Just Thomism is the personal blog of James Chastek, a thirty-something Catholic Thomist living just outside of Rome in St. Paul, MN with my wife, Jessica, and my children James (6/24/06) and Francesca (1/24/08).
I have a BA from Thomas Aquinas College, a MA in Philosophy from Claremont Graduate University, and a Ph. L from the Angelicum, where I am a Ph. D candidate planning to defend my dissertation in early late 2009.
My main interest is teaching, and I’ve taught at various High Schools from 2000-06. Among other things, I’ve taught Physics, Chemistry, Medieval History, Greek Classics, Latin (all levels), Theology, Algebra II, and Calculus, and I’ve been a private tutor of composition, geometry, Spanish, spelling, algebra, grammar, drawing, earth science and learning shapes and colors.
Sea of Doubt said,
December 28, 2008 at 12:15 pm
This is a wonderful blog — I am the person who occasionally leaves comments about Nietzsche (alas!) and other topics, but fails to return respond adequately to your own responses (for which I apologize). This is a brave move, but much to be applauded.
I’m leaving my email address if you would like to write to me outside of this forum — I’m better at responding that way.
Sea of Doubt said,
December 28, 2008 at 12:16 pm
By brave move I mean your decision to put your name here.
You can see I am terrible at navigating my way around these comment boxes.
eric said,
December 28, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Hello James!
Are you currently studying Thomistic philosophy at university, or do you study it on your own?
Gagdad Bob said,
December 29, 2008 at 8:17 am
Wo. Check out the big brain on James.
Tim A. Troutman said,
December 30, 2008 at 6:40 am
Just recently found your blog and have instantly become a loyal reader. I am a beginning student of Thomism. Any suggestions on where to begin? I’ve read McInerny’s guide for “Peeping Thomists”.
James Chastek said,
December 30, 2008 at 7:07 am
1.) Go to the “Library” link on my blogroll and get Sertillanges, “Foundations of Philosophy…” It’s an out of print book, but still the best. It is that rare sort of book that can teach both beginners and experts a great deal about thomism.
2.) Go to the library at a large Catholic college and make all the photocopies you can of articles from the “Laval Theologique et Philosophique” before 1980 (It’s an English-French journal). Pay particular attention to anything written by Charles DeKoninck.
3.) Read all the articles by Duane Berquist, and everything in Peripathetikos journal
4.) Remember, the whole goal is simply to understand St. Thomas. The secondary texts are okay, but St. Thomas is the measure of them all. All we are looking for in the texts are certain tools that help us know what to look for in St. Thomas.
5.) Aristotle. Just let him talk. De Anima is a particularly important work, and the first two books of the Physics are irreplaceable. Glen Coughlin’s translation of the latter is the best, and his appendices and introduction help to show how Aristotelian science is a necessary compliment to the modern sciences.
T. Chan said,
December 30, 2008 at 2:13 pm
A Thomist, Pleased to make your acquaintance!
T. Chan said,
January 6, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Just a reminder that the first volume of The Writings of Charles De Koninck is out from UND Press. (The series is projected to be 3 volumes total.)
Ricky Raccoon said,
January 31, 2009 at 8:46 am
James,
I’m borrowing the advice left for Tim and will spend a good deal of time listening to Aristotle before wading into the Summa. You recommend Coughlin’s translation of “Physics” but whose translation of De Anima would you call the best? By the way, Gagdadio sent me a link to De Konink’s “The Lifeless World of Biology” and it is magnificent.
James Chastek said,
January 31, 2009 at 9:38 am
Well, my general advice is always that to read anything of Aristotle or St. Thomas is better than nothing, so don’t ever not read while waiting for a good translation, or because you hear scholars bicker over translation (the disputes are usually overblown). When I first read Aristotle I just used the standard McKeon translators (like Ross, Jowett, etc.) All of them are on the internet. All of them can get an attentive reader a good ways into wisdom.
Isn’t DeKoninck wonderful?!?! All of his stuff is like that! I don’t know what I would have done without him. He was an indispensible light for me to see St. Thomas.
The dissertations that I linked to are directed by DeKoninck too, so they bear his mark and are very much worth reading.
