The Value of 21st Century Thomism Part 2

Posted on May 8, 2012 by Jeff

This is the second of two parts. Part 1 is here. NB: this is a work in progress. Comments very welcome.

The Antagonist

Everyone you ask has their own diagnosis of the problems of the 21^st century. Some begin with a benign view of modernity and the contemporary world and see only a need for tweaking certain ideas. These optimists include capitalists who believe government just needs to get out of their business, liberals who think government just needs to get out of everyone’s business and treat everyone equally, and Marxists who believe that government needs to be in everyone’s business. Others, pessimists, believe that modernity is a failure or, at best, a hoax. These include religious zealots of all stripes, like Catholics who want a return to an idyllic 13^th century that never existed and call for at least a return to Vatican I days, or like Protestants who want a return to colonial days when religion formed the basis of society or, if not that, the idyllic days of the 1950’s when peace and prosperity flowed in a free America, and cultural-rights people who just want you to keep your modernity out of their culture, thank you very much. Or we might include post-modernists, who, as far as I can tell, exist only in the academy and believe that modernity was just control by another name.

Finally, some of us, realists perhaps, believe that modernity was necessary but that it involves an inherent weakness. Early Frankfurt School theorists belong here, though not Habermassians, because they see the seeds of modernity in Odysseus and recognize the inherent contradiction in the autonomous man bereft of mythology who serves himself as a mythology. Thomists belong here too, and more fully so, for not only can they diagnose the problems with the other approaches to modernity, they can also explain why those other approaches make sense. We Thomists – by which I mean Thomistic-Aristotelians who are not afraid to question our own tradition as well as those of others and who take nothing on authority for authority sake – we Thomists recognize a kindred spirit in the way modernity rejects authoritarian and dogmatic thinking. We also see, however, a corrupted methodology that valorizes mathematics and mechanistic science above its due.

Given this perspective, which is admittedly over brief, I suggest that Thomists characterizes the failure of modernity as a loss of autonomy, a loss of meaning, and loss of reason. Practically speaking, these losses result in an impending environmental collapse, a tendency toward despotic governments in the form of totalitarian regimes or bureaucratic instrumentalism, and a deprived educational and social milieu that allows for the full flourishing of human individuals living in community. In short, these losses and practical problems rest on a distorted anthropology that sees the human being as a machine living in a machine-world driven by machine incentives.

To the optimists, then, a Thomist says, “yes, modernity was necessary. It helped us to move away from an objective worldview that prioritized the cosmos over the individual human being.” That is as far as a Thomist can go, however. She recognizes that modernity has brought about good things like the emphasis on concrete individuals in humanism and existentialism, the recognition of the need for observation in scientific understandings of the world (from which flows modern medicine and technology without which life would be much worse), and a lessening of religious controls that led to the Inquisition. On the other hand, she recognizes that many gains come at a cost –the cost to human dignity in the way modern medicine and science demeans the human beings, to cost to the dignity of the environment, upon which immigrants, the poor, and the old are sacrificed for the profit of others, and the cost of political self-determination.

In fact, the Aristotelian-Thomist can agree with the pessimists: “modernity rejoices at supposed gains which are just other forms of control and sacrifices humility with God on the altar of man’s glory.” Because she recognizes the good aspects of modernity, however, she rejects the idealization of a lost world in which Church and State were one that characterizes the religious zealot. Such a path leads to loss of autonomy and the corruption of the Church. Nor can she accept that all reason is but another imposition of power like the post-modernist. While some naming of mental disease, for instance, imposes a form of control on people who otherwise flourish, other people really suffer depression for which they need help so that they might lead flourishing lives. Politics is not meant to be a mere imposition of power.

To the optimists and the pessimists, the Thomistic-Aristotelian points out that their views rest on the same distorted anthropology. This anthropology comprises a picture of the human being as a rational, self-interested machine that is best left alone to do what he does best. The capitalist and the liberal, then, demand that government keep its nose out of the business of the human being, while the Marxist insists that man must be led to a state that frees him from his previous misconceptions so that he can live in an anarchy of egalitarian individuals. Similarly, the pessimist, not trusting the rational, self-interested machine to behave itself, insists that he must be subjected to the authority of God through the State or, better, simply through the Church (of whatever form). All that matters is the individual’s salvation. The post-modernist, of course, shares the same vision, except that he or she sees rationality as simply another form of the exercise of power. In any case, the individual seeks to impose his will on the world through whatever means possible.

The capitalist and the liberal care not about the impending environmental collapse or, at least, to the extent that they do, they care only because an environment is necessary for the machine to operate in at optimal capacity. Nor do they care about despotic forms of government. The capitalist does not care, for, as we saw with Hitler, profit grows even under extreme forms of totalitarianism. The collapse of the Soviet Union occurred, not because freedom was necessary, but because it no longer served to make profit, which the new Russian oligarchs swim in. Education means nothing in advanced industrial societies except learning to be a consumer. If any one wants evidence of the failure of education or the collapse of social milieu suited for flourishing they need look no further than the national politics of their own country.

