Jacques Maritain

[Nathan]

Is anyone here schooled in the works of the 20th century French Catholic philosopher, Jacques Maritain?

I believe I read somewhere that he was a "liberal Catholic," yet I've also read that he was quite fervent and orthodox in his faith. So what's the word on Maritain? I've read bits and pieces from his books [i]The Range of Reason[/i] and [i]An Introduction to Philosophy[/i], but he doesn't really deal much with Catholic issues in these.

[Cam42]

[url="http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ndjmc.htm"]Look here.......[/url] It is the home of the definitive home of all things Maritain. And orthodox.

[p0lar_bear]

I think I read something of his at some point...

Since I'm pretty sure I read it in relation to Henri de Lubac, if I had to guess I would say that he was probably considered "liberal" by Garrigou-Lagrange and his crowd (who also condemned de Lubac, von Balthasar, Congar, Danielou, and the rest of the "new theologians"). Since Maritain was a philosopher, I would guess that their condemnation had to do with his understanding of the human person, which may have conflicted with the "neo-thomistic" understanding of the early to mid 20th century.

[Cam42]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Sep 7 2005, 10:40 AM']I think I read something of his at some point...

Since I'm pretty sure I read it in relation to Henri de Lubac, if I had to guess I would say that he was probably considered "liberal" by Garrigou-Lagrange and his crowd (who also condemned de Lubac, von Balthasar, Congar, Danielou, and the rest of the "new theologians"). Since Maritain was a philosopher, I would guess that their condemnation had to do with his understanding of the human person, which may have conflicted with the "neo-thomistic" understanding of the early to mid 20th century.
[right][snapback]714286[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Not to pick nits, but neo-Thomism is a response to the way that Thomism was taught in the 20th century, not the other way round. Neo-Thomism was first taught by Dr. Germain Grisez, in the late 20th century (1980's).

[p0lar_bear]

:




But really, I think it may depend on who you ask....

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 7 2005, 02:29 PM']Not to pick nits, but neo-Thomism is a response to the way that Thomism was taught in the 20th century, not the other way round.  Neo-Thomism was first taught by Dr. Germain Grisez, in the late 20th century (1980's).
[right][snapback]714547[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Nah.. neo-Thomism began in the 1800's.. It was already a strong movement prior to Leo XIII's encyclical "Aeterni Patris".

[Cam42]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 14 2005, 06:57 PM']Nah.. neo-Thomism began in the 1800's.. It was already a strong movement prior to Leo XIII's encyclical "Aeterni Patris".
[right][snapback]723617[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I know.....I was thinking of New Natural Law and made a mistake.....I thought I had covered it on all the threads.....oops, I missed one.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 15 2005, 06:23 PM']I know.....I was thinking of New Natural Law and made a mistake.....I thought I had covered it on all the threads.....oops, I missed one.
[right][snapback]724812[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I figured you knew that and just goofed.
But you know us Church scolars; nit picky we can be..

[Laudate_Dominum]

btw, the new natural law dudes are pretty interesting. I met Finnis once, but I'd really like to have coffee with Grisez some time.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 15 2005, 07:28 PM']btw, the new natural law dudes are pretty interesting. I met Finnis once, but I'd really like to have coffee with Grisez some time.
[right][snapback]724817[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Dr. Grisez was a teacher of mine at the Mount in grad school. He is an absolutely amazing mind and is a neo-Thomist as well as a NNL Theorist.

I was at a symposium with all of those guys.....it was amazing!!!!! I felt really stupid. Seriously.....I am not nearly as smart as I think I am sometimes....all I have to do is remember that symposium....YIKES!!!

[Nathan]

I have one of Grisez's books, [i]Beyond the New Theism: A Philosophy of Religion[/i], around here somewhere. Found it in the $2 bin at a little bookstore in town. Haven't really found time for it yet.

Question: Is Grisez formally considered a philosopher, or a theologian? He seems to be one of those guys who straddles the line.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Sep 15 2005, 07:39 PM']I have one of Grisez's books, [i]Beyond the New Theism: A Philosophy of Religion[/i], around here somewhere. Found it in the $2 bin at a little bookstore in town. Haven't really found time for it yet.

