Philosophy: Is Aquinas Overrated?

[Epistemes]

Yes, but life is short and Kant, Hegel, Heidegger are so lo-ooo-ooo-ooong.

Well, while one could finesse Hegel and Heidegger (so I hear), Kant is pretty essential, but mindbendingly difficult. I agree with H.L. Mencken: “Kant was the worst writer on earth before Marx. He had many ideas, and some of them quite simple, but he always managed to make them seem unintelligible. I hope he is in hell.”

I have to agree, though, that any true understanding of philosophy should incorporate the bad with the good, and there’s definitely a lot of drivel out there…This is why I actually tend to avoid a lot of German philosophy.

 

[Vaclav]

Kant is extremely difficult, but I disagree that it is because he makes simple ideas unintelligible. Kant is difficult because his philosophy is difficult.

Marx is not that difficult, except perhaps for the three volumes of Kapital. He is also not that poor of a writer, though Marxism has its share of them.

 

[Contarini]

Yes!! Yes!! Yes!!

The way many Catholics carry on you would think that every other philosopher in the history of humanity was a slack-jawed mouth-breather.

Is he good? Of course. No question, he’s brilliant.
Should one pack up the store and quit looking for alternative points of view? No! No one philosopher is so great, so comprehensive, so watertight that one should stop investigating what others have to say.

There is the whole, “Jesus is our saviour and Aquinas is our philosopher” mind set that I don’t think does anyone any good. Especially because I am quite sure that there are fewer people who have read Summa Theologica than there are people who are convinced it’s a watertight argument proving everything that they believe in.

That last point is a good one. As for the adulation of Aquinas by those who actually do know him–Ralph McInerny allegedly once said that all the answers are in Aquinas, and all we have to do is understand them. I think that’s definitely “overrating” Aquinas. However, Catholic theology of the past few decades (not to speak of Protestant theology!) has not been dominated by McInerny’s perspective.

Rusty Reno has an interesting article in the last *First Things *criticizing the great Catholic theologians of the 20th century (such as Lonergan and de Lubac and von Balthasar) for taking the neo-Thomist synthesis apart without having anything similar to put in its place. He argues that these theologians had good critiques, but did not realize how much their very critiques depended for intelligibility on the solid, unimaginative framework they were dismantling. The only one of these theologians who did have a careful, philosophically based structure of his own was Karl Rahner, which led to the Rahnerian dominance of post-Vatican-II Catholic theology, which Reno thinks was disastrous.

It’s worth a read, whether you agree or not.

Edwin

 

[cpayne]

That last point is a good one. As for the adulation of Aquinas by those who actually do know him–Ralph McInerny allegedly once said that all the answers are in Aquinas, and all we have to do is understand them. I think that’s definitely “overrating” Aquinas. However, Catholic theology of the past few decades (not to speak of Protestant theology!) has not been dominated by McInerny’s perspective.

Rusty Reno has an interesting article in the last *First Things *criticizing the great Catholic theologians of the 20th century (such as Lonergan and de Lubac and von Balthasar) for taking the neo-Thomist synthesis apart without having anything similar to put in its place. He argues that these theologians had good critiques, but did not realize how much their very critiques depended for intelligibility on the solid, unimaginative framework they were dismantling. The only one of these theologians who did have a careful, philosophically based structure of his own was Karl Rahner, which led to the Rahnerian dominance of post-Vatican-II Catholic theology, which Reno thinks was disastrous.

It’s worth a read, whether you agree or not.

Edwin

I agree, the article by Reno is very good. I also very much like McInerny, too.

Okay–my 5-second critiques: I read Heidegger’s Being and Time. Way too much effort for the very slight reward.
Kant: I agree with Vaclav–like him or not (like swimming in quicksand), his thought is essential to understand anything after him.
Hegel: My shamefaced admission: I don’t remember ever actually reading anything by Hegel. (Ani Ibi’s scowl might be deepening a bit.)

 

[cpayne]

You’re wrong.

Thanks for linking to it; I had a bit of a panic there, but I’m okay now. I clicked over to De Veritate and found: “Whatever is the cause of the cause must be the cause of the effect, but the cause of the effect is not necessarily the cause of the cause. It is evident, for example, that the first cause produces its effect through a second cause, and so the second cause, in some way, causes the effect of the first cause, although it is not the cause of the first cause.”

Well, I think that settles THAT. Now just to casually work it into a conversation–

 

[LilyM]

Don’t get me wrong, Aquinas is fantastic, as is Augustine, but people WILL tend to put them right up alongside the Catechism and Scripture itself as authorities on matters religious … :nope:

 

[Truthstalker]

Don’t get me wrong, Aquinas is fantastic, as is Augustine, but people WILL tend to put them right up alongside the Catechism and Scripture itself as authorities on matters religious … :nope:

Ok. Name 10 places Catholicism and Aquinas disagree. Do it without thinking or using any resources. Just the first ten things that come to mind. Don’t take more than 15 seconds. Then do the same for Augustine.

