Current Trends in Catholic Philosophy?

[TheAtheist]

Well since all my other threads have been seemingly hijacked into the endless debates that i was trying to avoid in the first place:

So to tally it up - the current influences on theology in your Church are as follows.

1.) “Neo-Augustinianism” and a return to your Church Fathers. I assume this takes on a very strong Platonic bent?

2.) “Modern Thomism” An attempt to bring out the Thomist tradition, forging new links with Analytical philosophy.

3.) Phenomenology - Husserl & Heidegger

4.) Random Asian Philosophy - a la Thomas Merton

 

[Cajetan]

In my view the strongest (in terms of being helpful to Catholic theology – even though most Catholic theologians today are caught up in Continental thought – and standing on its own) contemporary Catholic philosophical movement is Analytic Thomism, which has thus far consisted of two stages, the ‘old dogs’ and the ‘new blood’ respectively: (a) the foundational work of ‘Aquinatic Wittgensteinians’ such as G.E.M. Anscombe, Peter Geach, Anthony Kenny, and Philippa Foot; and (b) the current work of philosophers like John Haldane, Brian Davies, Alasdair MacIntyre, Eleonore Stump, Norman Kretzmann, John Finnis, Joseph Boyle, Brian Shanley, and Herbert McCabe. The latter stand out in the philosophy of religion particularly, but have also done very interesting work in metaphysics, Ethics, and political philosophy. Overall, this is Thomism extracted from the ‘cobwebs’ of the Scholastic manuals and the ‘traditional Thomism’ of commentators like Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and brought into communion with the Analytic tradition, way of thought and expression.

There is also a kind of third form of this movement which has popped up in recent years, which is a group of more or less secular scholars of philosophy in the Analytic tradition, who cannot really be called ‘Thomists,’ but, for one reason for another (I suspect that job security is a contributing factor, for scholars of Aquinas and medieval philosophy generally are in short order in universities today), have taken an interest in some aspect of Aquinas’ work and have produced valuable translations and commentaries of St. Thomas. Robert Pasnau at Colorado University (Boulder) and two professors of mine at the University of Toronto, Martin Pickave and Peter King, are good examples.

 

[Cajetan]

In my view the strongest (in terms of being helpful to Catholic theology – even though most Catholic theologians today are caught up in Continental thought – and standing on its own) contemporary Catholic philosophical movement is Analytic Thomism, which has thus far consisted of two stages, the ‘old dogs’ and the ‘new blood’ respectively: (a) the foundational work of ‘Aquinatic Wittgensteinians’ such as G.E.M. Anscombe, Peter Geach, Anthony Kenny, and Philippa Foot; and (b) the current work of philosophers like John Haldane, Brian Davies, Alasdair MacIntyre, Eleonore Stump, Norman Kretzmann, John Finnis, Joseph Boyle, Brian Shanley, and Herbert McCabe. The latter stand out in the philosophy of religion particularly, but have also done very interesting work in metaphysics, Ethics, and political philosophy. Overall, this is Thomism extracted from the ‘cobwebs’ of the Scholastic manuals and the ‘traditional Thomism’ of commentators like Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and brought into communion with the Analytic tradition, way of thought and expression. Important to note, however, is that it is rarely slavish in the sense that previous forms of Thomism have been: Analytic Thomists generally do not look to St. Thomas as their ‘master’ like a Jacques Maritain did. Rather, they are basically independent Analytic philosophers who see in the texts of Aquinas valuable philosophical thought which deserves to be communicated to the post-modern world but who are not adverse to straying from his conclusions when it seems to be the case that he was wrong. They are influenced and inspired by St. Thomas, but are not constricted by his system (naturally, since Aquinas was not an Analytic philosopher).

There is also a kind of third form of this movement which has popped up in recent years, which is a group of more or less secular scholars of philosophy in the Analytic tradition, who cannot really be called ‘Thomists,’ but, for one reason for another (I suspect that job security is a contributing factor, for scholars of Aquinas and medieval philosophy generally are in short order in universities today), have taken an interest in some aspect of Aquinas’ work and have produced valuable translations and commentaries of St. Thomas. Robert Pasnau at Colorado University (Boulder) and two professors of mine at the University of Toronto, Martin Pickave and Peter King, are good examples.

