Friday, May 3, 2013

New Book

Daniel D. Novotny, Ens rationis from Suarez to Caramuel: A Study in Scholasticim of the Baroque Era. See here for the amazon page. Looks like a good read. No mention of Petrus Thomae (who did show up in the Mastri volume that came out of Prague), but after all it is a book on Suarez and his contemporaries.

6 comments:

awatkins69 said...

Thanks for sharing the link. There has been a lot of good work coming out of the Czech Republic lately of people who are conversant with both contemporary analytic philosophy and scholasticism. Novotny is one of them; a lot of these people (at least used to) comment on Bill Vallicella's blog as well. Here's another volume from the same group of people:

http://www.amazon.com/Metaphysics-Aristotelian-Scholastic-Contemporary-Scholasticism/dp/3868381465

And yes, most modern theology is underwhelming if not downright silly. For instance, I have been unpleasantly surprised to find out how many major theologians and biblical scholars today are influenced by postmodernism.

Brandon said...

So I take it you're not going to read my forthcoming work, Covering Up Diagonals: How Duns Scotus Started the Countdown to Armageddon with His Account of Exemplar Causality, in which I prove conclusively that all the problems of the modern world are due to not following the ideas of Ramon Llull?

Brandon said...

You know, now that I've mentioned it, I think I am going to have to write that book. Don't you know (it's common knowledge) that Scotus's linear thinking is what got us into this bind? The only thing that can save us, man, is circular thinking.

Lee Faber said...

Thanks awatkins69. I've been meaning to write a post about the Scotus chapter in that book ever since it came out.

Brandon, Brandon, Brandon. Writing a book is so logocentric. What you need to is put out an edition of Scotus with your unconnected ramblings posted below the text instead of an apparatus.

Brandon said...

I think you just don't appreciate the skill it takes to write theology today. It's a lot of work writing a book in which there is nothing univocal (= Scotus = bad).

Anonymous said...

If I can ask, out of genuine curiosity, what's "wrong" with the two books you linked? Is it the extravagance of the claims advanced or more a trademark Radical Orthodox incompetence with medieval philosophy/theology or something else I'm missing? And would you say this is true for all modern theology (especially the kind that's been less "infected" by Milbank and co.?

I'm not asking out of a spirit of hostility and if I come across as passive-aggressive I'm sorry - I have an interest in contemporary theology (though it's not my discipline) and I'm at a loss with how to parse "modern theology isn't a serious discipline". I'd really like to hear your criticisms.