What do you think?
Rate this book
Analytical Thomism
Analytical Thomism is a recent label for a newer kind of approach to the philosophical and natural theology of St Thomas Aquinas. It illuminates the meaning of Aquinas’s work for contemporary problems by drawing on the resources of contemporary Anglo-Saxon analytical philosophy, the work of Frege, Wittgenstein, and Kripke proving particularly significant. This book expands the discourse in contemporary debate, exploring crucial philosophical, theological and ethical issues such metaphysics and epistemology, the nature of God, personhood, action and meta-ethics. All those interested in the thought of St Thomas Aquinas, and more generally contemporary Catholic scholarship, problems in philosophy of religion, and contemporary metaphysics, will find this collection an invaluable resource.
- GenresPhilosophy
356 pages, Hardcover
First published October 30, 2006
1 person is currently reading
28 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 of 1 review
June 12, 2025
It is not easy to define analytic Thomism, as it is more of a style of philosophising than a specific school. It combines analytic philosophy’s preoccupation with logic and precision, with a focus upon Thomas Aquinas as a dialogue partner. What it isn’t is hagiographical, so sometimes it will defend an idea of Aquinas’, but at other times it will critique Aquinas and propose alternative ways of thinking about an issue.
That style of philosophising is very different to the Neo-scholastic approach which sees itself as more of a defence and exposition of Aquinas. The difference in styles has led some analytic Thomists to insist that if Aquinas were alive today he would be an analytic Thomist and not a Neo-scholastic.
What we have in this volume is a set of 16 essays with some contextual remarks about analytic Thomism itself. The essays cover a very broad range of issues from metaphysics to epistemology and from natural theology to topics from philosophy of language and comparisons with twentieth century philosophers. There were also a few essays which were more theological in scope, looking at how Aquinas has been appropriated by twentieth century theologians.
The essays are all written by professional philosophers and so they have a rigorous presentation which makes them technically clear, albeit perhaps somewhat difficult to access for readers unfamiliar with the style of analytic philosophy. However, their style and content varied significantly. Some focused upon exploring a specific point, whereas others were more like overviews and summaries of how an issue has been dealt with in the analytic tradition.
Chapter 8 was particularly noteworthy in that respect as a summary of how different theologians and analytic inclined philosophers have approached Aquinas’ theory of Natural Law. It was a helpful summary with good links for further reading for readers specifically interested in that topic.
One of the issues raised by analytic Thomism is how accurate it is in its reporting of what Thomas himself believed. At various points in the volume commentators disagreed with each other about whether what they were presenting was really a view of Aquinas’ or was it in fact just a flavour of Aquinas picked out and interpreted according to twentieth century pre-occupations. Knasas, for example, in chapter 13 queried whether Brian Davies was reading Aquinas to be in accord with Frege, or whether he was in fact imposing Frege upon the text of Aquinas and thus effectively mis-reading Aquinas.
Perhaps analytic Thomists are not overly concerned with the extent to which Aquinas really truly held a specific position, as what they are most interested in is the philosophical position itself. But, they do tend to cite Aquinas’ texts, and so they do seem to think they are presenting his position(s). So there is an onus upon them to be honest and accurate about the extent to which they are doing justice to Aquinas.
That question shows a lacuna in analytic Thomism, and also in this volume. Where is the textual work which looks at what Aquinas says in different places, and compares it to the way his wider contemporaries were using key terminology, so that we can have confidence that what is reported as an analytic reading of Aquinas is in fact an authentic reading?
Perhaps with that lacuna, it was not surprising, that where debateable points cropped up in the book, they were more likely to be historical issues. For example, we are told that the Council of Trent was responsible for the creation of the Jesuits (p.xiv). Really? It may have helped give focus to the work which the Jesuits went on to do, but their origins lie in the unique spirit that was Ignatius Loyala.
Overall, this is an interesting and informative set of essays, but they are generally written for a professional academic audience. Readers unfamiliar with the style of analytic philosophy (or those coming to the volume from Neo-scholastic texts) may find that appreciating the essays needs more time than might initially seem to be the case.
That style of philosophising is very different to the Neo-scholastic approach which sees itself as more of a defence and exposition of Aquinas. The difference in styles has led some analytic Thomists to insist that if Aquinas were alive today he would be an analytic Thomist and not a Neo-scholastic.
What we have in this volume is a set of 16 essays with some contextual remarks about analytic Thomism itself. The essays cover a very broad range of issues from metaphysics to epistemology and from natural theology to topics from philosophy of language and comparisons with twentieth century philosophers. There were also a few essays which were more theological in scope, looking at how Aquinas has been appropriated by twentieth century theologians.
The essays are all written by professional philosophers and so they have a rigorous presentation which makes them technically clear, albeit perhaps somewhat difficult to access for readers unfamiliar with the style of analytic philosophy. However, their style and content varied significantly. Some focused upon exploring a specific point, whereas others were more like overviews and summaries of how an issue has been dealt with in the analytic tradition.
Chapter 8 was particularly noteworthy in that respect as a summary of how different theologians and analytic inclined philosophers have approached Aquinas’ theory of Natural Law. It was a helpful summary with good links for further reading for readers specifically interested in that topic.
One of the issues raised by analytic Thomism is how accurate it is in its reporting of what Thomas himself believed. At various points in the volume commentators disagreed with each other about whether what they were presenting was really a view of Aquinas’ or was it in fact just a flavour of Aquinas picked out and interpreted according to twentieth century pre-occupations. Knasas, for example, in chapter 13 queried whether Brian Davies was reading Aquinas to be in accord with Frege, or whether he was in fact imposing Frege upon the text of Aquinas and thus effectively mis-reading Aquinas.
Perhaps analytic Thomists are not overly concerned with the extent to which Aquinas really truly held a specific position, as what they are most interested in is the philosophical position itself. But, they do tend to cite Aquinas’ texts, and so they do seem to think they are presenting his position(s). So there is an onus upon them to be honest and accurate about the extent to which they are doing justice to Aquinas.
That question shows a lacuna in analytic Thomism, and also in this volume. Where is the textual work which looks at what Aquinas says in different places, and compares it to the way his wider contemporaries were using key terminology, so that we can have confidence that what is reported as an analytic reading of Aquinas is in fact an authentic reading?
Perhaps with that lacuna, it was not surprising, that where debateable points cropped up in the book, they were more likely to be historical issues. For example, we are told that the Council of Trent was responsible for the creation of the Jesuits (p.xiv). Really? It may have helped give focus to the work which the Jesuits went on to do, but their origins lie in the unique spirit that was Ignatius Loyala.
Overall, this is an interesting and informative set of essays, but they are generally written for a professional academic audience. Readers unfamiliar with the style of analytic philosophy (or those coming to the volume from Neo-scholastic texts) may find that appreciating the essays needs more time than might initially seem to be the case.
Displaying 1 of 1 review