Posted on 08/20/2005 8:41:27 PM PDT by Murtyo
KITCHENER, Ontario, NOV. 12, 2004 (Zenit) - Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand and Wilhelm Reich may have had therapeutic aims to cure the world of its ills.
But instead they contributed immensely to the modern sickness that John Paul II has identified as the "culture of death."
So says Donald DeMarco, who co-authored a book investigating the dysfunctional lives and theories of the "Architects of the Culture of Death" (Ignatius) with Benjamin Wiker.
DeMarco is an adjunct philosophy professor at Holy Apostles College and Seminary, in Connecticut, and professor emeritus at St. Jerome's University, in Ontario.
In this three-part interview, he shared with US how a few individuals' highly influential thought has fueled the formation of the present culture of death.
Q: Why did you decide to compile this book on the lives of the "Architects of the Culture of Death"?
DeMarco: The title is the brainchild of Benjamin Wiker, my co-author. When I first came across his engaging title in an article that he wrote for the National Catholic Register, I had the very strong sense that I could write a series of pieces on this theme and that Ben and I could collaborate to write a book bearing the title, "Architects of the Culture of Death."
I think that we had something in common that allowed us to share this vision, namely, a deeply felt conviction that something terribly wrong has occurred in the modern world, that people need to know how it has come about and that there is an answer to our present dilemma.
I had been teaching moral philosophy and the history of modern philosophy at St. Jerome's University in Waterloo, Ontario, for many, many years. Therefore, it was an easy task for me to assemble 15 of these architects and explain how their highly influential thought has contributed mightily to the formation of the present culture of death.
I have written five books on the subject of virtue. People commonly talk about the importance of love, but without virtue, there is no conduit through which love can be expressed in any effective or satisfactory way.
It was inevitable, I suppose, that my thoughts would turn from something positive to its antithesis. One defends the truth only half way if one does not expose the lies that assail and conceal it.
I had no difficulty, as I mentioned, coming up with 15 "architects," and though there are more that I could present, I am satisfied with those whom I have chosen. Moreover, they fall into nice categories: the will worshipers, the atheistic existentialists, the secular utopianists, the pleasure seekers and the death peddlers. Ben, my co-author, covered the eight other thinkers spotlighted in our book.
Q: What is it about the lives of these individuals that is so telling?
DeMarco: Being a philosopher by trade, naturally I wrote about my architects in such a way that what would be most "telling" about them is that their thought is demonstrably untenable. Their view of life and the world simply does not stand up against any reasonable form of analysis. In no instance do any of the architects indicate that they have a balanced notion of what constitutes a human being.
Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand give so much prominence to the will that there was little left over for reason. Historians have referred to this triad as "irrational vitalists."
Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and Elisabeth Badinter absolutize freedom to the point where there is nothing left over for responsibility, especially communal responsibility.
The utopianism of Karl Marx, Auguste Comte and Judith Jarvis Thomson is an escape into fantasy.
Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich and Helen Gurley Brown make pleasure, and not love, central in the lives of human beings.
Finally, Jack Kevorkian, Derek Humphry and Peter Singer completely lose sight of human dignity and the sanctity of life.
Another "telling" feature of these individuals is that their lives were in such disarray. At least three of them -- Auguste Comte, Wilhelm Reich and Friedrich Nietzsche -- according to various historians of philosophy, were mad. Several of the others exhibited clear signs of neuroses. In many cases, and this is also true for the architects that my colleague treats, they involved themselves in activities that are truly shocking.
St. Augustine once stated that the only real justification for philosophy is that, if followed, it can make a person happy. There should be a harmony between a person's philosophy of life and the life satisfactions that its implementation brings about. Ideas have consequences. Realistic thoughts should be a blueprint for a happy life. Unrealistic thoughts cannot lead to happiness. Philosophy is supposed to be a love of wisdom, not a bromide for misery.
Q: What do you think will most surprise readers about the thinkers outlined in your book?
DeMarco: This is a difficult question to answer inasmuch as it is difficult to anticipate how readers will respond.
But it may be that many readers will be surprised at the absolute discrepancy that exists between the therapeutic aims of the architects and the fact that they have contributed immensely to a culture of death.
Wilhelm Reich thought of himself as a secular Messiah who would cure the world of both its social as well as personal neuroses. He saw himself as the world's first Freudo-Marxist. He earned, more than anyone else, the appellation, "Father of the Sexual Revolution."
