Worship of Science?

Sheesh.

I thought our culture worshipped money, power, youth, sex, and sports. In that pantheon of gods, who gives a darn about rational thinking?

No, I haven't read it. But I've been hearing about it for some time, and I will have to dig into it eventually.

I reject the idea that any book has ever screwed up the world.

Books express ideas which are held by human beings, who are both capable of free choices and are also at the same time representative of the times in which they live. These are not "bad books."

What troubles me is that the valid insights that some these authors has to offer will be ignored or lost, dismissed a priori as anti-Christ nonsense and forever condemned to be misread. Ideologically biased primers, whether they are written by "dialectical materialists" seeking to validate their view of history, or by conservatives who wish to validate theirs, do not appeal to me. I would only ever recommend them to the student who has read at least some of the source material first hand.

On some in particular:

Rousseau was no fan of Catholicism but he makes arguments for the existence of God that I found useful as I struggled with atheism and materialism. And I believe it is very easy to misread both his critique and solution of the problems of modern society.

Hobbes has been providing generations of students with an argument for absolute authority that is necessary to challenge and refute. By having a Hobbes to argue with, democratic and libertarian convictions are sharpened and strengthened.

In fact the same may be said of most of the pre-20th century philosophers on this list. Machiavelli challenges us to think about our moral assumptions as does Hobbes. And I don't hide the fact either that I studied Marx for years, wrote my masters thesis on Marxist political economy, and while totally rejecting his philosophical materialism, still believe he got more than a few things right concerning the development of modern capitalism.

Some of the authors on the list I haven't read so I can't say much about them. But I would cut some of the pre-industrial authors a little slack. We don't have to accept their anti-Catholicism to find them useful or even agree with them. In fact, if you read the New Advent Encyclopedia entry on Machiavelli, it is actually quite generous. Observe:

"Machiavelli's character as a man and a writer has been widely discussed, and on both heads his merits and demerits have been exaggerated, but in such a way that his demerits have preponderated to the detriment of his memory...."

It's not authoritative, I realize. And one can only go so far in defending them. But nothing bothers me more than when we go into read an important thinker in the history of philosophy or political thought with a ready-made bias with which to interpret everything he wrote.

Joe H. has some good points.
Descartes was a devout Catholic trying to write an apologesis against Montaigne and the Skeptics. That he failed, and/or that his work has been misinterpreted, should not discredit his own efforts.

I don't like Rousseau, but I don't much care for PLato, either, and my reading of Rousseau is that he's ultimately a Platonist.

I *do* like Hobbes and see certain parallels between _Leviathan_ and Aquinas's _On Kingship_. Certainly, Hobbes' main flaw is his view that religion is a tool of the state, but his critique of human nature far surpasses the other two social contract theorists in accuracy.

I've never understood why people make such a big deal about Machiavelli. Yes, Machiavelli wrote _the Prince_ as advice, but the book is still basially just saying what those in power do and always do. People in power would do the stuff _The Prince_ describes whether it had been written or not, but _The Prince_ gives the rest of us (hopefully) the ability to expose them for what they are.

Also, there is a section of Aristotle's _Politics_ that reads very much like _The Prince_.

Like C. S. Lewis, I am always puzzled by the notion that anyone can ever claim to say anything "new."

I spent a year in American Samoa a decade ago- of course, a lot of cultural intermingling has taken place since Mead's time- but I have found that wherever you are in the world, when promiscuity is common, social problems and youth problems abound- when parents are busy pleasuring themselves instead of nurturing their children- the children will fill in what's missing the best they can- friends, drugs, escapism, sex- if you are lucky- sports- sometimes religion.

I believe that the false myths spread about how traditional morality is a plague on personal freedom- is so much wishful thinking perpetrated by adults who have failed to live up to their responsibilities to their own offspring- maybe divorce or extra-marital affairs, and they needed some kind of assurance that as long as they were doing what pleased them- their kids would be better off. Of course, the guilt within had to be beaten back by some kind of rationalization. But now that more honest research has shown that even "good" divorces adversely affect kids, we know that the jig is up.

Now that we live in a more truly global village, we can easily see that the similarities between races and cultures worldwide are much more common than differences where morality is concerned. Samoans/Americans come on marriage and family, raising kids, there isn't any real surprise to note that unselfishness and self-sacrificial love works best for everyone concerned. Selfishness is the real plague for individuals and for societies. Promiscuity cannot help but be about selfishness- duh!

"But nothing bothers me more than when we go into read an important thinker in the history of philosophy or political thought with a ready-made bias with which to interpret everything he wrote."

With the exception being that we allow Jesus and His Church's authentic Magisterium help us interpret everything ever written, right JoeH?

That's the kind of bias we're supposed to have ready at all times.