The religious zealot cares not about environmental collapse either, denying it insofar as he can. We all know, too, that government is too liberal because it doesn’t prevent the collapse of morals all around. As for education, the religious zealot can agree that education does not teach the virtues and will, insofar as possible, remove his child from the educational system, either to teach at home or indoctrinate at the expensive private school. Let’s not talk about improving the local community school or, worse, engaging with others in the community on determining the common good.

Of course, I am being snarky, but the situation calls for it. The Thomistic-Aristotelian can agree with the insights of both the optimist and pessimist. She can go further, indeed, and diagnose the disease of which the optimist and the pessimist are both symptoms. Further, she can explain the failure of the optimist and the pessimist to address the real practical problems of the 21^st century. The reason that no one listens to the Thomistic-Aristotelian lies in the fact that she says “a pox on both your houses.” Yet, if people do not begin to listen, then the world is due for a collapse that will leave many starving, many diseased, and many more dead.

The Value of 21st Century Thomism – part 1

Posted on May 1, 2012 by Jeff

Work in progress. Comments extremely welcomed

Setting the Stage

If we are to ask, “what is the value of Thomism in the 21^st century?” then we must try to understand what question we are asking. Are we asking a philosophical question – something purely academic, or maybe even something purely historical? Or is this question simply a religious question, one addressed simply to priests and seminarians of the Roman church? Or do we ask a question that has social import? For me, the last question is the only one worth asking. Thomas himself asked this question in the 13^th century about Aristotle. In answering the question, however, he also addressed the value of Aristotle historically and ecclesiastically. So, I take it, if I address the social question, I will go some ways to addressing the value of Thomism historically and ecclesiastically for the 21^st century.

If I ask, though, after the value of Thomism in the 21^st century, where am I to start? Here too, the answer requires asking other questions. Most importantly, we must ask, “why are we asking after the social value of Thomism in the 21^st century?” In other words, why are we in the 21^st century seeking the value of Thomism, for to ask after that value is to presume some need in the first place. Facts – the facts of the 21^st century – and values – in this case, the value of Thomism – are not separate. What I am getting around to asking, then, is this: what problems do we in the 21^st century face that lead us to look at Thomism as a possible object of ressourcement?

Of course, I cannot ask that question without asking it from some specific perspective. Asking “what’s for dinner” because I am hungry is not the same as asking “what’s for dinner” when I am the cook. As a diner, I may experience regret at the dinner, or even some fear. As a cook, I might experience drudgery or boredom. Further, the possibilities for dinner might be larger as a diner who can enjoy a variety of foods than as a cook whose expertise is limited. The point of which analogy is simply to say that, it is important to recognize that when I come asking a certain question, I am looking at the question as this or that kind of philosopher and expecting answers of this or that variety. As a Thomistic-Aristotelian, I expect the possibility that Thomism has a contribution to make to the social questions of the 21^st century, and my Thomistic-Aristotelianism entails that I view the 21^st century through a particular lens. This lens, however, is not vicious for we can only view the world through this or that particular lens, whether we admit to it or not.

In the rest of this address, then, I will suggest three problem areas for the 21^st century from the perspective of Thomism, and I will further suggest that a ressourcement of Thomism can help us to live better lives in the 21^st century.

Modern Forms of Life

Posted on April 23, 2012 by Jeff

In my last post, I mentioned discussing with Br. Jonah the issue of why we are so divided in politics today and why people cannot talk about politics without reducing to name-calling and diatribe. In that post, I said one of the problems was reason, but another problem, which I want to turn to in this post, is our modern forms of life.

We live a fragmented life. Unless we consciously work against the flow, everything we do in life today is fragmented from everything else so that our lives lack unity. What we do in Church on Sunday, has nothing to do with what we do at the office on Monday, or what we do with our children Monday night. And let’s not even talk about what’s really important: who we hope wins the game. This fragmentation impacts our moral language as well. The term loyalty has one meaning at work, one meaning at church, and a third meaning at home. And, there’s always our favorite team!

This fragmentation does not come from nowhere. In fact, our modern forms of life share in common this division or fragmentation. Consider, for instance, your work. Are you an executive assistant for a firm, or maybe a line worker for a factory, or perhaps a school teacher? Where once our jobs tied to some whole product — a court case, a dress, a complete education — today these jobs are tied to end products only as parts of cogs in a machine. The CEO, for instance, of an ice cream company has nothing to do with the making of the ice cream — how often does he go down onto the plant form and help churn the cream and sugar? The school teacher has a set plan — often times laid out by the state — that focuses on this particular school day or school year and divorces the education from art and music and living life. The line worker in the factory makes one piece at a time (to reference the old Johnny Cash song).

Our lives cannot be whole because the structure of our life — especially the economic structure — is not whole. The practices and activities we engage really determine the way we view and live life. And without significant struggle, we can let those practices and activities overwhelm us till our whole lives are fragmented.

Including our moral and political language; including our moral code; including our politics. We must find a way to end the fragmentation if we want to live whole lives again. This has much more to do with living flourishing lives than it does with anything we might think of us morality or politics.

Subversive Thomism

Living Justly and Loving Kindness in a World on the Brink of Collapse

Tag Archives: modernity