J
josephback
Guest
And is it compatible with Catholic thought? Thanks you
- Status
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
I have . You won’t find any author that matches Catholic teaching 100%. Even St. Thomas Aquinas’ teachings are not 100% compatible with the Church. What people fail to understand is that Catholic teaching is a body of teaching in its own right. It is not merely an imitation of another philosopher’s teachings/thoughts.
I can’t speak specifically about the discourse as I read it quite a long time ago, but I would say that certain aspects of Rousseau’s beliefs are perfectly compatible with the Church. For example, Rousseau differed from Thomas Hobbes in that he believed Man was good in a “state of nature” (whereas Hobbes believed Man was inherently evil). This is summed up in the term “noble savage”. This is what the Church teaches as well (although from a slightly different angle) - Man is indeed good in a state of nature (Garden of Eden), but became corrupted by disobedience from God. Rousseau also believed that humans were distinct from animals in that they had free will. In addition, Rousseau argued that Man was inherently moral, and was capable of sympathy in the face of suffering. The Church teaches that “natural law” is written in the hearts of Men. Where the Church and Rousseau depart is that Rousseau was critical of civil society and believed Man is good in a solitary state. The Church does not really teach this, but believes that Men are inherently social beings, and this is alludes to the Trinity, which itself is a perfect communion between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Another sense of departure is that Rousseau wants Man to become more like animals, to express their urges freely, whilst the Church argues that Man should conform to the characteristics of God and restrict his natural impulses (I think this was an influence from the Stoics).
One problem with Rousseau was that he was very reactionary. He hated progress. In fact, Voltaire mocked him for it. I think Voltaire said along the lines that if Rousseau had his way, Man would crawl on all fours.
It’s good that you’re reading these kinds of books by the way
. You get to understand the world in a much clearer light.
. You won’t find any author that matches Catholic teaching 100%. Even St. Thomas Aquinas’ teachings are not 100% compatible with the Church. What people fail to understand is that Catholic teaching is a body of teaching in its own right. It is not merely an imitation of another philosopher’s teachings/thoughts.I can’t speak specifically about the discourse as I read it quite a long time ago, but I would say that certain aspects of Rousseau’s beliefs are perfectly compatible with the Church. For example, Rousseau differed from Thomas Hobbes in that he believed Man was good in a “state of nature” (whereas Hobbes believed Man was inherently evil). This is summed up in the term “noble savage”. This is what the Church teaches as well (although from a slightly different angle) - Man is indeed good in a state of nature (Garden of Eden), but became corrupted by disobedience from God. Rousseau also believed that humans were distinct from animals in that they had free will. In addition, Rousseau argued that Man was inherently moral, and was capable of sympathy in the face of suffering. The Church teaches that “natural law” is written in the hearts of Men. Where the Church and Rousseau depart is that Rousseau was critical of civil society and believed Man is good in a solitary state. The Church does not really teach this, but believes that Men are inherently social beings, and this is alludes to the Trinity, which itself is a perfect communion between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Another sense of departure is that Rousseau wants Man to become more like animals, to express their urges freely, whilst the Church argues that Man should conform to the characteristics of God and restrict his natural impulses (I think this was an influence from the Stoics).
One problem with Rousseau was that he was very reactionary. He hated progress. In fact, Voltaire mocked him for it. I think Voltaire said along the lines that if Rousseau had his way, Man would crawl on all fours.
It’s good that you’re reading these kinds of books by the way
. You get to understand the world in a much clearer light.
A
Acapiteadcalcem
Guest
Yes, it’s very interesting. Political philosophy of that period is very interesting in general…the savage man description is quite fascinating too.And is it compatible with Catholic thought? Thanks you
I guess the main difficulty I have with Rousseau and this epigram in particular is his take on human society, which (a) is culturally conditioned and as a result (b) tends to be stereotype civil authority. In Catholic social teaching, civil authority is a goal of providence: society exists for the perfection of the human. Rousseau’s philosophy tends to negate that aspect of human existence.