SWP,

I wouldn't necessarily call that a bias, but a standard by which to properly judge the work.

But proper judgment also demands a clear and objective reading, not a selective reading, or a "reading into".

As I have always maintained, it is possible and, for us Christians, necessary to disagree with these philosophers on many points. But it is important to me that we disagree with their actual positions and not caricatures of those positions that simply make us feel better about our own beliefs. The disagreement should be based on an accurate assessment, just as any agreement ought to be.

Listen to Ben Wiker discuss this book on "Catholic Radio 2.0!": http://tinyurl.com/benwiker.

Sometimes I think we should all just loosen up.... Wiker has written an important book under a clever, perhaps a too clever, title. Every generation of readers need to be reminded of the influential books which were once taken as gospel but eventually exposed as either frauds or intellectually callow. Wiker has done us a service is providing such a volume, and one not written in the heavy-handed, overly-serious style common to academics.(It's not their fault, by the way, their profession almost demands they write English as if it were a translation from German.)

A quick story about Mortimer Adler: At his last seminar at the Aspen Institute (I was his assistant at the time), he sat against the wall after class by himself looking very troubled. I asked him what was wrong. He looked at me with a pained face and said "Why did they believe Kant, why did they?" Adler would ask Wiker why "The Critique of Pure Reason" isn't included in his "10 Books...." Good question!

that exposes the current need for some who need certainty and cannot bear the thought of really having to think about their faith.

I heard this author on a Public Radio program not too long ago, and it was the best thing they ever aired. This guy is first rate. Not at all surprising that muddled-headed liberals detest him. Give him a read; he's on the side of the angels.

I don't think he means precisely what the title says, i.e., that certain books all by themselves screwed up the world. What he is trying to convey is that ideas have consequences. There are so many assumptions that we make that we don't even know we're making because they have become such a part of the accepted world view: for example, the idea that sexual morality is about repression of a natural and always healthy instinct, rather than about true freedom based on reason, free will, and love of persons. These books contributed to those basic and usually unconscious assumptions, but most people, especially those who haven't been taught to think critically (and most folks today haven't), just buy into the ideas presented thinking that "science proves it."

Obviously one reason they believed Kant was because he set the standard for truly awful academic & germanic prose, which in less gifted hands than his is portentious enough to suggest wisdom too deep for the uninitiated. Hence modern American academic journals.

They also believed the convoluted Kant because they first believed the limpid Hume, who sought to use the prestige of physics and its method as a way to mock and refute the claims of religion. But hume's argument for empiricism required a foundation he couldn't provide and it was imperative to do so. So Kant provided one. Then, however, suffering buyer's remorse, he serves up his famously unsatisfactory "as if" foundation for morals.

This epistemology and its meatphysical consequences dog us to this day. All because of bad prose in support of brilliant prose and the prejudices of its author. Cheers.

Loosen up?

If some "muddle headed liberal" told you to "loosen up" about your faith or the political positions you take related to your faith, you'd throw the book at him. "Loosen up about that whole abortion thing, dude! Stop caring so much about those fetuses man!" That would be a sight.

But it's ok to be "loose" and muddled when it comes to studying people we have a disagreement with? I hope that's not what I'm seeing.

People are going to use this book as a reason to never actually read and think critically on their own about these authors. That's what I have a problem with.

And some people may read your comment and use it as a reason to never read Gage's book. Are you saying that all commentary should cease so we're not biased beforehand?

Yes, very funny.

No I'm not saying that. I'm not saying no one should ever read Wiker's book (Gage is just the reviewer), I plan on reading it myself asap.

What I am saying is that I think it is better if you read the originals first. Obviously we don't have the time to read everything, but if these 10 books had such an impact on the world, we should be reading them ourselves.

This is how, in my view, good teachers go about presenting material to students. Read the original source first. Then read the articles, commentaries, interpretations to get the different points of view, the criticism, the defenses, the praise.

If it sounded like I meant anything more than that, I apologize.

It is only because I have experience dealing with interpretations of work that I haven't yet read that are heavily laden with ideological bias that I speak out strongly against it. Only when I was none the wiser, it was leftist and "Marxist-Leninist" biases that prevented me from truly appreciating the work.

Anyone who doesn't think "their side" is capable of the same thing is deluded. And I'm not even saying Wiker's book does that, because I haven't read it yet, but the title immediately puts me off and reminds me of the same tone you see in, for instance, secular histories bashing the Church and blaming it for all of the problems in the world from Constantine's conversion to Martin Luther's theses.

This sort of tone makes us feel triumphant about our own views, while doing a disservice to opposing views. I think it creates an atmosphere of anti-intellectualism and actually leaves us less aware of the problems in our own house. I saw this happen on the left; people so convinced of the inherent correctness of their perspective on history and even a good many of the authors on Wiker's list that they were completely blind to the deep problems facing their movements.

