Thomas Aquinas

Rating:
Summary: I decided to write this review...
Review: ... in order to stand and be counted but I must say that the other reviewers pretty much said it all. There is little analysis of the thought of Aquinas in this book. What's worse is that the book isn't a well reasoned critique on Aquinas' thought but rather a short burst of ranting and ravings, often resorting to cheap personal attacks.
I'm sure we're all just a little bit dumber after reading this book.

Rating:
Summary: Of very little value
Review: I agree with all the previous reviews. I had just finished G.K. