Best Philosophy book for a Seminarian?

[1holycatholic]

Um…Aquinas’ Summa, anyone?

I listed a couple of Kreeft books on the Summa Theologica.

The Summa Theologica is philosophy and theology. It is written for beginners and is easy to understand by itself, but the Kreeft books have nice explanations for the explanations. Kreeft’s footnotes are enormous.

 

[Joe_5859]

I listed a couple of Kreeft books on the Summa Theologica.

The Summa Theologica is philosophy and theology. It is written for beginners and is easy to understand by itself, but the Kreeft books have nice explanations for the explanations. Kreeft’s footnotes are enormous.

Yes, very true! Kreeft’s Summa of the Summa (and Summa of the Summa of the Summa) are very helpful!

 

[jfoges]

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.

I have a quote that I think can help you

“Just as in the law courts no man can pass judgment who does not listen to the arguments from both parties, so must the person whose task is to study philosophy place himself in a better position to reach a judgment by listening to all the arguments, as if they came from undecided litigants.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas, Exposition of Aristotle’s Metaphysics.

I think you would be advised to take this advice from the Angelic Doctor.

 

[reggieM]

…so must the person whose task is to study philosophy place himself in a better position to reach a judgment by listening to all the arguments, as if they came from undecided litigants."

Given that the time it would take to “listen to all the arguments” it would require decades beyond what a seminarian is given the task to accomplish, the Angelic Doctor cannot possibly be talking about seminarians here, but rather professional philosophers who have the task of studying “all of the arguments”.

Can you imagine reading all of Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Popper, Frege, Searle, Kant, Schopenhaer, Wittgenstein, Hume, Carlysle, Simpson Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Popper, Frege, Searle, Foucault, Jaspers, Derrida … and more

and still have time to gain mastery in Thomism? (have you?)

Modern philosophy has to be summarized at the seminary level. Jesuits, perhaps, with their 15 years of preparation could handle a few of those in a comprehensive view.

 

[JDaniel]

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!

I would recommend:

1.) Being and God, by Klubertanz and Holloway;

2.) The General Science of Nature, by Vincent Edward Smith;

3.) Moral Theology - can’t remember the writer(s), but, Google shows several that are probably well worthwhile;

4.) Right and Reason, by Austin Fagothey, SJ.

All have Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs.

Best Wishes and God Bless,
jd

 

[Brendan]

I second the recommendation of the 9-volume A History of Philosophy series by Frederick Copleston, S.J. .

That was precisely the resource I was thinking of when I saw this thread.

For a seminarian, I would particularly recommend Vol I ( Classical Philosophy) and Vol II ( Medieval Philosohy)

Peter Kreeft’s “Summa of the Summa” is also a great start

I would also counsel against Hume, Nietzsche, Russell, Hegel et all.

They will be covered later in the seminarians training, with proper Catholic instruction on where and how they erred.

So wait until then.

 

[jfoges]

Given that the time it would take to “listen to all the arguments” it would require decades beyond what a seminarian is given the task to accomplish, the Angelic Doctor cannot possibly be talking about seminarians here, but rather professional philosophers who have the task of studying “all of the arguments”.

Can you imagine reading all of Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Popper, Frege, Searle, Kant, Schopenhaer, Wittgenstein, Hume, Carlysle, Simpson Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Popper, Frege, Searle, Foucault, Jaspers, Derrida … and more

and still have time to gain mastery in Thomism? (have you?)

Modern philosophy has to be summarized at the seminary level. Jesuits, perhaps, with their 15 years of preparation could handle a few of those in a comprehensive view.

I really disagree with you. You can’t learn philosophy by reading summaries, or just getting the professor’s opinion. To study philosophy you have to study the writings of the philosophers themselves, and read their arguments first hand.

Anyone can read Coppleston’s history of philoosophy and then have a bunch of opinions about philosophy that they can spout off at a cocktail party. This isn’t the same as studying philosophy, and forming one’s own opinion after considering all sides. At the very least, one must understand all sides, in depth. Seminarians are required to get a four year degree in philosophy. Anyone earning a degree in philosophy should endeavor to read as many philosophers as they can, covering all positions.

 

[reggieM]

I really disagree with you. You can’t learn philosophy by reading summaries, or just getting the professor’s opinion.

Well, I didn’t say “just” reading summaries but most of the philosophy textbooks that are required for seminarians are summaries that include original selections from a variety of philosophers.

To study philosophy you have to study the writings of the philosophers themselves, and read their arguments first hand.

Summaries provide that. Seminarians have a much greater task in life than studying modern philosophy (most of which is garbage anyway). Being immersed in the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church must be a priority. St. Augustine, St. Thomas and even Duns Scotus or St. Anselm’s works are an essential foundation as well. But one does not have to read every counter argument or read the writings (much less the entire corpus) of the plethora of modern philosophers.

But I will agree that they should read some original texts. Reading the entire Summa alone is a major task that could take several semesters of difficult work.

Anyone earning a degree in philosophy should endeavor to read as many philosophers as they can, covering all positions.

