TOP 10: Corrections to Peter Kreeft’s Contemporary Philosophy List!

Rembrandt, because I didn't want to use Raphael.

Rembrandt, because I didn’t want to use Raphael.

There are plenty of interesting things on Brandon Vogt’s website. They certainly have given me plenty of food for thought.

For example, I deeply appreciate the G.K. Chesterton video he posted not too long ago. It gave me a new, if somewhat idiosyncratic, vantage point on the always troubled Christian-Muslim relations here (join the conversation).

Brandon also recently posted a list of books that was recommended to him by none other than Peter Kreeft. Kreeft is a wonderful popularizer of classical philosophy and theology. Ancient Athens and Medieval Christendom are where the Boston College philosopher feels most at home. I’d like to argue later that he’s a little bit iffy when it comes to more recent philosophy.

The footnotes in the Summa of the Summa are indispensable.

The footnotes in the A Shorter Summa are indispensable for beginning to understand the Aristotelian-Thomistic idiom. My copy is all marked up. This book is well worth your time.

To see what I mean, take a look at the Medieval lists Kreeft compiled below:

Medieval Philosophy, Basic List:

Medieval Philosophy, Additional List:

"But surely that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot be only in the understanding. For if it were only in the understanding, it could be thought to exist also in reality," say Anselm in the Proslogion. And really, I can't think of the better list than the one given by Kreeft here.

“But surely that than which a greater cannot be thought cannot be only in the understanding. For if it were only in the understanding, it could be thought to exist also in reality,” says Anselm in the Proslogion. And really, I can’t think of the better introductory medieval list than the one given by Kreeft above.

The ancient and modern lists in Brandon’s post are just as solid as this medieval one.

So, I was shocked to read the following list of “contemporary” philosophical texts recommended by Kreeft:

Contemporary Philosophy, Basic List:

Contemporary Philosophy, Additional List

Even the author of Orthodoxy is surprised by this rather unorthodox list.

Even the author of Orthodoxy is a little shocked by this rather unorthodox list of “contemporary” philosophers.

I agree with the choice of Sartre, Marx, and William James for the basic list. Then again, The Varieties of Religious experience is a much more fundamental William James text for both philosophy and the study of religion. In fact, it’s one of the texts that brought serious study of religion back into the mainstream of academic culture. Varieties is still the departure point for most work done in religious studies. It’s the one book you must agree with, or quarrel with.

Pascal belongs in the modern list, whereas C.S. Lewis does not belong at all. Lewis is a first-rate popularizer, but he does not belong on a list of basic or supplementary “contemporary” philosophical texts. This means I’ll have to nominate two replacements for the basic list of contemporary authors. Actually, make that three, because Nietzsche is much more deserving of a position on such a list than Sartre.

  • Nietzsche: You might as well dive into the Nietzsche Reader if you want to understand his influence on key modern thinkers like Sartre, Heidegger, but also upon contemporary theology. The selections in this collection are first rate and Hollingdale writes a mean introduction.
  • Heidegger, Being and Time: Pure and simple, it’s the most important philosophical treatise of the 20th century. What’s even better? Heidegger borrows half of his concepts from theology–and then tries to unsuccessfully conceal them. You may not ignore this book and I must finally read it in its entirety!
  • Henri de Lubac’s The Mystery of the Supernatural is, hands down, the most obvious replacement for Lewis. This tome is perhaps the single most influential theology book of the 20th century. It helped to disentangle theology from modern philosophical adulterations of Thomism. De Lubac shaped the agenda for both Vatican II and the critiques of its implementation with this book and several others.
The Mystery of the Supernatural has influenced you even if you know nothing about it.

The Mystery of the Supernatural has influenced you even if you know nothing about it.

Mill is probably the only second stringer on Kreeft’s additional list that deserves to definitively remain there. We can feel the deleterious effect of his philosophy upon every aspect of our lives. The others, not so much.

Kreeft seems to go on an unjustified binge of analytical philosophers whose books are not terribly important. Chesterton is a figure on the fence–there really are more important books out there, but his philosophical standing is on the rise. So let’s say that leaves us with about four replacements:

  • Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations: Wittgenstein totally revamped the conclusions he reached in the influential Tractatus in the Investigations. What’s more, he has played an important role in reinvigorating theology as Fergus Kerr has argued in his Theology After Wittgenstein, which, by the way, contains one of the most creative and convincing arguments against abortion.
  • Gabriel Marcel, The Mystery of Being, which is divided up into Volume I and Volume II. This unjustly ignored mid-century Catholic existentialist philosopher might turn out to be more pivotal to the history of philosophy than some of the other thinkers mentioned in these contemporary lists. His influence is so ubiquitous, especially among Catholics, that it’s invisible.
  • Kierkegaard, A Kierkegaard Anthology: Kierkegaard, because if you haven’t wrestled with Kierkegaard, then you haven’t wrestled with modern philosophy (and the opportunities it holds for theology).
  • Hans Urs von Balthasar, Glory of the Lord volume I: This book inaugurated a series of reflections that brought beauty back into the fold of both theological and philosophical reflection. It’s in a virtual tie with the de Lubac book I mentioned in the main list for “contemporary” philosophers. On another day, they could switch sides. Karl Barth’s The Epistle to the Romans could also substitute for either one of these books given its immensely positive historical influence.

