Skip to comments.“Give me Thomas Aquinas…Don’t Give me Ayn Rand”
Posted on 04/27/2012 6:51:48 AM PDT by marshmallow
Paul Ryan disavows Rands atheist philosophy; cites Pope Benedict
In an interview with National Review Onlines Robert Costa, Rep. Paul Ryan denies that he is, as Paul Krugman claimed in the New York Times, an Ayn Rand devotee, calling such descriptions of his political philosophy an urban legend:
I, like millions of young people in America, read Rands novels when I was young. I enjoyed them, Ryan says. They spurred an interest in economics, in the Chicago School and Milton Friedman, a subject he eventually studied as an undergraduate at Miami University in Ohio. But its a big stretch to suggest that a person is therefore an Objectivist.
I reject her philosophy, Ryan says firmly. Its an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a persons view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas, who believed that man needs divine help in the pursuit of knowledge. Dont give me Ayn Rand, he says.
Ryan also mentions Pope Benedict XVIs statements on global economics in defending his proposed budget:
Ryan cites "Light of the World", a book-length interview of Pope Benedict XVI, as an example of how the Catholic Church takes the global debt problem seriously. We are living at the expense of future generations, the pope says. In this respect, it is plain that we are living in untruth. Ryan takes those words seriously. The pope was really clear, he says.
Today Ryan delivered a high-profile lecture at Georgetown Universityafter being criticized by more than 90 members of the universitys faculty for his continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more..........
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicworldreport.com ...
Always a laugher when the devil-worshipping commies try to paint conservatives with an atheist label.
Give me Ron Paul....Don't Give me Mitt Romney
Seems like I heard this sort of thing back about 1980 or so ... Seems like a guy named "Reagan", and another guy named "Friedman" were singing the tune then.
It's nice to hear it again.
Those unfamiliar with the principle of subsidiarity would do well to spend a few minutes reading up on it. The whole idea of personal charity vs. coerced redistribution of wealth is wrapped up in it’s tenets. Yes, yes it is common Catholic terminology, but it transcends religious belief systems and makes enormous sense.
Dennis Prager, in promotion of his new book, "Still the Best Hope," warns Republicans that, in order to win the battle of ideas for the Fall election, they must resist the urge to limit debate to "the economy and jobs."
Prager pointed out in an interview yesterday that those "issues" are the symptom, not the cause, and that the battle will be lost if Romney and his surrogates do not find a way to focus and force the debate to be about America's underlying ideas of Creator-endowed individual liberty versus statism and government control.
The electorate must become educated on America's Founding princples, which can enable them to recognize which are true ideas of liberty, and which are counterfeit ideas of tyranny. That is not easy.
In 2008, Michael Ledeen wrote about how Americans have been "dumbed down" on some basic ideas underlying our freedom:
Ledeen said, "Our educational system has long since banished religion from its texts, and an amazing number of Americans are intellectually unprepared for a discussion in which religion is the central organizing principle."
In the Pope's speech in Germany a few years ago, he observed:
"A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures."
Ledeen put his finger on a problem that stifles meaningful dialogue and debate in America. Censors [disguised as "protectors" (the Radical Left's ACLU, NEA, education bureaucracies, etc., etc.)] have imposed their limited understanding of liberty upon generations of school children.
From America's founding to the 1950's, ideas derived from religious literature were included in textbooks, through the poetry and prose used to teach children to read and to identify with their world and their country.
Suddenly, those ideas began to disappear from textbooks, until now, faceless, mindless copy editors sit in cubicles in the nation's textbook publishing companies, instructed by their supervisors to remove mere words that refer to family, to the Divine, and to any of the ancient ideas that have sustained intelligent discourse for centuries.
