Summa Philosophica Hardcover – 10 Jun 2012

Peter Kreeft manages to recapture the form and spirit of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. Kreeft approaches the perennial philosophical topics by breaking the questions down into their essential propositions, and, then, sharpening the engagement by following the Scholastic approach of posing objections to the proposition, an argument supporting the proposition and answers to the objections. Anyone familiar with the Summa Theologica will immediately recognize the style.

Kreeft breaks his Summa into ten subject areas - Logic and Methodology, Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Cosmology, Philosophical Anthropology, Epistemology, General Ethics, Applied Ethics, Political Philosophy and Aesthetics. He then breaks these areas down into specific questions covering the great controversies in each area, usually going from general to specific, as he lays the foundation for a later question in a prior answer. In the area of Logic, for example, Kreeft starts with whether philosophy is "still rightly defined as the love of wisdom" and ends with "whether symbolic logic is superior to Aristotelian logic for philosophizing?"

The great thing about Kreeft's book is that it is pure philosophy. What Kreeft provides are the "naked" arguments on the key questions of the important topics. Rather than offering a historical retrospective, which follows the evolution of a controversy through time and which relies on tying particular positions to particular philosophers, Kreeft goes directly to the arguments. There is no historical retrospective here; very few philosophers are identified by name, except in passing. Instead the focus is on the clash of ideas, which, for beginners, and for apologists, and lovers of wisdom, is where philosophy ought to begin.

The philosophical positions staked out are very much those of Peter Kreeft. Consequently, we get very pragmatic answers to pragmatically phrased questions. For example, in responding to the argument that the order in the cosmos is not teleological since "simpler explanations are to be preferred to more complex ones," i.e., Ockham's Razor or the principle of parsimony (Q.IV, a.1), Kreeft writes: "Ockham's Razor is a good methodological principle for modern science, but it is not a good ontological principle; for the real universe, as distinct from scientific explanations, is much fuller than it needs to be. There is no need for ostriches. Yet they exist." (Q. IV, a.1.)

Badda-boom, badda-bing.

Perfect Kreeft - simple, succinct and with a startling zing.

Kreeft's Summa is decidedly not academic; there are no footnotes and few references. But it does provide a way of entering into the key philosophical topics from Kreeft's Thomistic perspective. It makes for good, casual reading that one can dip into on specific topics, and is a pretty good manual for a survey of the arguments for and against a broad variety of positions. I think that it would make for a good discussion starting tool, whether in the school or a philosophy club. (Or for that matter, for anyone who wants a good source for pragmatic, Thomistic apologetic arguments.)

Clearly, the reader's satisfaction with the substance of Kreeft's arguments may vary depending on how much they "buy into" Kreeft's pragmatic, Thomistic approach to philosophy. However, I don't think that Kreeft's philosophical perspective should dissuade anyone from reading or using the book. Rather, it ought to challenge them to respond to Kreeft's arguments in as rational, logical and lucid a way as Kreeft outlines his position.

Don't be deceived- this slender green hardback, just barely two hundred pages, is a monster. Peter Kreeft could not have written this in his early or mid-career. It is both more rigorous than his earlier writings, and amazingly, at the same time, the style is more fluid, and funnier, too. You know your mind is tired of real thinking, real syllogistic exercise, when you can only get through several articles in here, and already have to take a break.

This one not only compiles a career of acquired wisdom, and contains many of Kreeft's favorite quotes that are commonly given in his many audio lectures, it also contains some totally novel quotes and arguments. I should know- I have read most of his 60 books and listened to every lecture available online. (twice). It is humbling to have to go back again and again to a writer who seems to offer so much. It's so much easier to say, I've already read a few books by so and so, what else could he possibly say? Kreeft it seems has so much to say because he allows the classics to speak through him. He has humbled himself before the masters, and adroit in quoting them.

The best overview of philosophy I've ever seen. Puts any intro philosophy text to shame. A true work of erudition. And a syllogistic workout. (Reading the Objections before reading the 'I answer that' is especially a workout.)

Right up there with his best books: in my opinion, Christianity for Modern Pagans, Socratic Logic, The Best Things in Life, Handbook of Christian Apologetics.

 C. S. Lewis once wrote that “The Lord of the Rings” was a type of intellectual mouthwash (The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 3: Narnia, Cambridge, and Joy, 1950 - 1963 3:881). Kreeft's “Summa Philosophica” serves the same purpose. Or maybe a type of “head cleaner” (pun intended) may be a better description.

Kreeft revives the medieval quaestio debate format, most familiar for anyone who has read Aquinas's Summas. Once you are familiar with the structural convention (like a sonnet or a limerick), it's a smooth read.

Despite following the medieval format, the subject matter is contemporary, even current.

(Think of it this way—we describe semiconductors and space stations using letters that originated in Rome, and before that, Phoenicia.)

So, whatever you think about philosophic issues, or even about philosophy itself, you'll surely find an argument for or against something you like.

As to the specific content, there is the table of contents, and if you are not familiar with Kreeft, he's a Roman Catholic philosopher. So, if you like C. S. Lewis, Tolkien, Ravi Zacharias, or R. J. Sproul, you'll like this book.

Personally, as a Latter-day Saint, I agree with most of what Kreef asserts (differing on such obvious things such as Christology, sacramental nature of marriage, infant baptism, Marianism, ex nihilo creation/ontology, etc.—though this book is mostly about the god and theology of the philosophers, and not any sect of Christianity). Consequently, this book has helped clarify my thinking on overlapping issues.

How well this book would work with a non-Christian is debatable. As Descartes observed in Discourse on Method, “I found that, as for logic, its syllogisms and the majority of its other precepts are of avail—rather in the communication of what we already know, or even as the art of Lully, in speaking without judgment of things of which we are ignorant, than in the investigation of the unknown.”

I recommend this book. Borrow a copy of you are hesitant about paying full price. As for me, I am on my third rereading—if that is any indication.