By Stephen Macaulay

In a paper published in AI & Society, Natasha Lushetich writes, in part, “Apart from shedding light on the rift between the realm of ideality and materiality and corporeality, characteristic of the two-world theory derived from Western metaphysics (Nishitani 1991), this paradox also sheds light on human inability to process complexity as multiplicity, collapsed orders of magnitude, virtuality and/or vertiginous speed.” Lushetich is referring to Medieval thinkers facing the paradox of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”

While you might begin to wonder whether you’ve happened to stumble upon a page that isn’t The Hustings as you thought it was or that somehow I’ve managed to, well, stumble, a moment of patience.

The angels paradox generated, as it were, lots of heat and very little light. Aquinas et. al disputed and debated what the answer is. Or could be. Or should be. Or might be. 

Or. . . .

Arguably this scholastic exercise was something that we might consider to be not much more than quibbling — the status of the Medieval thinkers involved in trying to answer it. It was a place where there was an intersection of belief and intellectual precision. (Given that Lushetich’s paper was published in 2021, it is clear this is still something that is relevant in certain intellectual niches.)

Donald Trump posts on the ironically named “Truth Social”:

"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"

One could quibble. One could note his bizarre syntax. One could point out that he continues to maintain something for which there is no evidence (on Truth Social, no less).

There are far too many people who continue to attempt to dance on the head of a pin when it comes to chastising Trump while simultaneously staying in his favor.

“No, he shouldn’t have had a dinner date with a Nazi sympathizer and a white supremacist, but damn, doesn’t he look good?”

Let’s not try to be too clever by half, to be delicately epistemological about all this.

The former president of the United States is saying there should be the ending of the Constitution because he is the “RIGHTFUL WINNER” of an election he didn’t win.

This is the Presidential Oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Protect and defend, not end.

Anyone who believes in the idea and ideal of America can no longer support Donald Trump. Sure there are people who like some of his ideas or some of his accomplishments, but the individual who is publicly taking this decision is clearly not playing by the rules that have been the guiding principles of this country.

It doesn’t take a Medieval philosopher to attempt to figure this out. There is no complexity. No multiplicity. No several things to hold in one’s mind simultaneously.

It is plain and simple, not in the least bit paradoxical. Trump wrote it. Clearly he believes it. And a man who wants to overthrow the Constitution of the United States is someone who clearly does not have the best interests of the commonweal in mind.