What is a Thomist?

Given what I’ve said about Thomism, we can begin by saying that a ‘Thomist’ is someone who participates in the Thomistic Tradition, someone who receives from this tradition, someone who adopts at least some of its method and/or contents, and, ideally, if possible, someone when contributes to this same tradition. A Thomist is then a link in the chain of philosophical exploration joining all great thinkers throughout the ages, uniting all those who participate in Thomism across place and time… and thus also a participant in the philosophia perennis, together with the broader human venture to strive after wisdom.

Each individual thinker’s affiliation to Thomism can be something loose or tight, shallow or deep, weak or strong, depending on how vigorously they identify with Aquinas and the Thomistic tradition, or how comprehensively they are invested in the Thomistic conceptual framework, or how forthright they propose Thomism toward the resolution of philosophical problems. The affiliation of the individual thinker can then also be differently realized with respect to the teachings or method of Aquinas, with greater or lesser affiliation given either to his teachings or a certain subset of his teachings, or to his method together with its undergirding methodology (and that of the Scholastic tradition more broadly).

This affiliation to Thomism can then also involve a differing intensity of commitment to philosophical movements within the Thomistic tradition, either embracing the more Aristotelian or Platonic dimensions of Aquinas’ thought, or by differently stressing the import of existence over essence, etc.. And this affiliation can also be differently joined with affiliations with certain philosophical movements subsequent to Thomism, such as those mentioned in a previous post, chiefly the phenomenological and the analytical in the present day. Finally, it can be an affiliation that respects and gives accord to the faith commitment and theological dimension of Aquinas’ thought in addition to what is purely philosophical in his works, or it can be an affiliation that abstracts the purely philosophical from the all-encompassing Christian theological worldview to which Aquinas is devoted.

Thus, according to a very relaxed definition, a Thomist is anyone who respects Aquinas as a philosophical thinker, and who then consciously follows him in at least one respect, either by following some key teaching within his doctrinal framework, or by following one or other aspect of his method. On the other hand, according to a very tight definition, a Thomist is someone who pays the fullest of allegiance to Aquinas’ teachings and method, and only the purest strands of the subsequent Thomist tradition (in its unaffected propagation and any developments in strict continuity with Aquinas).

According to the latter position, only those who have the most firm, comprehensive, and vigorous commitment to Aquinas and the ongoing Thomistic tradition can be called Thomists. Yet, this classification comes with its problems, and is often pejoratively identified as ‘Strict Observance Thomism’ or ‘Thomism of the Strict Observance.’ However, though derogatory on the lips of many, such a label is in itself not essentially problematic—for nothing in the practice of strictly following the method and teachings of Aquinas, together with his primary commentators, such as (Tommaso de Vio) Cajetan, John of St. Thomas (Poinsot), and (Domingo) Báñez, should tout court be viewed as problematic.

I have respect for Strict Observance Thomism, reading the works of many of its proponents in which I find a clear and insightful interpretation of Aquinas, as well as lucid communication of Thomistic teachings, so that I believe this movement within the Thomistic tradition has a centrally important role in its development and propagation through time. However, I take a somewhat more relaxed stance toward the classification of what counts as Thomism and the corresponding attribution of ‘Thomist.’ Yet in this I believe I am following the mind of Aquinas, together with his methodology.

Let’s spell this out a little: Aquinas’ own allegiance was of course not first and foremost to his own method and teachings. That would be a crazy position to take, for it would be tantamount to a self-identification with the truth itself. And that is certainly not what Aquinas thought (which is especially apparent when we consider his well-witnessed humility). No, Aquinas’ clear allegiance was to the truth. Aquinas refers everything to the question of truth, and he does so with a mind evidently bright and astute in its discernment of truth. The truth was the ever-present beacon guiding Aquinas’ thought and reasoning, his reflection and contemplation, and his corresponding stances and attitudes.

This was the mind of Aquinas—acute insight joined with fidelity to truth—and his methodology closely followed this guiding light, as did the teachings to which he concluded, and the conceptual system he ultimately developed.

Given this allegiance to truth, and given the resultant character of Aquinas’ doctrinal system, possessing teachings bearing the clear resonance of truth, it is no wonder Aquinas became such a trusted thinker of the Western tradition and the anchor of the philosophia perennis. Again, it is no wonder that Aquinas became the go-to philosopher for innumerable thinkers throughout the ages. Thus, for so many, including myself, when philosophical questions arise, the first place we go as we search for a solution is the text of Aquinas, for right there we can undoubtedly find insight into the questions and their answers—or, at the very least, a way of thinking about the questions and searching for answers.

Now, to my mind, it is this allegiance to truth that marks the genuine Thomist. Though Aquinas remains the first referent in areas of investigation as the emerge, the allegiance of the Thomist is not first to Aquinas and the legacy of Thomism. No, it is an allegiance to truth itself that guides the Thomist. For the Thomist, Aquinas is then an intellectual window that opens upon the vast vista of truth—the first of windows, indeed; a clear and bright window, clean of impurity, surely; a lucid and plain window, clear of distortions; certainly… but, a window, nonetheless. Thus, to follow the mind of Aquinas, is to follow the truth—this is undoubtedly the most important feature of Aquinas’ historical significance, and thus the most important feature of being a Thomist.

Then, just like Aquinas, the Thomist proceeds along the path toward truth by using the best method or methods at hand. This is the methodology of the Thomist, and it is simple: It involves purveying the methods available and selecting from among these potential means, given the particular domain under scrutiny, the method or methods most apt to unveil the truth of the matter at hand. Though these methods are most often ones also employed by Aquinas, there have been authentic methodological developments since the time of Aquinas which the Thomist would certainly be foolish to ignore for the sake of fidelity to Aquinas.

The Thomist then also explores the domain in question together with the teachings of Aquinas, allowing the conceptual schema of Aquinas to take the lead in his examination of the chosen domain, allowing his concepts to illumine the domain while questioning, examining, and analyzing. All those who have taken Aquinas seriously in this way have discovered just how illuminating his concepts are toward explicating and clarifying all significant areas of being and life. And together with this discovery, the Thomist discovers the genius of Aquinas, and this is exactly who the Thomist is wrought as a Thomist.

However, the genuine Thomist should also be prepared to disagree with Aquinas should he come to an alternate conclusion about a given matter. To do otherwise would be to abandon oneself together with one’s grasp of the truth—it would be the philosophical equivalent of ignoring the judgment of one’s conscience. Yet I would also strongly argue that the genuine Thomist must be reluctant to do so. Given Aquinas’ own genius, given the coherence of the Thomistic conceptual framework, and given how tested Thomism, being proven over centuries of reflection by so many worthy thinkers, disagreeing with Aquinas requires much consideration—especially about any core concept that knits the conceptual framework together in a foundational way. Obviously, outright disagreement is less often the case, and more often than not, it involves only the subtle tweaking of concepts, their nuanced adjustment and minor development.

Thus, in summary, we can say that while the classification of Thomism is difficult to rigidly circumscribe, a Thomist is certainly one who attends to the mind, method, and teaching of St. Thomas, in a way that is either loose or tight, shallow or deep, weak or strong.  to a Thomist. Then, within this broad classification, which in its broadest class would include an incredible array of figures, I would say that the genuine Thomist follows the mind of Aquinas in his committed allegiance to truth; together with this, the genuine Thomist follows Aquinas’ methodology of selecting the best available method(s) to explore any given domain; and finally, the genuine Thomist follows the teaching of Aquinas, at least initially, and reluctantly comes to conclusions at variance with Aquinas and the standard Thomist position.