tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3909340302642826274..comments2024-03-29T02:29:03.388-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: A Neo-Scholastic revival?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61423969194358091652021-03-12T21:01:38.719-08:002021-03-12T21:01:38.719-08:00If you think R G-L condemned all Protestants to he...If you think R G-L condemned all Protestants to hell, you clearly have not taken a peek at his Life Everlasting, where he actually favors a more generous position than most on the whole "many-or-few-will-be-saved?" controversy, and explicitly mentions how many Protestants will be saved, mentioning things like invincible ignorance and a perfect act of contrition. William Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02638610948418402049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87101166485441188372018-02-10T15:13:17.692-08:002018-02-10T15:13:17.692-08:00Dear Casey981,
The purest distillation of neo-sch...Dear Casey981,<br /><br />The purest distillation of neo-scholasticism must be the famous 24 theses below (commented on by R G-L in Reality). Very handy as a starting point but not as an end and a substitute for reading Thomas himself. In my experience, where such documents present exhustive clear and distinct principles, in Thomas they are often suggestive and non-exhaustive. The best example I have recently examined is on Natural Law. In contrast to the famous “five precepts” (codified by whom? Cajetan or Saurez?) what you see in Aquinas in the ST is a very loose set of examples nicked from Justinian and Cicero. <br /><br />In the end, although I am more in sympathy with the first respondent to Edward, it is surely unfair to accuse summary texts written for non-specialists of dogmatism (like science text books), when they should be pedagogical tool to be moved beyond. The real point of contention is the presuppositions of Cajetan et. al. inspired Neo-Thomism. So the story goes, it is these presuppositions that in part drive the need for clear and distict manuals and not just the practical clerical demands of the day that Edward invokes. <br /><br />http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/philosophy/thomast.htm<br /><br />Nik Cushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10361754400634685716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72589597138375684002015-04-12T12:41:01.006-07:002015-04-12T12:41:01.006-07:00"he didn't produce arguments of nearly th..."he didn't produce arguments of nearly the level of rigor and precision that would be necessary for him to be taken seriously by philosophers."<br /><br />Give me an example.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26345033326583707232008-12-10T22:16:00.000-08:002008-12-10T22:16:00.000-08:00Thank you for the list of Neo-Scholastic sources.I...Thank you for the list of Neo-Scholastic sources.<BR/><BR/>I've been thinking about what makes a Thomist a Thomist. Not that I'm assuming it need be just one thing; to be a Thomist perhaps it would be enough to philosophize in the "spirit" of Aquinas, whatever we might take that to mean.<BR/><BR/>I'm thinking what if we had a philosopher with the following beliefs:<BR/><BR/>(1) The God of traditional theism can by argument be proven to exist;<BR/>(2) (1) is true not only in principle, there is also at least one argument we can point to that does prove God's existence ("prove" as in gives justification for rational assent to, or something);<BR/>(3) hylomorphism about man's composite nature is right, with the rider that the mind is immaterial (and must be for knowledge to be possible);<BR/>(4) free will exists (in terms of what I have heard described as moderate determinism);<BR/>(5) all human actions have happiness, and in a more obscure way God, as their final end;<BR/>(6) virtue theory is right;<BR/>(7) natural law theory is right (and fits with virtue theory).<BR/><BR/>I'm wondering if one can be a Thomist while rejecting any from (1)-(7), and if so which one(s). (My understanding is that some new natural law theorists will pretty much reject (5) but still be considered Thomists, or at least consider themselves as such, so maybe it would be better to consider whether any from (1)-(7), not counting (5), can be rejected while maintaining Thomism.)<BR/><BR/>Part of why I want to get clear on what beliefs go into the makeup of a Thomist is so I can pinpoint where Thomism can contribute in today's philosophical debates. To me the aspect of (3) regarding hylomorphism and (5) jump out as areas of Thomistic thought not very prominent in contemporary philosophy.<BR/><BR/>I know the post was intended specifically to defend Neo-Scholasticism against certain criticisms, but I'm interested to see what your opinion is concerning at what junctures of contemporary philosophy Thomism (or Neo-Thomism or Neo-Scholasticism, I'm not sure) is most needed. At a more basic level, I'm not sure if the value of Thomism is supposed to lie more in its specific doctrines, like those listed above, or in its systematic nature which, I take it, is much less characteristic of the contemporary philosophical scene.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40537376970339309752008-12-10T14:42:00.000-08:002008-12-10T14:42:00.000-08:00Interesting chap, Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange. R G...Interesting chap, Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange. R G-L consistently defended Petain and the Vichy, even after WWII. He seems to have considered Maritain--quite conservative himself--to be nearly a marxist. R G-L also condemned all protestants into Hell (Luther, most significantly), as well as Kant, Hegel, and English empiricists.