Ricky Raccoon said,
February 1, 2009 at 8:35 am
Thank you, James. No worries here. When you recommended a certain translation of “Physics” I wondered if you may have a favorite translation of De Anima as well. Sounds like I can’t go wrong. RE the Summa, there is little chance I won’t be reading it – I could tell right away as I actually stumbled upon Summa contra Gentiles first and couldn’t put it down. And then when I found out the Summa was the “mature and structured version”…well…
RE De Koninck, since it was so fresh in my noggin then, I’ll repeat a little more of what I told Bob only a few hours sleep following a first read of “The Lifeless..” the evening he sent it to me: “I especially love De Koninck’s sense of humor too: ‘Let us interview out favorite elephant in the zoo..’ He is a raccoon of the highest order…”
At the time it was the greatest compliment I could think of. I also mentioned how he reminds of Polanyi. In that lecture too are a number of good “case-closed” one-liners…which also reminds of Polanyi. But these are not delivered in any mean sort of way, they are matter-of-fact, but in a calm, confident way tell the listener that he was, in a sense, sort of silly for thinking otherwise. But this is based only on the one lecture…
Niggardly Phil said,
February 2, 2009 at 6:39 am
If anyone wants a copy of CDK’s Hollow Universe (“Lifeless world of Bio” is one of the essays in it), e-mail me at parsimonious.phil@google.com and I’ll send the pdf (10 megs).
Niggardly Phil said,
February 2, 2009 at 7:57 am
d’oh, that’s parsimonious.phil@gmail.com…
Desiderius said,
February 3, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Beautiful new layout! Very fitting of the kind of beauty to be found in the catalog of comments typically found on this blog.
Although, I hope I am not intrusive in my asking if there had been, as with the change in design, a change as well in the ownership of the blog.
I had initially thought (owing to my ignorance, of course, as to the seeming anonymity of the much eloquent J. Thomism meister then) that this same was actually a lady and, more specifically, a mother of one.
My apologies for my presumption and continued appreciation for all the erudition characteristic of the posts found daily here.
syzygus said,
February 6, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Outstanding new look, and still as good a read as there is on the ‘net. Thanks for the reading recommendations, too. We autodidacts need that sort of love.
berenike said,
February 7, 2009 at 12:50 am
Desiderius was not alone in thinking this a lady’s blog … my apologies!
Ricky Raccoon said,
February 26, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Hello again.
James, I received my copies of “De Anima” by Hicks and “Physics” by Coughlin. Would one be a better intro to Aristole than the other? Because one of them’s gonna be
Rick
James Chastek said,
February 26, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Read Books one and two of Physics first, several times slowly. Try to understand the distinction and necessity of matter and form in book 1, and the difference between the per se and the accidental; nature, chance and art; purpose and chance; fortune and chance; and the division of causes in book 2 (the last few chapters in book 2 that deal in more detail with the distinction of causes can be omitted for now. Stop after you read the proofs for why nature acts for an end)
Then read all of De Anima a few times (it’s really a very short book)
With Aristotle, it’s best not to write notes in the book as you read since they might hamper your understanding of the text when you come back to it by pulling your mind toward the things you thought before. I suggest taking notes separately. To understand Aristotle best, only take two kinds of notes at first “conclusion”, where you lay down something he concludes to, and “reason” where you give his reason for it. Aristotle has a habit of saying very obvious things that, later on, yield gigantic conclusions, and if you miss the obvious basis you’ll find yourself unable to see the massive, gorgeous conclusion he draws from it several pages or chapters or books later.
Brodin said,
February 28, 2009 at 6:55 am
Hello !
Ricky Raccoon said,
March 1, 2009 at 7:47 am
Thank you, James. Unfortunately, somewhere in the smidgen between my question and your answer I made the fortunate mistake of picking up my all-so newly arrived copy of “The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart.”
Oh my. Next thing I come-to and I’m 34 pages into it and up to my neck in the stuff. Thank God for chapter breaks. Mr. Aristotle will have to sit in the waiting room a little longer
However, until then, I’m printing out your answer and tucking it into my “Physics”…nice book mark to have with me through those.
Thanks again, James.
Agellius said,
March 9, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Great blog. I have not failed to be fascinated every time I’ve visited over the past couple of weeks.
I’m curious: How did you like Thomas Aquinas College? I’m thinking of sending my sons there but it’s not cheap. Was it worth every penny?
peeping thomist said,
March 10, 2009 at 8:11 am
FYI, they have great financial aid–much better than most such colleges. Of course, the more you have the more they take, like all private colleges.
“Most faithful Catholic colleges are also the most affordable, reports study”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15119
I know few grads who would say it wasn’t worth every penny and then some.
Fred Boley said,
April 4, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Really like it–keep up the good work
Dr. Bill said,
May 18, 2009 at 12:42 am
Hi James!
