Best Philosophy book for a Seminarian?

[Crusader4Jesus]

What book do you recommend a Seminarian should study for philosophy? (needless to say it has to be faithful to the Church, would it be too much to ask for one with an Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat? ) Thanks!

 

[cpayne]

Copleston’s history of philosophy is good. It’s nine volumes, but you can find it combined into three volumes. A little pricey, maybe—look for used or Ebay, perhaps? But I guess it’s not too much compared to other stuff; even the big three-volume set is in paperback.

For a more specific recommendation, what particular philosophy is he most interested in? Does he want a technical academic work or one more popular in nature?

 

[reggieM]

A seminarian should be given the best book by his teachers since he is in the process of learning (why would he ask such a question on an internet forumr?).

If you’re in the unfortunate position of having teachers that will not ive you the best philosophy books to read … rather than take my advice on what you should read (and I can give you some of the best titles) – you might consider moving to a seminary where the formation is of the highest quality (FSSP).

 

[jfoges]

You are already off to the wrong start. If you want to study philosophy you should not be looking for a book, but a multitude of books, written by actual philosophers. As someone who majored in philosophy I reccomend the following works in order.Russell also recommends these books for a novice.

Bertrand Russell: Problems in Philosophy
Plato: Republic
Descartes: Meditations
Spinoza: Ethics
Berkeley: Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous.
Hume: Inquiry into Human Understanding
Kant: Prologemana to any future Metaphysics
Nietzsche: Thus spake Zarathustra
Hegel: Phemonenology of Spirits

If you read all these then you will be well on your way to being a philosopher, which all good priests are.

 

[cpayne]

I disagree. Priests aren’t philosophers, although they can be. It’s not a required part of the calling, although, again, it can be.

While I’m thinking about it: Philosophy for Understanding Theology, by Diogenes Allen, is also good.

 

[jfoges]

I disagree. Priests aren’t philosophers, although they can be. It’s not a required part of the calling, although, again, it can be.

While I’m thinking about it: Philosophy for Understanding Theology, by Diogenes Allen, is also good.

I don’t see how someone can provide pastoral guidance for people without having a philosophical mentality.

 

[reggieM]

A word of caution on some of the recommendations …

Bertrand Russell - atheist, anti-Christian
Hume - atheist, anti-Christian
Nietzsche - atheist, anti-Christian
Hegel - atheist, anti-Christian

 

[Cajetan]

I second the recommendation of the 9-volume A History of Philosophy series by Frederick Copleston, S.J. For my money these dense volumes still comprise/provide the best general introduction to philosophy in English, and one which students will return to again and again in their studies (I know I have, as have many of my fellow philosophy majors at my university). In my view they are the ideal secondary source starting points for exciting interest in exploring primary source material (the famous philosophical texts which Copleston introduces to the reader and expounds upon) and then more specific secondary source material (scholarly books or commentaries on the finer doctrinal points of particular philosophers) – which is their purpose. But just the expository content of Copleston’s volumes themselves is quite excellent and valuable. He doesn’t just skim over/outline the teachings of Aristotle or Aquinas or Hume, as do most contemporary academic histories of philosophy; he ‘gets his hands dirty’ with them, as a philosophical scholar of brilliant skill.

The newer, colorful Image Books paperbacks of the series are also very economical. Also, each volume carries the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

 

[jfoges]

A word of caution on some of the recommendations …

Bertrand Russell - atheist, anti-Christian
Hume - atheist, anti-Christian
Nietzsche - atheist, anti-Christian
Hegel - atheist, anti-Christian

thats fine but you still have to read all those if you want to be a philosopher.

 

[Katholish]

There are two different aspects to studying philosophy, one is historical and one is actual philosophical argumentation (obviously the two would overlap to a degree).

On the historical side, I will again recommend Fr. Copleston’s work (hopefully three recommendations thus far should argue in its favor) I have read several of his volumes from both the modern and medieval periods and he provides an outstanding summary and analysis and while approaching from a Catholic view, tries to be fair in his presentation so that the student truly understands the philosopher in question.

For a sound philosophy, I would have to recommend the St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae as the best work. While primarly a work a theology, the two sciences are rather well blended and Thomas covers a wide variety of topics, from the philosophy of God to that of civil societies and law, to human nature and ethics. Copleston will cover everyone else in sufficent detail for a decent grasp of philosophy, but Thomas needs to be studied in more depth.

 

[Cajetan]

Katholish:

Copeston’s one-volume study Aquinas (Penguin Books, 272 pgs.) is quite good. I tend to view it as an extension of the Aquinas material in Volume II of the History of Philosophy series; if a student reads this material and then desires a fuller exposition from Copleston, get Aquinas.