 

[Maranatha]

I would like to put in mention of John Henry Cardinal Newman. I think we will see that his answers to 19th century skepticism is essential for current Catholic philosophy.

The beginning of the 20th century saw Catholic philosophy in a bit of a retreat. From 1910 to 1967 Catholic philosophers, theologians and others were required to swear and Oath against Modernism. While this protected the Church from some rampant philosophical speculations it also had a chilling effect on Catholic scholarship and original thought.

 

[cpayne]

In my view the strongest (in terms of being helpful to Catholic theology – even though most Catholic theologians today are caught up in Continental thought – and standing on its own) contemporary Catholic philosophical movement is Analytic Thomism, which has thus far consisted of two stages, the ‘old dogs’ and the ‘new blood’ respectively: (a) the foundational work of ‘Aquinatic Wittgensteinians’ such as G.E.M. Anscombe, Peter Geach, Anthony Kenny, and Philippa Foot; and (b) the current work of philosophers like John Haldane, Brian Davies, Alasdair MacIntyre, Eleonore Stump, Norman Kretzmann, John Finnis, Joseph Boyle, Brian Shanley, and Herbert McCabe. The latter stand out in the philosophy of religion particularly, but have also done very interesting work in metaphysics, Ethics, and political philosophy.

Yes. these people are what I’m reading. When I think of contemporary Catholic philosophy, I know a lot of Continental stuff is going on (not least with the last pope and the current one), but what I really love is analytical scholasticism. The people you mentioned are very academic, but there are also some popularizers: Peter Kreeft, J. Budziszewski, etc., and some in-betweens: Ralph McInerny, Jean Porter, for example.

You mentioned Pasnau. What do you think of him? (I’m working on a dissertation now which is highly critical of a lot of his views.)

 

[Cajetan]

You mentioned Pasnau. What do you think of him? (I’m working on a dissertation now which is highly critical of a lot of his views.)

I certainly appreciate the scholarly work that Pasnau has put out and is putting out in the field of Aquinas Studies. In particular, I think his position that Aquinas was a compatibilist – as opposed to Eleonore Stump’s position that Aquinas held to a libertarian-style free will – in his Thomas Aquinas on Human Nature (Cambridge) and his commentary in The Treatise on Human Nature: Summa Theologiae 1.75-89 (Hackett), is basically correct and very important. Also, the ‘Hackett Aquinas Project’ series through Hackett Publishing Co., under Pasnau’s editorship, is shaping up to be a phenomenal resource for university teachers and students (who otherwise might never read, much less teach, Aquinas), and students of Aquinas generally, offering inexpensive volumes of translations with commentary which are available at most university book stores.

As a person, however, he is the prototypical ‘third kind’ of contemporary Analytic Thomist: translating and expounding on Aquinas is how he makes his academic reputation and living, but he himself is a liberal atheist who finds Aquinas’ positions on a lot of moral issues to be “abhorrent.” (Which is what makes me think that Pasnau and professors like him are into Aquinas and other medieval philosophers at least partly because it entails a much better shot at getting hired by and getting tenure with university philosophy departments today, which are overflowing with PhD-toting applicants for most other philosophical areas but sorely lack competant scholars in medieval philosophy. They are in serious demand, medieval philosophy being the least popular field in Anglo-American philosophy departments.)

 

[ricmat]

The beginning of the 20th century saw Catholic philosophy in a bit of a retreat. From 1910 to 1967 Catholic philosophers, theologians and others were required to swear and Oath against Modernism. While this protected the Church from some rampant philosophical speculations it also had a chilling effect on Catholic scholarship and original thought.

Chilling effect? Retreat? I’ll admit that this isn’t my area of expertise, but it was my understanding that the mandatum (if this is what you are referring to) was an oath against teaching the modernist heresy. How could it have a chilling effect on anything other than teaching the modernist heresy?

