Contemporary Scholasticism

  • Thread starter Thread starter ApologiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ApologiaSophia

Guest
What comes to your mind when you think of Contemporary/Analytic Thomism? Does anyone try to combine contemporary philosophy with Augustinianism–Analytic Augustinianism? Are such notions or syntheses beneficial? How so? I have a philosophy professor who professes to be an Augustinian Thomist. How would their philosophies be reconciled? What would a basic thought structure for all of these look like (presuppositions, goals, epistemology, etc.)? Also, why does it seem like there is little to no effort in synthesizing Continental philosophy with Thomism? I’m looking into graduate studies for philosophy/theology and this is a particular area of interest for me.
 
I started reading Aquinas forty years ago and I don’t know what you’re talking about. 😦

Sounds like this is an issue for graduate students of philosophy about graduate school curricula.
 
What comes to your mind when you think of Contemporary/Analytic Thomism? Does anyone try to combine contemporary philosophy with Augustinianism–Analytic Augustinianism? Are such notions or syntheses beneficial? How so? I have a philosophy professor who professes to be an Augustinian Thomist. How would their philosophies be reconciled? What would a basic thought structure for all of these look like (presuppositions, goals, epistemology, etc.)? Also, why does it seem like there is little to no effort in synthesizing Continental philosophy with Thomism? I’m looking into graduate studies for philosophy/theology and this is a particular area of interest for me.
Have been reading Thomas off and on for 40 yrs also and have no idea what you are talking about. Don’t know what the Augustinians teach in philosophy and don’t know or particularly care what folks are doing on the continent, since nothing they have done in the last two or three hundred years makes much sense. As far as I’m concerned if you are studying philosophy and are studying anything but Aristotle and St Thomas and the Schoolmen you are absolutely wasting your time. 👍
 
Read the link but it didn’t say anything about analytitic Thomism? I have heard of Dr. Rizzi and his book but for some reason I can’t remember I decided not to buy the book. If I can get it from a library perhaps I’ll take a look. 👍
I thought Rizzi’s book was a very good introduction into Thomism, but, being a philosophic text, it can be a little terse to those who are not so well versed in philosophy.
I think I might pick it up again after I finish the Tolkien Middle-earth series again (well, really just The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, I have tried and failed to read the Silmarillion too many times).
 
What comes to your mind when you think of Contemporary/Analytic Thomism?
The first name to pop into my head was G. E. M Anscombe. I have a inter-library loan request in for her “Three Philosophers” (-one of whom is Aquinas.) I just read Phillipa Foot’s "Natural Goodness:–she’s in the analytic tradition (-Wittgenstein’s and Anscombe’s name crop up frequently) and refers to Aquinas a few times.
 
… I have a philosophy professor who professes to be an Augustinian Thomist. How would their philosophies be reconciled? What would a basic thought structure for all of these look like (presuppositions, goals, epistemology, etc.)? .
Reading the dear St. Thomas (about finished with Part I of the Summa), I find Thomas reconciles Augustine quite nicely himself. If a person were not reconciled to accepting the authority of Revelation in Scripture and Tradition, however, then reading Thomas or Augustine would be an intellectual exercise unrelated to the quest for truth. It would then be a quest for new (or old) ideas. But the intellect requires truth for satisfaction. Those who hold Revelation have their First Principle (God) to test all things.

John Martin
 
Thanks everyone for their responses. I appreciate the time you took out to answer me. If anyone is curious about contemporary Thomism and are interested in looking into it at all, I found some nice introductory material to Analytical Thomism on philpapers.org.

Thanks again. 🙂
 
. . . . As far as I’m concerned if you are studying philosophy and are studying anything but Aristotle and St Thomas and the Schoolmen you are absolutely wasting your time. 👍
Tell that to JPII who, in addition to St. Thomas, studied Husserl, Paul Ricouer, Gadamer, etc.

Aristotle and Aquinas are the core; but even preconciliar papal statements refuse to teach Thomism as a closed system unable or unwilling to be enriched by new insights.