Question: Is Grisez formally considered a philosopher, or a theologian? He seems to be one of those guys who straddles the line.
[right][snapback]724877[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Some of his books could be considered strictly philosophical. But it would seem that his major project has been in the area of moral theology, and the philosophical side (esp. his phil. ethics) is more at the service of his theology. I'd call him a moral theologian. But Cam knows more about the fellow than no doubt.

[phatcatholic]

what's "New Natural Law"?

[Cam42]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Sep 16 2005, 12:15 AM']what's "New Natural Law"?
[right][snapback]725153[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Here is a [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=37273&hl=new+natural+law+theory"]link[/url] to another thread on this.....

New Natural Law is the theory originating with Grisez; it focuses on “basic human goods”, such as human life, which are self-evidently intrinsically worthwhile and states that these goods reveal themselves as incommensurable with one another.

It is not disharmonious with tradtional Natural Law theories, but complimentary.....sure, there is development, but there is nothing that is inherently un-Catholic about it.

To get a good understanding of this position, please refer to:

[i]Way of the Lord Jesus[/i] by Germain Grisez.
[i]The Ethics of Authenticity[/i] by Dr. Charles Taylor

Two good resources to start.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 16 2005, 09:37 AM']Here is a [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=37273&hl=new+natural+law+theory"]link[/url] to another thread on this.....

New Natural Law is the theory originating with Grisez; it focuses on “basic human goods”, such as human life, which are self-evidently intrinsically worthwhile and states that these goods reveal themselves as incommensurable with one another.

It is not disharmonious with tradtional Natural Law theories, but complimentary.....sure, there is development, but there is nothing that is inherently un-Catholic about it.

To get a good understanding of this position, please refer to:

[i]Way of the Lord Jesus[/i] by Germain Grisez.
[i]The Ethics of Authenticity[/i] by Dr. Charles Taylor

Two good resources to start.
[right][snapback]725474[/snapback][/right][/quote]
how does it differ from traditional natural law theories?

[Nathan]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 16 2005, 09:37 AM'][i]The Ethics of Authenticity[/i] by Dr. Charles Taylor[/quote]

Excellent book by a great Catholic philosopher; I read it earlier this year. It is also published under the title [i]The Malaise of Modernity[/i].

[Cam42]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Sep 16 2005, 10:45 AM']how does it differ from traditional natural law theories?
[right][snapback]725486[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Traditional Natural law doesn't necessarily teach that basic human goods are self-evidently intrinsically worthwhile and that these goods reveal themselves as incommensurable with one another.

It is the internal turn that is the difference. Traditional Natural Law teaches from a more objective standpoint as opposed to self-evidence.

[phatcatholic]

can u give me an example of two basic human goods that are incommensurable with one another? why would they be?

[Cam42]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Sep 16 2005, 05:32 PM']can u give me an example of two basic human goods that are incommensurable with one another? why would they be?
[right][snapback]726154[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ok Nick; I am not sure if this answers your questions, however, these are some notes from part of a paper that I did on NNL for Dr. Grisez in grad school. Unfortunately, I don't have the acutal paper online any longer. Just the notes, go figure......

Aquinas says that the fundamental principle of the natural law is that good is to be done and evil avoided (ST IaIIae 94, 2). This is, one might say, a principle of intelligibility of action (cf. Grisez 1965): only action that can be understood as conforming with this principle, as carried out under the idea that good is to be sought and bad avoided, can be understood as an intelligible action. But no one can in acting simply pursue good -- one has to pursue some particular good. And Aquinas holds that we know immediately, by inclination, that there are a variety of things that count as good and thus to be pursued -- life, procreation, knowledge, society, and reasonable conduct (ST IaIIae 94, 2; 94, 3) are all mentioned by Aquinas (though it is not clear whether the mentioned items are supposed to constitute an exhaustive list).

So on Aquinas's view it is the good that is fundamental: whether an action, or type of action, is right is logically posterior to whether that action brings about or realizes or is some good. The good is, on Aquinas's view, prior to the right. But on Aquinas's view we are, somehow, able to reason from these principles about goods to guidelines about how these goods are to be pursued. Aquinas's thoughts are along the following lines: first, there are certain ways of acting in response to the basic human goods that are intrinsically flawed; and second, for an act to be right, or reasonable, is for it to be an act that is in no way intrinsically flawed (ST IaIIae 18, 1).

