“For there above, when more souls speak of ours,
the more of goodness each one owns, “

(but in italian sounds more like a general statement, not only referred to hereafter, Dante just says “there”, not “there above”, but actually it is quite difficult to translate)
of course Dante depends on Aristotle for this, mainly through Ibn Rushd
ciao

pier paolo

It is well known that the dominant philosophical influence on Augustine was Platonism, not Aristotelianism. Indeed: especially among the Latin speakers, Aristotle was rarely read in Augustine’s time. When his works were read, they were considered “pro-paideutic” to Plato.

So the similarity you see between Nicomachean Ethics and Augustine’s own idea is more likely due to Plato’s influence on both Aristotle and Augustine than to Aristotle’s direct influence on Augustine.

Also, consider that Augustine did not like Greek, never learned it as thoroughly as CIcero did, so he didn’t have much access to Aristotle’s works: few had as yet been translated into Latin. The Nicomachean Ethics had certainly not yet been translated. Grosseteste’s translation (1253) was the first.

The influence of Aristotle on Augustine would be very minimal, since at that time, Platonism, not Aristotelianism, was considered real philosophy. When Aristotle was read at all, it was as a “pro-paideutic” to Platonism or Neo-Platonism.

In addition to this, Platonism’s influence on Augustine is well-known, ever since he read Hortensius (as mentioned in the Confessions).

True, Hortensius was written by Cicero, not by Plato, but it was primarily Platonism that influence Hortensius, with a dash of Stoicism. But hardly any influence from Aristotle.

The similarity you see between the Nicomachean Ethics and the Augustine quote is probably due to Plato’s own influence on Aristotle.

You’re very welcome for the reference. Lincoln’s is a wonderful speech worthy of study for many reasons.

To answer your question, I do agree that the system is subject to abuses. Specifically, there is always the possibility that system insiders may take advantage of their knowledge to effect opportunistic redistributions of wealth. So in the patents case, I think of patent lawyers who do not publish or otherwise contribute to any science or engineering field but who nevertheless obtain patents and sue those who do. This is the best way to define a “patent troll” in my opinion. Other organizations that may speculate in patents by acquiring them from inventors and licensing or selling them to corporations with established marketing, distribution, and manufacturing channels are simply adding liquidity into the market and facilitating a division of labor between inventing and later-stage R&D. (As an aside, the reason why VCs pooh-pooh ideas vs. execution right now is because there is only a trickle of ideas relative to a flood of eager entrepreneurs; hence the multiple simultaneous pitches.) There will always be a role for government to play as referee in preventing abuses; but the circumstances now (in patent law at least; in copyright I’m not so sure) give too weak a hand for inventors to play.

Technology like the Internet is only a substrate for the more fundamental networks that govern our society — the social networks that bring order to our day to day lives. Those other things you mention look like substrates for our social networks too.

Patents, copyrights, trade secrets and other forms of intellectual property protections have demonstrated time and again how they can indeed benefit mankind. But can too much of a good thing become a negative? Are all patents equally useful? The record clearly suggests that abuses occur. We are afterall “only” human – by which I only mean to suggest that IP protection systems, as human inventions, are not perfect.

On your latter point – “Speech, writing, the press, the internet, and the patent system — all provide the substrate…” – I rather look at these as more an infrastructure than a substrate (an alphabet, language, and grammar… these seem more like substrates to me). In the realm of infrastucure I would add education, and other mass communication channels (radio, TV) as facilitating the development of a network of knowledge.

BTW, many thanks for the ‘fire of genius’ reference. It indirectly led me to an article on open access that I need to have a better look at.

I didn’t meant to ignore your comment, which you must have posted while I was working on my response to Seth and Clem.

We may not disagree as much as it seems. I’m not sure. My point was that Jefferson implies that ideas have an intrinsic quality them non-excludable whereas Augustine (and I) do not believe that to be true, at least in general. If Jefferson is correct, then ideas are “public goods” in the economic sense (like the national security, freedom from fire, or public roads to which you refer) before any act of government (i.e., in their “natural” state). And if that is the case, then like Jefferson (and I guess you) we might believe that intellectual property law is unnecessary.

But you, I, and Augustine appear to agree (contra Jefferson) that ideas are to some extent excludable in a state of nature. Thus, we also agree that intellectual property that is enacted and enforced by a state is not “natural” in the sense that such laws do not mimic the exclusivity possible even before their enactment. Rather, such laws go beyond the natural order by providing a mechanism for an increased number of connections to be made and transactions to occur than would be possible in the state of nature. The adjective “natural” does us little good in understanding this because it turns out that a similar mechanism probably underlies many “natural” phenomena, such as the forest fires I mentioned above. In any case, even if you meant to use the label “copyfighter” in a pejorative sense, I am happy to wear it. Copying is not remixing, and copying without sharing of reward or recognition through attribution or otherwise is wrong — a threat to the very fabric of our society. I encourage you to think more about what specifically you propose.

Thank your for your gift of time in finding and translating. This makes the passage all the more remarkable. I wonder sometimes about the influence of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics on Augustine. Would you know where to look for discussion of this?

Clem,

We should not permit patents on the patent system itself. Note that already in 1859 Lincoln, in his famous “fire of genius” speech had identified the patent system as a natural step in the progress of communication that permits more wide-scale and long-term matching. Speech, writing, the press, the Internet, and the patent system — all provide the substrate for a network of knowledge to form.

Copyright is not a natural right. Natural Rights don’t require a third party to allow their free exercise. Natural rights include the right to defend yourself, speak freely, worship, or associate. In theory, even ownership of real property could be considered a natural right since, in theory, you could enforce your property rights yourself. A third party can abridge natural rights but is not required to exercise them. In modern parlance, natural rights are called negative rights and rights which require the action of a third party are called positive rights. Copyright is not a natural right or a negative right because it requires the state to exercise and enforce it. Absent the coercion and violence of the state, there would be no copyright. Prior to the advent of the modern nation state there was no copyright.