Besong on Scholastic Metaphysics

In the December issue of New Oxford Review, philosopher Brian Besong kindly reviews my book Scholastic Metaphysics.  From the review:

Philosopher Edward Feser has earned significant fanfare in recent years for his lucid presentations and defenses of Thomism… The fanfare is well deserved, for in addition to a witty polemical style, Feser has a mostly unrivaled ability to present faithfully the views of Aquinas in a deep and systematic way…

There is a lot to like in this relatively small volume, especially for advanced readers -- and those having some Anglo-American philosophical background -- who are interested in becoming acquainted with Thomistic metaphysics and the reasons why Thomism endures as a compelling philosophical position…

[I]t’s difficult to think of another single text that presents and defends Thomistic metaphysics so systematically, worthily examining some of the finer points on which the schoolmen debated alongside many other historically weighty criticisms of the Thomistic position.  Feser fans will be delighted, and those unfamiliar with his work have one more reason to acquaint themselves with him.

Besong puts forward three criticisms of the book as well.  First:

[T]hose searching for an introduction to Scholastic metaphysics accessible to the general reader should look elsewhere, for a few reasons… [A]lthough Feser’s explanations carefully avoid assuming any prior Thomistic background, the speed with which he introduces much of the relevant material indicates a target audience of academic philosophers (or at least advanced philosophy students) who do not need much extended explanation.  The general reader will thus find the book slow-going and difficult, requiring frequent repeated readings of some sections.

Here I plead guilty, though I don’t think I’ve actually committed an offense.  Yes, the book is aimed at academics and philosophy students, but I never claimed otherwise, the title notwithstanding.  Some readers seem to think that to label a book an “introduction” is to imply that it is an introduction for the absolute beginner.  That is not the case.  All it entails is that it introduces some specific topic to readers who aren’t familiar with that specific topic.  But an introduction may still presuppose that readers will have other relevant knowledge.  Lots of “introductory” books in philosophy are like this.  For example, many an “introduction” to philosophy of mind or philosophy of science will presuppose that the reader already knows something about philosophy, and is simply trying to find out about the specific sub-discipline in question.  To make every “introduction” accessible to the absolute beginner would require making it twice as long and tedious for readers who don’t need a refresher on the very basics.

Besong’s second criticism is:

[T]he book appears far more concerned with defending Thomistic metaphysics against a range of historical alternatives than introducing distinctively Scholastic views on given topics.  For although Feser discusses rival Scholastic positions, such as those of William of Ockham, Duns Scotus, and Francisco Suárez, his discussions are abbreviated and polemical.  Most of the minor Scholastic thinkers go completely unmentioned.  A more apt title for the book might have been Thomistic Metaphysics and Its Critics.

Here too I plead guilty, but once again I think I’m not really guilty of any offense.  Any “introduction” is always an introduction for a certain audience and for certain purposes.  You can’t possibly meet the needs or interests of every possible introductory reader, or address every purpose for which someone might need an introduction to a subject.  Now, the audience my book is aimed at (as I make pretty clear in the introductory chapter) are readers familiar with and/or interested in contemporary analytic philosophy, and my intent was to demonstrate the contemporary relevance and defensibility of certain key Scholastic ideas rather than to provide a historical overview of the Scholastic tradition. 

Those aims entailed that I emphasize those ideas and arguments that I think are the most plausible and most useful in a dialogue with contemporary analytic philosophy.  Since I happen to be a Thomist, and since, among Scholastic ideas and arguments, Thomistic ones are those with which contemporary analytic philosophers are most likely to have at least a passing familiarity (given e.g. the existence of the “analytic Thomist” school of thought), it was natural that Thomistic ideas would dominate the book.

I submit that there is nothing wrong with that, and in particular that it is no reason to regard the title of the book as misleading.  Any introduction that is itself a work of philosophy and not merely a dry and non-committal rehearsal of various competing ideas is inevitably going to reflect a certain point of view.  Again, here my book is like lots of other “introductory” books in philosophy.  For example, an introductory book on philosophy of mind might reflect either a materialist or dualist point of view, even if it aims to introduce the key ideas and arguments from all sides.  An introductory book on philosophy of science might reflect a realist or instrumentalist point of view, even if it aims to introduce the key ideas and argument from all sides in that sub-discipline.  And so forth.  And my book does introduce Scholastic ideas and arguments other than Thomistic ones, even if the overall point of view is Thomist.  (I addressed these issues in greater depth in a couple of posts responding to Michael Sullivan’s review of my book, here and here.)

It is worth adding that Besong’s description of my book as “polemical” might be misleading for some readers.  To call a book “polemical” can be merely to describe it as defending a certain controversial point of view and criticizing rival points of view.  I think that’s what Besong has in mind, and in that sense my book is indeed “polemical.”  But the word “polemical” also often connotes an approach that is rhetorically caustic or otherwise highly aggressive.  And my book is not “polemical” in that sense.  (Sure, I’ve written other things that are “polemical” in that sense, but Scholastic Metaphysics is not like that.  It is, for the most part anyway, fairly dispassionate and academic in tone.)

Besong’s third criticism is as follows:

[M]y main critical concern is that Feser tries to do too much at once.  Given the apparent aims of the work, I would have preferred to see a two-volume set that first dives into the Scholastic debates (in isolation from broader historical concerns) from an “orthodox” Thomistic perspective, addressing in greater depth the premodern views and arguments raised against Thomistic metaphysical positions, and then, in a separate work, addresses the sort of criticisms that have been raised from early modernity forward.  Scholastic Metaphysics combines both efforts, and this can at times make the presentation appear hurried, especially if the intended audience includes academics.

Here I plead not guilty.  As in his second criticism, Besong here essentially criticizes the book for failing to do something it wasn’t trying to do in the first place, viz. provide a complete overview of “premodern” and “early modern” disputes both within the Scholastic tradition and between Scholastic views and their non-Scholastic rivals.  It is true that I do say a bit in the book about these historical issues, but the reason is not that I was trying to do too much – namely, both give a historical overview and also address contemporary relevance.  The reason is rather that I was only trying to accomplish the second task of addressing contemporary relevance, and that saying a little bit about the historical issues is sometimes crucial to doing that.  For example, given the massive influence Hume has had on how contemporary analytic philosophers tend to think about causation, it was important to say something about the historical background to Hume’s ideas.  Many contemporary readers tend to think that Hume’s background assumptions are just natural and obvious, and saying what I did about the historical background to those assumptions was intended to help show just how contingent and challengeable they in fact are.

All the same, Besong’s criticisms are thoughtful, and I thank him for them and for his very kind words about the book.