L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
" I will begin with the philosophers. As I have already noted, Aristotelian and Thomistic incursions
into contemporary mainstream metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and moral theory have tended to be
piecemeal and fragmentary, and this very spottiness itself sometimes distorts both the intentions and the
teachings of St. Thomas and other Scholastic authors. The two books I am about to mention reject this
piecemeal approach and, in open dialogue with mainstream analytic philosophers, argue unabashedly and
18The most interesting recent argument for the immateriality of intellective cognition is found in James Ross, “Immaterial
Aspects of Thought,” The Journal of Philosophy 89 (1992), pp. 136-150. Edward Feser sharpens this argument and defends it in
“Kripke, Ross, and the Immaterial Aspects of Thought,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 87 (2013), pp. 1-32.
19Oxford, 2012.
11
very effectively for a full-scale and systematic adoption of Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics as a cure
for what ails contemporary analytic metaphysics and philosophy of mind.
The first book is David Oderberg’s Real Essentialism,20 which contains a brilliant and extended
defense of undiluted Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, along with a critique of a wide array of
alternative positions on various metaphysical issues proposed in the current literature in analytic
metaphysics. In particular, Oderberg discusses in painstaking detail essentialism itself, the nature and
structure of material substance, accidental being, identity, definition and scientific taxonomy, and the
nature of the human being and of human personhood. I especially recommend the chapter on the interface
between biological species and metaphysical species, where Oderberg puts to rest decisively the idea that
Aristotelian essentialism and taxonomical theory are dead within contemporary scientific practice.21
Next I turn to Edward Feser’s Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction,22 hot off the
press and currently a philosophical bestseller on Amazon.com. (I kid you not. The last time I checked, it
had Amazon numbers almost unheard of for books in philosophy and was second on the metaphysics
textbook list only to Sartre’s Being and Nothingness!) Feser covers some of same ground as Oderberg,
but spends more time on causality from a Thomistic perspective. Another interesting difference between
the two books is this: In addition to the contemporary analytic literature on metaphysics, Feser engages
and draws upon the very same 20th century Thomistic textbooks that the repudiators of Thomism in the
1960’s considered an embarrassment. For me it is quite exhilarating to see the likes of Henry Koren,
George Klubertanz, Charles Hart, and (of course) Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange drawn into dialogue with
analytic philosophers such as Anthony Kenny, David Armstrong, and David Lewis. This book is just the
latest of Feser’s accomplishments, which include several other books and many articles; I especially
recommend his stellar work on Thomistic arguments for the existence of God. When you throw in his
excellent blog, Feser has done as much as anyone in the past ten years to promote and defend Thomism
within mainstream philosophical circles.
When Averroes penned his reply to al-Ghazali’s The Incoherence of the Philosophers, he entitled it
The Incoherence of the Incoherence. In view of the repudiation of Thomism by Catholic institutions of
higher learning, we might entitle the project now being engaged in by Oderberg and Feser The
Repudiation of the Repudiation. In the past, especially in conversations with Evangelical philosophers of
religion, I have often heard the excuse that while they would like to learn more about Thomism, the time
investment would be too great, given teaching demands and the pressure to publish. First, they would
have to become familiar with the texts themselves, and then they would have to figure out how Thomism
might interact with contemporary analytic philosophy. Well, there is no excuse any longer. Just read
these two books carefully a couple of times each, and you will be well on your way. I would extend the
same invitation to systematic theologians as well.
The third book I want to mention is Wisdom in the Face of Modernity: A Study in Thomistic
Natural Theology, by Thomas Joseph White, OP.23 This is a very ambitious book in which the author
20Routledge, 2008.
21I should note in passing that Oderberg has also done, and continues to do, stellar work in moral theory. See, e.g., Moral
Theory: A Non-Consequentialist Approach (Wiley-Blackwell, 2000).
22Editiones Scholasticae, 2014.
