Interesting piece. I can’t lie, it’s a bit of a disappointment to learn that my favorite (Lewis) had such a strong distaste for my supreme favorite (St. Thomas), but at the same time I’m not all that surprised. His writings positively ooze with Platonism, aside from his stronger Aristotelian moral-leanings.
Even in general it makes sense. If I can be a bit reductive, Plato has by far the more poetic metaphysic. It’s certainly no surprise that a poet would prefer him.
“Consider that being a Pantheist when quoting Aquinas is precisely what Hart was falsely accused of by Feser.”
This is a small point, and not one central to your piece, but I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this is decidedly not Feser’s critique of Hart. The accusation of pantheism has much less to do with who he is quoting (Aquinas or otherwise) and much more to do with premises that he takes him to have more or less affirmed (or which directly follow from premises which he has)—principally, I think, a) reduction of all substances into a single Divine Substance, and b) reduction of the Divine Will into necessity. The accusation is not that this gives off the mere scent of pantheism, as if it were some scandal we wish to avoid, but that these are traditionally explicitly pantheistic premises. Of course I believe Hart’s reply is to insist that the accusation is meaningless, as pantheism is much too broad of a category to amount to meaningful criticism. The category may be broad, but (a) and (b) will be problematic for any theory.
He mentions in passing that he interprets Aquinas as intending something similar to (a), though perhaps not specifically (a). This is, however, done without argument. That argument may exist, but if so it’s made elsewhere. In any case, Feser’s critique is not of what Hart says of Aquinas, it’s of what Hart says of God.
I think my point is that it’s not so much a matter over what Hart says of Aquinas. I would have to dust off my copy of You Are Gods to know for certain whether the claims to which Feser is objecting are never Hart’s interpretations of Aquinas. But, I think it would be a misrepresentation of the disagreement to frame it as a matter of conflicting interpretation. Rather, Hart affirms (a) and (b), while also making the (undefended) passing claim that Aquinas (along with a litany of others) also holds something relevantly similar to (a). It is the former affirmation of (a) and (b) to which Feser objects. Now, he certainly also disagrees with the latter interpretation of Aquinas (and likely many of the other thinkers as well), but that further disagreement lies in the background.
I mean even in Hart's linked response, he's directly saying Feser is reading Aquinas wrong, correct? Would that not _inherently_ offend a Thomas who believes he's reading him right?
It might offend the Thomist to tell him he’s getting it wrong, it might not. The question isn’t whether Feser was offended by Hart, but over the substance of their disagreement.
Maybe I’ll put it this way. Suppose Hart defended his claim that St. Thomas intended something like (a)—perhaps even (b). Suppose even that he did so conclusively, so that there was no possible further question on the matter. Such a proof wouldn’t settle their disagreement—it just would mean that Feser would then be disagreeing with both Hart AND St. Thomas on these same grounds.
Interesting piece. I can’t lie, it’s a bit of a disappointment to learn that my favorite (Lewis) had such a strong distaste for my supreme favorite (St. Thomas), but at the same time I’m not all that surprised. His writings positively ooze with Platonism, aside from his stronger Aristotelian moral-leanings.
Even in general it makes sense. If I can be a bit reductive, Plato has by far the more poetic metaphysic. It’s certainly no surprise that a poet would prefer him.
Brilliant piece! You've taken the little I knew and expanded it mightily.
Thanks Barbara! What part was familiar to you?
“Consider that being a Pantheist when quoting Aquinas is precisely what Hart was falsely accused of by Feser.”
This is a small point, and not one central to your piece, but I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this is decidedly not Feser’s critique of Hart. The accusation of pantheism has much less to do with who he is quoting (Aquinas or otherwise) and much more to do with premises that he takes him to have more or less affirmed (or which directly follow from premises which he has)—principally, I think, a) reduction of all substances into a single Divine Substance, and b) reduction of the Divine Will into necessity. The accusation is not that this gives off the mere scent of pantheism, as if it were some scandal we wish to avoid, but that these are traditionally explicitly pantheistic premises. Of course I believe Hart’s reply is to insist that the accusation is meaningless, as pantheism is much too broad of a category to amount to meaningful criticism. The category may be broad, but (a) and (b) will be problematic for any theory.
He mentions in passing that he interprets Aquinas as intending something similar to (a), though perhaps not specifically (a). This is, however, done without argument. That argument may exist, but if so it’s made elsewhere. In any case, Feser’s critique is not of what Hart says of Aquinas, it’s of what Hart says of God.
So at no point does Feser say Hart is a pantheist regarding Hart's quotations of Aquinas?
I think my point is that it’s not so much a matter over what Hart says of Aquinas. I would have to dust off my copy of You Are Gods to know for certain whether the claims to which Feser is objecting are never Hart’s interpretations of Aquinas. But, I think it would be a misrepresentation of the disagreement to frame it as a matter of conflicting interpretation. Rather, Hart affirms (a) and (b), while also making the (undefended) passing claim that Aquinas (along with a litany of others) also holds something relevantly similar to (a). It is the former affirmation of (a) and (b) to which Feser objects. Now, he certainly also disagrees with the latter interpretation of Aquinas (and likely many of the other thinkers as well), but that further disagreement lies in the background.
I mean even in Hart's linked response, he's directly saying Feser is reading Aquinas wrong, correct? Would that not _inherently_ offend a Thomas who believes he's reading him right?
It might offend the Thomist to tell him he’s getting it wrong, it might not. The question isn’t whether Feser was offended by Hart, but over the substance of their disagreement.
Maybe I’ll put it this way. Suppose Hart defended his claim that St. Thomas intended something like (a)—perhaps even (b). Suppose even that he did so conclusively, so that there was no possible further question on the matter. Such a proof wouldn’t settle their disagreement—it just would mean that Feser would then be disagreeing with both Hart AND St. Thomas on these same grounds.
In which case, he would be accusing Hart of being a Pantheist when he was merely quoting Thomas.
Who, we assume, was not a Pantheist.
But did Hart not apply this to Aquinas as well?