Summa Theologica
Thomas's magnum opus, comprising a systematic integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Christianity. Covers topics such as the nature and existence of God, human nature, law and morality and the relationship of God, world and humans.
Stats for nerds
10recommend
27mentions
25people
2008–2025years
37% recommend63% neutral
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- A weekly Summa Theologica reading group, attended by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, led by a professor with credentials in philosophy and theology, was one of the best experiences of my life:
- > It's important to keep in mind that Edward Feser is an extremely traditionalist Catholic, and neo-Aristotelian, philosopher.
This hints of bigotry and poisoning the well. Focus on his arguments.
(Also, what does "extremely traditionalist Catholic" mean? He certainly doesn't meet that description as I understand it. He has been critical of both laxity and rigorism, for example.)
> His writings frequently assume that the reader has a background in this niche subject area
His academic background was originally in the tradition of analytical philosophy. The man was an atheist. It was only after he began teaching and rehashing tired caricatures of Aquinas's arguments that he took notice and began to find the real McCoy convincing. So, he is very familiar with what else is on offer and skillfully deals with those topics. Many of his writings, including blog posts, take these other views on their own terms, often to show where their weaknesses and errors lie.
I presume that by calling his views "niche", you mean "views held by a minority of philosophers today", or perhaps "fringe" in some pejorative, dismissive sense? Because the subject matter isn't niche at all. It's a full-blooded view of expansive scope (hello, metaphysics anyone?), and frankly, IMO, the most well-defended and defensible. .
Truth is not decided by majority vote.
> If you aren't really familiar with the contents of the Summa Theologica, you probably won't get much out of Feser's essays.
Again, not true. He writes in an eminently accessible manner. His book "The Last Superstition" is 101 material. Having some familiarity with basic Aristotelian notions can sometimes expedite understanding, perhaps, but you don't need to be a scholar to grasp much of what he writes. And often, he doesn't even make any explicit use of technical language from the Aristotelian and Thomistic traditions, only arguments using common language.
Of course, I am not averse to straining to learn something new. I have heard one philosopher say that he only began to grasp metaphysics in his 50s. Anyone looking for a royal road is perhaps ill-suited for philosophy, or any serious field of study.
- A significant resource for the concept of curiositas is the virtues section of the Summa Theologica
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3167.htm
For those new to the Summa, generally speaking, it is good to read an article starting with the On the Contrary and the I Answer That, and then proceed on to the Objections and Replies
- The Summa Theologica is actually relatively easy to read, especially if you have some background in it and a good translation.
Since it's divided into sections, you can poke it before bed now and then. You don't even have to buy it: https://aquinas.cc
- Quiz: who said, “all politics is, at bottom, theological?” St. John Henry Newman, or Proudhon? Trick question! Both! This is radically different from the Marxian/Nietzschian maxim, that all theology is, at bottom, politics. I don’t think anarchism is actually a complete, proper atheism; it tends to propose itself to a kind of negative theology (no false gods). Therefore dialogue is possible, unlike the Marxist, Nietzschian case, where atheism is complete and postulatory.
One area of commonality is that we both believe that society is natural. I’ve already mentioned Book II of Suarez’ Against the Errors of the Anglican Sect in this thread. Anarchists who read it will find it, in turns, dazzlingly profound and infuriating, yet astonishingly satisfying as a whole (just as I do with Graeber).
A second area of commonality is that we both believe in a horizon beyond politics. Graeber is especially good about this. For him, anarchism is an interior disposition — a mode of being — prior to any political program. He therefore avoids the infallible symptom of political atheism, the absolutization of politics. His books are about human life, and in particular about how politics can take place within life, rather than life taking place within politics. The intellectually fearless anarchist can read Andrew Willard Jones’ Before Church and State, and see the commonalities.
As for substantive content of dialogue, the anarchist can help the Catholic to see instances where the Church has, in practice, confused the eternal, Divine order for a particular, temporal order (see Pope Benedict XVI’s discourse on the temptations of Christ and the Kingdom of God in Jesus of Nazareth, Volune I for how to approach this with orthodoxy and openness). This will help the Church more authentically pursue its mission.
In turn, the Catholic can help the anarchist to resolve the power-authority distinction, which lies at the heart of the anarchists’ inability to sustain any positive ideal (see various 19th Century failures, Occupy Wall Street, and the more recent corporate co-optation of radical culture). From there, it is not hard to offer the highest authority, the Lord who stands in judgement of all Lords; sin as the universal oppressor, and oneness in the body of Christ as true freedom.
Some other texts I think we would all like:
St Cyprian of Carthage: On Almsgiving
St. Thomas Aquinas on the Universal Destination of Goods (Summa Theologica)
St. Thomas Aquinas on Distributive Justice (Summa Theologica)
Pope Francis’ Laudito Si
Anything by or about Bl. Oscar Romero
St. Augustine’s City of God
Most of Pope Benedict XVI’s scholarly work, Jesus of Nazareth already mentioned as a highlight.
- If you are interested in Western Catholic philosophy (considering its dominance from 500-1500 and ongoing influence in our world), I'd recommend reading from the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. Even if you are not Catholic, it will give you a much better understanding of the origins of modern Western thought.
From Wikipedia: "Throughout the Summa, Aquinas cites Christian, Muslim, Hebrew, and Pagan sources, including, but not limited to: Christian Sacred Scripture, Aristotle, Augustine of Hippo, Avicenna, Averroes, Al-Ghazali, Boethius, John of Damascus, Paul the Apostle, Pseudo-Dionysius, Maimonides, Anselm of Canterbury, Plato, Cicero, and John Scotus Eriugena."
