What do you think?
Rate this book
From Unity to Pluralism: The Internal Evolution of Thomism
Through an in-depth study of four key figures – Pierre Rousselot, Joseph Marechal, Jacques Maritain, and Etienne Gilson – From Unity to Pluralism traces the evolution of Thomism in the first half of the twentieth century. Through their work, Thomisism encountered contemporary thought and rediscovered its authentic roots, and the ideal of a univocal, unitary doctrine of Scholastic truth embodied in the unambiguous teachings of Thomas Aquinas, which had inspired the Thomist revival at the end of the nineteenth century, gradually gave way. The result is the emergence of pluralism within the system itself and the independent development of the theologies of Karl Rahner and Bernard Lonergan.
248 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1989
4 people are currently reading
20 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 11, 2012
I just finished this book. It is very good. I never knew much about Gilson at all and really enjoyed Fr. McCool's treatment of Gilson's understanding of the difference between St. Thomas's theology, the 5 Ways, etc., and Aristotelianism, viz., how St. Thomas really contributed a new distinct philosophy, not a kludge of Aristotle and the Church fathers. Towards the end of the book, Maritain's
Degrees of Knowledge
reappeared in a slightly more positive light than before, when Fr. McCool made me aware of this interesting historical fact of Maritain's book (pg. 154-155):
Unfortunately for Maritain, later historical research has established beyond doubt that Cajetan's account of the three degrees of abstraction does not correspond to St. Thomas' own teaching. A new edition of St. Thomas' In Librum Boethii de Trinitate, Questiones quinta et sexta, published in 1948, led to a major revision of the accepted understanding of St. Thomas' theory of abstraction. Apart from the abstractio totius, abstraction of a sensible whole from its particulars required for any form of conceptual thought, the only other type of abstraction proposed by St. Thomas confines itself to the level of mathematics. This is an abstractio formae, the mind's separation of the form of quantity from the rest of the sensible whole which the mind disregards in mathematics. The being of the metaphysician is not grasped by abstraction at all. It is grasped through a negative judgment, the separatio, in which the mind affirms that all being is not material. Contrary to Cajetan's belief, analogy is not known prior to the metaphysician's grasp of being. Far from being a necessary condition for being's proper understanding, analogy itself is not understood until after the metaphysician has grasped being through the "separation" of his negative judgment. Thus the new interpretation of St. Thomas' own thought cuts the ground out from under Maritain's argument that metaphysics must be approached through the philosophy of nature.Fr. McCool's "new theology" treatment was, although brief, pretty good. I would've appreciated more discussion of Garrigou-Lagrange's "strict observance Thomism," but Fr. McCool obviously presents a history of "Jesuit Thomism," not "Dominican Thomism." E.g., Fr. McCool neglects discussing this particular aspect in his discussion of the "new theology" {Greenstock, T.O.P.'s "Thomism and the New Theology" The Thomist 13 (1950), 567-596, especially pg. 575-578}:
The position of the new theologians is very different from that of Aquinas. Their idea is that theological reasoning consists in using revealed truth in order to draw out of the full latent content contained in human truths--the contrary, in fact of the Thomist position. [...] Because the new theology has failed to appreciate this truth with regard to the theological conclusion it has also failed to realize the role of the merely human truth as an instrument of faith.Lastly, as I commented in my review of Fr. McCool's 19th century equivalent of this book, Edward Feser (author of Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide ) says, however: "McCool rejects the notion of a perennially valid core to Thomism." As a rejoinder to McCool's "controversial interpretation" of the history of Thomism, he suggests John F. X. Knasas, ed., Thomistic Papers VI (Center for Thomistic Studies, 1994).
December 1, 2024
In 1879 Pope Leo XIII set out a vision of Thomism, to provide a solid philosophy for the Church and for wider society. That vision envisioned a unitary methodology which pulled together the collected wisdom of the ages and distilled it anew to bring sense to individuals and societies plagued by the poor thinking of philosophical errors.
Elements of Leo XIII’s vision came together and there was a very real sense of the Church pulling together with a common approach to philosophy. But there were also some crucial misunderstandings in the assumptions which Leo XIII made. And so, by 1965 the Thomist experiment was struggling with internal tensions pushing it towards a pluralism which Leo XIII could never have envisaged.
The author tells the story by focusing upon 4 distinct styles of Thomism. Those readings fell into a a subjectivist (idealist) methodology and an objectivist (realist) methodology. They also clashed over the difference between a reading of Thomas which was historically accurate, and readings which arose from Commentators on Thomism, who in their defence of Thomas had sometimes introduced readings which ran diametrically opposite to what Thomas himself had said.