This is a human problem not limited to followers of any one ideology or philosophy.

I have a soft spot for Macchiavelli myself, due to his having to study practical politics in Renaissance Italy, where people were happily busy poisoning each other, and where adherence to Christan morality in a ruler meant an early grave and conquest by an army.

It may be depressing reading, but then so were Italian politics at that time.

By the way, Luigi Barzini, in "The Italians" calls Macchiavelli naive and starry eyed.

As for worship of Science it has percolated to the lowest levels of popular culture, that is not that the common man knows much science - he does not,alas - nor is capable of applying the scientific method, but that he is quite willing to believe anyone in a white coat and autoritative manner will tell him.

I remember back in the seventies where there was this gothic soap opera "Dark Shadows" (my, how dated I feel), and this doctor knew about a vampire and helped him hide his secret while she studed him. Her rationalization was that it was "for Science". Curiously viewers in their forums accept this rationalization, and justify a murder committed to hide that secret because the vicitm did not see the possibilities "for Science", and insisted in calling the authorities....

Joe H: I can see where you're coming from, but think of it like downloading digital music. Generally, the people who download digital music are on one of two ends of a spectrum. If they like a song or songs, they'll go out and buy the CD to get the liner notes, etc. They might even start buying T-shirts, fan-zines, etc. Or they're the kind who will download the song and leave it at that. In theory at least, being able to download songs will only encourage the former to buy CDs. The latter wouldn't buy CDs even if they couldn't download songs. IMO, with books like Ten Books That Screwed up the World, there are readers who will be encouraged to read the primary sources, the ones who would probably chance to read them anyway with similar prodding. And there are those who couldn't be bothered with such a task regardless of stimulus.

In short, I don't think the title or the content of the book will innoculate anyone against the primary works who didn't already have a disposition to be innoculated.

On another note, how many people really need more than the Cliff's Notes version of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau, Freud, and others? That's an honest question. In economics there's a concept called utility, the use or enjoyment one gets from something. How much utility does reading such work give you if you're not working within the academic bee hive? My only caveat to that would be that those who haven't spent a good deal of time with the primary sources, should be rather modest when critiquing or denouncing their ideas. But in my experience, many academics don't even follow that modest prinicple, and it doesn't always keep them from publishing well, often, and to their own fame and fortune. Alas!

Brian,

Those are all fine points, and you're probably right concerning people and their pre-dispositions.

Unfortunately people are rarely as modest as they ought to be.

For instance, do you realize how few people have actually read Marx? Yet everyone feels qualified to make statements such as "Marx wrote that all property should belong to the state." There are so many things wrong with that sentence it would take an essay to point them out, owing to completely different meanings of words such as "property" and "state" and about 100 examples of Marx clearly talking about worker ownership and control of industry. But the wording of one or two sentences always seems to triumph over a mountain of paragraphs, sections, entire works that explain the concept more clearly.

Then there's Rousseau, who everyone "blames" for the French Revolution. Did his ideas play a role? They did. But Rousseau was also quite deeply reactionary in his own way and never advocated violent revolution, at least in any of the major works I've read. And now he's been placed on a list of thinkers who supposedly worship at the altar of science, a position he couldn't have been further from, if you but read his First Discourse.

I'm really surprised Hegel didn't make the list, since people who don't blame Rousseau for everything that has gone wrong in the last 200 years usually pick Hegel as the second choice. Once again not too long ago someone here at IC was declaring that Hegel was some sort of pre-cursor to post-modernism, when in fact the post-modernists dislike Hegel as an embodiment of modernist ideas! Why did this person think that, then? One isolated quote, obviously taken out of context.

I think these mistakes are often the result of an intellectual triumphalism, which I would say is marked by a belief that one's ideas have triumphed over all others in a permanent historical sense. The greatest example of this was Francis Fukuyama's essay "The End of History". In previous generations, Russian schoolchildren were taught the same thing about the Russian Revolution as American children are being taught about the fall of the Soviet Union; that it represents the irrevocable historical triumph of one ideology over another.

I think we can be at our worst when we think we have "won" - we have an inflated view of ourselves that will allow only a little credit for forces beyond our control in our victory, we have an exaggerated view of the loser's defects, we let our guards down and become vulnerable to many different, subtle problems.

Joe H, Perhaps "our" point is that intellectual laziness sucks?

I'm subsuming your point about triumphalism to my own sense that triumphalism is intellectual laziness--which can be more or less culpable depending--combined with social immaturity.

Correct me if I'm wrong in interpreting you.