But, as men are apt to follow the lead given them, this new pursuit seems to have caught the souls of certain Catholic philosophers, who, throwing aside the patrimony of ancient wisdom, chose rather to build up a new edifice than to strengthen and complete the old by aid of the new–ill-advisedly, in sooth, and not without detriment to the sciences. . . . In saying this We have no intention of discountenancing the learned and able men who bring their industry and erudition, and, what is more, the wealth of new discoveries, to the service of philosophy; for, of course, We understand that this tends to the development of learning.
[Leo XIII, *Aeterni Patris, 1879, #24]

The Church, indeed–as facts have everywhere proved–looks chiefly and above all to the defense of the Christian faith, while careful at the same time to foster and promote every kind of human learning. For learning is in itself good, and praiseworthy, and desirable; and further, all erudition which is the outgrowth of sound reason, and in conformity with the truth of things, serves not a little to confirm what we believe on the authority of God. The Church, truly, to our great benefit, has carefully preserved the monuments of ancient wisdom; has opened everywhere homes of science, and has urged on intellectual progress by fostering most diligently the arts by which the culture of our age is so much advanced. Lastly, we must not forget that a vast field lies freely open to man’s industry and genius, containing all those things which have no necessary connection with Christian faith and morals, or as to which the Church, exercising no authority, leaves the judgment of the learned free and unconstrained.
[Leo XIII, *Libertas, 1888, #28]

Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. However, even in these fundamental questions, we may clothe our philosophy in a more convenient and richer dress, make it more vigorous with a more effective terminology, divest it of certain scholastic aids found less useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits of progress of the human mind. But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic. For truth and its philosophic expression cannot change from day to day, least of all where there is question of self-evident principles of the human mind or of those propositions which are supported by the wisdom of the ages and by divine revelation. Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Christian therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.
[Pius XII, *Humanae Generis, 1950, # 30]
 
Tell that to JPII who, in addition to St. Thomas, studied Husserl, Paul Ricouer, Gadamer, etc.

Aristotle and Aquinas are the core; but even preconciliar papal statements refuse to teach Thomism as a closed system unable or unwilling to be enriched by new insights.

But, as men are apt to follow the lead given them, this new pursuit seems to have caught the souls of certain Catholic philosophers, who, throwing aside the patrimony of ancient wisdom, chose rather to build up a new edifice than to strengthen and complete the old by aid of the new–ill-advisedly, in sooth, and not without detriment to the sciences. . . . In saying this We have no intention of discountenancing the learned and able men who bring their industry and erudition, and, what is more, the wealth of new discoveries, to the service of philosophy; for, of course, We understand that this tends to the development of learning.
[Leo XIII, *Aeterni Patris, 1879, #24]

The Church, indeed–as facts have everywhere proved–looks chiefly and above all to the defense of the Christian faith, while careful at the same time to foster and promote every kind of human learning. For learning is in itself good, and praiseworthy, and desirable; and further, all erudition which is the outgrowth of sound reason, and in conformity with the truth of things, serves not a little to confirm what we believe on the authority of God. The Church, truly, to our great benefit, has carefully preserved the monuments of ancient wisdom; has opened everywhere homes of science, and has urged on intellectual progress by fostering most diligently the arts by which the culture of our age is so much advanced. Lastly, we must not forget that a vast field lies freely open to man’s industry and genius, containing all those things which have no necessary connection with Christian faith and morals, or as to which the Church, exercising no authority, leaves the judgment of the learned free and unconstrained.
[Leo XIII, *Libertas
, 1888, #28]

Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. However, even in these fundamental questions, we may clothe our philosophy in a more convenient and richer dress, make it more vigorous with a more effective terminology, divest it of certain scholastic aids found less useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits of progress of the human mind. But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic. For truth and its philosophic expression cannot change from day to day, least of all where there is question of self-evident principles of the human mind or of those propositions which are supported by the wisdom of the ages and by divine revelation. Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Christian therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.
[Pius XII, *Humanae Generis, 1950, # 30]

I think the optimal lesson is caution about novelty of any kind. And yes John Paul studied Phenomenology. In his seminary days that was the thing. I don’t have the time or energy to study anything but Thomas. Yes his terminology and method are off putting, but it has to be the basis for any valid philosophy. 👍
 
Fr. of Jazz

Here is an interesting bit of Edith Stein’s scholastic efforts. She studied under Husseral and he recommended her for a Professorship which of course was turned down by the German Government because she was Jewish. Anyway she eventually did a lot of work on Thomas Aquinas.

