverts. Added to this precision, fundamental to the nature of the ethical or moral act, namely the reflection. The spontaneous nature of this kind therefore rejects any intellectual dimension, it is merely a matter naturally. We can not, except for socialist thinkers (but the logic is often overlooked in their contradictory systems, as well as the natural respect due to the individual and his dignity), talking about ethics in the market. Especially the consumption of commodities is not moral, it is necessary for survival. If I refuse to eat, I die, it is necessary that I find my food just disappear. There is no choice, only a vital necessity. As for other needs, simply refer to the paragraph above and see how society, the groups of individuals, can influence them. And this observation to add that influence the market by acting on the stress (official: interventionism; hidden: advertising), men instill the beginning of corruption. The market can not be moral or ethical, but it may be corrupted. Critics of this idea see a contradiction in my thinking. It would be a mistake. Why? For every action in the flow of information, even in the natural functioning of the market is a constraint, limiting the freedom of everyone. This act is immoral because it disrupts spontaneous structure, inherently amoral, specific purpose (to earn more money, the future development of prices, production ...). This is not the market that we should try to modify, regulate or supervise, you must train those who are the actors. On the education of people, producers and consumers, then change their habits by choice of conscience. Give the keys of thinking, explain the economy and its functioning, its rules, its structures, codes also do not supervise and constrain, but simply provide the materials needed to build a system of individual thought. At the base of the ethical act, or moral, there is the individual and the individual alone is the thinking man who behaves well, or not. He alone must bear the consequences. We must therefore cease to enter the market mechanism, which is the natural shape of our relationship to another. Men do not love and goodness there is competition between individuals, not economic structures, just as there is violence in the relationship to another. Stop believing that a State elected or structure on the basis of concession for partisan purposes, will change the very nature of man. By voting, do we give to our representatives the right to force us, or healthier, than we can live well together?

Football And Basketball Cake Designs

Advent Second Sunday of Advent

2nd Sunday of Advent / A
5/12/2010
Matthew 3, 1-12 (p. 53)

With the prophets, especially Isaiah, with Joseph and Mary, John the Baptist is of these biblical characters that mark our time of Advent. Yet it is not our gospel before the mystery of Christmas, but well after. If we are presented because it has this unique feature to prepare the people to the public ministry of Jesus and before him to announce the coming of the kingdom of heaven and the end of time. The essential feature of this kingdom of God is given to us by Isaiah in the first reading: "There will be no harm or ruin on all my holy mountain, for the knowledge of the Lord will fill the country as the waters cover the bottom of the sea "The images of heavenly peace and universal reconciliation between creatures here means complete disappearance of this evil. God rules in effect where his goodness and love triumph. And in this context that John preached to the people the conversion and gives a baptism by which everyone recognizes humble sinner.

Matthew presents him as a prophet who announces austere and severe anger and judgments of God by treating those who come to him as "brood of vipers" ... He used to bring Jews to convert a violent method in which the charity seems to be absent as well as respect for its stakeholders. It uses two images to threaten sinners in the Judgement of God is now at hand that the fruit trees and wheat. Judgement will be a separation between the good and the bad, and they will be condemned to fire unquenchable. John announces the coming of Jesus not only as one who will baptize in the Spirit but also as the judge feared that separates the wheat from the chaff.

few chapters later in the same Gospel we find John in his prison. He begins to doubt the identity of Jesus as he had announced the Messiah and the judge. And he sent messengers to the Lord with the question: "Are you he that should come or do we look for another?" Why this doubt in the mind of John? Simply because realizes that the attitude of Jesus is not at all what he had predicted the coming of the Messiah formidable judge who was to distinguish between good and evil. The preaching of Jesus, even if she has in common with that of John, marks a clear break. Let some things just for show. The first and perhaps most significant in terms of symbolism, is precisely what Jesus asked John, against his will, to be baptized for the recognition of sins. Jesus, Son of God, is innocent, sin has no place in him, he is the Holy One of God. So why mingle with the crowd of sinners being baptized by John? To make clear the meaning of his coming and his mission among us: it shows solidarity and sinners. It thus abolishes the law of purity of the Old Testament strictly separating the pure from the impure, the holy sinner. By preaching the perfect justice of the New Covenant, righteousness which surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, he reveals, under the command of love of enemies, the heart of God, the heavenly Father "makes his sun rise on evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust. " The goodness of God is universal and perfect, it does not depend on the fact that we are righteous or sinners. And when the call of Levi who become the apostle and evangelist Matthew Jesus is justified as well against attacks of the Pharisees: "Go and learn what it means: That I desire mercy, not sacrifice. For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. "We understand why John begins to doubt his prison about Jesus: he is so different from what he had said! Jean mark the boundary between the Old and New Testaments, but it is still in its attitude to what is being move to make room for the amazing novelty of the Gospel message. He may be the greatest sons of men, yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. What answer the Lord gives to John, who wonders if he really is the Messiah? A cluster of quotations from Isaiah in which the notion of decision is totally absent! Jesus replied: Yes, I am the Messiah because I heal the sick and to announce the Good News to the poor. Finally, in his reply Jesus himself points out the distance it takes from the austere style of his predecessor John: "John came neither eating nor drinks, and they say: He lost his head. The Son of Man came, eating, drinking, and they say, Behold a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. "Revealer of goodness and mercy of God Word of God made flesh, Jesus was not presented to us in the guise of a prophet daunting sad and stern: "Come unto me all ye that labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest ... For I am meek and humble of heart ... My yoke is easy and my burden light. "

John as Jesus calls us, then, with very different methods, conversion, change of life for us in welcoming the new reality of the Kingdom of God. Perhaps the great conversion that we have to live as Christians is this: with a universal heart that the world is not divided into two camps, one good and the bad guys. This simplistic view does not match our experience. But it is in our heart, we, the coexistence of good and evil, love and hate. The boundary between good and evil is within. And we will need all our life and the sacrament of forgiveness to cleanse us still more of this evil that weakens us and we disfiguring. And John is right to remind us that we must produce a fruit expressing our conversion. This is what Our Lord called significantly "to the truth." The Christian lives his faith. By putting into practice the Gospel that we know and understand: "He that doeth truth cometh to the light so that his deeds may be made manifest, that they were accomplished in God."