I have written elsewhere on the major characteristics of this field of Thomism. Here I will simply bullet point a few of them.
- Either a rejection of non-analytical interpretations and applications of Thomism, or an unfamiliarity with the broader Thomistic field prior to G.E.M. Anscombe and Peter Geach.
- An interest in Thomas the philosopher, and not Thomas the theologian. (This may be changing, but by and large still there)
- A deemphasis of the historical enviroment of Thomas and his contemporaries and engagement with his texts without the aid of historical studies or the tradition of interpretation.
- An emphasis on Thomas as purely Aristotelian and a downplay of his Neo-Platonic influence. (Hence, a more Suarzeian reading of his texts)
- Application of his texts into distinctly contemporary problems of analytic philosophy (yes, epistemology) with great attention to his use of the copula.
- A silence in regards to his analogia entis, ontology in general, and especially the esse commune.
There seems to be two
major problems with this approach to Thomistic studies. First, in removing the
commentary that has built up around the Thomistic texts for the last eight
hundred years
the Thomistic texts are almost presumed to sit in a philosophical and theological vacuum. This is
problematic on two levels. While it is possible to retrieve a
historical text “naively” or without attention to the historicity that has
developed around it, it certainly is unadvisable. The notion of a pure return to the sources presumes a
state of neutrality which is unwise on purely scholarly grounds. Would we study Abraham Lincoln without knowing he was a Republican or from the West and Illinois? On the second level to
neglect the scholarship that has developed around the texts is to be deprived
of advances in previously unresolved problems, attention to newly discovered
information, and a general awareness of historical context. We see the result
of this neglect in the problem of esse. For example take Analytical Thomist
Brian Davies and his argument that existence is not a predicate.[1]
Or take Anthony Kenny who without any reference to the scholarship that has developed for centuries
around the interpretation of esse was free to dismiss it as superfluous nonsense while Davies was free to interpret esse in Thomas as an attribute in the
sense of A. J. Ayer, instead of Thomas’ historical position of esse as an act.
The second problem with
the presuppositions of this version of Thomism is its unfamiliarity with and
lack of interest in the historical Thomas. Perhaps the most severe criticism of
Analytical Thomism, it seems a fairly justifiable one. In this regard, the most
disturbing element of this Thomism is that it seems fixated only on the
present, particularly on present analytical philosophical concerns, leaving the
historical Thomas barely utilized. In this regard, this Thomism is at a
disadvantage when it comes to recent work on the Neo-Platonic influences in
Thomas’ work, the controversial nature of using Aristotelian philosophy at the
time, his place among his own contemporaries, and his role as a theologian.
There is something extraordinarily unhistorical about a Thomism which has no
use for his theology. In a section entitled “not without theology,” while
discussing Analytical Thomism’s lack of interest in his theology Fergus Kerr
notes, “But, though these are philosophical considerations, the options that he
[Thomas] adopted have a significant bearing on his theology and the
spirituality inscribed in his theology.”[2] For the historical Thomas there was no
separation between good philosophy and good theology. “In short, epistemology
is not separable from theology.”[3]
Due to the complete dominance of the present, these vital components of
Thomistic research are almost completely neglected. This is not a criticism of
placing Thomas in dialogue with analytical problems; it is a criticism of only
doing that without the needed historical awareness in which that dialogue can
be brought to fruition. For all these reasons we can see why Analytical Thomism has a tendency to gravitate toward an accommodationalism. Similarly to Transcendental Thomism, this Thomism has even less interest in the historical Thomas. The use of the historical Thomas is practically non-existent in Analytical Thomism’s texts. Instead, this version of Thomism insists on the priority of contemporary analytical problems to dominate philosophy. This version of Thomism can have a tremendous impact if it avoides some of its current pitfalls. But atleast for now, it has a lot of work to do before it can garner the respect of many Thomist scholars outside of its own very limited purview.
No comments:
Post a Comment