Yet he died in a federal penitentiary, serving time there because he had defrauded the American public by selling them empty boxes that were allegedly constructed to capture a precious form of energy called "orgone." One critic of Reich said that it was hard to take any man seriously who said, "I realized that I could no longer live without a brothel."
Friedrich Nietzsche, a few years before his death at age 56, was found assaulting a piano with his elbows before he was taken away to an asylum. He had said of his masterpiece, "Zarathustra," that, "This work stands alone. If all the spirit and goodness of every great soul were collected together, the whole could not create a single one of Zarathustra's discourses." Freud imagined himself to be a new Moses.
Karl Marx believed himself to be a new Prometheus.
Ayn Rand counted herself the greatest philosopher in all history, after Aristotle. She argued that, "Altruism is the root of all evil." She arranged that a 6-foot dollar sign adorn her casket. When she died, she had hardly a friend in the world.
These architects had large egos, but it could hardly be said that they had practical strategies for healing society of its ills.
All of the architects claimed to be humanists and liberators in one way or another. Yet, what they preached was a false humanism because it saw human beings in an entirely one-sided way.
It may be surprising to many, then, that powerful and influential thinkers nonetheless find the nature of the human person to be elusive. We are still trying, often with disastrous results, to answer the eternal question, "What is man?"
"There's a great void now that JPII is gone."
I don't feel ta void with Pope Benedict XVI. He just had a very successful meeting of almost a million young people.
He is strong and speaks out against the culture of death, just as Pope John Paul II did.
After all, Pope John Paul II picked him. :)
That's true, which is probably the reason, though I do believe Mis Sanger left behind somehwat of a paper trail.
This is so laughably untrue that everything else he has to say is suspect at best.
I don't doubt for a moment that Rand would be pro-choice. How could she help being otherwise? She didn't believe in God, she believed in the absolute authority of the individual, and saw little difference between the will of a male and the will of a female. I can see her buying (no--to be more accurate, I can see her formulating!) the feminists' argument of fetus-as-invader and ridding herself of the detritus of conquest. Self trumps all else.
Very interesting, thanks. I'm bookmarking this thread.
PLAYBOY: "In Atlas Shrugged, one of your leading characters is asked, "What's the most depraved type of human being?" His reply is surprising: He doesn't say a sadist or a murderer or a sex maniac or a dictator; he says, "The man without a purpose." Yet most people seem to go through their lives without a clearly defined purpose. Do you regard them as depraved?"
RAND: "YES, to a certain extent."
Playboy: PLAYBOY: "In 'Atlas Shrugged' your hero, John Galt, declares, "I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." How is this related to your basic principles, (of Objectivism?)"
Rand: "The Objectivist ethics, in essence, hold that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself".
PLAYBOY: "According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties?"
RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships."
This woman was an absolute militant atheist and anti-Christian witch, who lived and espoused everything opposite of what Our Lord Jesus Christ taught, commanded and lived. She stated that she thought of the Cross as a symbol of torture, not of love. Her highest value was selfishness. Philospher? NO! Her views were demonic, containing just enough reason and rationality as bait to hook the fish with.
Presicely, and that is why she absolutely would be pro-choice. She would call it a woman's rational decision not to have a baby if she were poor, or single. Her entire philosophy was one of SELFISHNESS. She stated that one should NOT live for the benefit of other people, and that those who place family ties before their "creative mission" were nothing but "emotional parasites".
How on earth can people like this beast?
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Looks like interesting reading - I hope I remember to find the book and read it. Someday...
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
Note: I just bought a book about evolution (evidence against it, natch) not written with any religious "bias" at all. I figure that if any of us want to debate or speak with others and help them, the more educated we are the better. "Architects of the Culture of Death" looks like the kind of book that would be good ammunition.
Inherently depraved is something that is a part of you , like your leg or stomach. If one makes the choice or many or even most people choose to do something depraved it does not make mankind per say "inherently depraved" only that most people happen to be making depraved choices at the time. I think Islam is inherently depraved ,that evil is a genuine part of it and one should not be surprised it leads to evil deeds. However I don't think all Moslems are Inherently depraved, some will come to see their religion for what it truly is : an infectious plague of hate.