The Democrat Party (Progressives) stands:
- for the right of women to determine who is born and who dies in the womb;
- the Party stands for liberalizing the definition of marriage;
- the Party stands for redistribution of wealth from those who produce it to those who don't (no matter how they label it);
- the Party stands for a belief that the U. S. Constitution is a "living," or as I heard one describe it, a "fluid" Constitution [meaning it can be changed by activist judges (instead of by the ONLY method prescribed within the Constitution itself)];
- the Party leadership at all levels is in "lock-step" on these matters, revealing a totalitarian mindset that does not allow for those of differing ideas to become leaders.
As a result, the Progressives' agendas will be adhered to by elected officials, no matter how much the PR officials of the Party may use semantic trickery to "redefine" it to the citizens described as "red staters."
When it comes down to it, even the Joe Liebermans will fall back to "lock-step" when push comes to shove. Only those like Zell Miller, who are willing to be castigated and ignored, dare speak out.
The same can be said for the "Progressives" within the Republican Party.
That's why voters need to be grounded in enduring ideas in order to recognize tyranny camouflaged in "hope" and "change" and to be able to appropriately enter into what the Pope described as "the dialogue of cultures."
Paul Ryan may be one political representative who could engage in such a dialogue.
I couldn’t avoid this thread...
I followed a similar trajectory. Friedman to Rand to Aristotle to Aquinas.
Rand was only worth reading as a transitional stage. Friedman is the Aristotle of economics. St. Thomas is in a class of his own.
My respect for Ryan has increased.
And to think that philosophy to liberals is Alinsy, Foucault or Marx. What a joke.
——after being criticized by more than 90 members of the universitys faculty for his continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more..........——
I can only conclude that these professors are Marxists in sheep’s clothing, because they must understand the principle of subsidiarity, and that no one in this country is close to starvation.
ROFL! And I was impressed that Ryan was using it correctly in conversation... there's a man who knows philosophy and the Christian worldview.
The most beautiful girl in the world insisted I read Atlas Shrugged for our relationship to continue.
That was most certainly enough incentive for me to wade thru it . . all 43,000 pages of it ;-)
Like most youthful Uni romances, it didn't last (to my eternal regret), but that gift of her insistence was priceless.
Thank you Mary DeVore, wherever you are ! !
I'm not even Catholic (my roots are in the American Restoration Movement), but I have preached sermons to my congregation in years past about how a lack of a doctrine of subsidiarity in government leads directly to government nanny-state-ism, and then into outright tyranny.
Dr. J. Budziszewski's ("bood-ja-shev-ski") fantastic book, "The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man" takes Aquinas' work on these and other aspects of just government and breaks them down, so that even I can understand them. It's a brisk read, and he explains every term he uses in simple language.
Funny story: the old edition cover of this book had a painting of Adam and Eve, naked, being driven out of the Garden. My wife told me that the ladies of the church were horrified when I showed them the book from the pulpit, and then she put a white sticky label over their "naughty bits". The sticker is still there, years later :-)
Yes. Read the book in my post #12 to understand it.
Her views on economics is the support of free market laissez faire economics which is consistent with God-given human nature, God-given human rights, and Biblical justice (judge and give what is due).
-— HIGHLY recommended.——
Thank you. He’s supposed to be one of the best living teachers of natural law. His writing is often featured in “First Things.”
I would have enjoyed your sermon. I’ve never heard a homily regarding the principle of subsidiarity.
St. Thomas is tough going, but always profitable. He helps me to understand how disorganized my own thought is...
I read almost all of her books when I went through my Rand stage, but in looking back, I see two major weaknesses in her philosophizing. First, although she claimed to love Aristotle, I see no evidence of his influence on her thought.
She never mentions the Law of Non-contradiction, substance and accident, the Four Causes, Act and Potency, etc. She cites the tautology of “A equals A,” but that’s not the Law of Non-contradiction.
Secondly, she engages heavily in ridicule and hand-waving, which is understandable given the shallowness of her metaphysics.
I started reading him in college. Our library had a good translation of the Summa.
How anyone can support a racist and anti-semite like Ron Paul amazes me.