Great blog. I was wondering… I am an ER doc and am taking a MA course Philosophy of Nature. I want to write a paper that combines the course with the medical field. Do you have any suggestions on a topic and available resourses?
Thanks.
James Chastek said,
May 18, 2009 at 7:13 pm
There are several classic problems about the relation of medicine and natural philosophy:
1.) In what sense does the doctor heal, and in what sense does the patient’s body heal itself? Will the answer be the same for setting a bone, giving a drug (there are diverse answers here too) and for surgery? If each contributes, is the contribution the same? If not, how is it different?
2.) What kinds of causes are involved in the basic practice of medicine, both on the part of the patient, and the doctor?
3.) How is the art of medicine different from a.) a fine art b.) a mechanical art or c.) the art of politics?
Dr. Bill said,
May 27, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Hi James,
Thanks for your advice. I think I am going to explore a “philosophy of touch” using a Thomistic theory of knowledge and discuss its healing nature or power/force.
Do you know where I can find a copy of Sertillanges’ Foundations of Thomistic Philosophy? I have tried Amazon, Abebooks, etc. to no avail.
Or could you recommend another reference Thomistic philosophy book?
Thanks, Bill
Andrew said,
July 4, 2009 at 1:43 pm
James,
I am working on a paper regarding Divine Causation and contingency of the acts of man. For example, God causes me to do x, and I also freely choose to do x. How is my choice contingent if I would not have done other than what God willed…I understand that it can be *free*, but I fail to see how it can be contingent… any help? Feel free to e-mail me if you’d like…but no big worries…I am a Catholic analytic philosopher in grad school, who is an aspiring Thomist… my email is AndrewJJaeger@gmail.com Let me know if you would be interested in discussing this, if you are too busy I understand, but I would appreciate any help (be it reference to secondary sources on the topic…I have read most of the common works of Thomas on the issue: SCG, ST, On Evil, and some others). God bless.
Boreas said,
July 28, 2009 at 8:21 am
Hello, James Chastek.
I am writing to you as a fellow Thomist, to inquire about the relevance of the metaphysical findings of quantum theory on the validity of Thomistic metaphysics.
I debated an atheist/naturalist, who invoked quantum theory to disprove the notion of causality. Indeed, he believed that my Thomistic metaphysics were fundamentally flawed in that they assumed causality to be real (which he believed quantum theory had disproved).
I saw that you are both a Thomist and familiar with physics; so I was wondering if you have any response to this or can help me with understanding this?
I welcome you to reply to email address if you know anything that could “aid” this metaphysical conflict.
Best regards
Boreas
James Chastek said,
July 28, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Let me give a short response in the first paragraph, and a longer one in the last two.
I don’t see why the absence of causes at one level proves there are no causes altogether: which is like saying that if there is an absence of heat in this room, then there is no hot place in the universe. A discussion of causality goes as far as act does, and everyone agrees that there is very little act on the quantum level. We certainly don’t have to say that there is a per se cause of every imaginable event or occurrence. Why did the earthquake happen when I stepped in the bathtub? Why do we need to invoke anything as difficult to understand as quantum theory to recognize that causality does not extend as far as any possible event? Sheer dumb luck or coincidence makes the point far more clearly.
Cause has a journey of meanings, as opposed to having a “hog pen” full of meanings that are neatly cordoned off. The first sense of causality is for a human being or an animal to be responsible for something happening. This sense of causality can be verified by waving your hand or watching a dog chew a stick. It is uncontroversial and cannot be denied by anyone who deserves to be argued with. The idea of agent causality in inanimate things is a bit hazier and more questionable, since inanimate beings do not have the sort of self that can act. Here already we see the first problem in talking about causality in physics from a thomistic point of view: the clearest notion we have of a cause isn’t verified in the sorts of things that physics studies. Purely natural or inanimate things do not have a source of self-motion in themselves. They are all in one way or another moved by another. When your atheist friend insisted that there were no causes on the quantum level, he was saying an important truth, but he didn’t recognize the consequence of it. There are certainly no selves on the quantum level, and therefore no selves to be responsible for action.
But there is more than one way to fail at having responsibility for an effect that might come about. Some inanimate things can take part in this responsibility even if they cannot have this responsibility themselves. Human beings can light fires to cook food; monkeys can use sticks to snag ants; birds can make twigs into nests; and trees can use light to make sugar. Fire, sticks, and light are all used by the living here, and is channeled by it as an instrument. There is also a level of existence in nature that neither has this responsibility, nor can take part in it: for example, things that happen sheerly by chance. Things that occur at the quantum level also seem to be unable to have a complete participation in the causality of others. What we have here is a level of existence, not a refutation of causality or any dramatic such thing as that.
