Outdated Versions of Thomism

Traditionally, there have been four recognizable sub-fields of Thomism. Typically they are:

Transcendental Thomism: Karl Rahner, Bernard Lonergan. These are your typical Neo-Kantians, they tend to be Cartesian dualists (subjectivists) and typically use Thomas in "creative manners," with little regard for the historical character of actual Thomism.

Analytical Thomism: Kretzmann, Stump. These are your philosophers who want to use the name of Thomas, and some of his ideas, to address issues within analytic philosophy.

Existential Thomism: Gilson, Maritain. These philosophers tend to be more influenced by continental philosophy, yet unlike the transcendentals are not "card carrying" Neo-Kantians. They want to use parts of Thomas for problems within continental philosophy.

Aristotelian Thomism: These are your philosophers who tend to emphasize the historical Thomas, as well as his reliance on Aristotelianism. These tend to be your medievalists, interested in history and ecclesial tradition.

Yet, I'm becoming more and more convinced that these are outdated models of Thomism. I would like to offer a more up to date divison of Thomism in the 21st century:


Fribourg (German) Thomism: These philosophers seem to have little regard for the historical problems that Thomas himself was interested in. They tend to read Thomas alone and neither apply it to contemporary issues or analyze the historical nexus of his work.

Angelicum Thomism: These philosophers tend to place all their interest in the historical Thomas. It tends to stress the originality of Thomas and underplays his Aristotelian reliance.

Pseudo-Analytical Thomism: These philosophers tend to give no credence whatsoever to the original Thomas and its historicality. It seems many times they merely pick and choose whatever suits their contemporary needs.

Finally, what I'm interested in

Historical and Contemporary Thomism: These philosophers merge the Angelicum thomism with the old existential thomism with modest results. I believe there is potential in this, but it needs to be broader. This type of Thomism needs to have the historical rigor of the Angelicum, but the agility to bring into discussion both existential thomism and a form of analytic philosophy. Both on their own tends to lead to ridiculous grandstanding to particular needs given to their respective philosophical stem (continental or analytic).

So using the old versions, you could say I want to merge all three camps, minus the transcendental thomists who I believe we can just ditch by the roadside. But if using this newer model, we need to ditch the pseudo-analytic thomism which seems to do nothing whatsoever in regards to what Thomas actually said, yet at the same time not ignore analytic problems. We need a thomism which is firmly rooted in the actual person of Thomas, yet with the ability to consistentantly and cogently speak to the continentals and analytics. Its a tough task, but it must be done. As it is now, Thomism is too fractured.