Teresa Benedict of the Cross Edith Stein (1891-1942)
nun, Discalced Carmelite, martyr

In 1913, Edith Stein transferred to G6ttingen University, to study under the mentorship of Edmund Husserl. She became his pupil and teaching assistant, and he later tutored her for a doctorate. At the time, anyone who was interested in philosophy was fascinated by Husserl’s new view of reality, whereby the world as we perceive it does not merely exist in a Kantian way, in our subjective perception. His pupils saw his philosophy as a return to objects: “back to things”. Husserl’s phenomenology unwittingly led many of his pupils to the Christian faith. In G6ttingen Edith Stein also met the philosopher Max Scheler, who directed her attention to Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, she did not neglect her “bread-and-butter” studies and passed her degree with distinction in January 1915, though she did not follow it up with teacher training.

Later, she wrote: “Things were in God’s plan which I had not planned at all. I am coming to the living faith and conviction that - from God’s point of view - there is no chance and that the whole of my life, down to every detail, has been mapped out in God’s divine providence and makes complete and perfect sense in God’s all-seeing eyes.”

Edith Stein wanted to obtain a professorship, a goal that was impossible for a woman at the time. Husserl wrote the following reference: “Should academic careers be opened up to ladies, then I can recommend her whole-heartedly and as my first choice for admission to a professorship.” Later, she was refused a professorship on account of her Jewishness.

Back in Breslau, Edith Stein began to write articles about the philosophical foundation of psychology. However, she also read the New Testament, Kierkegaard and Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises. She felt that one could not just read a book like that, but had to put it into practice.

In the summer of 1921. she spent several weeks in Bergzabern (in the Palatinate) on the country estate of Hedwig Conrad-Martius, another pupil of Husserl’s. Hedwig had converted to Protestantism with her husband. One evening Edith picked up an autobiography of St. Teresa of Avila and read this book all night. “When I had finished the book, I said to myself: This is the truth.” Later, looking back on her life, she wrote: “My longing for truth was a single prayer.”

On 1 January 1922 Edith Stein was baptized. It was the Feast of the Circumcision of Jesus, when Jesus entered into the covenant of Abraham. Edith Stein stood by the baptismal font, wearing Hedwig Conrad-Martius’ white wedding cloak. Hedwig washer godmother. “I had given up practising my Jewish religion when I was a 14-year-old girl and did not begin to feel Jewish again until I had returned to God.” From this moment on she was continually aware that she belonged to Christ not only spiritually, but also through her blood. At the Feast of the Purification of Mary - another day with an Old Testament reference - she was confirmed by the Bishop of Speyer in his private chapel.

After her conversion she went straight to Breslau: “Mother,” she said, “I am a Catholic.” The two women cried. Hedwig Conrad Martius wrote: “Behold, two Israelites indeed, in whom is no deceit!” (cf. John 1:47).

Immediately after her conversion she wanted to join a Carmelite convent. However, her spiritual mentors, Vicar-General Schwind of Speyer, and Erich Przywara SJ, stopped her from doing so. Until Easter 1931 she held a position teaching German and history at the Dominican Sisters’ school and teacher training college of St. Magdalen’s Convent in Speyer. At the same time she was encouraged by Arch-Abbot Raphael Walzer of Beuron Abbey to accept extensive speaking engagements, mainly on women’s issues. “During the time immediately before and quite some time after my conversion I … thought that leading a religious life meant giving up all earthly things and having one’s mind fixed on divine things only. Gradually, however, I learnt that other things are expected of us in this world… I even believe that the deeper someone is drawn to God, the more he has to `get beyond himself’ in this sense, that is, go into the world and carry divine life into it.”