 

[cpayne]

I certainly appreciate the scholarly work that Pasnau has put out and is putting out in the field of Aquinas Studies. In particular, I think his position that Aquinas was a compatibilist – as opposed to Eleonore Stump’s position that Aquinas held to a libertarian-style free will – in his Thomas Aquinas on Human Nature (Cambridge) and his commentary in The Treatise on Human Nature: Summa Theologiae 1.75-89 (Hackett), is basically correct and very important. Also, the ‘Hackett Aquinas Project’ series through Hackett Publishing Co., under Pasnau’s editorship, is shaping up to be a phenomenal resource for university teachers and students (who otherwise might never read, much less teach, Aquinas), and students of Aquinas generally, offering inexpensive volumes of translations with commentary which are available at most university book stores.

As a person, however, he is the prototypical ‘third kind’ of contemporary Analytic Thomist: translating and expounding on Aquinas is how he makes his academic reputation and living, but he himself is a liberal atheist who finds Aquinas’ positions on a lot of moral issues to be “abhorrent.” (Which is what makes me think that Pasnau and professors like him are into Aquinas and other medieval philosophers at least partly because it entails a much better shot at getting hired by and getting tenure with university philosophy departments today, which are overflowing with PhD-toting applicants for most other philosophical areas but sorely lack competant scholars in medieval philosophy. They are in serious demand, medieval philosophy being the least popular field in Anglo-American philosophy departments.)

Yeah–his “reductive hylomorphism,” in particular, is not at all what I think Aquinas means by hylomorphism. Aquinas at least has an account of the soul surviving after the death of the physical body, which Pasnau doesn’t think much of.

As for the “compatibilist / libertarian” dispute, maybe we can talk about that sometime. (P.S. I met Stump once—seems like a wonderful lady. One of her essays, on Dante, Aquinas, and Hell, really changed my thinking back in school.)

 

[TheAtheist]

In my view the strongest (in terms of being helpful to Catholic theology – even though most Catholic theologians today are caught up in Continental thought – and standing on its own) contemporary Catholic philosophical movement is Analytic Thomism,

Catejan, may i ask the reason why - as in why do you think this particular rendition of Catholic theology is the strongest?

As in, what do you think it provides that is missing from those engaged in Continental thought or the Ressourcement movement?

(I suspect that job security is a contributing factor, for scholars of Aquinas and medieval philosophy generally are in short order in universities today), have taken an interest in some aspect of Aquinas’ work and have produced valuable translations and commentaries of St. Thomas.

Ah yes, “the Opportunist” for lack of a better word…?

 

[Maranatha]

Chilling effect? Retreat? I’ll admit that this isn’t my area of expertise, but it was my understanding that the mandatum (if this is what you are referring to) was an oath against teaching the modernist heresy. How could it have a chilling effect on anything other than teaching the modernist heresy?

This was the opinion of Dulles in The History of Apologetics. In the book he necessarily touches on philosophy and theology. Also, you must admit there was a complete change in the ground rules for Catholic academics after Vatican II. I have not deeply researched this opinion - I’m just a rank amateur who the nuns taught to read.

 

[Chancellare]

I’d say JPII’s Evangelium Vitae should be included.

 

[statimsciens]

I’ll add my own favorites:

Christian Existentialism: (So Kierkegaard as a systematic theologian), Gabriel Marcel, Nikolai Berdyaev and Hans Urs von Balthasar (although I am not sure if the classification for Balthasar is accurate, he was doing his own thing.)

Paul Ricoeur, Rene Girard (Hermeneutics-phenomenology)

 

[MindOverMatter]

Well, see for instance:

meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=haught&topic=complete

Thanks. I been looking for a site like this with video interviews that deals inteligently with the current relationship between Science and Religion and the deveopments and changes that are occuring as a result. I usually end up finding some kind of inteligent design/creationist site, and im tired of that long dead mouldy maggot ridden horse. Its time we moved on from those ideas.This is quite refresing. Thanks.

