Philosophy: Two favorite books

  • Thread starter Thread starter cpayne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
      • The Conception of God in the Philosophy of Aquinas; by Robert Leet Patterson
  • 2a. - “less well-known philosopher”: C. E. M. Joad
    1. The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James
 
cpayne said:
I think we’ll change the rules again: How about any two books related to philosophy at all? This seems more accommodating.
Click to expand...

**How very confusing :eek: 🙂 **​

**In that case: **
  • Wittgenstein, On Certitude
  • Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods
 
  1. Plato, The Sophist
  2. “Existence and the Existent” by Jaques Maritain.
    Actually tries to get to the bottom of St. Thomas’s metaphysics. Not easy reading. Joe
 
Noman- William Nicholson (actually the third book in a trilogy, but filled with brilliant philosophies, so it counts)

The Business of Heaven- a collecton of philosophical writings from C.S. Lewis

Also Poem of the ManGod, an absolutely brilliant read, but not centred on philosophy. I just couldn’t leave it out 😃
 
  1. St Bonaventure - Itinerarium
  2. Catherine Pickstock - After Writing: On the Liturgical Consummation of Philosophy
 
IvanKaramozov said:
I woulden’t go that far, Aquinas was truely a genius, however there is no, objective, quantative measure by which you can defend your claim here.
Click to expand...
ROFL!!! Well, that may be your view but the Church doesn’t call him the angelic/universal doctor for nothing!!! Furthermore, there were only two works on the alter at the council of Trent; the Bible and the Summa. Also, Trent basically cannonized Thomistic theology.
 
cpayne said:
I hereby proclaim myself IN CHARGE and that means you have to obey THIS RULE: No long lists of books; you have to stick with TWO.

Here’s the question: (1) What is your single favorite work of philosophy by the actual philosopher (primary source, in other words); (2) What is your favorite secondary-source philosophical work (derived from or commenting upon an original philosopher)?
Click to expand...
(1) Summa contra Gentiles, Book One: God by St. Thomas Aquinas

(2) A History of Philosophy, Volume II: Medieval Philosophy by Frederick Copleston, S.J.
 
East_and_West said:
ROFL!!! Well, that may be your view but the Church doesn’t call him the angelic/universal doctor for nothing!!! Furthermore, there were only two works on the alter at the council of Trent; the Bible and the Summa. Also, Trent basically cannonized Thomistic theology.
Click to expand...
And Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Aeterni Patris, for all intents and purposes, pretty much canonized Thomistic philosophy. The influence of philosophical Thomism (St. Thomas and his great commentators/expositors) on the Latin Church is more than immense. Our Catechism of the Catholic Church, on virtually all dogmatic and doctrinal matters which are reachable through human reason (and not a few which are held by faith), takes the Thomistic line and mode of expression. In many ways it would be impossible today to separate Catholic theology from Thomism, at least in the West. It would be quite foreign.
 
Mirdath said:
Other than Aquinas’ own Shorter Summa, and while I respect the guy I just have too many problems with his reasoning to call it a favorite. Plus that’s theology anyway.
Click to expand...
A decent amount of the “Shorter Summa” – the Compendium of Theology – is natural theology, which is philosophy: metaphysics and/or the philosophy of religion.
 
Cajetan said:
And Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Aeterni Patris, for all intents and purposes, pretty much canonized Thomistic philosophy. The influence of philosophical Thomism (St. Thomas and his great commentators/expositors) on the Latin Church is more than immense. Our Catechism of the Catholic Church, on virtually all dogmatic and doctrinal matters which are reachable through human reason (and not a few which are held by faith), takes the Thomistic line and mode of expression. In many ways it would be impossible today to separate Catholic theology from Thomism, at least in the West. It would be quite foreign.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t Leo XIII put St Thomas and St Bonaventure on equal footing as the two great philosophers of the Church?
 
being and time martin heidegger

does the center hold? donald palmer
 
1.)The Republic, Plato
2.)Proslogion, St. Anselm (pure genius)
Am I the only person who thinks that Aquinas and the ST are overrated?
Click to expand...
I have the same inclination as I am not inclined to favor Aristotelian stuff over Platonic, but I haven’t read his works thoroughly at all, so I’ll suspend my ultimate opinion. I do think he is a genius who had much to contribute to philosophy and the Church though, and more importantly a saintly one :).
 
My nominations are, sorry, three:

De Anima, Aristotle
Metaphysica, Aristotle
SummaT, Thomas

because I can’t read “The Angelic Doctor” without “The Father of Philosophy.” Also, as a non-academic non-professional scholar, primary sources of greatness are what I prefer.
 
(regarding Aristotle being the “Father of Philosophy”:
Dranu said:
Bahh! 🙂
Click to expand...
Sorry, I should have quoted Thomas better: St. Thomas Aquinas, “The Angelic Doctor” referred to Aristotle merely as “The Philosopher”.

That any better? 😉
 
JMJ / MMM 080518
Here are my two special books … and a few comments …

#1 – The Degrees of Knowledge, by Jacques Maritain, Scribner’s, trans by Gerald B Phelan, 1959. (See below)

#2 – Nature, Knowledge and God, by Brother Benignus, FSC, Manhattan College (of many years ago), Bruce Pub Co (no longer in existence), 1947. (See below)

Regarding #1 – Both in the order of being itself … and in the order of our knowing … there is a hierarchy and an order (or should be) in our knowing. In rational knowledge … metaphysics is at the very top. And statistical knowledge is at the bottom. A vast hierarchy lies between. Each science (in the ancient Greek understanding of science) has its proper object of stury, its proper methods, its proper limitations, and its proper degree of certainty … more. To overlap and confuse the “sciences” and their objects and methods and limitations and proper measure of certainty … is to miss the best of knowing, to cause confusion in our own knowledge, to have our knowledge “out of focus,” and probably to make a good deal of our knowledge either shallow or downright false. Maritain with great clarity puts off these things in their proper orders. Having treated rational knowledge Maritain presents a deep and beautiful description of revealed knowledge in its relationship to spiritual knowledge and experience (St John of the Cross). The work is extensive and difficult reading … but is worth every moment of labor studying it paid with gold pieces.
/////////////////////////////////////////////

Regarding #2 – This is the clearest indepth presentation of the thinking of St Thomas Aquinas I have ever encountered. It is systematic, clear, and will yield understandings to those who truly want them and are willing to concentrate. The easiest way to obtain an inexpensive good copy is to purchase one through Alibris Books (new or used).
////////////////////////////////////////////
I am happy to share these treasures with you all.
May Jesus and Mary be with us all in all we do!
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com
 
Reading JohnJFarren’s post, I just realized: I have HAD a copy of Maritain’s “Degrees of Knowledge” for years and years, but have never read it. Guess what just got added to my reading pile? 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top