23Catholic University of America, 2009. I myself have commented on the book here. It was Alasdair MacIntyre who first
drew my attention to this book. "
From a lecture at the recent Dominican Colloquia in Berkeley: Philosophers & Theologians in Conversation. The point being that the Aristotilean notion of Nature as the sourse of natural powers and tendencies of natural substances including plants and animals and not just in man. The whole paper helps explain why this understanding has been lost and explains its recent revival in some quarters.
www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/…%207-14-14.pdf
Linus2nd
into contemporary mainstream metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and moral theory have tended to be
piecemeal and fragmentary, and this very spottiness itself sometimes distorts both the intentions and the
teachings of St. Thomas and other Scholastic authors. The two books I am about to mention reject this
piecemeal approach and, in open dialogue with mainstream analytic philosophers, argue unabashedly and
18The most interesting recent argument for the immateriality of intellective cognition is found in James Ross, “Immaterial
Aspects of Thought,” The Journal of Philosophy 89 (1992), pp. 136-150. Edward Feser sharpens this argument and defends it in
“Kripke, Ross, and the Immaterial Aspects of Thought,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 87 (2013), pp. 1-32.
19Oxford, 2012.
11
very effectively for a full-scale and systematic adoption of Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics as a cure
for what ails contemporary analytic metaphysics and philosophy of mind.
The first book is David Oderberg’s Real Essentialism,20 which contains a brilliant and extended
defense of undiluted Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, along with a critique of a wide array of
alternative positions on various metaphysical issues proposed in the current literature in analytic
metaphysics. In particular, Oderberg discusses in painstaking detail essentialism itself, the nature and
structure of material substance, accidental being, identity, definition and scientific taxonomy, and the
nature of the human being and of human personhood. I especially recommend the chapter on the interface
between biological species and metaphysical species, where Oderberg puts to rest decisively the idea that
Aristotelian essentialism and taxonomical theory are dead within contemporary scientific practice.21
Next I turn to Edward Feser’s Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction,22 hot off the
press and currently a philosophical bestseller on Amazon.com. (I kid you not. The last time I checked, it
had Amazon numbers almost unheard of for books in philosophy and was second on the metaphysics
textbook list only to Sartre’s Being and Nothingness!) Feser covers some of same ground as Oderberg,
but spends more time on causality from a Thomistic perspective. Another interesting difference between
the two books is this: In addition to the contemporary analytic literature on metaphysics, Feser engages
and draws upon the very same 20th century Thomistic textbooks that the repudiators of Thomism in the
1960’s considered an embarrassment. For me it is quite exhilarating to see the likes of Henry Koren,
George Klubertanz, Charles Hart, and (of course) Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange drawn into dialogue with
analytic philosophers such as Anthony Kenny, David Armstrong, and David Lewis. This book is just the
latest of Feser’s accomplishments, which include several other books and many articles; I especially
recommend his stellar work on Thomistic arguments for the existence of God. When you throw in his
excellent blog, Feser has done as much as anyone in the past ten years to promote and defend Thomism
within mainstream philosophical circles.
When Averroes penned his reply to al-Ghazali’s The Incoherence of the Philosophers, he entitled it
The Incoherence of the Incoherence. In view of the repudiation of Thomism by Catholic institutions of
higher learning, we might entitle the project now being engaged in by Oderberg and Feser The
Repudiation of the Repudiation. In the past, especially in conversations with Evangelical philosophers of
religion, I have often heard the excuse that while they would like to learn more about Thomism, the time
investment would be too great, given teaching demands and the pressure to publish. First, they would
have to become familiar with the texts themselves, and then they would have to figure out how Thomism
might interact with contemporary analytic philosophy. Well, there is no excuse any longer. Just read
these two books carefully a couple of times each, and you will be well on your way. I would extend the
same invitation to systematic theologians as well.
The third book I want to mention is Wisdom in the Face of Modernity: A Study in Thomistic
Natural Theology, by Thomas Joseph White, OP.23 This is a very ambitious book in which the author
20Routledge, 2008.
21I should note in passing that Oderberg has also done, and continues to do, stellar work in moral theory. See, e.g., Moral
Theory: A Non-Consequentialist Approach (Wiley-Blackwell, 2000).
22Editiones Scholasticae, 2014.
23Catholic University of America, 2009. I myself have commented on the book here. It was Alasdair MacIntyre who first
drew my attention to this book. "
From a lecture at the recent Dominican Colloquia in Berkeley: Philosophers & Theologians in Conversation. The point being that the Aristotilean notion of Nature as the sourse of natural powers and tendencies of natural substances including plants and animals and not just in man. The whole paper helps explain why this understanding has been lost and explains its recent revival in some quarters.
www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/…%207-14-14.pdf
Linus2nd