 

[LilyM]

Ok. Name 10 places Catholicism and Aquinas disagree. Do it without thinking or using any resources. Just the first ten things that come to mind. Don’t take more than 15 seconds. Then do the same for Augustine.

How about we talk about limbo instead … never more than a theory of Aquinas, albeit one supported by other theologians, and yet so many take it to be de fide dogma because Aquinas espoused it, even though it’s never been stated or accepted as such.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I almost froze up as I forced myself to type the title of this thread. However, the topic came up on another thread and necessitated a new one.

I’ll start off: Should old Aquinas be forgot? No, of course not. He is:
(1) the pre-eminent Catholic philosopher.
Broadening the scope a bit:
(2) the pre-eminent Christian philosopher.
And:
(3) one of the top five philosophers, religious or not.
And the Summa Theologica, although perhaps not his best work, is the best general introduction to his thought.

CHARGE!

He is valuable - however, veneration for him should not lead to forgetfulness that​

• there are other Catholic Rites, in which he is not as central as he has been in the Roman Rite
• he is not the entire Catholic tradition even in the Latin Rite
• he was neither infallible, nor omniscient
• sometimes his logic was faulty
• for some branches of theology - such as Biblical exegesis, Liturgy, Church History - he is less valuable than for others: not all theology is dogmatic
• his theology of the Trinity needs to be balanced & supplemented by that of the Greek Fathers
  OTOH, to dismiss him because of his inadequacies or mistakes or limitations (such as his reasons & reasoning in favour of the DP for heresy) is silly: all humans are limited, & all are influenced by the times & societies they live in; his less intelligent admirers & critics, no less truly than he was. C. S. Lewis warns against “chronological snobbery”: it’s possible to treat the past as alone having anything to contribute to the the growth of the Church - just as it is possible to insist one-sidedly on the value of work done in the present (which is what Lewis was writing about).

For a small taste of Anglican Thomism: daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Mascall.html

One of the good things in the last 40 yers is that Aquinas has become more widely appreciated outside Catholicism - he can no longer be dismissed as having nothing to say to any but his own co-religionists.

 

[Mintaka]

I was interested to find out just recently that Aquinas wasn’t really the source for “people do bad things that are just mistaken good things”. There was a huge chunk of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy about that, and all the medievals read Boethius. So it was weird that people only talked about it being a Thomist thing.

Unless I’m confused. I can never keep all these philosophical concepts straight.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ok. Name 10 places Catholicism and Aquinas disagree. Do it without thinking or using any resources. Just the first ten things that come to mind. Don’t take more than 15 seconds. Then do the same for Augustine.

Do the (more than ten) philosophical propositions condemned by the Archbishop of Paris in 1277 count ? ​

Godfrey of Fontaines

Condemnation of 1277

The universities [second section of the page]

A major task of the early Thomists (= writing before his canonisation in 1323) was to vindicate his orthodoxy; one’s philosophy can be as heretical by what it implies as one’s specifically theological positions.

 

[Verbum]

Hi cpayne,

To decide whether St. Thomas is “overrated”, we should see how he is “rated”.

It is recounted that the pope had asked both St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure to write the office of Corpus Christi. When they came before the pope to present their work, St. Thomas was asked to go first. After he had finished, the pope asked St. Bonaventure to read his presentation. St. Bonaventure’s answer was to tear up his own work. May be just a legend, but it says a lot for the esteem in which St. Thomas is held.

Since he died, he has been adopted as teacher by most religious orders and “rated” by Popes as the teacher par excellence, notably by Leo XIII, who said that anyone rejecting a teaching of St. Thomas, is suspect of error.

No one, since the apostles, with the possible exception of St. Augustine, has received such universal commendation. I don’t see how he could be “overrated.”

The online Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent article on him,

newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm

Verbum

 

[cpayne]

One of the good things in the last 40 yers is that Aquinas has become more widely appreciated outside Catholicism - he can no longer be dismissed as having nothing to say to any but his own co-religionists.

Good point, myself being an example. I knew I was a Thomist for years before I even THOUGHT about becoming a Catholic (which, technically, I still am not).

 

[LilyM]

Hi cpayne,

To decide whether St. Thomas is “overrated”, we should see how he is “rated”.

It is recounted that the pope had asked both St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure to write the office of Corpus Christi. When they came before the pope to present their work, St. Thomas was asked to go first. After he had finished, the pope asked St. Bonaventure to read his presentation. St. Bonaventure’s answer was to tear up his own work. May be just a legend, but it says a lot for the esteem in which St. Thomas is held.

Since he died, he has been adopted as teacher by most religious orders and “rated” by Popes as the teacher par excellence, notably by Leo XIII, who said that anyone rejecting a teaching of St. Thomas, is suspect of error.

