This is the second part of my paper "What is good forestry?" and it completes the argument on how to balance short-term economic interests with the long-term public good.

The modern problematic, defined by Kenneth Schmitz, is a widespread acceptance of God’s absence in the culture of the technologically advanced Western societies. Schmitz clearly has been deeply influenced by Karol Wojtyla’s work as both philosopher and religious leader. Pope John Paul II’s Fides et Ratio is notable for its courage in advocating the serious pursuit of truth guided at least in part by the philosophy of being. This essay draws on certain important contrasts in Schmitz’s subsequent meditations upon the (...) transcendental of beauty and its implications for communication and postmodern culture with its emphasis on the human subject. The purpose is to reflect on the special significance of this important contrast, shift, and development that occurs in these aspects of Schmitz’s own philosophy within the tradition of the philosophy of being that has been given renewed definition and importance for our challenging times in John Paul II’s encyclical on faith and reason. (shrink)

This essay offers a critical examination of Neil Ormerod’s treatment of the debate between Lonergan and Gilson on the question of being. Although this debate concerns a highly technical issue of metaphysics and epistemology, it remains germane and relevant, especially within the field of Christian thought. In Ormerod’s careful and for the most part generous examination of this debate, he argues that being for Gilson is perceived through the senses, whereas for Lonergan being is intended in the questions that arise (...) from the relevant sense data. Where Gilson’s philosophy gives priority to the metaphysics of being, Lonergan gives priority to epistemology and cognitional theory. In arguing for the superiority of Lonergan’s approach to the question of being, Ormerod relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of Gilson’s metaphysics. By appeal to the more recent work of Kenneth Schmitz, this essay proposes a proper understanding of Gilson’s metaphysics as a basis for a more conciliatory relationship between these two giants in modern Christian philosophy who too often are pitted against one another. (shrink)

Charles Taylor is one of the most important philosophers writing today. He has both chronicled and to some extent explained the profound cultural revolution of the West that is called secularism along with its close associate called pluralism. Nevertheless, he has struggled throughout his vast corpus to examine and reevaluate the deeper epistemological and ontological structures that underly this pervasive cultural revolution. His recent text with Hubert Dreyfus Retrieving Realism is perhaps his most concentrated effort to pursue this more technical (...) philosophical issue. This paper argues that there are key aspects of this effort that can be transposed to a consideration of the central Christian notion and doctrine concerning”death and bodily resurrection,” giving this question and issue a renewed philosophical valence. (shrink)

This paper attempts to show that Charles Taylor’s persuasive and expansive phenomenology, developed primarily in his Sources of the Self, ultimately depends upon an ontology of the human person that remains undeveloped, as he often admits. His fundamentalphilosophical claims stand finally as postulates of practical reason, which nevertheless depend upon a dialogical practice that is grounded in the dialogical nature of the human person. This phenomenological and ethical approach raises persistent epistemological and metaphysical questions. What Taylor does not admit, and (...) what this paper will propose in his stead, is that a more systematic metaphysics in the existential Thomist tradition can help support philosophically both his explicit and implicit ontological claims regarding the nature of the human person. (shrink)