What did you think? Do you like Rousseau in general?
A
Acapiteadcalcem
Guest
Care to give an example?
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
I’m not sure if that is a “challenge”, but St. Thomas Aquinas - for example - wrote in his Summa Theologica that women were intellectually inferior to men. This is not Church teaching, but was instead an influence from Aristotle (who was nicknamed “The Philosopher”) and his teachings on biology.
Hopefully this doesn’t derail the thread.
A
Acapiteadcalcem
Guest
Nor do I want to derail the thread, but you were the one who introduced this in your post, and I think it is worth challenging. So let’s just clean it up quickly and quietly :slapfight:
By way of answer:
aquinasonline.com/Questions/women.html
However, this may have some bearing on the topic at hand: Rousseau’s opinion of women is quite controversial. I’m not sure if you’ve read Emile, but he advocates the subordination of women in the home.
That is contrary to Churhc teaching.
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
I never introduced it per se as it is I was using it to make an example - that the Church’s teachings are distinct in its own right, and should not be confused with merely “borrowing” another philosopher’s teaching. If you want to believe that the Church is merely St. Thomas Aquinas under another name, then that’s your view. But it isn’t factual and it isn’t an orthodox view.
A
Acapiteadcalcem
Guest
Oh, and by the way…he did not write any such thing in the summa.
A
Acapiteadcalcem
Guest
That is not my view, nor have I said it. I just think people should be accountable for the claims they make.
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
It would have to be your view, because in my first post I only mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas in passing. I didn’t make any claim until you questioned further. I only mentioned the simple fact that St. Thomas Aquinas’s beliefs/teachings are not 100% compatible with Church teaching. No philosopher is.
If you don’t hold this view, I really don’t see what point there is in questioning further about what is really a simple fact.
This will be my last post on this thread. I apologize to josephblack if I was complicit in derailing the thread.
A
Acapiteadcalcem
Guest
Lighten up buddy.
A
Acapiteadcalcem
Guest
What a shame Bohm Bawerk decided to censor the discussions and hurry away. So I will post a reply anyway for any who may care to read, since I am not a fan of censorship, and because I think this discussion could have been very enlightening and indeed relevant to the thread at hand, as I will explain.
St Thomas in fact does not teach anything contrary to what the Church teaches, but this does not mean that therefore the teachings of the Church and the teachings of Thomas are identical as BB seemed to suggest I believe. Thomas himself draws a distinction between primary and secondary causes: Thomas’ own work is motivated by his love for the Church, and it is possible to teach in continuity with the Church without being equated to it. Just as a maths book may contain all true maths, but without being equated to maths itself.
I believe that St Thomas is an example to us all that one can in fact confirm a whole life to the life of the Church and to think and teach in harmony with it. The Church is not informed by Thomas; Thomas is informed by the Church. This is the point BB seems to miss.
I love St Thomas, and I believe there is a spring time in the Church in rediscovering him. I believe, despite the typical slander against him (that he is a misogynist, that the Medievals were backward and anti-science, that they got bogged down in minutiae, that he is obsessed with sin) that he presents a wonderfully life-affirming picture of the human person, both male and female; that the human person is essentially good and that our dignity excels our wildest imaginations.
His philosophy is deeply rooted in reality, and his passion is for his fellow man: that he may discover Christ and be one with him. Thomas realised what many of us never do, and many more take a life time to figure out: that life in Christ is not only the highest good for man, it is the highest pleasure and joy too.
Rousseau’s vision of man is brutal. The human person excels on his own, cut off even from his own culture. Society is built on authority, which tends to corruption and the enslavement of the human mind. It is a philosophy which is common to the 17th and 18th centuries. It is ultimately anti-religious, because it is, at its heart, anti-authoritarian. The Social Contract and the Origin of Inequality are testaments to this.
