What is wrong with Maritain?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geremia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Geremia said:
True, but I am just to make sense of why some seemingly top-notch Thomist philosophers do not consider Maritain a good philosopher. For example, the Society of Scholastics refuses to mention him as a notable Thomist in their constitution; they were the ones who told me that Maritain’s definition of philosophy, as a reduction to metaphysics, is wrong.
Click to expand...
St. Thomas said in his De modo studendi
non respicias a quo audias, sed quidquid boni dicatur (“Do not heed by whom a thing is said, but rather what is said”)
Click to expand...
 
I just realized that I have not been upholding St. Thomas’s advice in his letter De Modo Studendi: “non respicias a quo audias, sed quidquid boni dicatur” (“Do not heed by whom a thing is said, but rather what is said”).
 
Geremia

I think I have discovered what is wrong with Maritain: he was friends with the satanist revolutionary Saul Alinsky and corresponded with him.

Hmm. Maritain was also friends with the atheist philosopher George Santayana. He and his wife Raissa even tried to convert him. I think Maritain reached out to everyone, was a friend to everyone, and that made him the truest type of Christian.
 
Geremia said:
I have heard a lot of negative rap about the Thomist philosopher Jacques Maritain, from the simple fact that he defined philosophy as metaphysics to the claim that his apparently incorrect interpretations of St. Thomas might have contributed to the rise of Modernism.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with defining philosophy as metaphysics since philosophy, properly understood is the science of things in their first causes, insofar as these belong to the natural order. Thus, Maritain is following Aristotle and the tradition of Thomism by referring to metaphysics as “first philosophy.”

By way of an analogy, one can define the exact sciences according to their exemplar, which is physics.

If you read Maritain’s Introduction to Philosophy he provides an excellent discussion of how philosophy differs from the natural sciences, and he classifies the various divisions of philosophy. In the total context of describing philosophy according to its material and formal object, one comes to a clear understanding of the subject.

As far as the idea that Maritain contributed to the rise of Modernism, I would first consider the source. Maritain was a solid Thomist. He did not even consider himself a “neo-Thomist”. Maritain applied Thomistic thought to may contemporary problems, such as education, politics, social issues, natural law and natural rights, and so on. His works did inspire some scholars to go beyond what Maritain himself would consider appropriate, but he clarified his position in The Peasant of the Garrone: An Old Layman Questions Himself About the Present Time , a book well worth reading, more than once.
Geremia said:
E.g., In his Introduction to Philosophy he says:My simple question is: What exactly is wrong with Maritain? What is Maritainism? Is he not a genuine Thomist? Pope John Paul II, after all, mentions him explicitly in his encyclical Fides et Ratio (74.). Thanks
Click to expand...
Maritain was a genuine Thomist just as was Etienne Gilson. The real question should be “What is wrong with off-beat Thomists like Karl Rahner, and those so-called neo-Thomists who combine Kantian principles with Thomism?” These are not genuine Thomists. Fr. Stanley L. Jaki liked to call them “AquiKantists”, to distinguish them from real Thomists.
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Geremia,

djeter seems to suggest above that the fact that Maritain criticized some of what came out of Vatican II might be the cause of disdain for Maritain. But, my sense is that those who are wary of Maritain are themselves critical of Vatican II. So, wouldn’t there be some other reason that Maritain is looked unfavorably upon?

I’ve seen some mention of “humanism” and “naturalism” leveled as criticisms.

VC
Click to expand...
Criticism of Vatican II, or what has been called “the spirit of Vatican II”, is not necessarily a problem. It all depends on the “nature” of the criticism. Even Cardinal Ratzinger had some criticisms of Vatican II, along with his support for VII.

No one in their right mind would criticize Maritain on the grounds of “humanism” or “naturalism.” Maritain taught that the only true humanism is a Christian humanism. That is well worth pondering. On this matter, Maritain influenced Pope Paul VI, who also taught along these lines. See Maritain’s work Integral Humanism
 
JohnDamian said:
As I said, an essences contingency or nessecity is not verifiable if it is held that essences are really distinct from materials.
Click to expand...
We make a logical distinction between the essence and the matter of physical things, but they cannot exist apart in nature. To make an assertion to the contrary, would seem to be a claim in support of Platonic metaphysics.
JohnDamian said:
The genus of “essence” is itself not wholly contingent, nor nessecary - for it is certain that God’s essence, as indistinct from his existence is not contingent.
Click to expand...
This statement stands the problem on its head. To the contrary, it is through the verifiablity of things as being contingent that we reason to the existence of a non-contingent or necessary being.

Whatever we attribute to Necessary Being is attributed not equivocally or univocally, but analogically from our knowledge of contingent things.

That God’s essence is identical with His existence is a fact we assert negatively, by removing the limitations of contingent being from His description. And it does not seem to work logically to say, as you have, that “The genus of “essence” is itself not wholly contingent, nor nessecary” because God is not in a genus.
 
Just got a second…no time to read all that people have said…but I want to certainly say that Jacques Maritain was a very great Thomist Philosopher and is known far and wide for his Faithfulness to the Catholic Church! (just in case someone gets the wrong idea) Pope Paul VI even have him the message for intellectuals at (or after) Vatican II …

Maritain was one of the greatest Catholic intellectuals of the 20th century
 

“The fact [is] that Maritain criticized some of what came out of Vatican II.”​

Well, halleluiah! So much for the better for Maritain, I say! There are a lot of things wrong in the Church, especially the liturgical innovations, that get blamed on Vatican Council II, rightly or wrongly. Vatican II was followed by what we live in now, the Darkened Aged of the Church, from which, hopefully, Pope Benedict XVI may be beginning to deliver us (but only just beginning), at long last.