Also, I see a need to distinguish between ideology and faith. My own working definitions put ideology as the mind in the grip of some complex of social pathology and intellectual malaise. I often think that a dynamically equivalent translation of one New Testament verse might be "Jesus went about healing all those who were in the grip of pernicious ideologies." (Revised Twentieth-century Version), I guess. Faith on the other hand is a matter of conviction about how things are based on a subset of data or experience that is smaller than the things one has a conviction about. (For example, I believe that Jesus is God and that he will come again to judge the living and the dead based on the Church's teaching, my own reading of the Bible, and my own experience of the Risen Jesus. This subset of data and experience is confirmed by what others around me have related to me, but none of it yet matches the glory of the Second Coming, which remains a matter of conviction and expectation).

I would argue that triumphalism, even when it is about matters of faith, is an instance of ideology, which is always pathological. (However, some instances of ideology are like acne; others like malignant tumors).

I hope Ten Books lances a few boils.

Yes, though I think it differs from case to case whether the triumphalism begets the laziness or vice versa.

I think a lot of intelligent people can become lazy when they feel triumphant.

"Ten Books" may lance a few boils but it may cause others to pop up.

Maybe my problem is that I was reading and admiring many (certainly not all) of these authors before I found my faith again. I'm willing to accept that maybe I'm the one with blinders on, but I still can't see myself ever dismissing these books as "bad".

I think that label shuts down the discussion and that really bothers me.

I'm going to get this book as soon as I have a few extra books, read it, and critique it on my blog. It may not be so bad. But I have seen it in the store, and I did read the back, and the review quote I saw disturbed me. It said something along the lines of "Wiker has read these books so you don't have to". Does that bother anyone else but me?

As a mother of 12, I find it "helpful" that "Wiker has read the books so we don't have to"

Between diaper changes, making meals and laundry...I simply do not have the time, at this stage in my life, to sit and digest anything "too deep".

I know the Wiker's and they are wonderful folks!
You go, Ben!

May God bless all who have commented.

Joe H, I like the points you bring up, and comments by others too.

Your valid argument about the writings and the individuals sound a little bit like "there is good in everyone". Even the worst people have qualities we can admire, though very few people will take the time to work at that. Lazy broad brush generalizations are the norm.

You are right that these individuals offered logic and sense in many areas, and from these traits we can learn.

But for some who aren't detailed and disciplined in their thinking, and are not able to separate truth from the lie within these works, people can get derailed. Thoughts are taken out of context and developed down an irrelevant path - and the original author is considered responsible for the deviation.

We could say "Luther wasn't that bad". His writings on Mary are often mentioned. However he caused an irreparable rift in the Church. His sympathizers trashed the local Catholic churches, to Luther's shock and bewilderment. "I never meant for this to happen", he said. We can say some nice things about Luther, but really, he started a big mess.

The Church used to publish The Index because of this very problem. The Church didn't waste its time mentioning the value within a work, if there was any, but forbid completely the reading of certain books and authors [like Simone de Beauvoir]. The Church understood the threat of these works to the common man's logic and understanding of God.

I can also see the value of this book and the author 'broadbrushing' these individuals. Sometimes generalizations are useful.

but maybe I'm being too general...

"The Church didn't waste its time mentioning the value within a work, if there was any, but forbid completely the reading of certain books and authors [like Simone de Beauvoir]. "
More importantly, contrary to popular understanding, books on the Index were not "forbidden"; you just couldn't pick one up and start reading it. You were allowed to read them for academic purposes and/or under spiritual direction.

"The Church didn't waste its time mentioning the value within a work, if there was any, but forbid completely the reading of certain books and authors [like Simone de Beauvoir]. "
More importantly, contrary to popular understanding, books on the Index were not "forbidden"; you just couldn't pick one up and start reading it. You were allowed to read them for academic purposes and/or under spiritual direction.

I see what you're saying and it is quite reasonable.

However, the same thing happens to Catholicism too. Can you imagine how many Protestant and atheist primers there are out there titled along the lines of, "Everything You Need To Know About the Catholic Church", or "How The Church Ruined Everything"? How many people's knowledge of the Church is based on selective, shallow assessments?

Nothing can stop people from writing and reading these things, I realize. A lot of this is personality, as Brian pointed out. And to tell you the truth, if we were only talking about the 20th century sex weirdos I probably wouldn't even be complaining about Wiker's book.

But "The Prince", "Leviathan", "Discourse on Inequality", "Das Kapital" - these books have been very important to me and I think they offer so much that it pains me to think people won't read them because they think they know what its all about. It also offends my intelligence to hear them called "bad books".

But that's fine, I guess, as long as, having not read them, they don't attack ME for using or mentioning them.

JC, good to know that "forbidden" allowed somebody to look at them with guidance.
After all, I learn best from bad behavior. I think there is value in reading something and being told, "now this is why this is a bad premise..."

