The Sad Story of Thomism in America Reviewed by Joseph Filipowicz
#11
(07-12-2012, 04:32 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote:
(07-12-2012, 04:09 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(07-12-2012, 04:00 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Which battles exactly? I don't really see the point of a Thomism that accepts all the fundamental premises of Modernity. Anyway, the interesting work being done on Thomism today is not happening within the confines of analytic philosophy.

Why do you think analytic philosophy is not producing the best work on Thomism today? Where do you think better work is being done? Do you have some names?

I'm curious to, since the most prominent names, such as Brian Davis,  David Oderberg, Edward Feser, etc... are all arguing from the third camp of analytical Thomism, which is nothing more then analytical Thomism with a Neo-Scholastic (strict observance) direction.

What are the first two camps?

This is rather off topic, but one of the things I so dislike about nouvelle theologie writers is their "doing" theology in a manner reminiscent of Continental philosophy, which seems to be largely bullshit to me. Of course, I could say the same thing about analytic philosophy too, but at least most of it has some sort of solid foundation.
Reply
#12
(07-12-2012, 04:37 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(07-12-2012, 04:32 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote:
(07-12-2012, 04:09 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(07-12-2012, 04:00 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: Which battles exactly? I don't really see the point of a Thomism that accepts all the fundamental premises of Modernity. Anyway, the interesting work being done on Thomism today is not happening within the confines of analytic philosophy.

Why do you think analytic philosophy is not producing the best work on Thomism today? Where do you think better work is being done? Do you have some names?

I'm curious to, since the most prominent names, such as Brian Davis,  David Oderberg, Edward Feser, etc... are all arguing from the third camp of analytical Thomism, which is nothing more then analytical Thomism with a Neo-Scholastic (strict observance) direction.

What are the first two camps?

This is rather off topic, but one of the things I so dislike about nouvelle theologie writers is their "doing" theology in a manner reminiscent of Continental philosophy, which seems to be largely bullshit to me. Of course, I could say the same thing about analytic philosophy too, but at least most of it has some sort of solid foundation.

Feser has a basic outline here, http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/10/...i.html?m=1

Part one is here http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/10/...i.html?m=1


Gyula Klima is another great name. His article of Thomistic dualism, soul + body, is symphonic.
Reply
#13
Well, I did not mean to say that there is nothing at all going on in more analytic approaches, and I will have to look into the philosophy of mind issues mentioned above. However, I do think there is more interesting work being done elsewhere. I would mention Rudi te Velde, Milbank, Olivier-Thomas Venard, who writes mostly in French, and Philipp Rosemann as examples of this. In my opinion, these authors tend to be a bit more willing to think outside the standard framework in epistemology and other areas.
Reply
#14
(07-12-2012, 01:33 PM)TS Aquinas Wrote: Interesting history lesson. This should be told to all Thomists on how to engage the intellectual circles in this new century in America, what expect from the enemy and be more cunning in our tactics to overthrow the Vienna school. Also to not adopt any compromising doctrine and adhere to strict observance of Thomism. What is going to save America is to destroy this eugenic social engineering philosophy that is funded by organizations such the Rockefeller Foundation and founded on Marxism and the so called Malthusian dilemma with classical philosophy. An analytical/neo-scholastic Thomistic approach is what has been winning battles, let's hope this comes to fruition in the near future.

Indeed. Well said, TS Aquinas.

Unfortunately for us, the eugenic social engineering philosophy has many portals. Eugenics beget smaller families, which beget the ability to oppress the individual. Man has given up the groups he once belonged to and the idea that he is an individual is nonsense. Modern man has separated himself from that which gave him his identity. He is now part of a mass as an individual component. Yet he thinks that he is free. That he is his own man.

Now add to this the other pressures that helped move along this evil vision. The destruction of neighborhoods and jobs. Usury and inflation which made it impossible for many families to have many children even if they wanted to follow Church teaching and the natural order of things. A Church that did not recognize it was under attack and in fact helped in the mission of Her enemies. By engaging in compromise, which you have pointed out.

It is Marxist and it certainly is the vehicle that was necessary to cull the Catholic herd before it got out of control. And let it be known, they were afraid of us at one time. Once upon a time in America. Since it is Marxist, it may be stating the obvious that it was, and is, the vehicle which brought about the high concentration of Collectivism for the pleasure of the oligarchs.

They engaged in the battle at all fronts and played it beautifully. The common man did not know what hit him, nor did the intellectuals.


Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)