For half a century, Ernest Fortin's scholarship has charmed and educated theologians and philosophers with its intellectual search for the best way to live. Written by friends, colleagues, and students of Fortin, this book pays tribute to a remarkable thinker in a series of essays that bear eloquent testimony to Fortin's influence and his legacy. A formidable commentator on Catholic philosophical and political thought, Ernest Fortin inspired others with his restless inquiries beyond the boundaries of conventional scholarship. With essays on (...) subjects ranging across philosophy, political science, literature, and theology Gladly to Learn and Gladly to Teach reflects the astonishing depth and breadth of Fortin's contribution to contemporary thought. (shrink)

For half a century, Ernest Fortin's scholarship has charmed and educated theologians and philosophers with its intellectual search for the best way to live. Written by friends, colleagues, and students of Fortin, this book pays tribute to a remarkable thinker in a series of essays that bear eloquent testimony to Fortin's influence and his legacy. A formidable commentator on Catholic philosophical and political thought, Ernest Fortin inspired others with his restless inquiries beyond the boundaries of conventional scholarship. With essays on (...) subjects ranging across philosophy, political science, literature, and theology Gladly to Learn and Gladly to Teach reflects the astonishing depth and breadth of Fortin's contribution to contemporary thought. (shrink)

This paper explores Leo Strauss’s puzzling claim, published in an essay on Aristotle’s Politics, that Aristotle was the founder of political science even though Socrates was the founder of political philosophy. In order to explain Strauss’s claim, the paper analyzes the distinction between political science and political philosophy as Strauss understood the matter. This analysis shows that Strauss offers us a very “Socratic” view of Aristotle’s Politics; that is, Aristotle’s political science shares the concern of Socrates for initiating the philosophical (...) quest with a naïve inquiry into the question of the human good and then urging the inquiry toward the questions of the theoretical or contemplative life. Such a view of Aristotle’s political science, if pursued seriously, would radically alter common approaches to reading Aristotle. (shrink)

This paper explores Leo Strauss’s puzzling claim, published in an essay on Aristotle’s Politics, that Aristotle was the founder of political science even though Socrates was the founder of political philosophy. In order to explain Strauss’s claim, the paper analyzes the distinction between political science and political philosophy as Strauss understood the matter. This analysis shows that Strauss offers us a very “Socratic” view of Aristotle’s Politics; that is, Aristotle’s political science shares the concern of Socrates for initiating the philosophical (...) quest with a naïve inquiry into the question of the human good and then urging the inquiry toward the questions of the theoretical or contemplative life. Such a view of Aristotle’s political science, if pursued seriously, would radically alter common approaches to reading Aristotle. (shrink)

The nature of the relationship between early modern political philosophy and revealed religion has been much debated. The contributors to Piety and Humanity argue that this relationship is one of dissonance rather than concord. They claim that the early modern political philosophers found revealed religion—especially Christianity—to be a threat to the modern political project, and that these philosophers therefore attempted to transform revealed religion so that it would be less of a threat, and possibly even an aid. Each essay is (...) devoted to a particular work by a single political philosopher; the thinkers and works discussed include Machiavelli's Exhortation to Penitence, Francis Bacon's New Atlantis, Spinoza's Theologico-Political Treatise, and Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity. Each essay is followed by a brief selected bibliography. This book will be of great importance to philosophers, political theorists, and scholars of religion and early modern European history. (shrink)

This essay considers what the political thought of Thomas Aquinas might help us understand about the remarkable rise of Donald Trump to the presidency. It seeks to understand not so much Trump’s personal character, but the attraction of his followers, the Trumpites, to that personal character. In particular, the essay discusses the attraction of Trump’s supporters to their own country, communities, and families, and suggests that such a love of one’s own is in accord with what Thomism would predict. The (...) essay also discusses how Trump’s supporters find within their hero the virtues of courage and prudence, which are two important political virtues identified by Thomas and his predecessor, Aristotle. The conclusion of the essay is that Thomism explains a great deal more about the political longings of the Trumpites than we might anticipate. (shrink)

Conscience in Thomas's understanding of natural law -- The objections of the ancient philosophers -- The objections of the Calvinist christians -- On the possibility of revising Thomas's teaching on conscience -- Those who deny the existence of human nature -- Those who deny the moral relevancy of human nature -- Those who deny the ancient understanding of human nature.

This ambitious book, written by a former student of Brian Tierney, has two goals. The first is to show that the recovery of Aristotle's Politics by Latin authors of the thirteenth century, especially Thomas Aquinas, resulted in the view that a mixed constitution of some sort is the best political regime. The second is to show that the ideas of Thomas and his disciples decisively influenced the views of the later Middle Ages and also the early republicans of the Renaissance. (...) Blythe thus wants to show that, in fact, medieval political theory was not characterized by a monolithic defense of absolute monarchy, but that it advocated a certain tempering or balancing of kingly rule through mixed constitutions; he also wants to show that those medieval views were much more influential in the early modern period than is usually thought. (shrink)

The first three essays consider Thomas's philosophy in relation to its historical setting. The opening essay, by Jan Aertsen, provides a clear and concise statement of matters pertaining to Thomas's career in the medieval university, such as the purpose and structure of a scholastic disputation and the Averroist controversy. The second essay is authored by Joseph Owens and deals with the relationship between Aristotle's thought and Thomas's. The emphasis is on the differences in the metaphysics of Aristotle, the pagan Greek, (...) and Thomas, the medieval Christian. Not surprisingly, the real distinction and the metaphysics of creation are dominant topics. In early sections of the essay the author seems to give away much more to historicism than would make most Thomists comfortable, but this is qualified considerably at the end. David Burrell considers Thomas's thought in relation to Islamic and Jewish predecessors. More specifically, he outlines how Thomas received the impetus for his metaphysical distinction between existing and essence from Avicenna and then compares Thomas's teaching on creation, the divine names, and particular providence with that of Maimonides. (shrink)