Joe H, good point. You got my attention by citing examples of the Protestant versions of explaining Catholicism. grrrrr.

There is always a risk when reading someone else's assessment of a work.

I'll add: Nothing beats reading the source, except reading the source with someone helping you to understand it.

I heard for years about the Ottaviani Intervention. When it came out my mother was wild about it. Everybody printed it, wrote about it, argued about it. Even today, people read ABOUT it. Many friends of mine have heard of it...i have exactly ONE friend who has read it!

After finally I read it myself a few years ago, I couldn't believe how good it was. And ironically, the Intervention is succinct and far shorter than all the books and articles discussing it. Such a shame as it is an unemotional, fact-filled document clearly stating the differences between the New and Old Mass.

Not that this is the same kind of work as what this book covers.

But I have to admit, most of us are at a disadvantage finding the time to read everything. You are fortunate to have read these works.

Tina,

That is what astonishes me.

One thing that usually ends birth control debates I'm in is when I say, "Have you actually *read* _Humanae Vitae_? It's only about 6 pages. It took me about 10 minutes." I never get a direct answer.

When I'm arguing abortion, I ask, "Have you actually *read* _Roe v. Wade_? Did you know that _Roe_ says that non-citizens are not protected by the 14th Amendment, and that the unborn are not citizens?" No answer.

Years ago, I was talking with a friend who was the director of a (Vatican II) Latin mass schola. Her father was a (neo-traditional) liturgical composer, and her husband had been editor of a traditionalist magazine. I was discussing some of the things in _Liturgiam Authenticam_, and she had never read it! She'd heard of it, heard a lot about it, but had never *read* it.

That was a big eye opener for me.

Even the _Syllabus of Errors_: people talk a lot about it, but it's a summary of Pius IX's encyclicals and other letters. And, I'm sure, if we could read the original documents he cites, we'd see that some of his statements are widely misinterpreted by extremists of both the Left and the Right.
I've been [insert "really difficult task metaphor here] for months trying to find them.

For years, I heard about "Catholic social teaching." Then I read the encyclicals. What I learned made me no longer a strict Republican capitalist, but neither did it make me a Democrat.

It's not like a lot of this stuff is hard to find, or hard to read, or even very long.

You wrote,

"But I have to admit, most of us are at a disadvantage finding the time to read everything. You are fortunate to have read these works."

Well, I was a political theory student and now I teach it, which is why I am acquainted or very familiar with most of these books (I haven't read the 20th century sex weirdos).

I'll I'd ever ask of someone is to reserve judgment until the original is read. Which is why I'm still holding out hope that this book isn't as bad as the title suggests. I'm always happy to be surprised.

"I reject the idea that any book has ever screwed up the world."

I was surprised to read a Catholic write this, and more surprised to see little or no opposition to it from other Catholics. My first thought was "You've got to be kidding me, right?"

Jesus said He is the Truth. Error is opposed to Truth. Error in matters touching on faith and morality (as most if not all these books do) is therefore opposed to God. Opposition to God, aka rebellion, is morally bad -- hence the term used by at least the reviewer if not the book's author: "bad books".

There seems to me to be a kind of bias that all ideas deserve a hearing -- without reference to any kind of moral absolutes. Again, in morally neutral subject matter, that may be defensible. But in areas that touch on the faith, I don't agree. It's a popular idea in our culture, and seems related to free speech, but it lacks any reference to personal responsibility for one's own actions and any reference to moral absolutes and seems to me based on intellectual pride: I trust in my own abilities to recognize what's good or bad for me. "He who thinketh himself to stand should take heed lest he fall."

The ideas of several of these books or their authors attack or undermine the Catholic faith. There may be some good ideas in them, but recognizing them pre-supposes someone has the ability to discern the good from the bad. Unless one's basis for such a discernment is what one chooses for oneself to call good or bad, it pre-supposes (for a Catholic) both a sound knowledge of his faith and good discernment in recognizing truth and error in others' writings. US colleges tend to scoff at any notion of faith and morals and therefore moral right and wrong: all ideas (except maybe those related to faith) have equal validity and are equally worthy of belief. Pick and choose as you wish from what we have to offer.

There is such a thing as scandal, it is possible to expose oneself needlessly to temptation and fall, and there is such a thing as being intellectually in over one's head. Christ condemns scandal in rather stark terms. Needlessly exposing oneself to a mortal sin (say, the loss of one's faith) and falling is a tragic crucifixion of Christ and perhaps one's eternal loss. And refusing to recognize the bounds of one's abilities can lead to one's harm, loss or death.

