Log in

View Full Version : Catholic "critique" of Marx, Machiavelli, Sartre, etc. - I'm



Anonymous
11th April 2003, 05:44
I came upon this will doing a google search on atheism.

Strange. Though I'm sure you've all seen (heard) this before. But hey, it's good for a laugh every once and a while.

The Pillars of Unbelief:

Just as we have pillars of Christian faith, the saints, so are there individuals who have become pillars of unbelief. Peter Kreeft discusses six modern thinkers who've had an enormous impact on our everyday life. They have also done great harm to the Christian mind. Their names: Machiavelli, the inventor of the new morality; Kant, the subjectivizer of Truth; Nietzsche, the self-proclaimed Anti-Christ; Freud, the founder of the sexual revolution; Marx, the false Moses for the masses; and Sartre, the apostle of absurdity. The articles in this series constitute background to help us understand the main personalities, and those ideas they advocated, which have led us to the secular society.

Machiavelli (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0008.html)

Nietzsche (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0009.html)

Marx (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0010.html)

Kant (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0011.html)

Freud (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0012.html)

Sartre (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/civilization/cc0013.html)

redstar2000
12th April 2003, 02:36
I don't know; maybe in our new era of imperial holy wars, this stuff might not be so funny.

:cool:

hazard
12th April 2003, 02:41
except for machiavelli and marx, none of those philosophers really hold any value anyway. do u happen to know which school of catholic thought composed these criticisms? I don't see how a franciscan scholar could possibly have a problem with marx. obviously, a dominican came up with that criticism.

Blibblob
12th April 2003, 02:50
HAZARD! First of all, Freud wasn't a philosopher. So basically you stated that the only "philosophers" that hold any value are the ones you know. Since modern diplomacy is basically based off of Machevelli's writings, I have a feeling he does hold some meaning(I mean good diplomacy, not Bush's pre-emptive/war diplomacy). Nietzche's quotes are everywhere, he was quite intelligent, and also against organized religion. I'm sorry, I dont know much about Kant. But Sartre wrote plays, very political oriented plays. And Freud was a psychologist, and created the Ego, Super-Ego, and the Id, he also created psychoanalysis and the fact that the entire motivation for the human race is to have sex like little bunnies.

hazard
12th April 2003, 03:44
i hate it when people nail me on the one exception. I certainly knew that freud was not a philosopher. but then again, machevielli really wasn't other. more of a polytical analyst than anything. for brevity I just called all of them philosophers.

freud was, before all else, a rip off artist. his idea of ego, id, and super-ego all mimic the platonic understanding of the soul, that means psyche. the greeks saw human cnciousness as having the exact same divisions. they called their divisions reason, passion and appetite. and all of their characteristics parrallel the ego and the id and the super-ego. freud just reintroduced ancient thought into a modern context and people thought he was smart for doing it. I call it copywrite infringement. the only worse case is the protestants ripping off the catholics after their money oriented reformation.

sartre was a waste of time. all existentialists after kierkegaard are like that. especially nietzche. his opposition to organized religion borders on lunacy. scratch that. he was a lunatic. his only worthwhile idea was the "over man", but he too ripped off the greeks on this idea. namely, plato's idea of the philosopher kings. unoriginal and uninspired. people seem to like nietzche oly because of his stance on religion.

Xvall
12th April 2003, 05:27
Lol. That is pretty funny, DC. Good work.

pilipino ako
31st May 2003, 14:06
What is the point in including Freud? even Machiavelli. this means you should also include Foucault and Mussolini, How about Hitler? Nice idea... huh?

(Edited by pilipino ako at 2:10 pm on May 31, 2003)

Silent Eye
31st May 2003, 16:40
That article is hilarious. "Just as we have pillars of Christian faith, the saints, so are there individuals who have become pillars of unbelief. Peter Kreeft discusses six modern thinkers who've had an enormous impact on our everyday life. They have also done great harm to the Christian mind. Their names: Machiavelli, the inventor of the new morality; Kant, the subjectivizer of Truth; Nietzsche, the self-proclaimed Anti-Christ; Freud, the founder of the sexual revolution; Marx, the false Moses for the masses; and Sartre, the apostle of absurdity. The articles in this series constitute background to help us understand the main personalities, and those ideas they advocated, which have led us to the secular society. "