Joseph M. de Torre, "Thomism and Postmodernism", in Postmodernism and Christian Philosophy, 248.
From the nominalism and voluntarism of William of Ockham (1300-1350), already adumbrated by the formalism of Duns Scotus (1266-1308), to the skepticism of Montaigne (1533-1592) and Francisco Sanchez (1522-1623), there was a logical development, aided by the so-called religious wars occasioned by Protestantism and, in the previous century, by the Hussite revolt in Bohemia as well as the lingering conflict with the Moslem Turks. The attention of philosophers was diverted to politics, economics and experimental sciences with the consequent weakening in metaphysical insights.
No footnotes or proof of any kind is offered. It is a rather hysterical tirade about how all Thomists before the 20th century were infected with Scotus' "formalism" and "essentialism" and how we must all return to the actus essendi to redeem the world. Oh well, what do you expect from a conference paper delivered at the top-secret invitation-only Maritain conferences at Notre Dame? I only post this as the best summary of the narrative of the decline of philosophy that began the instant someone first criticized Thomas Aquinas.
7 comments:
Ockham's dates as 1300-1350, rather than 1287-1347? That gives some indication that whatever axe these deluded numpties have to grind, no mere matter of historical fact will be allowed to get in their way. Charlatanism is obviously the order of the day. You can also see their latest dogma mentioned here: their belief that there have never in fact been any religious wars. If there was ever any doubt that reading is REALLY important, these guys have proved it all over again. Their belief that Cromwell, for instance, was not motivated by his religious beliefs to kill 40% of the Irish population is not simply historically inaccurate, it is offensive and deeply dangerous.
-Mediaeval Ned
This quote is ridiculous in so many ways. I'd laugh if I wasn't aware of how many scholars and clerics are swallowing this drivel whole. Thanks for sharing...and thereby showing how ludicrous this thesis really is!
One has to laugh in the face of the abyss at times. Just google "Scotus" and "modernity" or "postmodernity" and you will find this is basically the view of all Christian intellectuals, protestant and catholic.
I don't think actual atheists actually care about this sort of thing.
Part of the article by de Torre is visible on the Internet: it seems to be an exercise in instant history. The author is said to have written "hundreds" of articles and essays. One sees how this was possible. Near the end of the article, de Torre says: "Heidegger was right in his diagnosis of the crisis of civilization as having lost the "sense of being", though his prognosis was too erratic and multifaceted to provide any sure guidance". Not being a philosopher, I do not have a clear idea of what this loss of the sense of being might refer to. I suspect it is again one of those grandiose gestures devoid of any content that are taken far too seriously. And what is "the" crisis of civilization? One is not surprised that Duns Scotus was just one of the many names dropped in de Torre's paper.
With each re-reading of this first paragraph of de Torre's paper, its substance becomes more fascinating. From nominalism to skepticism, we are told, there was "a logical development [...] aided by the lingering conflict with the Moslem Turks" (the fall of Constantinople?). Is that what training in the scholastic style of argumentation does for you?
I have also experienced the effects of criticizing Aquinas. It often comes in the form of, if you think Aquinas is wrong - whatever that might be - then you are simply reading him wrong; you have not read enough. It is so very frustrating.
I once worked in a catholic bookstore near CUA and had an ardent thomist come in from time to time to browse and convince me that I was not educated enough to disagree with aquinas. He would always list a long series of books and encyclicals and argue that I couldn't possibly understand thomism enough to leave/disagree unless I had read them all. But I had, and already had different interpretations or simply thought it was wrong.
Post a Comment