She worked enormously hard, translating the letters and diaries of Cardinal Newman from his pre-Catholic period as well as Thomas Aquinas’ Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate. The latter was a very free translation, for the sake of dialogue with modern philosophy. Erich Przywara also encouraged her to write her own philosophical works. She learnt that it was possible to “pursue scholarship as a service to God… It was not until I had understood this that I seriously began to approach academic work again.” To gain strength for her life and work, she frequently went to the Benedictine Monastery of Beuron, to celebrate the great festivals of the Church year.

In 1931 Edith Stein left the convent school in Speyer and devoted herself to working for a professorship again, this time in Breslau and Freiburg, though her endeavours were in vain. It was then that she wrote Potency and Act, a study of the central concepts developed by Thomas Aquinas. Later, at the Carmelite Convent in Cologne, she rewrote this study to produce her main philosophical and theological oeuvre, Finite and Eternal Being. By then, however, it was no longer possible to print the book.

Note: About the time Edith began her studies, Scholasticism was beginning its revival at the University of Louvain with the encouragement of Leo XIII and Pius X. 👍
 
I think the optimal lesson is caution about novelty of any kind. And yes John Paul studied Phenomenology. In his seminary days that was the thing. I don’t have the time or energy to study anything but Thomas. Yes his terminology and method are off putting, but it has to be the basis for any valid philosophy. 👍
The encyclicals I cited acknowledge this caution, but not with prejudice to the value of new insights and methods of enquiry enriching the core truths of the Aristotelian-Thomistic synthesis. I would argue that the optimal lesson is–as Fides et Ratio affirms–“the primacy of philosophical enquiry.” (#4) The Decree On The Reform Of Ecclesiastical Studies Of Philosophy by the Congregation for Catholic Education likewise stresses, as does Maritain, the acquisition of a philosophical “habitus,” (inner drive and habit of mind) not just memorizing a series of Thomistic theses.

As it so happens I don’t find Thomas’ method or terminology off putting at all. I’ve read a significant number of his works and some neo-Thomist commentators, like Maritain and Pieper. St. Thomas’ metaphysics and epistemology are as true as can be and form the core of my thought. But I also have found great insights from Newman, Ricouer, Gadamer, even Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty. A spirit of “philosophical enquiry” searches these fascinating and profound thinkers for any contribution they can make to the acquisition of truth. And there are truths to be found.

If your circumstances unfortunately are such that you “don’t have the time or energy to study anything but Thomas,” then you are wisely using your limited time. But I would offer two cautions: (1) others may have the time and energy to exercise “the primacy of philosophical enquiry;” (2) starting with the perennial truth of Thomism, there are nonetheless many contemporary avenues of philosophical enquiry that address issues I find myself (living in the world of today) struck with wonder over and whose findings need not conflict with the perennial philosophy. That’s what Aquinas himself did.
 
The encyclicals I cited acknowledge this caution, but not with prejudice to the value of new insights and methods of enquiry enriching the core truths of the Aristotelian-Thomistic synthesis. I would argue that the optimal lesson is–as Fides et Ratio affirms–“the primacy of philosophical enquiry.” (#4) The Decree On The Reform Of Ecclesiastical Studies Of Philosophy by the Congregation for Catholic Education likewise stresses, as does Maritain, the acquisition of a philosophical “habitus,” (inner drive and habit of mind) not just memorizing a series of Thomistic theses.
👍

This is exactly my opinion. You have to do philosophy, not just read it.

I think there is a deep paranoid fear especially on this forum that if you bring a new take on things it is necessarily in conflict with Church Teaching. If you say anything that sounds different to Aquinas you are ignored. Unfortunately that means there is the possibility that a lot of great philosophical advances are ignored out of hand.
 
👍

This is exactly my opinion. You have to do philosophy, not just read it.

I think there is a deep paranoid fear especially on this forum that if you bring a new take on things it is necessarily in conflict with Church Teaching. If you say anything that sounds different to Aquinas you are ignored. Unfortunately that means there is the possibility that a lot of great philosophical advances are ignored out of hand.
Great ! :confused::confused::confused:
 
What is the meaning of this response?

Let me remind you that i am your intellectual superior.😃 Poor creature; dare i say that i am more intelligent than Aquinas?:cool:
Possibly, though unlikely. You certainly don’t surpass him in humility. Uncalled for and out of line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top