I say this not to be anti-intellectual, but to point out that academics or intellectuals (like everyone else) should not check their faith at the door. They have their own responsibilities to defend the Church in their lives, to be "salt and light" -- which means not playing fast and loose with their own souls or those they have influence over, such as, say, young, maleable college kids. How many of those Catholic (or Protestant) kids are well-grounded in their own faith when they first step onto a college campus? I think its safe to say very few. How many of them have been warned of the threats to their faith from various secular writers? Again, I'd say probably few, maybe very few. And so Moms & Dads are to send their kids off among wolves who use subtleties (and sometimes "bad science") to seek to fleece them of their faith without any preparation or warning? Is that responsible? Is it charitable? Is it fulfilling their role as parents to defend their kids' souls?

I said I reject the idea that books "screw up the world" because it is human beings who screw it up. No one is forced to act on what they read in a book, or what they think the book means.

"Opposition to God, aka rebellion, is morally bad -- hence the term used by at least the reviewer if not the book's author: "bad books"."

Well they can be "bad" in the moral sense, but it is clear that some people think it means "bad" in the "poorly put together" sense, which most of these books are not.

I'm all for taking heed. I would only ask, as one person has already said, modesty in criticism if one's knowledge is limited to second or third-hand interpretations.

Let's be careful not to read "moral relativism" into mere attempts to remain objective, which is what I think a good scholar ought to strive to be as a default. There is a big difference between judging what one has objectively studied on the one hand, and coming to a certain conclusion through one's own biased approach on the other.

I teach these subjects and that is all I try to do - stay objective, present each thinker's ideas as accurately as possible, so that students know what they actually believed, and not what some ideologue says they believed. Whatever judgments they want to render on these thinkers after they've been presented with accurate information is their business; I only ask for a logical argument based on textual evidence.

As an honest question, why do we study authors like this and their ideas?

I have had some exposure to some of them (long ago), but certainly nowhere near a degree's worth. In what comparatively little I read of some of these authors, it seemed to me their ideas were missing something, but not having nearly the background in the faith or in their works to show that, I went more off a certain sense; I'd like to think it was the "sense of the faith".

I ask this because I grew up wishing there was some truly Christian philosophy I could use in my own life and refer to in time of need. I didn't find much of anything that came close until I converted to Catholicism as a young adult and discovered the Doctors of the Church, in particular St Thomas. I'd never heard of him or the Doctors or Fathers of the Church before, and read their works ravenously for a time. Given that "Western Civilization" (aka Christendom) was built largely on the thought of several Doctors including Augustine and Aquinas, I marvelled that I'd never heard of their existance anytime during my 17 years of public education -- not even in passing. Yet I had read some of Kant and Nietzsche at least, and had certainly heard of at least a synopsis of the works of Darwin, Marx, Hitler and Rousseau. I can see having an understanding of ideas that have shaped the world before me, but the ideas I was exposed to were not "somewhat" but completely one-sided: if it was pre-enlightenment, I didn't even know they existed.

I've often heard the cliche that you get out of your mind what you put in it. And so I come back to my question above: why do we study these authors? Again, I ask this honestly. Why? It's one thing to be exposed to ideas that have influenced or molded the world in the past 300-ish years. But solely to those? Or even primarily to those? I can see seeking to understand the world as it is, or even philosopher's works for what they are (under the right circumstances), but having no exposure to what my own spiritual, intellectual and cultural inheritance is? I'd like to tout those writers and ideas that *I* believe in, and use their ideas not only as key influences over my own life, but to influence the world around me.


And before I get inundated with "You're forcing your views on others," I'd like to ask "Has the world not forced its views on me - and all others of faith?" Is it not then hypocritical for one of them to fling that charge at me? (Secular pharisee-ism, maybe?) But it's one thing to "force" one's views on another and another thing to point out error when you see it and to actively defend one's own faith and the ideas that go with it. I think each of us is called to be salt and light and influence the world around us, seeking to win it for Christ; as Paul said "Taking captive every thought and make it obedient to Christ."

There's just fundamentally a conflict between wordly ideas and those of the Church which Catholics (and other Christians) seem all too often to want to simply ignore or seek to make peace with. I don't doubt there's good here and there in other's beliefs -- though I argue again you have to know your faith well enough to understand what's truly good to separate the wheat from the chaff in others' beliefs. Yet that "good in others" argument seems all to often to be used to squelch any kind of missionary zeal. How good are those philosophies and ideas, really? Can they save the soul that adheres to them? Will mine own soul be saved if I do nothing to win their conversion? If they're so good, why bother to seek to fulfill the Great Commission to go "baptizing and teaching them [all those outside the Church] to obey all that I have commanded you"? Obviously, there is something in these secular ideas that falls short.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Maybe it's useful to recall here that history is written by the victors, not the vanquished. We Catholics are the vanquished. The victors are the anti-clerics and the Protestants. They wrote our history. We did not. It wasn't until I was well into adulthood that I understood how the French Enlightenment was whitewashed and sanitized before being presented to us under the fabricated narrative of "progress."

