"Thomophobia" or: the "Hart Complex"

David Bentley Hart is at it again, another raving diatribe against Thomists. What's he worked up about now? Here is Ed Feser's summary:

Hart’s beef with Thomists this time around is that they deny that non-human animals possess “characteristics that are irreducibly personal,” that they deny that “many beasts command certain rational skills,” and that accordingly—and worst of all, for Hart—Thomists deny that there will be “puppies in paradise.” Hart, by contrast, affirms the “real participation of animal creation . . . in the final blessedness of the Kingdom,” asserting that Heaven will be “positively teeming with fauna.”

Feser responds to Hart here. I wonder, however, whether Ed's perfectly reasonable comments will be of any use to Hart. It may be that what Hart really needs is not philosophical dialogue but therapy.

David Bentley Hart contra natural law

There has been a serious debate raging (or just “occurring” — “raging” might be too strong) over a critique of natural law theory authored by David Bentley Hart in the March issue of First Things. Edward Feser’s replies (all conveniently linked to here) in defense of classical (as opposed to “new”) natural law theory are worth reading. Actually, Feser not only defends classical natural law theory, he also points out just how confused Hart’s critique is.

Hart replies to Feser’s first reply here. Feser’s reply to Hart’s reply can be found by clicking on the second link in the above paragraph.

(This post also appears at our AMU philosophy department blog.)