In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

516 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 33:3 JULY 1995 phy of Pyrrho, whereas parts of it are clearly summarizing/ater Pyrrhonism, as distinct from the views of Pyrrho himself (see especially 46, where the term 'skeptic' itself is said to go back to Pyrrho); and he reproduces without comment a report on Carneades from Eusebius (97-98), a report deriving from the highly untrustworthy Numenius. Further features of the book which will be distracting to almost all readers are the frequent diatribes against contemporary philosophy, contemporary scholarship or contemporary habits of thought in general. Since the victims are never cited by name, and the criticisms themselves are never developed, these assaults do not rise above the level of bluster. Indeed, it is often hard even to tell precisely what faults the author is bemoaning. Hellenistic philosophy is now a flourishing field of study. Kristeller's courses probably did a good deal to promote this state of affairs. But the book itself does not, in my opinion, make a substantial contribution to our understanding of this period. RICHARD BETT Johns Hopkins University Ralph Mclnerny. Aquinas against theAverroists:On ThereBeing Only One Intellect. Purdue University Series in the History of Philosophy. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1993. Pp. x + 2e2. Cloth, $3~.oo. Paper, $14.95. Aquinas against the Averroists complements Mclnerny's current project of republishing the English translations of Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle.' In each case, Aquinas's central works on the philosophy of Aristotle are being made available in English. This undertaking is important for the historiography of philosophy on account of the enormously significant role that Aquinas played in the reception of Aristotle during the medieval and modern periods. If we are to be clear about the reception of Aristotle, we need to confront Aquinas. Aquinas against the Averroists works against the charge that Aquinas "baptized Aristotle " (ix) by adapting his works to Christianity. In supplying the critical Leonine Latin text of Aquinas's De unitate intellectuscontra Averroistasas well as a fine English translation , a clear account of the historical and philosophical context, and helpful interpretative essays, McInerny attempts to demonstrate that Aquinas did not simply Christianize Aristotle but was a careful reader intent on clarifying the meaning of his text (155). Masters of Arts who lectured on Aristotle at the University of Paris had followed Averroes in arguing that for Aristotle there is one agent intellect for all human beings. McInerny presents Aquinas as offering two types of arguments against this view, one theological and one philosophical. On the theological level such a view stands opposed to the Christian understanding of personal salvation. If there is a single intellect for all human beings, then individuals would not be able to receive different degrees of reward and punishment in the next life (18-19). The philosophical argument is that the ' The first volume published was Thomas Aquinas, Commentaryon Amtotle's "Nicomachtan Ethics,"trans. C. I. Litzinger (Notre Dame: Dumb Ox, 1993). BOOK REVIEWS 5t7 Averroists have misinterpreted Aristotle. In order to clarify this argument, Mclnerny offers in his essays a careful explanation of Aquinas's interpretation of Aristotle's philosophical accounts of the soul, the senses, the intellect, and the relations between the human body and soul. Reminiscent of Mandonnet's division of Aquinas's shorter works into theology or phiiosophy,~ Mclnerny argues that there is a great divide between the theological and philosophical writings of Aquinas (155). Theology has to do with revelation and philosophy with reasoning in the public domain (158). His point is that since Aquinas attempts to offer a correct account of Aristotle in his De unitate intellectus contra Averroistas, this text is one of philosophy and not theology 056 and 162). But what about recent claims that such a dichotomy is unfaithful to Aquinas? For example, Mark Jordan argues that if we look at the use to which Aquinas puts philosophy , he appears to have transformed philosophy into theology.3 In fact, Aquinas makes a claim in his Summa theologiae (ST) that implies he studied Aristotle for a theological purpose. When considering whether religious orders should be established for the study of science, he notes the use to which...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 516-517
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.