In the latest
issue of the journal Science et Esprit
(Vol. 72, Nos. 1-2), René Ardell Fehr kindly reviews my book Aristotle’s
Revenge. Judging it a “fine work,”
Fehr writes:
Feser’s book attempts to support the
broad Aristotelian metaphysical structure and its interpretation of modern
science as the interpretation, while at the same time
defending that structure from the attacks of philosophical naturalists and
attacking the metaphysical assumptions of said naturalists. It is a credit to Feser that he sees the
inherent danger in such a project; throughout Aristotle’s Revenge he insists that he is not attacking modern science itself. Feser writes: “I am not pitting philosophy of
nature against physics. I am pitting one
philosophy of nature against another philosophy of nature.”
Addressing
the contents of the book, Fehr says:
Aristotle’s
Revenge is comprehensive in that it
covers a vast array of arguments, objections, and replies. Often the reader will find Feser dividing
objections against his position into different types and treating them all in
turn. Objections will be raised to his
replies to previous objections, and in like turn they will be dealt with. The sheer number of different positions it
confronts is impressive… Those already familiar with the academic work of Feser
will be pleased to find the same degree of rigor and the tight argumentation in
Aristotle’s Revenge for which he is
well known. On display too is the ease
of readability which so often characterizes Feser’s work.
Fehr’s main
criticism of the book is that, precisely because of the vast amount of ground
it covers, some topics could have been pursued at even greater depth, and there
are further moves that critics of the various positions I take might make that
I do not address. Still, he says:
[This] is an inevitable byproduct of
the number of positions and arguments with which Feser grapples… [and] if
nothing else his book does an excellent job of alerting the reader to a particular
counter-point of view, and to what a preliminary reply might look like.
I thank Fehr
for his kind words and for his criticism, which has some merit. In my defense, I would say three things. First, some dangling threads were indeed simply
unavoidable in a book of this scope, yet a book of this scope was nevertheless needed. Too many neo-Aristotelian works at most
suggest vaguely what an Aristotelian might say about this issue in physics or
about that topic in biology. A truly
comprehensive and fairly fleshed-out account of what a general Aristotelian
interpretation of nature and of modern science would look like was needed. But there is no way that one book, however
long, could address every issue to the satisfaction of every critic.
Second,
despite that, and as Fehr acknowledges, the book does still cover a vast amount of ground and interacts with an
enormous body of literature. Naturally
there are further arguments and works with which I could have engaged, and will
engage in future work. As with any
academic treatment of any subject, one has to make a judgment call about
whether a particular topic treated has been treated at sufficient depth for the
particular purposes of a particular book.
I think I do the job I am trying to do in Aristotle’s Revenge about as well as it could have been done,
though of course it is just possible that I may be a little biased.
Third, I do
warn readers at the outset about both the scope and the limitations of the book. As I acknowledge in the preface, much more
could be said about every topic I address, and ultimately what we need are
book-length Aristotelian treatments of the philosophy of physics, book-length
Aristotelian treatments of the philosophy of time, book-length Aristotelian
treatments of the philosophy of biology, and so on. And I am confident that the rising generation
of neo-Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers is going to produce just such
works. Aristotle’s Revenge is intended as a roadmap for that larger
long-term group project, and as a set of (sometimes tentative) suggestions
about the different ways it might be carried out.
I have thoroughly enjoyed your Revenge, before this I mostly have relied on Maritain's Degrees of Knowledge. Nice to have such a seminal work to provide a much needed fraamework.
ReplyDeleteProf. Feser,
ReplyDeleteThank you for addressing my review. Aristotle's Revenge was truly informative and enjoyable to read - no small feat, especially in metaphysics!
I am glad that you have rightly noticed that my "main criticism" of your book was not intended to be especially... critical. Indeed, as the closing line of my review notes: "it is no small praise for a book to wish that there was more of it."
Congratulations on the positive attention that your book is receiving; it is well deserved. I look forward to your future publications.
In Christ,
René Ardell Fehr
Many thanks, Rene!
DeleteI think a fair description would be that the book addresses an incredibly large breadth of issues but that the depth of issues varies by topic. The vartinh depths actually mirror those areas where science raises the sharpest issues with Aristotelian philosophy. So, as Ed gas encountered in his work in natural theology, physics (and perhaps time in particular) are where the friction most common arises. In return, Ed focuses more on these areas.
ReplyDeleteThe road map is a good analogy. Some areas are pretty well tread by Aristotelians. Most will full pretty comfortable with modern biology and at least know the questions it's raises and possible responces well.
I'd say a book like this needs to focuses on more scientific areas than others. It's a strength.
So you're saying you're going to turn each chapter into it's own 400page plus books, and by next week, too! Excellent.
ReplyDeleteGee, give him till after the holidays, OK? A man's got to take a day off here or there.
DeleteHigh level academic reviews are fine and all, but in my opinion, the value of this book (and all Feser's efforts) is that it puts useful and easily accessible tools in the hands of non-specialists on the front lines of the battle against scientism and a world gone crazy.
ReplyDeleteIf the academics happen to like it too . . . well, I guess that's tolerable (sarcasm).
Imo the point when all went downhill in academia is when scientists became scientists and ceased to be natural philosophers. Books by Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Bohr and Dürr are infinitely more valuable than what is written by the vast majority of modern physicists
DeleteIndeed! Thanks for the reply.
DeletePerhaps it’s just a personality flaw, but I’m hopelessly drawn to those who are today considered the pariahs in their fields—a pariah being anyone who, at a minimum, acknowledges the value of intellectual modesty. No doubt tenure and the drive to get published heavily motivates people, especially in a field like particle physics which hasn’t had much in the way of new developments for decades now.
I just picked up “Lost in Math” by Sabine Hossenfelder after hearing her interviewed. Her thesis is that the cocksure attitudes amount physicists about what physics should look like is what is holding us back from making any actual progress (my paraphrase). And yet so many would be scientific saviors are completely oblivious to the disastrous effects of their own presumptions.