It wasn't until I studied the case that I learned that the reformation painted a completely false picture of Catholic piety prior to the demolition of the Catholic Church by anti-clerics and Protestants in Henry VIII's England.

Nor did I know that Gibbons, of "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" fame, was an anti-cleric with an axe to grind against Catholicism.

In our formative education, we are like abused children being told lies about our parents to turn our affections toward the kindly paternalism of our Enlightened elders, who now sell us abortion and moral relativism.

If one of the objectives of Wiker's book is to put students on notice that they are being maliciously mis-educated about the tides of history -- particularly the myth that nature is on a steady course of Progress with modern Liberalism at the ship's helm -- if this is one of the purposes of Wiker's book, then I say to him, Godspeed.

* Why Machiavelli's The Prince was the inspiration for a long list of tyrannies (Stalin had it on his nightstand)
* How Descartes' Discourse on Method "proved" God's existence only by making Him a creation of our own ego
* How Hobbes' Leviathan led to the belief that we have a "right" to whatever we want
* Why Marx and Engels's Communist Manifesto could win the award for the most malicious book ever written
* How Darwin's The Descent of Man proves he intended "survival of the fittest" to be applied to human society
* How Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil issued the call for a world ruled solely by the "will to power"
* How Hitler's Mein Kampf was a kind of "spiritualized Darwinism" that accounts for his genocidal anti-Semitism
* How the pansexual paradise described in Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa turned out to be a creation of her own sexual confusions and aspirations
* Why Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was simply autobiography masquerading as science


None of these books has any new ideas or decency in them. Just the same ole me first, me second, me always mentality. I had these books in college and even back then as a hedonist I found them boring, pedantic and sad. Now let's get 10 Books that Blessed the World from this same author.

T+

"None of these books has any new ideas or decency in them"
So, "All men are created equal" is not a decent idea? It was certainly a new idea when Hobbes wrote it.

To say that Hobbes advocated "me first" or that Hobbes thought the "state of nature" he describes is a good thing is like saying that the Book of Revelation advocates the victory of the Dragon.

Hobbes presents a basic problem: original sin; the fact that all people are, by their fallen human nature, greedy and violent. He depicts the harsh reality of fallen human nature very well, but he does not by any means present it as something admirable. He presents it as something to be overcome. Now, admittedly, the solution he offers is a bit topsy turvy (mainly in his view that religion serves the State), but his practical political views are not much different than Catholic Monarchism.

Descartes, as I noted above, may have *failed* in his Catholic apologesis, becoming the embodiment of what he was trying to fight, but that should not make him the villain that he's often made out to be, nor should it discredit the merits in his argument againt skepticism.

I mean, Fundamentalists come up with all sorts of interpretations of Sacred Scripture that disagree with the Truth as we know it through the Church. Many of those Protestant interpretations are pretty clearly the "face value" meaning of the texts in question. Do we throw those books out of the Bible because Protestsants get the wrong message from them?

Now, that is a far cry, from, say, Marx or Kinsey or Nietzsche, people who were intentinoally advocating evil.

But, even then, as I noted above, Machiavelli is clearly *advocating* evil, but his work can also serve to educate good people out of their naivete, so they know how to identify evil when they encounter it, like the _Screwtape Letters_ (or should we count _The Screwtape Letters_ as a "bad book"?)

Eric,

You ask why we study these authors. The simple, short answer is that - at least up to Hitler (I'll leave the sex weirdos off the list) these authors shaped the world in which we live, they are the history of political philosophy.

I would never say "solely those" - in my program of study, these were considered modern thinkers. In studying ancient and medieval of course we study Plato, Aristotle, as well as plenty of Catholics, Aquinas, Thomas More, etc.

To know what is valuable in the ideas of the moderns, you have to read them and absorb them. I can't give a comprehensive list but maybe it is time to write more intensively about this subject. Ideas are swirling in my head....

Jeff writes,

"Maybe it's useful to recall here that history is written by the victors, not the vanquished. We Catholics are the vanquished. The victors are the anti-clerics and the Protestants. They wrote our history. We did not."

And yet now authors such as Wiker, following the triumphalism unleashed by writers such as Fukuyama in the wake of the USSR's collapse, are the victors writing the history of vanquished "ideology".

Does "do unto others" apply to the writing of history and the presentation of ideas?

And, on another note, I think we should ALL have a copy of "The Prince" somewhere in our home. We might want to break it out whenever we hear the President give a speech.