Ayn Rand counted herself the greatest philosopher in all history, after Aristotle. She argued that, "Altruism is the root of all evil."
Altruism in philosophy and ethics
The word "altruism" (French, altruisme, from autrui: "other people", derived from Latin alter: "other") was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to serve the interest of others or the "greater good" of humanity. Comte says, in his Catechisme Positiviste, that "[the] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service.... This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely." As the name of the ethical doctrine is "altruism," doing what the ethical doctrine prescribes has also come to be referred to by the term "altruism" -- serving others through placing their interests above one's own.
However, the idea that one has a moral obligation to serve others is much older than Auguste Comte. For example, many of the world's oldest and most widespread religions (particularly Buddhism and Christianity) advocate it. In the New Testament of the Christian Bible, it is explained as follows:
"Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance a certain priest was going down that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on [them] oil and wine; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow he took out two shillings, and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee. Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. And Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou likewise." (Luke 10: 30-37)
Philosophers who support egoism, such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand, have argued that altruism is demeaning to the individual and that no moral obligation to help others actually exists. Nietzsche asserts that altruism is predicated on the assumption that others are more important than one's self. He also claims that it was very uncommon for people in Europe to consider the sacrifice of one's own interests for others as virtuous until after the advent of Christianity. Ayn Rand argued that altruism is the willful sacrifice of one's values, and represents the reversal of morality because only a rationally selfish ethics allows one to pursue the values required for human life.
Advocates of altruism as an ethical doctrine maintain that one ought to act, or refrain from acting, so that benefit or good is bestowed on other people, if necessary to the exclusion of one's own interests (Note that refraining from murdering someone, for example, is not altruism since he is not receiving a benefit or being helped, as he already has his life; this would amount to the same thing as ignoring someone).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism
You have truths, half truths, and zero truths all mixed together here. She definitely was an advocate of absolutes, she was a very strong advocate of reason, but militant? If militant means anything it is the use of military force to achieve your objectives and she only believed in using force in response to the initiation of force, i.e. in self defense only. Anti Christian? Yes and no. "Do not steal" is definitely her battle cry. I don't think Christ was an advocate of theft. She definitely did not like any idea that could not be verified by the senses, an idea that required some "mystic" way of achieving said knowledge
EVERYTHING the opposite of Jesus? She liked moral absolutes ( not the moral relativism of the left). Christians have moral absolutes. She did not like all of them and most certainly not the way at which those absolutes were justified! If ALL the ideas of Christ were bad they would not have survived the test of time any more than ALL the ideas of Mohammed are bad.
I wonder if this Author includes the King of the Architects of the culture of death: namely Mohammed himself? Compared to that guy all the others are chumps.(Except maybe Stalin, Hilter or Mao who are close)
We once lived close to the Thinker's Lodge. It was established by Cyrus Eaton, Sir Bertrand Russell, inter alia and a number of hard core communists from the USSR. Their efforts won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Lenin Peace Prize, and according to Eaton, he commenced the concept of detente. Globalism was alive and well even back then.
They have a nice park and pavillion near the water and the Thinkers house sits on a point facing the water. Their balony posted was getting washed away regularly as heavy seas battered their feeble attempts to hold back erosion with granite slabs. As I recall, raw sewage also ran beneath from nearby houses to the water. Maybe it is more environment friendly now.....
8mm
Burnt Pugwash House Is Restored
The house that made Pugwash famous-the Thinker's Lodge where 40 years ago nuclear scientists from 13 countries gathered to plan actions for averting nuclear war-was partially destroyed by fire on Sunday, August 2, 1996. Fire officials determined that an electrical surge was the cause.
Thanks to the efforts of volunteer fire brigades and local villagers, not all was lost. Most of its contents were removed even as the Lodge burned. Children helped carry books from the unique library down to the dining hall, the converted lobster factory by the shore.
Somebody is always messing with a good and useful fire.
Where IS Pugwash? Saying it's on the Northumberland Straits covers rather a lot of ground.
Would that be "balcony" or "baloney"? How's your supply of French Roast?
:-)
Yes, 'militant'. Ayn Rand was an atheist who condemned religion, who called the Cross 'torture', and who was not sufficient with being some quiet non-believer but someone who attacked religion. THAT is the meaning of the 'militant' atheist. There is a difference between 'militant' and 'military'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.