restricted access A review of A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy, Vol. I, by Cardinal Mercier and other professors of the Higher Institute of Philosophy. Trans. T. L. Parker and S. A. Parker
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

[ 601 A review of A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy, by Cardinal Mercier and other professors of the Higher Institute of Philosophy, Louvain. Vol. I. Trans. T. L. Parker and S. A. Parker. Preface by P. Coffey London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1916. Pp. xxvi + 573.1 The International Journal of Ethics, 28 (Oct 1917) 137-38 This work, which will be complete in two volumes, is in large part an abridgment of the well-known Louvain philosophical series, six volumes of which had appeared before the beginning of the war. The present work includes, besides a prefatory introduction to philosophy, Cosmology (by D. Nys), Psychology, Criteriology (Epistemology), and Ontology by Cardinal Mercier.2 The second volume will contain Natural Theology, Logic, Ethics, and History of Philosophy. No student of contemporary philosophy can afford to neglect the neoscholastic movement since 1879. Great efforts have been made to bring the teaching of Aquinas up to date, and, as in Walker’s Theories of Knowledge, the non-Romanist philosopher will find his colleagues recognised and dealt with.3 The Manual is decorated with four physiological plates, and Evolution receives five pages. Physical theories, which are divided into dynamism, represented by Leibniz, Kant, Boscovich and others, and energism , represented by Ostwald, Mach, Duhem and others, are discussed at greater length.4 The reader who wishes to see how a modern philosopher is handled should turn to page 381 for a refutation of Kant.5 While the book should benefit especially those who have been accustomed to underrate Aristotle, it should be in the hands of all philosophers who do not know the larger, but incomplete work. The translation appears to be good, and the book is very well printed. T. S. E. Notes 1. Cardinal Désiré-Joseph Mercier (1851-1926), professor of theology at the University of Louvain in Belgium, was the leader of the late nineteenth-century revival of the study of Thomas Aquinas (Neo-Scholasticism) in Europe. In 1882, as professor of Thomistic philosophy at the 1917: Journalism 602 ] university, he founded the Institut Supérieur de Philosophie, a center for studies of Aquinas in relation to modern philosophy and science; he was the founding editor of the Revue NéoScolastique and the editor of the Louvain series on Neo-Scholasticism. The second volume of the Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy appeared in 1917. Peter Coffey (1876-1943), professor of logic and metaphysics at Maynooth College, Ireland, was the author of Epistemology; or, The Theory of Knowledge (2 vols, 1917), which TSE reviewed for the NS in December. 2.TheNeo-ThomistDésiréNys(1859-1927),professorofcosmologyattheInstitutSupérieur de Philosophie and author of Cosmologie (Louvain, 1903), was a close associate of Cardinal Mercier. 3. L. J. Walker (1877-1958) was the author of Theories of Knowledge: Absolutism, Pragmatism, Realism (1910). 4. Dynamism, as developed by Leibniz and extended by Kant, explains the material world in terms of active forces with no extension but with action at a distance. The Jesuit philosopherphysicist R. J. Boscovich (1711-87) supported dynamism in Theoria philosophiae naturalis (1763). Energism, the theory that energy, made up of quantity and intensity, is the all-encompassing reality, was proposed by the German chemist Wilhelm Ostwald (1853-1932), author of L’Énergie (1910), and supported by the Austrian physicist Ernst Mach (1838-1916). The French physicist Pierre Maurice Duhem (1861-1916), whose main contributions were in the fields of thermodynamics, also held to a dynamic conception of the universe. 5. Mercier analyzes Kant’s defense of a priori truth, focusing on his argument that “in all knowledge, . . . there are elements that are neither particular nor contingent but universal and necessary, namely time and space.” In several brief paragraphs, Mercier refutes Kant’s position, concluding “that time and space . . . are actually furnished by experience” (381-83). ...