Well, it depends on the purpose. People who want to become professional philosophers need to take a different approach than seminarians do in my opinion.

 

[jfoges]

Reggie,

I studied philosophy for four years at a university and I never once came across a philosophy textbook. If they are used at all, they must not be common in university level philosophy studies. The fact that you call modern philosophy “garbage” is representative of the problem with your opinion on this subject. That is just such an underestimation of the thought that went into the arguments of the philosophers you so flippantly dismissed. You do not have to agree with them, but you do have to respect their intelligence and depth of understanding of philosophical problems, if you wish to regard yourself as someone knowledgeable about the subject of philosophy.

 

[reggieM]

I studied philosophy for four years at a university and I never once came across a philosophy textbook.

I minored in philosophy at a Catholic institution and we used textbooks or summaries. In fact, there are several execellent works of that nature mentioned on this thread itself.

The fact that you call modern philosophy “garbage” is representative of the problem with your opinion on this subject. That is just such an underestimation of the thought that went into the arguments of the philosophers you so flippantly dismissed.

Well, we have a difference of opinion on this and that seems fine to me. I do not respect the thought that went into the arguments because I find it to be shoddy, wicked, inhuman and very stupid. I consider a very large part of modern philosophy to be an outright evil – to be combatted or better just dismissed and ignored because it is truly worthless.

But I can understand that many people disagree and I can accept that to an extent – at least up to the point where atheism is praised.

You do not have to agree with them, but you do have to respect their intelligence and depth of understanding of philosophical problems,

Well, I respect their intelligence which was a gift from God, but I do not respect what they did with it. I also do not think they understand the philosophical problems but merely add further confusion and ambiguity.

if you wish to regard yourself as someone knowledgeable about the subject of philosophy.

I do fully agree with you here and I would not consider myself a philosopher or an expert in the topic. My interest is the Catholic Faith – a divine system that transcends all philosophies. Once I recognized the Truth that is the Catholic Faith, the musings of post-Christian-atheist philosophers lost all interest for me.

But since this thread is regarding seminarians, I do think I’m on very solid ground to argue that those preparing to as sacrificial priests of Christ in his Kingdom, the Church, should use philosophy as a tool for theological work.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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!

**Two authors who come to mind: **​

• **For the Fathers & Mediaevals - Etienne Gilson. **
• **For the history of (Western) philosophy up to about 1950: Father Copleston. **
  **If I were studying Philosophy I would also make sure to read something about Eastern philosophy, to provide balance & context , so as to avoid the idea that the Greeks are the source of all philosophy. **

---

**Also, look out for anything by Richard Sorabji: he has done a massive amount of work on Aristotle & Plato & the resulting tradition in the period from about 300 BC- 600 AD. This is very important for the intellectual background of the Fathers; & takew in the Neo-Platonists, pagan & Christian. **

 

[jfoges]

I don’t understand why people in this thread keep suggesting books on the history of philosophy. Studying the history of philosophy is not the same thing as studying philosophy. If you are studying philosophy itself then you would be reading the writings of philosophers, not o historians. Also, people keep saying that seminarians only need to study philosophers that are relevant to catholic theology. But I thought seminarians were required to get a degree in philosophy. If you get a degree in philosophy then you would be studying philosophy as a whole, not just certain opinions within philosophy. When I studied philosophy at university there were several seminarians who were in my classes, and they did infact study the philosophers I originally suggested, such as Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, and Hegel etc.

 

[reggieM]

When I studied philosophy at university there were several seminarians who were in my classes, and they did infact study the philosophers I originally suggested, such as Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, and Hegel etc.

From what I know (or at least I hope this is right), modern philosophy is studied critically to show the errors.

If someone is looking for the one best book for a seminarian then it would be best to avoid the anti-God philosophers. But some study of them is needed in order to be able to refute them.

The same is true of false religious ideas. In order to study Catholic theology, one needs to become familiar with errors like Protestantism or Mormonism. But those are not the primary focus of the study for a seminarian.

 

[kliner]

Hmm.

• John Paul II - Fides et Ratio
• Anything by: Josef Pieper, Fr. W. Norris Clarke, SJ (The One and the Many is a great overview), Fr. James Schall, SJ, Etienne Gilson
• I would even recommend GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc; they were definitely philosophers and definitely Catholic, though not of the “textbook” type.
  As far as the other argument goes, I studied philosophy for two years in seminary, and we never went past Kant. My professor argued that nothing past Kant and Hume needs to be studied because everything after them is based on them in some way. So, knowing them well helps us to understand the arguments of other modern philosophers if we do need to read them. I have consistently found this to be the case 2 years after finishing philosophy. Certainly, it would help to know the works of Nietzsche and whatnot, and, as someone pointed out, if seminarians had the time to study all of those works, it could be helpful. I also agree with their further point that even a Jesuit with about 14 years of formation would only have time to really focus on a few of them in depth. The important thing for seminarians is that they know how to articulate the truth using their philosophical training (which, if you check the documents on priestly formation, Fides et Ratio, as well as the Summa, is the handmaid of theology) - not to be “philosophers,” per se. Schools such as college seminaries (4 years of philosophy) will usually have the time to go into more depth on modern people, but I still find myself agreeing with my professor and his method of teaching. Also, in the time that I’ve spent studying and reading it (mind you, I’m not a “professional” philosopher, either), I’ve found that big names in Catholic philosophy don’t tend to many philosophers past Kant at length.

