Inquiry into the Distinct Philosophical Distinctions on Thomas Aquinas of 20th Century Thomists, notably Lonergan, Gilson, Maritain, and De Koninck

[Razumihin1866]

Of late I have been branching out into some 20th century Thomists’ works. After having read several of Etienne Gilson’s works on the history of philosophy, I was introduced to Jacques Maritain. Previously I have studied some of the Aristotelian Thomism of Charles De Koninck, and have been provisionally acquainted with the work of Yves Simon. While reading Father Robert Spitzer’s “New Proofs for the Existence of God” I came across Bernard Lonergan for the first time. After discussing these Thomists with some other Catholics, it has become increasingly clear that their positions on Aquinas are radically different from one another. The sort of open-ended question I would like to ask then, is this: what are and where can I find the substantial distinctions between Lonergan, Maritain, Gilson, and De Koninck on Aquinas and the ideas of Person and Being? I will happily refine that question if it is too broad, or unclear…I am sure it is. Thanks in advance!

 

[RitasKid]

I do not have an answer, only questions. I was researching Lonergan and thought I’d look to see what the CA contributors might think. Nothing newer than 2006.Your question hadn’t been posted yet. Is the pendulum swinging a bit again? Jesus sticks by His bride.

 

[Razumihin1866]

Yeah, I have had some trouble finding articles and books comparing the various 20th century Thomists. From the little knowledge I have gathered, many of the differences appear to center around distinct interpretations of Aquinas on the questions of Person and Being. Edward Feser seems to have some good insights, but I am pretty unfamiliar with his work: it appears that his distinctions of 20th century schools of Thomistic thought may have been borrowed by Wikipedia.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Doubtful you will find the analysis you are looking for.

From the time of Aquinas’ death onward his followers have offered a bewildering assortment of interpretations of what he thought and believed. Why should that be any different today? It’s doubtful that by analyzing the works of the modernists you mention anything will be accomplished. You might emerge more confused than ever?

 

[CrossofChrist]

Doubtful you will find the analysis you are looking for.

From the time of Aquinas’ death onward his followers have offered a bewildering assortment of interpretations of what he thought and believed. Why should that be any different today? It’s doubtful that by analyzing the works of the modernists you mention anything will be accomplished. You might emerge more confused than ever?

Sarcasm?

 

[Razumihin1866]

Eh, well, it is early yet. I hold out hope that, given the violent arguments surrounding Thomism during the 20th century (not to mention those surrounding Vatican II), somebody somewhere was paying attention and taking notes. I enjoy reading most of those men I mentioned, but find it terribly disappointing to read various snide remarks jabbed at them from different directions and from all walks of academia. I have trouble understanding why the jabs without the frames of reference, and there seems to be a decided lack of cohesive history on the subject, though any number of more narrow works, like Lawrence Shook’s biography of Gilson, or the several biographies of the Maritains that are making the rounds… Guess a certain amount of confusion is included in the price tag of scholarship…