But I would certainly also recommend getting into Aquinas’ writings themselves (such as the Summa theologiae). IMO there has been no better time for English-speaking (non Latin-reading) students who are interested in reading Aquinas’ works. There has been a real renaissance going on in Anglo-American Aquinas Studies in recent years, and new translations (or new editions of older translations) of the Summa and of lesser-known texts (such as On Being and Essence or the Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima), are being released regularly and affordably by a wide variety of publishers, easily available through Amazon. Below (in no particular order) are some recent and economical editions, containing both translations and valuable notes/commentary, which I would recommend to the student who wants to approach Aquinas through the primary texts. I have used and profited from each of them.

(1) A Shorter Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica by Peter Kreeft (Ignatius Press, 162 pgs.)

amazon.com/Shorter-Summa-Essential-Philosophical-Theologica/dp/0898704383/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230747867&sr=1-1

(2) A Summa of the Summa (Peter Kreeft, Ed.; Ignatius Press, 539 pgs.)

amazon.com/Summa-Thomas/dp/089870300X/ref=pd_sim_b_1

(3) The Treatise On The Divine Nature: Summa Theologiae I 1-13 (Brian J. Shanley, O.P., trans., commentary; Robert Pasnau, Ed.; Hackett Publishing Co.: ‘The Hackett Aquinas’ series, 370 pgs.)

amazon.com/Treatise-Divine-Nature-Theologiae-Hackett/dp/0872208060/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230748263&sr=1-6

(4) Treatise on Human Nature: Summa Theologiae 1A 75-89 (Robert Pasnau, trans., commentary; Hackett Publishing Co.: ‘The Hackett Aquinas’ series, 464 pgs.)

amazon.com/Treatise-Human-Nature-Theologiae-Hackett/dp/0872206130/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

(5) On Human Nature (Thomas S. Hibbs, Ed.; Hackett Publishing Co., 224 pgs.) (Contains selections from the Summa Theologica and the Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima.)

amazon.com/Human-Nature-Aquinas-Thomas/dp/0872204545/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230748819&sr=1-3

(6) Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics (Richard J. Regan, S.J., trans.; Hackett Publishing Co., 213 pgs.)

amazon.com/Commentary-Aristotles-Politics-Aquinas-Thomas/dp/0872208699/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230748819&sr=1-4

(7) A Summary of Philosophy (Richard J. Regan, S.J., trans., Ed.; Hackett Publishing Co., 224 pgs.) (Contains selections of primarily philosophical interest from the Summa Theologica.)

amazon.com/Summary-Philosophy-Thomas-Aquinas/dp/0872206572/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230749242&sr=1-3

(8) The Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance (Richard J. Regan, S.J., trans., Ed.; Hackett Publishing Co., 172 pgs.) (Selections from the Summa Theologica.)

amazon.com/Cardinal-Virtues-Prudence-Fortitude-Temperance/dp/0872207463/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230749448&sr=1-2

(9) Aquinas’s Shorter Summa: Saint Thomas’s Own Concise Version of His Summa Theologica (Sophia Institute Press, 432 pgs.) (A complete translation of Aquinas’ lesser-known but very valuable work, the Compendium theologiae.)

amazon.com/Aquinass-Shorter-Summa-Thomass-Theologica/dp/1928832431

(10) Aquinas: Selected Philosophical Writings (Timothy McDermott,O.P., Ed., trans.; Oxford University Press, 496 pgs.) (This one might be the best of the bunch listed, containing ample selections not just from the Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles but from many smaller, lesser-known works, a couple of them in their entirety.)

amazon.com/Selected-Philosophical-Writings-Oxford-Classics/dp/0199540276/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230749847&sr=1-5

 

[reggieM]

thats fine but you still have to read all those if you want to be a philosopher.

I disagree.

But aside from that, the question on this thread was from a seminarian looking for some philosophy “which has to be faithful to the Church”. Hume, Nietzsche, Russell, Hegel (and others like them) offer very bad philosophy and an anti-Christian orientation.

 

[Cajetan]

True.

But I do think that a faithful Catholic may profit from studying the four horsemen mentioned above, particularly Hume and Russell. They did a lot of really bad and damaging work, but they also did some great things. A seminarian should know something about them, if for no other reason than the massive influence that they have had on the Continental and Anglo-American philosophical/theological methods and the cultures generally.

 

[jfoges]

I disagree.

But aside from that, the question on this thread was from a seminarian looking for some philosophy “which has to be faithful to the Church”. Hume, Nietzsche, Russell, Hegel (and others like them) offer very bad philosophy and an anti-Christian orientation.