Now that’s more like it!

As you can see, we’ve culled out most of the analytical philosophy, which is the philosophical and existential equivalent of a glorified New York Times crossword puzzle.

However, if you insist on reading some philosophy of language then you must buy American. Charles Sanders Peirce has been called “the American Aristotle” by Fr. Oakes in a First Things piece that can be found here. It’s best to dip into his selected philosophical writings.

Viola!

Viola!

Finally, Pierre Hadot’s Philosophy as a Way of Life is a book that anyone interested in the discipline must read. It will totally transform your vision of what ancient philosophy was and what philosophy ought to be.

Don’t miss out on the other TOP 10 booklists on this blog: one on religious living poets, one on living religious novelists, one on books about heaven and hell, and finally, one on recent theology books.

Before you get too deep:

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “TOP 10: Corrections to Peter Kreeft’s Contemporary Philosophy List!

  1. To be contentious, if you have to include a de Lubac book, his best, that actually deals more with philosophy, is The Drama of Atheist Humanism: (http://www.amazon.com/Drama-Atheist-Humanism-Henri-Lubac/dp/089870443X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377185045&sr=8-1&keywords=de+lubac+drama+of+atheist+humanism). This is the best version of his argument, and the one that is easiest to grasp. I say this trying to be as fair as possible, because I think The Mystery of the Supernatural is a terrible book for multiple reasons (I think its just a flat incorrect reading of the Nature/Grace debate, an incoherent re-reading of Thomas, and nearly approaches libel when dealing with the substantive points about nature/grace brought up by Garrigou–I mean, show some charity, even if you don’t like the guy!), but Drama, even if you ultimately agree with it or not, is easy to follow, is compelling, and leaves de Lubac’s points in the best light to consider them. And again, it is much more “philosophical” than Surnatural.

    I won’t even comment on Barth (taking a class about him from Duke is what made me finally decided I had to be Catholic, because I could not take him seriously) or von Balthasar (okay, I sort of did), as I will readily admit few people will like what I have to say about them. But if you want a contemporary philosopher who has obviously changed the game in the field, even with people who hate him and write against him, it has to be Alasdair MacIntyre. I know he is an Aristotelian, but his philosophy of contending traditions, rational justification, etc. definitely changed the way people argue about philosophical traditions, and is not simply a re-hash of traditional concepts.

    If you wanted to keep the “New Theology”-esque flavor, I would have to go with Gilson’s “The Unity of Philosophical Experience” (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_17?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=the%20unity%20of%20philosophical%20experience&sprefix=the+unity+of+phil%2Caps%2C270&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Athe%20unity%20of%20philosophical%20experience&ajr=2) if you wanted to bring up the “back to the historical resources” movement in philosophy.

    Finally, my own personal pick (and if this list was made by James Schall, I know he would include it) would be Josef Pieper’s “Leisure: the Basis of Culture” (http://www.amazon.com/Leisure-Basis-Culture-Josef-Pieper/dp/1586172565/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377185641&sr=8-1&keywords=leisure+the+basis+of+culture), but I am an old fogey at heart I suppose!

    • The choices of Lewis and Chesterton meant that I could choose mostly theological books. But you’re right, Drama is a fine book, although a bit in the history of philosophy, rather than advancing a new argument.

      Pieper is great, but he’s a popularizer like Kreeft and the people he listed in his contemporary philosophers.

      • I guess, but there are others. I don’t want to downplay it, but from the present vantage point it’s not recognized as a major philosophical treatise. Time might change that.

      • I would only say that from the present vantage point of Anglo-philosophy, there would not only be an absence of Heidegger or Marcel, but there would be no continental philosophy at all, and the analytical octopus (as Dr. Hittinger calls it) would be much more represented than you or Kreeft’s lists!

      • If all that was allowed was analytic philosophy in philosophy departments, I would be drinking, and reading anything else other than philosophy…

      • One of the talks I gave here in the Wichita Diocese for “Theology on Tap” was “Drinking Will Save the World (If Done Beautifully),” of course making a play on everyone’s favorite Russian novelist’s famous saying. So I’m already ahead of the game on this one…

  2. Another vote for Drama— because, it provides invaluable orientation to an array of modern philosophy that permeates modern life. And Kreeft’s goal is philosophy for living not philosophy in itself, which is why Chesterton and Lewis figure so prominently.

    • Meh, Marcel and Heidegger are much more solid guides for living. And what kind of life would a person reading Mill, Hume, and Ayers have? And how did Bertrand Russell make the list?! Finally, Marx as a guide for living? Not even the Communists took him seriously!

  3. Pingback: Electro-Rorty Blows Shatner Out of the Water With His Nihilism | Cosmos the in Lost

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s