I have a goodly number of Maritain’s books, including some that I have read yet, like “Paysan de la Garonne” (though I forget whether I have this book, buried somewhere in my disorganised book collection, in French or in English. in both of which languages I am very fluent), and that book is one of those which I have yet to read. Knowing that Maritain criticises the results of Vatican II makes me a lot more eager to read that work!

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
Geremia said:
I have heard a lot of negative rap about the Thomist philosopher Jacques Maritain, from the simple fact that he defined philosophy as metaphysics to the claim that his apparently incorrect interpretations of St. Thomas might have contributed to the rise of Modernism.

E.g., In his Introduction to Philosophy he says:My simple question is: What exactly is wrong with Maritain? What is Maritainism? Is he not a genuine Thomist? Pope John Paul II, after all, mentions him explicitly in his encyclical Fides et Ratio (74.). Thanks
Click to expand...
I’m not an expert on the subject, but I can say this much: Maritain’s works on art and music ( Art and Scholasticism and The Frontiers of Poetry ) were very beneficial to me years ago when trying to distinguish between “religious” art and “sacred” art. If more church musicians would read this today we wouldn’t have such crazy stuff to endure at Mass.

Someone mentioned “The Peasant of the Garonne”… I read this years ago (in English). I found it in my local (secular) university library. I had forgotten about it, and would like to read it again.

I’ve never heard of faithful orthodox Catholics eschewing his works, quite the opposite.
Perhaps some on the fringe dislike him because he was such a proponent of kindness.
He felt that we should always treat skeptics etc. w/ kindness, as they are “potential” members of the Church.

I also remember another work that was hugely helpful to me : The Humanity of Christ (I think this was the title). It completely steared clear of some of the current heresies (e.g.
that Jesus didn’t know who He was, etc.). I’ll have to look that one up again too. He spoke of Aquinas’s notion of a “higher” and a “lower” part of Christ’s soul, and how this enabled
Him to suffer etc. This was a good while ago. I’ll have to review!
 
I found the title of the book! “The Grace and Humanity of Jesus”. If you type the following in your computer search, you should find a number of things to help you:
Jacques Maritain, The Grace and Humanity of Jesus

I came up w/: maritain.nd.edu, which said this is “soon to be published by the University of Notre Dame Press”, and some info. at innerexplorations.com that refers to his work
on Jesus’s 2 natures, and how this does not negate the fact that He knew who He was.
 
I read that the Holy Father Pope Paul VI considered appointed Maritain a lay cardinal and weeped upon hearing of his death.
 
I wrote an article on the topic of problems in Maritain’s political philosophy, which is also a chapter in a new book of mine on what authentically Catholic philosophy teaches about religious pluralism and liberalism (The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism: And Why Philosophers Can’t Solve It

Here is my article: jkalb.freeshell.org/misc/kozinski_maritain.html
 
tjkozinski said:
I wrote an article on the topic of problems in Maritain’s political philosophy, which is also a chapter in a new book of mine on what authentically Catholic philosophy teaches about religious pluralism and liberalism (The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism: And Why Philosophers Can’t Solve It

Here is my article: jkalb.freeshell.org/misc/kozinski_maritain.html
Click to expand...
Oh yes… now I remember about “The Peasant of the Garonne” where he described his religious views as being conservative and his social views as being liberal…however, nothing was against Church teaching, in fact, it was quite in concert with it. His socially liberal ideas had nothing to do with things that go against the faith (eg what we are experiencing now in our country).
 
Holy_Inquisitor said:
I read that the Holy Father Pope Paul VI considered appointed Maritain a lay cardinal and weeped upon hearing of his death.
Click to expand...
Pope Paul VI loved Maritain, and so much as said that he was involved w/ The Credo of the People of God. He also wanted to make him (the first?) lay Cardinal, but Maritain
declined. Maritain is much the Catholic philosopher, I think. Some may have political or
other issues not in concert w/ the Church, and thereby denegrate him. Maybe that’s what the original post was referring to.
 
Snowflake:

My article, which I wrote a while back, is a bit too strong in its criticism of Maritain, though it does point to some major problems in his political thought. I do not think, or have not seen, anything clearly heretical in Maritain, and he is not only not heretical, but a tremendous Catholic thinker who has given an immeasurable gift to the Church in his writings. And, as far as others have said who knew him, he was saintly. On the other hand, I do think his thinking on the political problem of religious pluralism was deficient in some respects. I treat these deficiencies at length in my book, mentioned in my other post.
 
tjkozinski said:
I wrote an article on the topic of problems in Maritain’s political philosophy, which is also a chapter in a new book of mine on what authentically Catholic philosophy teaches about religious pluralism and liberalism (The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism: And Why Philosophers Can’t Solve It

Here is my article: jkalb.freeshell.org/misc/kozinski_maritain.html
Click to expand...
Dear Dr Kozinski;

Nice to meet up with you in this forum. Came across your work as a theology undergrad at Seattle U. Your article was elegant, lucid and to the point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top