How do they offer bad philosophy? How can philosophy be bad? If philosophy consists of argumentation about philosophical questions, how can an argument be bad? And if one cannot read a philosopher like Hume or Nietzsche without being “influenced” in some harmful way, how can that person really say they understand anything? Seems to me that to try to censor and shun philosophers because you disagree with their conclusions is highly irrational and as a result, anti-christian.

 

[reggieM]

How do they offer bad philosophy? How can philosophy be bad?

If it’s not possible to produce bad philosophy, then the field itself has no value at all.

If philosophy consists of argumentation about philosophical questions, how can an argument be bad?

What do you consider to be “the good”?

And if one cannot read a philosopher like Hume or Nietzsche without being “influenced” in some harmful way, how can that person really say they understand anything?

One does not need to embrace Satan to know what evil is.

Seems to me that to try to censor and shun philosophers because you disagree with their conclusions is highly irrational and as a result, anti-christian.

On what basis do you judge what is Christian or what is not?

 

[reggieM]

But I do think that a faithful Catholic may profit from studying the four horsemen mentioned above, particularly Hume and Russell. They did a lot of really bad and damaging work, but they also did some great things. A seminarian should know something about them, if for no other reason than the massive influence that they have had on the Continental and Anglo-American philosophical/theological methods and the cultures generally.

True, it’s important to know something about them, but I think their works can be summarized quickly enough as a summary or overview. Many of the numerous volumes of drivel that modern atheist philosophers produced are not worth reading or really taking seriously in my opinion.

Where they offered good points or valuable insights, those should be acknowledged and appreciated at the same time. I agree.

 

[1holycatholic]

The professor in the seminary will assign readings for the class. I have taken two philosophy classes at a seminary. They were classes for the diaconate, but I think aspirants to the priesthood take the same classes, only more of them. :yup:

Here is a list of the books bought and read for each class.

Class A:

• Pseudo Dionysius: The Complete Works (Classics of Western Spirituality)
• Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: The Posthumous Essays of the Immortality of the Soul and of Suicide
• God
• Proslogion, with the Replies of Gaunilo and Anselm
• A Summa of the Summa
• MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, Sixth Edition
• The Essential Plotinus: Representative Treatises from the Enneads
• The Consolation of Philosophy: Boethius
• God and Philosophy, Second edition

Class B:

• Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, 4th Ed.
• The Trial and Death of Socrates
• Nicomachean Ethics
• A Shorter Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica
• Philosophy 101 by Socrates: An Introduction to Philosophy Via Plato’s Apology
• Aristotle: Selections
• On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life
• The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics
• Aristotle: Introductory Readings [Paperback]
• The Republic Of Plato: Second Edition [Paperback]
• The Practice of Philosophy: Handbook for Beginners (3rd Edition) [Paperback]

Hope this helps.

 

[jfoges]

True, it’s important to know something about them, but I think their works can be summarized quickly enough as a summary or overview. Many of the numerous volumes of drivel that modern atheist philosophers produced are not worth reading or really taking seriously in my opinion.

Where they offered good points or valuable insights, those should be acknowledged and appreciated at the same time. I agree.

You admit that its important to know something about them and then you say that it is not worth it to read what they wrote. Seems like you are contradicting yourself, and are just trying too hard to hold on to the opinion that it is wrong to read certain philosophers who go against catholic teaching.

 

[reggieM]

You admit that its important to know something about them and then you say that it is not worth it to read what they wrote. Seems like you are contradicting yourself, and are just trying too hard to hold on to the opinion that it is wrong to read certain philosophers who go against catholic teaching.

I said that a “summary or overview” is sufficient to “know something about them”. I also said that it is not worth reading what they wrote (since a 3rd party summary is sufficient).

So, there’s no contradiction here.

Given that most Catholics are very poorly formed in Catholic philosophy and spend very little time to become immersed, practiced and expert in it – then yes, there’s no doubt that wasting one’s time on atheist, anti-Catholic drivel is wrong to the point of being very sinful.

It’s like having a Catholic study the Koran and taking it seriously before ever understanding the Catholic catechism.

I did not say that it was absolutely wrong to study false philosophical systems (as those mentioned). But there has to be a good reason for it, and there has to be a high level of Catholic-philosophical competence aligned with the study. For a seminarian this is very easily done with a seminary professor who can summarize volumes of nonsense and save candidates for the priestly life many wasted hours that can be more profitably used otherwise.

 

[Joe_5859]

Um…Aquinas’ Summa, anyone?

Just to enter the debate…

Every priest does study philosophy, but not every priest has to be a full-fledged philosopher. A priest’s first responsibility is to be a pastor to his people, teaching them and giving them the sacraments. Philosophy can help, but a priest doesn’t need to read Nietzsche and Hegel to be a good priest.