 

[Benedict_Broere]

MindoverMatter,
I think ID is to eager to think God into all kinds of reality-events. For instance, some time ago I engaged in a discussion on ‘random mutation and natural selection’, and it gradually seemed to me to be able to indeed do the trick as it were, in generating all these billions of species. And also it seemed to me to be a very fertile invention, a kind of law in creating organic diversity. While more in general this reality seems to exist on basis of this kind of inventions. See for instance:
counterbalance.net/cosmcrea/spitzer-frame.htmlhttp://www.counterbalance.net/cosmcrea/spitzer-frame.html
Still, the ID-discussion isn’t over yet I guess, pointing at many enigmatic occurrences.

 

[tpw]

The mandatum has nothing to do with modernism. Modernism in its many forms is now part of the Catholic tradition. Those who oppose remain entrenched in rear-guard activity fighting off the inevitable and mired in a world which no longer exists.

Chilling effect? Retreat? I’ll admit that this isn’t my area of expertise, but it was my understanding that the mandatum (if this is what you are referring to) was an oath against teaching the modernist heresy. How could it have a chilling effect on anything other than teaching the modernist heresy?

 

[FightingFat]

The mandatum has nothing to do with modernism. Modernism in its many forms is now part of the Catholic tradition. Those who oppose remain entrenched in rear-guard activity fighting off the inevitable and mired in a world which no longer exists.

That’s an interesting theory! Read any of JP II’s encyclicals?

 

[itinerant1]

Hey folks,

Back opening up yet another thread - one that i probably don’t have much to contribute but wanted to know more about.

The last time anyone outside of your religion hears about Catholic philosophy, its usually in its Scholastic format and Thomas Aquinas is the figure we see…and then its like you folks disappeared off the face of the planet.

But i know that can’t be right. Beneath discussions of Hegel and Marx, of Kant and Heidegger, Locke and Rousseau, Derrida and Foucault, there must have been SOMETHING going on - its just that everyone wasn’t paying any attention.

So i guess part 1 of this is:

What happened when “Old Scholasiticism” hit the wall against Newton’s mechanical universe?

and 2 - Where did that all lead to? What are the current trends in catholic philosophy?

I have no idea what you mean by the old scholasticism hitting the wall against Newton’s mechanical universe. Can you explain?

 

[anns82]

I’ve been scanning through the responses and I am looking forward to looking further into all the names that were listed.
I also wanted to add Dietrich Von Hildebrand to the list (I don’t think he was mentioned earlier) I remember that he got a lot of criticism for exploring concepts like purity, and I am currently reading “The Nature of Love,” which came before JPII’s Theology of the Body, though I find that it greatly parallels the work. I remember that he was a convert to Catholicism and he was pretty high up on Hitler’s hit list, so I find him to be a pretty interesting character in general. His wife, Alice Von Hildebrand has done a program on EWTN and I have been coming across his name more often. I would be interested in hearing other people’s thoughts on his work.

 

[itinerant1]

The mandatum has nothing to do with modernism. Modernism in its many forms is now part of the Catholic tradition. Those who oppose remain entrenched in rear-guard activity fighting off the inevitable and mired in a world which no longer exists.

That is a most unusual statement…care to elaborate a bit on what you mean?

 

[itinerant1]

MindoverMatter,
I think ID is to eager to think God into all kinds of reality-events. For instance, some time ago I engaged in a discussion on ‘random mutation and natural selection’, and it gradually seemed to me to be able to indeed do the trick as it were, in generating all these billions of species. And also it seemed to me to be a very fertile invention, a kind of law in creating organic diversity. While more in general this reality seems to exist on basis of this kind of inventions. See for instance:
counterbalance.net/cosmcrea/spitzer-frame.htmlhttp://www.counterbalance.net/cosmcrea/spitzer-frame.html
Still, the ID-discussion isn’t over yet I guess, pointing at many enigmatic occurrences.

Where did you get your number as in “billions” of species?