1st International Congress on Thomistic Philosophy (University of St. Thomas, Santiago, Chile)
Eleonore Stump and John Knasas? They are more analytic philosophers than Thomists. At least in their writings.
What is the symbol supposed to be?
Ferraiuolo: They are clearly not traditional Thomists. Still, it's good to be informed as to what's going on in the Thomistic world. Suspicious: Not sure what the symbolism is. I'm just relaying the message.
PS. That said, Dr. Stump is getting better every day, IMHO.
What makes Knasas non-traditional Thomists? I thought his criticism of Fr. McCool's histories of neo-Thomism was pretty traditional, no?
Well, Alan, none of them are Scholastics; but my point is that despite their being non-traditional Thomists, it is worth knowing what's going on in the Thomistic world.
I would say that there is a trend in Anglo-American circles to dismiss the perennial tradition of Thomism and simply go to Thomas without any exegesis. The writings of Cajetan, John of St Thomas and Bañez are of importance to understand the teachings of the Common Doctor for other times. Eleonore Stump seemed to have a bit of a disregard for even Garrigou-Lagrange in her book "Aquinas". But there is always hope.
Post a Comment