J
JP2Admirer
Guest
I never said they were contradictory, and while Aeterni Patris never 'defines a standalone philosophy" it has been interpreted that way.I think Aeterni Patris and Fides et Ratio are not contradictory. They both say that Thomism is a “way of doing philosophy,” not a philosophy itself. Aeterni Patris never defines a standalone philosophy; it intends “thomisticizing” to be an instrument for theology.
Not that it was a closed sytem. I myself, admit the temptation to treat him as beyond criticism because to read him is to stand in awe of the, in my opinion, greatest mind that ever walked the earth. If you have ever walked in Thomistic circles, you may have picked up on this flavor.That it was a closed system?
I should have chosen my words more carefully. I shouldn’t have said “claim,” as I doubt you will ever find in writing someone making that claim. It is more of a *mood *that surrounds Thomism and Thomists. (Again, I write this as a Thomist myself and I am myself tempted to treat him in this way.) On the other hand, I think this can be said of any school of philosophy – people ascribe to the schools because they think their master answered the questions better than anyone else.What Thomists claim that?
You are right, in the end, it is not about pleasing people. That said, sometimes our nature as social beings dictates more to us than we think – even to popes. They write with divine inspiration, but the means of that inspiration often comes from how they wish to address their audiences.I don’t think it’s about pleasing people.
Dr.Knasas was a teacher of mine (my favorite one); it’s funny that you should mention him here. I would recommend his Being and Some Twentieth Century Thomists.I Knasas, John F. X. 1994. Thomistic papers. VI. Houston, Tex: Center for Thomistic Studies, University of St. Thomas.