Thomism/personalism

[Didymus]

I know John Paul II took an interest in reconciling or combining aspects of Thomism and personalism, and I would assume there are at least a few Phatmassers as well who lean this way. I would like to know if there are any out there who oppose personalism (even in its "Thomistic" form) or who believe that Thomism and personalism are incompatible or perhaps best not mixed.

As a request, please leave sarcasm out of this thread. It will simplify things in the long run. Thank you in advance.

[TeresaBenedicta]

I find it an interesting combination of philosophies and not necessarily ones that are contradictory in nature. Personally, not really my cup of tea, though. I find both personalism and phenomenology to be very interesting (I'm a fan of Edith Stein, obviously), but as I continue my philosophical studies, I am more and more identifying myself with the more traditional school of Thomism.

Edit: And as much as I love JPII, I can't read him. As his thesis advisor said after reading his doctoral thesis, "Writes much, says little." A little harsh, but somewhat true. Of the two, I prefer reading Pope Benedict.

Edited June 16, 2010 by TeresaBenedicta

[Apotheoun]

I support Cappadocian personalism.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I want to be the Bill Nie of phenomenological anthropology.

[ThePenciledOne]

I would say there should be balance between the two. Thomism and personalism have their good points though they lack in other areas, yet if combined they could cover one another's weakness. So, I would have to say that could work.

Though, I don't have much else to say, but as I have gone through some Philosophy and further my studies still, for now I can say that I have personalist leanings.

[Didymus]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='17 June 2010 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1276804503' post='2130584']
I would say there should be balance between the two. Thomism and personalism have their good points though they lack in other areas, yet if combined they could cover one another's weakness. So, I would have to say that could work.

Though, I don't have much else to say, but as I have gone through some Philosophy and further my studies still, for now I can say that I have personalist leanings.
[/quote]

In what areas does Thomism lack?

[Didymus]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' date='16 June 2010 - 04:07 PM' timestamp='1276718835' post='2130032']
Edit: And as much as I love JPII, I can't read him. As his thesis advisor said after reading his doctoral thesis, "Writes much, says little." A little harsh, but somewhat true. Of the two, I prefer reading Pope Benedict.
[/quote]

Interesting... Have you read any non-scholar works, like Gift and Mystery? I'm interested if you think this applies to all his works.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Didymus' date='17 June 2010 - 10:01 PM' timestamp='1276822898' post='2130695']
Interesting... Have you read any non-scholar works, like Gift and Mystery? I'm interested if you think this applies to all his works.
[/quote]

I haven't, although I've heard [i]The Jeweler's Shop[/i] is excellent. I've been meaning to read it for a while now.

I've read (struggled through) [i]Love and Responsibility[/i]. Some good stuff, but, like I said, I don't particularly care for his writing style. I've read some of his apostolic constitutions from his pontificate, particularly on Catholic Universities. I like his pontifical writings. But still vastly prefer Benedict.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Didymus' date='17 June 2010 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1276822753' post='2130694']
In what areas does Thomism lack?
[/quote]

I don't know entirely, I have only read some and heard some. Though from what I have heard, Thomism is (analytical?) I think, and that is a mind set I have never been inclined or prone too. And there are lacking components to analytical trains of thought.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='17 June 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1276825368' post='2130709']
I don't know entirely, I have only read some and heard some. Though from what I have heard, Thomism is (analytical?) I think, and that is a mind set I have never been inclined or prone too. And there are lacking components to analytical trains of thought.
[/quote]

Thomism is very intricate and much of it is drawn straight Aristotle. Aristotle was an empirical philosopher (not empiricist which is very different) and admitted of a Metaphysics in which he theorized an absolute being which he called the Nous or mind/soul. Obviously, such a metaphysic would be appealing to Thomas and it is quite awesome. For this reason, though Thomas admits of angels and spiritual beings, I would consider Thomism an empirical philosophy and looks at angels and examines them by asking in what manner would a higher being than a human which is not God exist? This question is asked empirically by first examining humanity and then going off of what would be higher.

Do you have any examples from your reading of how Thomism is lacking? Yes, much can be done with personalism, but it is very much in vogue as we are still feeling the intellectual influence of Pope John Paul II's Papacy. On top of that, Thomism is very complex and require alot of heavy reading that physically tires you out after (trust me I had to spend a week reading two articles and a book on Thomas's philosophy it is tiring. One of the monks recommended only reading for 45 minutes then a 15 minute break to relax and think about the ideas and then go back to reading). Also, most people don't want to put in the time to truly understand what Thomas is saying since he expects you to have studied Aristotle for at least 4 yrs before approaching his Summa. It is highly technical and takes a while to even understand Formal, Quasi-formal, Efficient, Instrumental, and Sufficient Causality. This may be a draw back, its highly technical ideas; however, this weakness I see as a strength since such technicality allows one to build an incredible framework by which we can understand the world.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='17 June 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1276827623' post='2130729']
Thomism is very intricate and much of it is drawn straight Aristotle. Aristotle was an empirical philosopher (not empiricist which is very different) and admitted of a Metaphysics in which he theorized an absolute being which he called the Nous or mind/soul. Obviously, such a metaphysic would be appealing to Thomas and it is quite awesome. For this reason, though Thomas admits of angels and spiritual beings, I would consider Thomism an empirical philosophy and looks at angels and examines them by asking in what manner would a higher being than a human which is not God exist? This question is asked empirically by first examining humanity and then going off of what would be higher.

Do you have any examples from your reading of how Thomism is lacking? Yes, much can be done with personalism, but it is very much in vogue as we are still feeling the intellectual influence of Pope John Paul II's Papacy. On top of that, Thomism is very complex and require alot of heavy reading that physically tires you out after (trust me I had to spend a week reading two articles and a book on Thomas's philosophy it is tiring. One of the monks recommended only reading for 45 minutes then a 15 minute break to relax and think about the ideas and then go back to reading). Also, most people don't want to put in the time to truly understand what Thomas is saying since he expects you to have studied Aristotle for at least 4 yrs before approaching his Summa. It is highly technical and takes a while to even understand Formal, Quasi-formal, Efficient, Instrumental, and Sufficient Causality. This may be a draw back, its highly technical ideas; however, this weakness I see as a strength since such technicality allows one to build an incredible framework by which we can understand the world.
[/quote]

Well said.

And I hear you on studying Thomas... I like the 45-15 rule, I'm going to have to employ it for myself.

It takes a lot of discipline to study Thomas. It's no easy task. But well worth it. The more you study, the more you understand, the more you study, the more you realize you don't understand, and the more you realize that Thomas is an absolute genius.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I don't think John Paul has left Thomism behind in his use of phenomenology in Love and Responsibility. I still think he is a Thomist thinker. I believe his work in sexual ethics was pastoral, and that he believed the Church's morality would be most effectively communicated to certain modern attitudes by approaching the subject phenomenologically. He's combating an anthrocentric mindset with an approach that begins from man's interior. I think that's why it's been so powerful (I have reading L&R to thank for where I am today).

And to TeresaBenedicta - The Jeweler's Shop is excellent, however it's not like most plays. It's very abstract and was written for a certain type of theater. Like the rest of his writing, I think if you read it carefully, it's full of dynamite!