Monday, May 02, 2005

Two Interviews with Dr. David L. Schindler

Zenit's Interview (May 1, 2005)

NCR's John L. Allen, Jr (November 22, 2003)


Anonymous said...

Compare/contrast Leo Strauss: "The philosopher who, transcending the sphere of moral or political things, engages in the quest for the essence of all beings, has to give an account of his doings by answering the question 'why philosophy?' That question cannot be answered but with a view to the natural aim of man which is happiness, and in so far as man is by nature a political being, it cannot be answered but within a political framework"; and David Schindler: "I think we prematurely align with political parties. The problem is, we're historical animals and there are problems that require immediate solutions. We have to be politically involved in that sense. But the nature of the problems we face is such that what it requires most truly is an ontological response, and that doesn't translate well into politics. It has political implications, but you don't exhaust all of your energies in a political option. You realize that it has to do in the first instance with transforming your own being, and the being of those around you, into a community of persons."

Fr. D.L. Jones said...

Thank you John! Your comment is very helpful. It does many things of which I will highlight only one.

It begins to show the differences between the Neocons and the Whig Thomists (and somewhat of the Augustinian Thomists differences with the Whigs as well). For example, one could almost consider Dr. Alan Keyes a Neocon b/c of the strong influence of the thought by Leo Strauss on his formation. The End of Democracy Debate really shows the differences between the two camps, Neocon vs. Whig Thomists.

Additionally, this whole argument of an ontological response is what splits the Augustinian Thomists from the Whigs.