StartGroepenDiscussieMeerTijdgeest
Doorzoek de site
Onze site gebruikt cookies om diensten te leveren, prestaties te verbeteren, voor analyse en (indien je niet ingelogd bent) voor advertenties. Door LibraryThing te gebruiken erken je dat je onze Servicevoorwaarden en Privacybeleid gelezen en begrepen hebt. Je gebruik van de site en diensten is onderhevig aan dit beleid en deze voorwaarden.

Resultaten uit Google Boeken

Klik op een omslag om naar Google Boeken te gaan.

Bezig met laden...

Summa Philosophica (2012)

door Peter Kreeft

LedenBesprekingenPopulariteitGemiddelde beoordelingDiscussies
681388,845 (4.17)Geen
Next to the Socratic Method, the best method for organizing a logical debate over a controversial philosophical or theological issue is the method St. Thomas Aquinas uses in the Summa Theologiae. As the charm of the Socratic dialogue is its dramatic length, its uncertainty, and the psychological dimension of a clash between live characters, so the charm of the Summa method is the opposite: its condensation and its impersonality, objectivity, simplicity, directness, and logical clarity. Beginning philosophy students pick up both methods very quickly, and write adept imitations of them. It's both profitable and fun to do it.    Yet professionally philosophers have not followed these tried-and-true roads. Why not? Probably it is pride, the refusal to stoop to conquer, the confusion of "stooped" with "stupid."       Peter Kreeft has written over a dozen books of Socratic dialogues, and readers like them - they like the form, or format, irrespective of the content. There is no reason that the Summa format cannot produce the same results. It is a very simple five-step procedure: (1) the formulation of the question; (2) the opponent's leading objections to your answer or thesis, formulated as clearly and fairly and strongly as possible; (3) a short argument from some recognized past authority for your thesis; (4) your own longer, original argument; and (5) a refutation of each objection, "deconstructing" it and showing how and where it went wrong . . . all in one or two pages, severely condensed, clear and simple (and therefore usually in syllogisms, the clearest and simplest and most direct form of logical argument).      Kreeft has taken 110 of the most important and most often argued-about questions in each major division of philosophy and applied this method to it. The answers usually match common sense (and therefore Aristotle's philosophy and Aquinas's theology). At the very least, this is a useful philosophical reference book for arguments; not necessarily the elaborate and artificial arguments that might occur to contemporary "analytic" philosophers, but the arguments ordinary people would give, and still give on both sides of these great questions. Why no one has written such a book before is mind-boggling. We fully expect that many readers of this book will imitate it, as Kreeft has imitated Aquinas. This book is pregnant with many children.… (meer)
Geen
Bezig met laden...

Meld je aan bij LibraryThing om erachter te komen of je dit boek goed zult vinden.

Op dit moment geen Discussie gesprekken over dit boek.

In the second half of the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas wrote his famous Summa Theologica which became one of the most influential works of Western literature. He wrote the Summa not for advanced students, but (according to the preface) "for beginners." In Summa Philosophica, Peter Kreeft has followed the form of Aquinas and produced a book for beginners to get started in philosophy.

Kreeft's Summa contains 110 "short books," or summaries of various philosophical questions such as "Whether time is infinite?" and "Whether organized religion has done more harm than good?" Each article follows the same form:

1. The question is written in a yes or no format beginning with the word "whether."
2. Multiple objections to the argument are offered.
3. The author's own position is stated beginning with "On the contrary."
4. The author's position is argued beginning with "I answer that."
5. Each objection is addressed.

Kreeft's sense of humour is evident throughout the book. The "Preliminary Note," for example, reads:

"Dear Prospective reader, If you're wondering whether this book is worth your time to read or your money to buy, don't read the long, dull Introduction first. Browse through the book itself" (vi).

My favourite bit of humour comes at the end in the section entitled "Meta-Philosophical Evaluation of All of the Above" (245). I don't want to spoil the surprise so I'll save the body of this section for you to discover.

This is not a book to be read through in a few sessions—rather, it's worth taking the time to read each summa slowly. Often times I read back in the article, reviewing the objection before reading Kreeft's response.