"but [Hobbes'] practical political views are not much different than Catholic Monarchism"

Really? Can you elaborate?

Also, if there is any reason for Catholics to dislike Hobbes, it isn't the state of nature - how about the 1/4 of Leviathan devoted to showing that the Church is the "kingdom of darkness", the "ghost of the Roman empire" and a parallel of the myth of faeries?

Reading the posts to about this book are very enlightening and concerning in the same breath!

First, I'll admit there are many poeple smarter than I am. If we don't have good Catholic-based critics and.....take some advice from them, some of us might somehow wander into that dreadful "gray" area that jeopardizes many of us spiritually. Second, how many of us REALLY take the content of what we read, watch and listen to and look at it and what the person putting it out intended? How many songs have objectionable lyrics, movies have objectionable subject matter.....or maybe just a plot line or idea that floats just below the surface and seems.....well almost true???? Are we that presumptious to think we are truly capable of guarding our minds and spirit by ourselves?

"Really? Can you elaborate?"
Not in any great detail here, but I saw a lot of echoes of Aquinas's _Treatise on Kingship_ in _Leviathan_: both emphasize the idea that a centralized government is necessary to promote order, because people are greedy and selfish and sinful. Both emphasize that the primary purpose of government is to punish sin in the form of social disorder (though, again, they differ as to the relationship between Church and State). Both say that, if the purpose of government is to promote order, then the best government is that of the One. Both favor monarchy to oligarchy.

To me, Hobbes offers the only truly secular political philosophy that makes sense: everyone else idealizes human nature. If I were *not* a Catholic, I would be a Hobbesian. Since I *am* a Catholic, I can see the flaws in Hobbes' thought.

But he definitely deserves credit for saying things that others are afraid to, and for introducing some pretty important concepts to the deelopment of political philosophy.

Well I certainly agree with your last sentence. I can imagine Hobbes and Aquinas coming to similar conclusions through much different routes. But does Aquinas' monarch have as much power as Hobbes'?

As for his philosophy being the only secular political philosophy that makes sense, well... I'll respectfully disagree. Even when I wasn't Catholic, and even when you remove his Christian underpinnings, I always thought Locke made necessary amendments to Hobbes (if you're into social contract theory). I mean, Hobbes was driven by fear of civil war and was willing to justify extreme measures to prevent it. Locke's foundation is a little less fear-based and hence a little more reasonable, at least to me.

"And yet now authors such as Wiker, following the triumphalism unleashed by writers such as Fukuyama in the wake of the USSR's collapse, are the victors writing the history of vanquished 'ideology'."

Fukuyama is totally on board the Obama hope and change train.

He's a modernist-progressive at heart. In fact, he is precisely the type that I criticized in my earlier post, the type who wouldn't understand the spirit of Pope Benedict XVI Spe Salvi, the type that preaches a false religion of 'progress' as if it were an inexorable force in the universe. Spe Salvi gives quite a different, and more sobering perspective. We are not saved by a blind belief in 'progress.' We are saved in hope of a kingdom we can't bring into being by our intelligence or our self-worship. This is a radical message in the modern world. It goes against the best of what the so-called Enlightenment had to offer.

Perhaps the title is just phrased incorrectly. Rather than claiming that they screwed up the world, just make it a book discussing the ideas and issues raised in these other books. Rather than saying that they are 'bad', just point out where the Church stands on these issues presented within these books. People have the right to express their ideas, but discussion and guidance from the Church can help to analysis these issues, and form our own opinions, to help identify where our own faith, beliefs and values may differ from those expressed in these books.

I'm with you.

I do wonder though - we all assume Wiker is a Catholic writing from a Catholic perspective. I'm not so sure about that. Anyone have the info on that?

Joe,

" But does Aquinas' monarch have as much power as Hobbes'?"
Good question. It's been a long time since I've read either.

As for Hobbes versus Locke, I guess their preferability depends upon one's underlying principles. I think you tend to be a bit more optimistic about human nature than I am. I'm a thoroughgoing pessimist, though not a cynic. However, the only thing keeping my pessimism from cynicism is my Catholicism.

Any famous book can cause a great deal of trouble if misinterpreted , and used for nefarious purposes.
The Bible is a perfect example of this, and the Koran,too.
It's not the books that are so bad, but the way they
have often been used for ulterior purposes, or as an excuse for fanatics to further their agendas.
While sexual promiscuity and licentiousness are not good ideas, the opposite can be just as bad.
Puritanism, extreme prudishness and suxual repression are no better. Banning books, films and other materials
of a sexual nature does not make people more virtuous.
It only increases the desire for sexual release and
truly "screws the world up". When parents , preachers and priests teach children unhealthy ideas about sex,
the results can be devastating.
People should learn to find a happyu medium between these two extremes.