If you’re interested in how we were taught: generally, in each class, we would start with the Greeks and work our way up to Kant, presenting their respective thought on the subject. My professor would teach as if what they were saying was true (we often found ourselves thinking, “yea, that’s right”) only to have him refute it later on. The capstone of the class (usually the second half of the semester) was all Aquinas (he’s a Thomist), wherein he taught us the reasoning of the Catholic position through Thomas, while occasionally recalling the flaws found in the previous philosophers’ arguments.

 

[kateyu]

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!

I am attending seminary for MA, I recommend Robert Sokolowski: The God of Faith and Reason. It is short and sweet and inexpensive. You can look up all the others on google - that’s what I did, because as MA student I don’t need to take philosophy, but the seminarians do - in college. Robert Sokolowski is prof. of philosophy at Catholic U.
good luck!

 

[hmeade7489]

I too, recommend Copleston. I have read all nine volumes.

Dale Meade

 

[reggieM]

The capstone of the class (usually the second half of the semester) was all Aquinas (he’s a Thomist), wherein he taught us the reasoning of the Catholic position through Thomas, while occasionally recalling the flaws found in the previous philosophers’ arguments.

Sounds like a good seminary.

 

[kliner]

Sounds like a good seminary.

Notre Dame Seminary (nds.edu) in New Orleans. The professor of whom I wrote was Dr. James Jacobs, and there’s a new philosophy professor there, Dr. Mark Barker, who I hear is a good professor as well, but I didn’t have the opportunity to have him as a teacher.

 

[greylorn]

Consider adding to your list of philosophy books an obscure novel, The Soul of Anna Klane. Its author believes in God but questions whether or not the ancient understanding of God might not need a bit of updating.

The biggest problem with this novel is that its storyline tends to engage the reader, who then misses the point of the story. Readers can stay on track and still enjoy the story by solving a mini-puzzle: On what day does the story end?

Proof that the novel is more than a story… Douglas Hofstadter, Pulitzer Prize winning author, excerpted two chapters in his book about the nature of consciousness, “The Mind’s I.” Both chapters have been used in philosophy courses, some noted on the internet, most forgotten, as most philosophy courses deserve to be.

The book is available in paperback between the world’s ugliest bookcovers, thanks to Ballantine. That copy makes the book look like a horror story. But the author apparently re-wrote the paperpack after getting some feedback from the hardcover publication, so the paperback version is internally improved.

Copies are available for a few bucks on Amazon. Be sure to get the paperback version, nevermind how ugly the cover looks. Even readers who are not the least bit interested in the nature of consciousness or the purpose of God are likely to appreciate the story.

If you read in bed, don’t read this book during weekdays unless you work just fine on five hours of sleep.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t understand why people in this thread keep suggesting books on the history of philosophy. Studying the history of philosophy is not the same thing as studying philosophy. If you are studying philosophy itself then you would be reading the writings of philosophers, not o historians. Also, people keep saying that seminarians only need to study philosophers that are relevant to catholic theology. But I thought seminarians were required to get a degree in philosophy. If you get a degree in philosophy then you would be studying philosophy as a whole, not just certain opinions within philosophy. When I studied philosophy at university there were several seminarians who were in my classes, and they did infact study the philosophers I originally suggested, such as Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, and Hegel etc.

I’m not a major in philosophy, but I know NO one who gained a philosophy degree by simply reading anything and everything written by any and every philosopher. Even covering most of the major philosophers in any sort of depth would be analogous to having an English lit major attempt to read all significant novels, poems AND plays ever written in English.

The approach which I saw taken in both institutions WAS to start the first year by using summary texts (containing plenty of slabs of verbatim quotes from the relevant philosophers mind you) First year was spent broadly covering the major schools of philosophical thought - stoicism, utilitarianism, marxism, existentialism, modernism, post-modernism etc etc - as well as the major areas of philosophy, such as political philosophy, epistemology, ethics, logic, or what have you.

The idea was to give the student a taste of each. By second year, inevitably, students would start to narrow their focus. Which is a legitimate thing to do in an expansive discipline like philosophy.

Just like the English lit student would be free to concentrate on the novels of Jane Austen as opposed to the plays of Tennessee Williams or the poetry of Emily Dickinson, and choose whichever they had most interest in without being accused of lacking in learning for doing so.

In the same manner, philosophy students might concentrate on the ancient Greeks as opposed to the postmodernists, or metaphysics as opposed to feminist philosophy, and surely need not be accused of not being true ‘philosophers’ by concentrating on a particular area or areas.