The important task, then, is to identify the ways in which an act can be intrinsically flawed. Aquinas does not obviously identify some master principle that one can use to determine whether an act is intrinsically flawed (though for an attempt to identify such a master principle in Aquinas's work see Finnis 1998, p. 126), though he does indicate where to look -- we are to look at the features that individuate acts, such as their objects (ST IaIIae 18, 2), their ends (ST IaIIae 18, 3), their circumstances (ST IaIIae 18, 4), and so forth. An act might be flawed through a mismatch of object and end -- that is, between the immediate aim of the action and its more distant point. If one were, for example, to regulate one's pursuit of a greater good in light of a lesser good -- if, for example, one were to seek friendship with God for the sake of mere bodily survival rather than vice versa -- that would count as an unreasonable act. An act might be flawed through the circumstances: while one is bound to profess one's belief in God, there are certain circumstances in which it is inappropriate to do so (ST IIaIIae 3, 2). An act might be flawed merely through its intention: to direct oneself against a good -- as in murder (ST IIaIIae 64, 6), and lying (ST IIaIIae 110, 3), and blasphemy (ST IIaIIae 13, 2) -- is always to act in an unfitting way. Aquinas has no illusions that we will be able to state principles of conduct that exhaustively determine right conduct, as if for every situation in which there is a correct choice to be made there will be a rule that covers the situation. He allows for the Aristotelian insight that the particulars of the situation always outstrip one's rules, so that one will always need the moral and intellectual virtues in order to act well (Commentary on NE, II, 2, 259). But he denies that this means that there are no principles of right conduct that hold everywhere and always, and some even absolutely. On Aquinas's view, killing of the innocent is always wrong, as is lying, adultery, sodomy, and blasphemy; and that they are always wrong is a matter of natural law. (These are only examples, not an exhaustive list of absolutely forbidden actions.)

A developed natural law theory includes within it a catalog of the fundamental goods, the basic values upon which the principles of right are founded. Suppose that we follow at least the inclinationist line, taking it to be faithful to the natural law idea that knowledge of the basic goods is widely distributed. Our task then is to provide an explicit account of those goods implicit knowledge of which is manifested in human inclination toward certain ends. What are the goods affirmation of which makes intelligible these inclinations?

It is clear from this way of putting the question that even if natural law theorists are right that this implicit knowledge is widely distributed, it would be easy for natural law theorists to disagree in their catalogs of basic goods. For the task here is that of formulating propositionally, and in as illuminating a way as possible, what items need be affirmed as intrinsically good in order to make sense out of our inclinations. And there are, unsurprisingly, disagreements in catalogs of basic goods. The goods that Aquinas mentions in his account include life, procreation, social life, knowledge, and rational conduct. Grisez includes self-integration, practical reasonableness, authenticity, justice and friendship, religion, life and health, knowledge of truth, appreciation of beauty, and playful activities.

[Cure of Ars]

I was reading and I recognized this Jacques Maritain guys name.

[quote]In a “reverie” circulated among friends but not published until after his death, the philosopher Jacques Maritain included what he called a “conjectural essay” on eschatology, in which he contemplates the possibility that the damned, although eternally in hell, may be able at some point to escape from pain. In response to the prayers of the saints, he imagines, God may miraculously convert their wills, so that from hating Him they come to love Him. After being pardoned, they will then be delivered from the pain of sense and placed in a kind of limbo. They will still be technically in hell, since they will lack the beatific vision, but they will enjoy a kind of natural felicity, like that of infants who die without baptism. At the end, he speculates, even Satan will be converted, and the fiery inferno, while it continues to exist, will have no spirits to afflict. This, as Maritain acknowledged, is a bold conjecture, since it has no support in Scripture or tradition, and contradicts the usual understanding of texts such as the parable of the Last Judgment scene of Matthew. But the theory has the advantage of showing how the Blood of Christ might obtain mercy for all spiritual creatures, even those eternally in hell.[/quote]

[url="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0305/articles/dulles.html"]http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0305...les/dulles.html[/url]

This sounds liberal to me.