Talk:Neo-Scholasticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting that the (obviously) pro- Neo-Scholastic who wrote this article saw no need to include any critics of neo-Scholasticism.

Was Josef Pieper a neo-Scholastic? Etienne Gilson?

-- G.S. 68.217.167.53 16:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In the sense that both Pieper and Gilson were Thomists, then yes, they would be considered neo-scholastics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.135.226 (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate tone

Here is an example of how this article's tone is inappropriate:

"Among Catholics, neo-Scholasticism gains ground day by day, doing away with Ontologism, Traditionalism, the Dualism of Gunther, and the exaggerated Spiritualism of Descartes. It is free from the weaknesses of Pragmatism and Voluntarism, in which some thinkers vainly sought the reconciliation of their philosophy and their faith. Neo-Scholasticism has a character of permanence as truth itself has; but it is destined in its development to keep up with scientific progress. Like everything that lives, it must advance; arrested growth would mean decay."

It reads more like a pep-talk to fellow neo-Scholastics than an impartial encyclopedia article. This is only one example among many.Nda02a (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this whole article seems to be from early 1900s, so it's also really out of date too. It really should be redone, but I don't know who would do it. --HTZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanktzepeda (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)