Boreas said,
July 28, 2009 at 2:33 pm
But doesn’t that equal to saying that Thomistic metaphysics need not apply cosmologically and microphysically, and therefore, are invalid and obsolete?
James Chastek said,
July 28, 2009 at 3:06 pm
We are not talking about all of metaphysics, but a small part of it, causality. Now the first sense of causality is responsibility for something happening. Are you saying that my argument renders the idea that one thing is responsible for another obsolete?
Boreas said,
July 28, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I don’t know. It just sounds like you are saying: causality may exist in our human world and level, but it may not exist on the inanimate/physical level.
Isn’t causality an important part of Thomistic metaphysics?
Certainly it’s an important part of the Thomistic view of Gods necessary existence and Gods nature as the uncaused cause/first cause.
Andrew said,
July 28, 2009 at 3:52 pm
James,
If there is causality at the macroscopic level (which, as you say, is clearly the case in giving reasons for our actions), but not at the quantum level then the macroscopic level is not ontologically reducible to the quantum level.
Is this something that most [quantum] physicists hold, namely that the macroscopic IS ontologically reducible to the quantum?
James Chastek said,
July 28, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Andrew,
Well, if physicists think that the macro level can be reduced to the quantum level in the sense that real agency does not exist at the macro level because it does not at the quantum level, then they are either obtuse or lying. If reduction means that on some level of analysis it is possible to show how macro level phenomena are only manifestations of quantum ones, then there is clearly a level in which the macro reduces to the quantum- one of the main reasons we look into it is to find a principle of macroscopic action. I suspect you mean reduction in the first sense, where if A reduces to B then A is merely an appearance or illusion.
Boreas,
There is not always causality at the macro level either: an indefinite number of things in nature happen by sheer chance, and much in human affairs is blind luck. To say that quantum physics shows us that nothing is responsible for anything is just silly. It might show us that there is nothing responsible for some things, but we already knew this by a consideration of luck and chance.
More later.
Boreas said,
July 28, 2009 at 5:51 pm
James,
I think there is a semantic issue here – you seem to be using “causality” to mean “determinacy” or “predictability”.
But causality just means that things in the universe rely upon other things in the universe for their own existence and form of existence. And causality as a principle means that things need physically sufficient and necessary conditions to begin to exist.
It doesn’t mean determinism – that we can determine things causes. It doesn’t imply that we can always know -determine- the causes of things. It’s a principle about the nature of reality.
If we affirm “acausality” in nature, we are affirming the very principle that something can happen with no cause what so ever – indeed that something can happen without living up to any sufficient and necessary conditions. As opposed to merely affirming that not all causes within the universe can be determined.
Thus, when we abandon the principle of causality (not of determinism), what is left of this fundamental part of Thomistic metaphysics? Where goes our understanding of God as the uncaused cause? Then the universe might as well be “uncaused”, and in fact, that is the very argument propagated by “the self caused universe” models of vacuum fluctuations/virtual particles in Quantum Physics (however implausible that is).
Boreas said,
July 28, 2009 at 5:54 pm
To explain what I mean here, I think this (impeccable) article by William Lane Craig will be greatly of help:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/smith.html
Brandon said,
July 28, 2009 at 7:58 pm
If we affirm “acausality” in nature, we are affirming the very principle that something can happen with no cause what so ever – indeed that something can happen without living up to any sufficient and necessary conditions.
Small technicality, but as stated this is not logically possible; every event has necessary and sufficient conditions, because the event itself, and collectively any components it may have, is a necessary and sufficient condition for itself. This follows from standard definitions of ‘necessary condition’ and ’sufficient condition’. You mean, no doubt, necessary and sufficient causes; but there is no standard definitions of what those are, so it would have to be specified in the particular case. In any case, the fact that there are necessary and sufficient conditions shows that there are at least formal and material causes, so all of Thomism that deals with formal and material causes is salvageable just on the basis of that one point (and it is often forgotten that in any sort of genuine Aristotelianism formal causes are actually in some ways more central than efficient causes — our understanding of moving causes is a derivative of our understanding of formal and material causes, and efficient causation is a generalization from moving causation); and James is quite right that there is nothing impossible about something not having any proximate secondary efficient causes (a Thomist believes that anything God creates directly has no such cause, for instance). But secondary causes of any sort don’t explain existence of any sort anyway; they merely explain why something that exists changes or fails to change in this way or that. We have no notion of what a science would be that eliminated appeal to such causes completely; even quantum physics doesn’t, because it still needs to appeal to them for the macro level — there may be a quantum physical reduction of some sort possible; we don’t have it, and quantum physicists themselves are quite clear about this. Without the actual reduction, there is no way to say what a quantum-based acausalism would actually mean. Your atheist was engaging in science fiction, not philosophy (or even science). But, precisely because the physical causes we are interested in at the macro-level are not causes of existence itself, but just of change and rest of mobile material things, there’s no absolute necessity that they should be operative at the quantum level anyway, so the mere fact that we haven’t found them there isn’t a particular good reason to be an acausalist.