For St Thomas, human society is providential; the human person is ordered to living in communion with others. As far as earthly society goes, it is however limited, because it falls short of the perfection of beatitude.
This is why Thomas distinguishes between acquired and infused virtues: the acquired virtues help us live as citizens of the earthly state, while the infused virtues prepare us for the heavenly state. For Rousseau, there is no sense of the earthly state being a preparing ground for a higher level of existence.
I pray to St Thomas for BB, and for all those who have an interest in philosophy. It is through the use of reason that God first manifests himself to us, and it is in the proper use of reason that we become in fact divinised.
Pray for us St Thomas.
St Thomas in fact does not teach anything contrary to what the Church teaches, but this does not mean that therefore the teachings of the Church and the teachings of Thomas are identical as BB seemed to suggest I believe. Thomas himself draws a distinction between primary and secondary causes: Thomas’ own work is motivated by his love for the Church, and it is possible to teach in continuity with the Church without being equated to it. Just as a maths book may contain all true maths, but without being equated to maths itself.
I believe that St Thomas is an example to us all that one can in fact confirm a whole life to the life of the Church and to think and teach in harmony with it. The Church is not informed by Thomas; Thomas is informed by the Church. This is the point BB seems to miss.
I love St Thomas, and I believe there is a spring time in the Church in rediscovering him. I believe, despite the typical slander against him (that he is a misogynist, that the Medievals were backward and anti-science, that they got bogged down in minutiae, that he is obsessed with sin) that he presents a wonderfully life-affirming picture of the human person, both male and female; that the human person is essentially good and that our dignity excels our wildest imaginations.
His philosophy is deeply rooted in reality, and his passion is for his fellow man: that he may discover Christ and be one with him. Thomas realised what many of us never do, and many more take a life time to figure out: that life in Christ is not only the highest good for man, it is the highest pleasure and joy too.
Rousseau’s vision of man is brutal. The human person excels on his own, cut off even from his own culture. Society is built on authority, which tends to corruption and the enslavement of the human mind. It is a philosophy which is common to the 17th and 18th centuries. It is ultimately anti-religious, because it is, at its heart, anti-authoritarian. The Social Contract and the Origin of Inequality are testaments to this.
For St Thomas, human society is providential; the human person is ordered to living in communion with others. As far as earthly society goes, it is however limited, because it falls short of the perfection of beatitude.
This is why Thomas distinguishes between acquired and infused virtues: the acquired virtues help us live as citizens of the earthly state, while the infused virtues prepare us for the heavenly state. For Rousseau, there is no sense of the earthly state being a preparing ground for a higher level of existence.
I pray to St Thomas for BB, and for all those who have an interest in philosophy. It is through the use of reason that God first manifests himself to us, and it is in the proper use of reason that we become in fact divinised.
Pray for us St Thomas.
J
josephback
Guest
Haven’t read enough to decide. Just wondering how he was viewed by the Church.
So does the Church teach that man is born inherently good and chooses to become evil, or does original sin mar things from the beginning
Thanks.
A
Acapiteadcalcem
Guest
‘Being’ and ‘good’ are convertible terms–i.e, they are different ways of expressing the same thing. All being then, by its nature is good, including human beings. There is no such thing as an ‘evil thing’ (although we sometimes speak this way). Evil in fact is not ‘being’ but rather is the privation of being, or lack of a good that ought to be there.Haven’t read enough to decide. Just wondering how he was viewed by the Church.
So does the Church teach that man is born inherently good and chooses to become evil, or does original sin mar things from the beginning
At birth the human person is fully good, but subject to privation–i.e, falls short of the perfection he was created for. That perfection is made up for us in Christ and so it is through grace, which works in cooperation with our free will, the sacraments and living virtuously that we reach our full potential in God.
Rousseau (despite his training under the Jesuits) rejects this notion of man.
Pax
- Status