No one, since the apostles, with the possible exception of St. Augustine, has received such universal commendation. I don’t see how he could be “overrated.”

The online Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent article on him,

newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm

Verbum

What you’ve said doesn’t mean anything except that Bonaventure and a lot of other people thought highly of him.

People also thought very highly of Napoleon before the battle of Waterloo - in view of the fact that he lost, and partly due to the incompetence of the underlings and allies he had chosen - he was probably overrated. They thought (and he himself thought) that he was better than he truly was.

To show that Aquinas is not OVERRATED you also need to show that his actual abilities and talents MERIT this high opinion people had of him.

 

[reen12]

Philosophy: Is Aquinas Overrated?

Yes.

Here’s the Angelic Doctor on the topic of Limbo

“Chapter” 35

newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

Fortunately, the man put down his quill pen, or
whatever he was using to scribe these immortal
words, at age 48. He suddenly realized that all
that he had written was as straw.

Now *there *was a precient thought, Thomas.

All I can think of is the waste of all of that
parchment, made with loving hands.
I mean, writing materials were hard to come
by in his day. His time would have been better
spent writing some more lovely hymns. They
take less parchment.

reen12

 

[tdgesq]

Rusty Reno has an interesting article in the last *First Things *criticizing the great Catholic theologians of the 20th century (such as Lonergan and de Lubac and von Balthasar) for taking the neo-Thomist synthesis apart without having anything similar to put in its place. He argues that these theologians had good critiques, but did not realize how much their very critiques depended for intelligibility on the solid, unimaginative framework they were dismantling. The only one of these theologians who did have a careful, philosophically based structure of his own was Karl Rahner, which led to the Rahnerian dominance of post-Vatican-II Catholic theology, which Reno thinks was disastrous.

Link please. It’s interesting that Reno doesn’t criticize Rahner for his unorthodox deviations from Thomism, even Neo-Thomism. After all, Rahner was a student of Heidegger - literally. That is where I normally see the major criticisms of Rahner’s works. Instead he takes him on for the influence he had on Vatican-II? If anything I have the opposite criticism.

I also disagree with Reno on de Lubac and Balthasar. From what I have read from both, neither pose a threat to Neo-Thomism. It is true that they are not nearly as concerned with philosophy (in the writings I’ve reviewed) as Rahner. Well, I guess I’ll just have to read the article.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Philosophy: Is Aquinas Overrated?

Yes.

Here’s the Angelic Doctor on the topic of Limbo

“Chapter” 35

newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm

Fortunately, the man put down his quill pen, or
whatever he was using to scribe these immortal
words, at age 48. He suddenly realized that all
that he had written was as straw.

Now *there *was a precient thought, Thomas.

All I can think of is the waste of all of that
parchment, made with loving hands.
I mean, writing materials were hard to come
by in his day. His time would have been better
spent writing some more lovely hymns. They
take less parchment.

reen12

This is Augustine you are referencing, not Aquinas.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Ok. Name 10 places Catholicism and Aquinas disagree. Do it without thinking or using any resources. Just the first ten things that come to mind. Don’t take more than 15 seconds. Then do the same for Augustine.

I understand the point that was being made. Aquinas is often times pointed to as though he is of far greater authority than he was. Certainly, Aquinas is very solid and is worth a good deal of weight in a discussion, but there are times when people will pose Aquinas against some quote from a Catechism or Council. Often they are misinterpreting Aquinas, though sometimes they are not. Aquinas was not perfect, and I don’t think that his staunchest supporter would argue otherwise. The point is that, as Catholics, our allegience ought to be to the Church and Her Councils, with Aquinas being close second, not the other way around.

 

[reen12]

quote: Lazerlike42

This is Augustine you are referencing, not Aquinas.

You’re perfectly right. Just wait a moment and
I’ll dig out the words of the Angelic Doctor himself.
Many thanks for pointing out this incorrect attribution
on my part. :tiphat:

An *additional *reason to heartily dislike
Augustine - apart from the fact that he abandoned
the woman who bore him a son, and then they
made him a bishop! Now there’s! a paragon
of virtue and thoughtfulness - who I would run a mile in tight shoes to sit at the feet of and “take instruction.”

I will now patiently search out the thoughts of
Aquinas on the topic -

reen12 :coffeeread:

Well, Thos. Aquinas doesn’t get a pass on this, either.
Apparently, according to Thomas, these little souls will enjoy natural happiness but the Beatific vision? Uh uh.
The whole Limbo business is just a sorry episode in
Church history, with both! Augustine and Aquinas near
the head of the parade.

 

[cor]

He is valuable - however, veneration for him should not lead to forgetfulness that​

• there are other Catholic Rites, in which he is not as central as he has been in the Roman Rite

This is just me, but I find the notion that Eastern Catholics should not look to Aquinas or pray the Rosary to be a kind of parochialism. How would you respond to that?