Thursday, January 8, 2026

Review of Gorman

Readers who have access to the journal The Thomist might be interested in my review of Michael Gorman’s terrific book A Contemporary Introduction to Thomistic Metaphysics, which appears in the January 2026 issue.

Posted by at

14 comments:

  1. AnonymousJanuary 8, 2026 at 2:30 PM

    No access to the world's premier Thomistic journal , The Thomist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Great Thurible of DarknessJanuary 9, 2026 at 9:11 PM

    This actually looks really interesting. Shame it's only in paperback.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJanuary 11, 2026 at 2:34 PM

    I bought this book a few months ago, and it's one of the best introductions to Thomistic metaphysics that I've ever read. Gorman's writing style is very accessible, and pretty entertaining at times.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ccmnxcJanuary 12, 2026 at 5:51 AM

    I thought it was excellent. A different flavor from Ed's, who has a stronger interest in engaging with the literature in contemporary analytic philosophy (not that Gorman doesn't do this). But I think as an introductory textbook, Gorman's book is quite exceptional.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2026 at 12:02 PM

    Have you blocked my comment? John Ghostley

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2026 at 1:40 PM

    Here is Dr Gorman talking about his book
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3tmadug030

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJanuary 12, 2026 at 8:13 PM

    When I read the book, he seemed to advocate a form of nominalism. I don’t think any form of nominalism is a good way to explain the operations of the human intellect.

    ReplyDelete
  8. NormJanuary 28, 2026 at 5:28 AM

    Hi Prof

    How are you ?

    I was wondering if you could take one question for me if it's not too much trouble.

    On a different matter rather then politics.

    You wrote in Aristotle's revenge that,

    "Even if we regarded the natural world as a single four-dimensional object, we could distinguish between the world itself as a concrete particular and the universal that it instantiates – a universal which, unlike the natural world itself and qua universal, is abstract rather than concrete, in principle multiply instantiable, causally inert, and so on"

    Would this be one way of explaining the difference between essence (universal) and existence ?

    Cheers

    Hope all is well. I am sorry for being a jerk earlier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NormFebruary 3, 2026 at 8:15 AM

      Just in case you missed it, Prof :)

      Delete
    2. Edward FeserFebruary 3, 2026 at 8:56 AM

      No worries, Norm!

      As to that passage in AR, the way I would put it is that it is referring to an example of that distinction. That is to say, if (as in the scenario it is discussing) we considered the universe as a whole as a single substance, it would have an essence distinct from its existence.

      Delete
    3. NormFebruary 3, 2026 at 10:01 AM

      Thank You Prof

      Cheers

      Delete
    4. NormFebruary 26, 2026 at 11:10 AM

      Hi Prof

      I was recently reading about causation and it's important to physics in AR.

      By chance do you happen to know of any old or contemporary physicist who would agree with this point you often make, just to strengthen its popularity, logically it's airtight.

      "They also fail to realize that the only way we can make sense of the idea that observation and experiment give us a rational justification for believing physical theory is if we suppose that our perceptual faculties are causally related to external reality (which is something else that Bertrand Russell emphasized)."

      You don't have to provide the exact quote. Just the name, I'll take it from there. If you get time

      Delete
    5. NormMarch 6, 2026 at 12:54 AM

      Hi Prof

      If you got some time to answer that question.

      It would be really helpful :)

      Delete
    6. NormMarch 9, 2026 at 11:00 PM

      So I read Prof Nigel Cundy the physicist agrees with Prof's argument for the indispensability of change in reasoning.

      Although I have yet to find a physicist who has espoused the point about causality.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)