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9081676874383930332008-12-05T09:03:00.000-08:002008-12-05T09:03:00.000-08:00I think you need to distinguish between 2 species:...I think you need to distinguish between 2 species:<BR/><BR/>Commentaries<BR/><BR/>Manuals<BR/><BR/>I recommend reading the late Fr Servais Pinckaers, OP's The Sources of Christian Ethics or the Reader's Digest version -- Catholic Morality, both English translations of the French and conveniently published by St Augustine Press the same publisher as some guy whose name escapes me at the moment, but I'm sure I will think of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2176346521992612122008-12-03T05:59:00.000-08:002008-12-03T05:59:00.000-08:00Hell, consider even Mortimer Adler, for whom I hav...Hell, consider even Mortimer Adler, for whom I have a kind of soft spot. Adler didn't fall short in arguments and addressing the real opposition in the way that some neo-Thomists did, but still, because he wrote entirely for novice philosophers, he didn't produce arguments of nearly the level of rigor and precision that would be necessary for him to be taken seriously by philosophers. It isn't just that he argued for unfashionable theses (many of those theses have become less unfashionable, but Adler's reputation has not improved); it's that he didn't give as much attention to detail or even acknowledge that there were problems of detail. It's no good to say that those problems aren't really there, or aren't really serious, or that the details aren't important; just look at how much <I>more</I> Oderberg has to do to produce a strong defense of just a few key Aristotelian theses, and you'll see my point.<BR/><BR/>I'm not denigrating neo-Thomism as a whole. I'm just denying that the reason why nobody outside of traditional Catholic circles took it very seriously was because they were all a bunch of prejudiced, anti-Catholic dimwits. Just consider the fact that people <I>did</I> take Maritain seriously, consider why he was successful at being read and discussed by non-Catholics and even atheists when so many others weren't, and you'll see my point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44598766969708290552008-12-03T05:42:00.000-08:002008-12-03T05:42:00.000-08:00Compare Haldane and Davies to, say, Garrigou-Lagra...Compare Haldane and Davies to, say, Garrigou-Lagrange. The first two write in a way that is meant to engage with people who disagree with them. With G-L, you'd better be pretty sympathetic to begin with or you won't be able to handle the amount ot stuff he lets go without responding to objections and the like. The fact that the charge of insularity is made by <I>other Thomists</I> is pretty telling, I think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48614059606355387502008-12-03T00:22:00.000-08:002008-12-03T00:22:00.000-08:00Well, the point of the manuals specifically -- as...Well, the point of the manuals specifically -- as opposed to the other works of the sort of people who wrote the manuals -- was in part to assist in educating priests, and this practical task is one to which endless debate over philosophical minutiae is inappropriate. So to that extent such criticism is misplaced.<BR/><BR/>I would also deny that neo-Thomism was insular. On the contrary, neo-Thomists were (and are) constantly engaging in debate with other traditions and incorporating what is of value in them. The trouble is that the other side, beholden to dogmas of its own, is too often unwilling to reciprocate. In short, the charge of "insularity" made by the critics of neo-Thomism is, it seems to me, more or less a case of projection.<BR/><BR/>Re: your last remark, my point is that it was rarely argued or even suggested by its critics that the broad Neo-Scholastic framework as a whole had actually been refuted. This remains true even if (as you rightly note) there were quibbles over this or that point of detail. Instead of saying "Here's why (e.g.) the theory of act and potency or the essence/existence distinction is wrong," the anti-Scholastics just changed the subject altogether.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16695759461993378732008-12-02T06:14:00.000-08:002008-12-02T06:14:00.000-08:00It may be worth pointing out, though, that even 'a...It may be worth pointing out, though, that even 'analytic' Thomists of whom you tend to approve, like Haldane and Davies, seem to agree that the manuals had some pretty negative effects, at least philosophically. Their point seems to be that learning from the manuals left people without any suitable sense of the dialectical basis of philosophy, giving students no adequate appreciation of how Aquinas' philosophy presents a set of answers to questions and problems. In terms of your comparison with physics and chemistry, the analogy would be to people who just know by rote what the latest theories are, but have no real appreciation for how one arrives at those theories, what the real reasons for accepting them are, and what the real alternatives might be. As with the natural sciences, this sort of knowledge is better than ignorance, but it's precisely this that makes a lot of people who are 'educated' in the sciences tend toward a dogmatic assurance that the theories in their textbooks are just true plain and simple and makes them completely misunderstand the nature of science as a matter of simply looking at what's out there and coming up with the best experimentally supportable account of it. I think the nature of philosophy is suitably different from the natural sciences to make this issue even more pressing, but even if we accept the analogy without complaint, it's easy to see how a manualist tradition <I>could</I> produce the results with which some have found fault. I'm not in a position to say whether or not it actually did, but it might go some way to explaining the typical insularity of neo-Thomism. <BR/><BR/>As for substantive criticisms of the content of the manuals, quite a few people have complained that the manuals get Aquinas wrong by emphasizing rules and obligations to the detriment of virtues and that they don't adequately explain the treatment of analogy. Again, I'm not in a position to know whether this is true, but it is at least a real criticism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com