While each summa is logically argued, I found myself disagreeing with a number of his replies. For example, in "Whether there is a double standard for good for states and individuals?" (201 ff.) Kreeft offers the objection that Christ both taught and practiced nonviolence (202). He answers the objection by stating that "when Christ taught nonviolence He was addressing individuals ... and taught this as a counsel of perfection, not a universal command of justice" (203). This, of course, is the standard Roman Catholic view of the Sermon on the Mount—that Jesus taught a two-level ethic. I heartily disagree with this view! Many of the statements in Kreeft's responses could merit their own summa!

Kreeft's intelligence and ability to turn a phrase is in full display. Consider his argument "Whether all persons are beautiful?" (221 ff.). In response to the objection that some people are evil and that Hitler, for example, is "uglier than a hyena" (221), he responds by reminding us that the image of God "remains even when defaced, like a great painting beneath layers of dirt. Great evildoers are morally ugly only because they are ontologically beautiful" (222).

Kreeft's Summa Philosophica is a book like no other. It's both interesting and instructive to reflect on article by article. Not only are the questions themselves interesting, the style of argumentation is a good way to hone your logic skills. ( )
  StephenBarkley | Feb 17, 2015 |
geen besprekingen | voeg een bespreking toe
Je moet ingelogd zijn om Algemene Kennis te mogen bewerken.
Voor meer hulp zie de helppagina Algemene Kennis .
Gangbare titel
Oorspronkelijke titel
Alternatieve titels
Oorspronkelijk jaar van uitgave
Mensen/Personages
Belangrijke plaatsen
Belangrijke gebeurtenissen
Verwante films
Motto
Opdracht
Eerste woorden
Citaten
Laatste woorden
Ontwarringsbericht
Uitgevers redacteuren
Auteur van flaptekst/aanprijzing
Oorspronkelijke taal
Gangbare DDC/MDS
Canonieke LCC

Verwijzingen naar dit werk in externe bronnen.

Wikipedia in het Engels

Geen

Next to the Socratic Method, the best method for organizing a logical debate over a controversial philosophical or theological issue is the method St. Thomas Aquinas uses in the Summa Theologiae. As the charm of the Socratic dialogue is its dramatic length, its uncertainty, and the psychological dimension of a clash between live characters, so the charm of the Summa method is the opposite: its condensation and its impersonality, objectivity, simplicity, directness, and logical clarity. Beginning philosophy students pick up both methods very quickly, and write adept imitations of them. It's both profitable and fun to do it.    Yet professionally philosophers have not followed these tried-and-true roads. Why not? Probably it is pride, the refusal to stoop to conquer, the confusion of "stooped" with "stupid."       Peter Kreeft has written over a dozen books of Socratic dialogues, and readers like them - they like the form, or format, irrespective of the content. There is no reason that the Summa format cannot produce the same results. It is a very simple five-step procedure: (1) the formulation of the question; (2) the opponent's leading objections to your answer or thesis, formulated as clearly and fairly and strongly as possible; (3) a short argument from some recognized past authority for your thesis; (4) your own longer, original argument; and (5) a refutation of each objection, "deconstructing" it and showing how and where it went wrong . . . all in one or two pages, severely condensed, clear and simple (and therefore usually in syllogisms, the clearest and simplest and most direct form of logical argument).      Kreeft has taken 110 of the most important and most often argued-about questions in each major division of philosophy and applied this method to it. The answers usually match common sense (and therefore Aristotle's philosophy and Aquinas's theology). At the very least, this is a useful philosophical reference book for arguments; not necessarily the elaborate and artificial arguments that might occur to contemporary "analytic" philosophers, but the arguments ordinary people would give, and still give on both sides of these great questions. Why no one has written such a book before is mind-boggling. We fully expect that many readers of this book will imitate it, as Kreeft has imitated Aquinas. This book is pregnant with many children.

Geen bibliotheekbeschrijvingen gevonden.

Boekbeschrijving
Haiku samenvatting

Actuele discussies

Geen

Populaire omslagen

Snelkoppelingen

Waardering

Gemiddelde: (4.17)
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5 1
4 1
4.5
5 1

Ben jij dit?

Word een LibraryThing Auteur.

 

Over | Contact | LibraryThing.com | Privacy/Voorwaarden | Help/Veelgestelde vragen | Blog | Winkel | APIs | TinyCat | Nagelaten Bibliotheken | Vroege Recensenten | Algemene kennis | 204,769,447 boeken! | Bovenbalk: Altijd zichtbaar