James Chastek said,
July 28, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Boreas,
Again, why is it the case if we deny some causes, that we must deny them all? I don’t see how the original objection that the atheist posed to you is anything more than this. You are conceding too much to him, like in your last paragraph, where you claim that if some things have no causes, that the universe need not have one. Isn’t this like saying that because some things are not hot, therefore fire need not be hot; or if somethings are not evil, therefore evil need not be evil?
We are not having a semantic dispute arising from a confusion over determinism or predictably. The dispute is that I want to start with a limited but absolutely certain notion of cause where the existence of causality is evident, and you want to ascend to universal principles right away. There might be some universal sense of cause that can be verified of all things, but it is a very difficult and subtle thing that can’t simply be forced out in the open right away. Trying to lay down causal axioms is very difficult to do, and it is impossible to do in the face of a hostile audience- but you asked me to talk about causality in light of the most hostile possible audience.
James Chastek said,
July 28, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Boreas,
The most relevant principle of causality for what you are looking for is the first axiom and its development in chapter one of the Book of Causes “”Every first cause more inflows into its effect than the second, universal cause”. St. Thomas claims that this is so for all causes in his commentary on the book. Get the atheist to concede that one, and your case is made for you. God and providence in one axiom.
Boreas said,
July 29, 2009 at 8:23 am
I thank you for your responses. It has certainly given me some input in the matter, but I am not sure I completely understand what either of you are saying, yet. I am not a “trained” Thomist, but only really an admirer and student of Thomism (so far).
————
”Every first cause more inflows into its effect than the second, universal cause”.
————
But why would he concede a first cause of anything, if indeed he believes that things could spontaneously emerge with no first cause at all? If he believes the universe is fundamentally uncaused?
What is the relevance of this axiom exactly? It may be that I don’t understand it’s significance.
————
Again, why is it the case if we deny some causes, that we must deny them all? I don’t see how the original objection that the atheist posed to you is anything more than this. You are conceding too much to him, like in your last paragraph, where you claim that if some things have no causes, that the universe need not have one. Isn’t this like saying that because some things are not hot, therefore fire need not be hot; or if somethings are not evil, therefore evil need not be evil?
—————
It wasn’t me who either conceded or claimed that if some things need not causes, nothing needs causes. It was rather him who invoked the Quantum Mechanical idea of a “self-caused” universe which is based on vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles arising spontaneously from the quantum vacuum, with no apparent causal explanation. This would then, in his mind, prove that the universe emerged thus spontaneously and uncaused. Some quantum physicists actually believe this proves that the universe arised like that: simply from the vacuum or void, of it’s own accord. I would think we would invoke God there, then, but then they would invoke Occams Razor: why invoke God if they claim to explain the universe as spontaneously emerging with no God “in the equation”?
But there is an answer to that question. The answer is that the spontaneous emergence of particles from the quantum vacuum is far from uncaused; in fact, quantum mechanics _have not_ proven anything at all to be uncaused. The idea presupposes the quantum vacuum to be empty. The problem is, it is not empty: though void of matter, it is namely filled with other things, confirmed by new discoveres: “dark energy”, dark matter, gravitational fields and other entities we don’t know of. This means that at any rate, future cosmological “unitary” models will be enable us to affirm causality on the microphysical level even where quantum mechanics doesn’t affirm causality now.
So then I ask you now – if we can show that quantum physics, in fact, haven’t proven acausality to exist at all, would that not indicate that causality _is_ universal, even if you say that is not necessary for our Thomistic principles?
Or maybe universal causality is not specifically in favour of Thomistic principles either? Which scenario is indeed better for Thomism, if we could “choose”: acausality in the universe, or universal causality in the universe?
Boreas said,
July 29, 2009 at 8:30 am
I suspect the distinction that you may have been hinting at, is that between “primary causes” and “secondary causes”. I am not sure I fully understand it’s significance for this debate.