Finding ourselves - through no choice of our own - here in the modern age, it is enjoyable to read an author with such a remarkable blend of enthusiasm and composure. Too often it is one or the other: stagnant, wooden precision, or reckless, energetic nonsense. Kreeft commits neither error.Some credit must also be given to C.S. Lewis, who is quoted liberally, perhaps even more than Tolkien himself. Seeing that Lewis and Tolkien were such close contemporaries, and that Lewis's writings were so much more prolific, this balance of quotations seems justified.
Kreeft considers 50 philosophical questions, which serve as the skeleton of the book. It is a very useful strategy to introduce the lay philosopher to the rich tapestry of philosophical thought, and there are gentle constraints to keep your thinking from taking a dangerous turn, rather like bumper-bowling.
I have found Kreeft's Catholicism naggingly irritating - like a rock in my shoe. There are deep-seated differences those of us with an Anabaptist inclination have with Catholics (and Protestants too, for that matter,) and I find many aspects of Catholicism theologically disturbing.
The notable absence of Biblical references was somewhat disquieting; the Bible ought to be opened reverently and frequently in any discussion probing what is true, good, and truly good.
I have my disagreements with some of Kreeft's conclusions regarding ethics, but right now these things are simmering within me - breaking in, like a stiff pair of new boots, until they become even and supple. As Gandalf says, the wise speak only of what they know. Most of us are under the wry delusion that words constitute wisdom: say something - anything - but for heaven's sake do not be silent! Oh that we might recover the days when silence was a virtue, and a free mouth was understood to be the plainest mark of a fool.
Image courtesy of tolkiengateway.net
2 comments:
Actually, the habit of having a scriptural quote for every occasion is, in my experience, off-putting to many people who are not religious. Their attitude is, who cares? Presenting arguments from other sources, and more importantly presenting your thoughts in a systematic, rational fashion rather than as a direct appeal to authority, is often more productive.
Which is not at all to say that scriptures aren't important. Far from it. Catholics recognize the primacy and importance of scripture. Scripture is read out loud at every single Catholic mass. But they also believe that not everything there is to know and to say about God and about religion is contained in scripture — the scriptures are contained, after all, in a volume of finite length. Scriptures are a foundation and core of the Faith, but are not the only relevant thing.
I think if you read more Peter Kreeft you will see how much he uses scripture, depending on the subject he is speaking about. If it's an explicitly religious subject and his audience is religious, he quotes scripture more often.
This, for instance, is a quote from Dr. Kreeft taken off Wikipedia:
"Without qualification, without ifs, ands, or buts, God's word tells us, straight as a left jab, that love is the greatest thing there is (1 Cor 13: 13). Scripture never says God is justice or beauty or righteousness, though he is just and beautiful and righteous. But "God is love" (1 Jn 4:8). Love is God's essence, his whole being. Everything in him is love. Even his justice is love. Paul identifies "the justice of God" in Romans 1:17 with the most unjust event in all history, deicide, the crucifixion, for that was God's great act of love."
I like this quote because it shows both the primacy of scripture and the fact that you can go beyond it in saying things about God. That God is justice and beauty and righteousness is not explicitly scriptural, though certainly true and demonstrated from philosophy. However, "God is love" IS explicitly scriptural, and hence is taken as having more weight and importance.
Anyway, it was partly due to the Bible that Dr. Kreeft became Catholic. He realized in studying the history of scriptures that it was the Catholic Church which determined which writings were included in scripture and which were not, creating the Bible we know today. Kreeft decided that "a cause can never be less than its effect. You can't give what you don't have. If the Church has no divine inspiration and no infallibility, no divine authority, then neither can the New Testament."
Anthony:
Well-stated. I think you're absolutely right about how scripture can be off-putting to a non-religious audience. It's only considerate to use sources that are mutually recognized by those you are trying to reach.
My impression was that The Philosophy of Tolkien was geared primarily towards Christians, but I could very well be mistaken. Either way, it is of course Kreeft's prerogative to write the book however he likes; I just happened to notice that there wasn't much scripture.
This may not be obvious from the post, but I actually appreciate Peter Kreeft quite a bit; I have several of his books and have listened to a good number of his lectures on his website. I respect him as a gifted thinker and teacher and have learned a lot through his work.
Thanks for your comment.
Post a Comment