Customer Reviews

Aquinas and Analogy

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I found the book clear enough. To those with an honest desire to understand reality on a sounder basis than many contemporary philosophies allow,I highly recommend this book.To those who want live in a well paid soft focus world I commend the previous reviewers

I think that few thomistic scholars will go so far out on a limb as McInerny has in making analogy a purely logical doctrine. Perhaps that is why De Konninck chose to refer to the work as "unique." The question then seems to be: If analogy is a purely logical doctrine, why would Aquinas spend so much time considering predicates that are analogous to both God and creatures? And what foundation would there be to this purely logical doctrine in things themselves? The previous reviewer seems to have overlooked these questions. We might have expected some kind of answer to them from the author, rather than a mere dismissal of Thomas de Vio and a reconstruction de novo of Aquinas' entire metaphysical doctrine...

This work is confused. McInerny tries to separate the logic of analogy from its real foundation in being. His criticisms of Cajetan just don't seem to hit the mark. The confusion can be summed up in his statement that "analogy" is itself used analogously. Well, if there is not some sense in which "analogy" is used univocally, then "analogy" loses any definite meaning. It becomes simply the night in which all cows are black. If you want to read something better by McInerny, read his translation and commentary on Aquinas' Disputed Question on Virtue. Ethics appears to be his forte.

This work is confused. He tries to separate the logic of analogy from its real foundation in being. If you want to read something better by McInerny, read his translation and commentary on Aquinas' Disputed Question on Virtue. Ethics appears to be his forte.