I mean The Human Wisdom of St. Thomas.
In this regard, it is similar to other highly condensed tracts such as the Tao Te Ching, the Yoga Sutras, and the Upanishads, each serving as a compact owner's manual for the human being (and we do own ourselves -- although God co-signs the mortgage -- leftist ideology to the contrary notwithstanding).
Come to think of it, that itself is a cosmic principle: you own yourself. What we call the left begins with the contrary principle: that you first belong to the collective, the state, the class, the volk, etc.
That's really what it comes down to if you follow the ideas upstream to their first principles. Most ideas of the left can be traced to the principle that the individual is either illusory or selfish and antisocial, and therefore something to be eliminated or transcended. Or violently suppressed.
Which is why the left is organized around the idea of "identity politics." When they use the word "identity," they don't mean it in the way you or I do, that is, who we are as individuals.
Rather, they subordinate the individual to the group identity, such that one's primary attribute becomes race, class, gender, sexual preference, etc. Which is why it can be said that feminists love womankind, but can't stand individual women such as Margaret Thatcher or Ayaan Hirsi Ali; or that blacktivists love astract blackness but detest particular blacks such as Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, or Thomas Sowell.
Truly, it is a soul sickness, something one can only affirm 1) if there is a soul, and 2) if the soul has a proper order. The Human Wisdom of St. Thomas is all about the proper order of the soul, which is why it is again such a fine owner's manual.
"The principles of reason are those which are conformed to nature," i.e., in the nature of things. This is the same Nature to which the founders appeal when they advert to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" -- there being no possibility of Nature without a divine author.
For example, even Sartre has the rudimentary intellectual honesty to concede that "there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it."
In short, you are what you do, and what you do is whatever you will, such that you are encased in a meaningless tautology.
Which is where I believe the left comes to the rescue. The other day, Dennis Prager commented that leftism provides meaning for the soulless. I would say that it is a kind of therapy for the existentialized person who denies his own soul and therefore God -- the soul being the link between man and God.
With reference to cosmic principles, Thomas says it is not even possible to think they can be false. But then, this was before Marx came along and achieved the impossible. And look what happens when you attempt to force the impossible upon an intransigent reality: only 100 million murdered, give or take.
"Reason is man's nature. Hence whatever is contrary to reason is contrary to human nature."
Just try to disprove that. In so doing, you will have proved it. The only way to effectively disprove it is to eliminate the person who believes it. In other words, the will must take precedence over the intellect, such that power trumps truth. And now you understand Antifa, which answers reason with blows. If you're lucky. Bottles of urine if you're not.
They do not speak truth to power; rather, urine to truth.
A psychoanalyst would have much to say about the symbolism of urine, but I don't have time for such trivial insultainment. Well, maybe a little. According to Melanie Klein, in infantile (unconscious) phantasy,
the excreta are transformed into dangerous weapons: wetting is regarded as cutting, stabbing, burning, drowning, while the fecal mass is equated with weapons and missiles.... these violent modes of attack give place to hidden assaults by the most refined methods which sadism can devise, and the excreta are equated with poisonous substances.
So it's the same old whine in new bottles. Nevertheless, all they are saying is give piss a chance. We can only hope they never attain fecal capability.
Recall what was said above about owning oneself: "Human nature in the strict sense consists in being according to reason. Hence a man is said to contain himself when he acts in accordance with reason."
Hence it is possible to not contain oneself.
Here again, psychoanalysis is all over this subject, for every psychological defense mechanism comes down to an unconscious means of denying or expelling unwanted content: splitting, projection, denial, et al. This is why in the book I used the pneumaticons (•) and •••(•)•••, the latter symbolizing the person who is out of his mind; or rather, whose mind is out of himself.
Are we free to be another? No, for that would be the essence of un-freedom. It is another iteration of gaining the world but losing the soul, the latter being "everything." Which is why "every movement conformed to false knowledge is in itself bad and sinful," and "the will which departs from the reason is always bad."
In other words, whether the will is good or bad depends upon whether or not it is in conformity with truth. If a will informed by the lie isn't wrong, then nothing is.
Bottom line for today: Wherever there is intellectual knowledge, there is also free will. And where there isn't intellectual knowledge, there is always free urine.