SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY
Sim,-1 would like to comment on the recent review of M. Gilson's book in the Spectator by Mr. Cranston. (Incidentally, I don't think M. Gilson is entitled to the prefix 'Father.') One gathers from what he says that Mr. Cranston dislikes scholasticism, theologians and the attitude of our medieval ancestors He finds scholasticism boring. But these per- sonal views, which depend so much on what he means by scholasticism, seem out of place in a serious review—particularly when it is supposed to be of a serious work by a competent philosopher. I find Marxism boring in some of .its aspects; anyone who has dipped into the literature will be familiar with papers analysing the meaning of words, papers which some find very boring. Who has not some- times found Marcel and Heidegger boring? Or even Eddington or Russell'? But if all these sorts of thing, can he boring. what meaning can one attach to Mr. Cranston's use of the word other than that he 'doesn't like scholasticism',as he understands the last word? 1.0 this the job of a serious reviewer? if it is why not just say so?
As I read his words I thought of the review of the recent Penguin Aquinas in The Times Literary Supplement. Whether Aquinas 'bores' or not is surely irrelevant; as is the tact that he Was also a theologian. What he says matters, and his philosophical statements should be met by philosophical analysis, after they have been distinguished from his theology. Surely it is undignified to repeat Lord Russell's jibes in serious reviews.—Yours faithfully, A. T. MACQUEEN Physiology and Biochemistry Department, Queen's College, Dundee
Previous page
