Summa Philosophica

by Peter Kreeft

Kreeft applies the methods of Thomas Aquinas to 110 major questions in philosophy---formulating a rigorous thesis; succinctly summarizing leading objections; providing a short argument from a recognized authority of the past, then arranging his own points into a more elaborate argument; finally, refuting each objection one by one.

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Nonfiction

296 pages, Hardcover

First published September 25, 2011

About the author

Peter Kreeft is an American philosopher and prolific author of over eighty books on Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics. A convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, his journey was shaped by his study of Church history, Gothic architecture, and Thomistic thought. He earned his BA from Calvin College, an MA and PhD from Fordham University, and pursued further studies at Yale. Since 1965, he has taught philosophy at Boston College and also at The King’s College. Kreeft is known for formulating “Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God” with Ronald K. Tacelli, featured in their Handbook of Christian Apologetics. A strong advocate for unity among Christians, he emphasizes shared belief in Christ over denominational differences.

Reviews

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Catholic philosopher and apologist Peter Kreeft’s Summa Philosophica is a broad survey covering 110 of the most perennial questions in philosophy, be they in metaphysics, ethics, political philosophy or aesthetics. Kreeft uses Thomas Aquinas’ classic Summa format for each of the ten questions in the eleven categories he explores. A question is posed that can be affirmed or negated, several objections are levied against Kreeft’s position, one or more authorities are given, followed by Kreeft’s thesis, and then each objection answered one at a time. Examples would be: “Whether all knowledge begins in experience?” (it does), or “Whether democracy is the best form of government?” ( it isn’t).

Learning to benefit from a book like this takes a bit of patience. My strongest reactions to the substance of Kreeft’s Philosophica would be fairly harsh criticism. However, if the reader agrees with Kreeft on his first quaestio, that philosophy is still rightly defined as a ‘love of wisdom’, then all technical nitpicking can be excused, as this book is a rousing success at making the reader think deeply about fascinating questions from new angles. The type of person who fell in love with philosophy because of a Socratic dialogue (Either those of Plato or Kreeft, who has written several), like myself, won’t be let down.

I regularly found myself both surprised and in disagreement with Kreeft’s fairly unorthodox positions. It’s certainly bizarre to find a Thomist arguing against the validity of the ontological argument, or for both a strong, social conservatism, and then a question or two later, for a one-world-government styled like the United Nations. In fact, nearly every philosopher Kreeft quotes on one page, he denounces on another. Taken outside of the body of the rest of his work, coupled with the recommended reading list in the back, it wouldn’t be difficult for Kreeft to label himself a Neo-Platonic Kantian existentialist Buddhist, plus however many more suffixes one may want to tack on. Whether this unsystematic “anything goes” defense of each Summa Article is an abuse of the format, the reader can decide for themselves, but it undoubtedly leaves Kreeft contradicting himself in plenty of areas, even as he refers to previous articles to remind readers that he’s already proven certain points.

Kreeft’s multiple-worldview-personality-disorder can be a bit frustrating, but not nearly as much as the absence of any technical vigor to the various Articles, most frequently resulting from straw man fallacies and equivocations. The straw men particularly, I was driven nearly mad at the frequency in which objections present for any given article were formulated poorly, didn’t represent the best case against his position, or seemed present simply to pad content for an appropriate rebuttal. What really bothered me, though, was not that this is simply a book for the layman, but that there are too many areas where he simply isn’t at his sharpest. I was lucky enough to see Kreeft speak for several hours at a recent conference, and was fairly impressed to see him whip up interesting responses off the cuff regarding topics from Aristotelian Hylomorphism to Van Tillian Presuppositionalism. He’s a deep thinker with a robust technical understanding of philosophy, and I wish a bit more of that came out in Philosophica.

Frustrations with simplistic arguments and slippery logic aside, his clarity of thought and approachability invites the reader to engage with the questions and work out your own solutions in each of his articles. I spent a surprisingly long amount of time with pen and highlighter, either angrily crossing out silly statements he injected into his arguments, or reformulating (probably poorly) stronger versions of his positions I aligned with, or trying to justify a position he took that I liked, without all of the Catholic mysticism. I may even have changed my mind on a few things while wandering off in thought, after realizing that taking certain positions on different articles lead me towards contradictions, or into places I didn’t want to be.

Kreeft hints in the introduction that this was his goal for the reader, and on this level he was quite successful. The prose is anything but stuffy and heady, filled with unexpected jokes and a certain welcome lightness. It’s regrettable he didn’t do a thorough examination of just 30-40 questions, instead of a rushed overview of 110. Overall, Philosophica is a readable, worthwhile foray into interesting and unique philosophical dilemmas, but to really get value out of it, the reader must show up with a notepad and be prepared to do the philosophizing themselves.

[Laurent Dv · Rating 4 out of 5]

Une excellente introduction très très accessible à la philosophie classique (Socrates, Platon, Aristote, Thomas d'Aquin) sous la forme d'une Somme ("Summa") scolastique (du Moyen-Âge), c'est-à-dire sous la même forme que la Somme Théologique de Thomas d'Aquin où chaque question philosophique est toujours structurée de la même façon :
1) la question posée
2) la réponse et les arguments "contre"
3) la réponse et les arguments "pour"
3) la bonne réponse
4) la réponse aux objections de la mauvaise réponse ("contre")

Kreeft répond brièvement à énormément de questions classiques (existence de Dieu, but de la philosophie, le bien et le mal, la réincarnation, la définition de l'homme, nos moyens de connaître la réalité etc.) de tous les domaines de la philosophie (éthique, métaphysique, épistémologie, Dieu, la religion, l'anthropologie). Kreeft explique très bien les choses avec des exemples concrets et des résumés (tout se lit très rapidement). On comprend ainsi très facilement l'avis de philosophes comme Descartes, Kant, Derrida !

Plus généralement, il montre à quel point la philosophie classique est raisonnable et les erreurs de la philosophie moderne. En intro, Kreeft explique pourquoi il a choisi d'écrire son livre sous le format ancien des livres du Moyen-Âge. Du coup, ce livre se lit plutôt comme un dictionnaire dans lequel on va consulter les parties qui nous intéressent.

Les deux seuls défauts, c'est que ses réponses peuvent être assez simplistes puisqu'il vise avant tout la brièveté et la vulgarisation. Mais c'est un des tout premiers livres que je conseillerai à quelqu'un qui veut découvrir la philo. Ensuite, il ne donne aucune source pour approfondir les sujets qu'il traite, ce qui laisse les lecteurs sur leurs faims quand sa réponse ne les a pas satisfait et qu'il veulent explorer un thème plus en détails.

[Jeffrey Romine · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like reading philosophy, but the scholastic like system made it difficult, so I resorted to reading an article a day in order not to get lost, or bored. Nonetheless, I'm glad to have read this book, but I'm also glad to be finished.

[Dan Yingst]

Very good, interesting

[Paula · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kreeft has outlined the key questions of philosophy that have plagued philosophers for centuries. He thoroughly represents both sides of the argument, while showing how one side has a stronger case. It is a fascinating experiment, giving cogent reasons for each of Kreeft's philosophical stances. His reasoning leads clearly to an understanding of why classic virtues and values have passed the test of time. They simply make more sense. Bravo to Kreeft for making the case in so straightforward a fashion.