The analysis of the authors provides a relatively detailed reading and explanation of their positions, and so this book will be a useful source book for readers who want to engage with Rousselot, Marechal, Gilson and Maritain. This depth of analysis is welcome, but it can also convey a slightly misleading impression to readers if they walk away thinking that it sums up the totality of the differences in readings of Thomas.
There were also some other versions of Thomism. For example one version stressed a more Aristotelian reading of Thomas (eg the American Dominican River Forest approach). It would have been useful to hear more about the wider breadth of the diversity of Thomist Pluralism in this book. Although, to some extent, that lacuna was filled in the author’s next book: The Neo Thomists - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...).
The final chapter introduced some of the issues of ‘historicism’ which were levelled against Thomism, but it focused more upon the misreadings of Aquinas which were found in post-enlightenment theologians (like Suarez). That problem was illustrated well, with references to Herni de Lubac and Henri Bouillard’s works.
However, there is another set of historicist issues which were important during the early twentieth century, and they involved historical criticism of the bible. The Vatican struggled to recognise the relevance of some of the issues, dismissing them because they were raised by Modernists. And so there is a very real question whether the a-historicism of how Thomism itself was understood (and of how Thomism read the bible), contributed to a mindset which struggled with other historical issues in wider theology. That is an interesting question as it raises some very pointed questions about whether the way that Thomism was promoted, had unintended negative implications for the Church’s wider theologising.
That is the kind of question which could not have been asked without considerable controversy, during the Thomist era. It is a shame that this book does not explore it, and in doing so, attempt to give an overall assessment of whether, and to what extent Leo XIII's strategy of appealing to Thomism was successful.
Overall, this is a thorough and informative overview of four major styles of Thomism. However, the depth of the detail in some of the chapters means that it will be enjoyed most by those with a prior understanding of background philosophical issues like Kantianism, Idealism, Realism (etc).
(These comments are based upon a reading of the fourth printing, 2002)
Elements of Leo XIII’s vision came together and there was a very real sense of the Church pulling together with a common approach to philosophy. But there were also some crucial misunderstandings in the assumptions which Leo XIII made. And so, by 1965 the Thomist experiment was struggling with internal tensions pushing it towards a pluralism which Leo XIII could never have envisaged.
The author tells the story by focusing upon 4 distinct styles of Thomism. Those readings fell into a a subjectivist (idealist) methodology and an objectivist (realist) methodology. They also clashed over the difference between a reading of Thomas which was historically accurate, and readings which arose from Commentators on Thomism, who in their defence of Thomas had sometimes introduced readings which ran diametrically opposite to what Thomas himself had said.
The analysis of the authors provides a relatively detailed reading and explanation of their positions, and so this book will be a useful source book for readers who want to engage with Rousselot, Marechal, Gilson and Maritain. This depth of analysis is welcome, but it can also convey a slightly misleading impression to readers if they walk away thinking that it sums up the totality of the differences in readings of Thomas.
There were also some other versions of Thomism. For example one version stressed a more Aristotelian reading of Thomas (eg the American Dominican River Forest approach). It would have been useful to hear more about the wider breadth of the diversity of Thomist Pluralism in this book. Although, to some extent, that lacuna was filled in the author’s next book: The Neo Thomists - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3...).
The final chapter introduced some of the issues of ‘historicism’ which were levelled against Thomism, but it focused more upon the misreadings of Aquinas which were found in post-enlightenment theologians (like Suarez). That problem was illustrated well, with references to Herni de Lubac and Henri Bouillard’s works.
However, there is another set of historicist issues which were important during the early twentieth century, and they involved historical criticism of the bible. The Vatican struggled to recognise the relevance of some of the issues, dismissing them because they were raised by Modernists. And so there is a very real question whether the a-historicism of how Thomism itself was understood (and of how Thomism read the bible), contributed to a mindset which struggled with other historical issues in wider theology. That is an interesting question as it raises some very pointed questions about whether the way that Thomism was promoted, had unintended negative implications for the Church’s wider theologising.
That is the kind of question which could not have been asked without considerable controversy, during the Thomist era. It is a shame that this book does not explore it, and in doing so, attempt to give an overall assessment of whether, and to what extent Leo XIII's strategy of appealing to Thomism was successful.
Overall, this is a thorough and informative overview of four major styles of Thomism. However, the depth of the detail in some of the chapters means that it will be enjoyed most by those with a prior understanding of background philosophical issues like Kantianism, Idealism, Realism (etc).
(These comments are based upon a reading of the fourth printing, 2002)
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews