Stump, Aquinas, 61:
"Aquinas's account of the virtues is rich and complex, and his discussion them is situated in an intricate network of medieval lore. This lore includes the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, at least three of which are twins of the intellectual virtues: courage, piety, fear, counsel (consilium), wisdom, scientia (generally translated as 'knowledge'), and understanding. In addition, Aquinas also weaves into his account the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit...and the seven beatitudes."
Lore?! What is medieval lore? So anything that might come from a theological tradition such as the Bible and not from the fertile minds of analytic philosophers counts as lore. These days I am becoming increasingly aware that the study of medieval philosophy is considered at worst a waste of time by philosophy departments and at best a branch of history. With friends like Stump, "Medieval philosophy" doesn't need enemies.
13 comments:
Good thing the 'analytics' only mess with later medieval philosophy, and leave real stuff alone.
Well, it's slightly worse than that because all three of the things Stump notes here -- the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and the Beatitudes -- are derived from Scripture.
What an odd thing to say, especially given that Professor Stump is Catholic.
As for "rich and complex" and similar descriptions, that's not necessarily a compliment coming from an quasi-analytic philosopher.
Ah, but when this was written she was a "married female protestant" as she says in the introduction. The hilarious thing about all this is that now apparently she is more into philosophy of religion and goes around to conferences (most recently, Palermo) telling people that Aquinas can't be understood without understanding the gifts of the Holy Spirit
I remember having Stump as a professor 7 years ago for a course on "Aquinas's Summa." She asked each of her students to give a presentation on an assigned portion of the Summa. Mine was ST I, q. 3, a. 4, and when I discussed such "antiquated medieval terms" as actus essendi and esse ut veritatem propositionis, she accused me of simply "parroting" Aquinas. I suppose trying to understand Thomas on his own terms, in his own (theological) context, is worth next to nothing unless that can all be translated into the logical clashing of analytic discourse. At that point I abandoned all interest in her project as a "medievalist" and moved on--that was my first and last class with her. I echo your sentiments, Lee.
Hmm, I seem to have misread your post (misplaced the 'not' somehow) and simply repeated you. Sorry about that.
This is not confined to Stump, of course; I do early modern work with Malebranche, among other things, and Malebranche never stops talking about the Trinity, and this is exactly the sort of thing I have to deal with all the time. (Another anecdote: I once submitted an article on the role of Malebranche's religious views in his philosophy -- a very rich topic. The referee said he (or she, I suppose) was confused by all the discussion of the Trinity, and thought I should eliminate most of it, but, claiming to do work in medieval philosophy, he thought I should have done more to show Malebranche's continuity with the medievals and Augustine. I kid you not.)
Why read the 'lore' in a negative way? She is saying that there is a particular body of knowledge which heavily influences how Aquinas thinks and writes about the virtues. She has thought this for a long time, since before the book was published. That's why she has students read Aquinas's biblical commentaries in class and leads discussion groups with the Dominicans over the same topics. It is rash to judge Stump so harshly over this quotation. 'Lore' doesn't mean 'fiction.'
Tim
I don't know Tim, prior to posting this I talked to several medievalist colleagues, who all thought the term itself highly negative. Sure, it's not in Tolkien, but most people apparently do think it = fiction.
Dear Lee,
I do think the word 'lore' does often carry the connotation that the lore is fictional, or mythic, or some such thing. Even so, it often doesn't, too. My point is that it is rash to judge Stump as dismissing theological tradition such as the bible based on her usage of the word 'lore'--that is, unless one has a reason to think that she means the word with the negative connotation. People who know her will know that she views these topics she calls 'lore' as very important, as you point out from her recent talks on philosophy of religion (though she has held this view for quite some time). You use strong words against her in this post, and they are not justified by the quotation which you offer.
Tim
Stump is Catholic? I thought she was a Protestant.
Ah I read your post Lee Faber. So she converted? I wonder if she takes Ex Corde Ecclesiae seriously now as a result.
I have no idea; I've never met her. My information on that is purely anecdotal.
Just noticed this, and wanted to say that Tim is absolutely right. Not one of the five dictionaries I've just checked lists ‘lore’ as in any way pejorative. Insofar as it means anything more specific than its etymology would suggest, it means traditional learning. Of course, some people are dismissive of some or all lore, just as some people are dismissive of some or all tradition. But that doesn't make either of them a pejorative term. If she'd wanted to be disparaging, she could have called it myth. (Anti-disclaimer: I hold no brief for Stump.)
Post a Comment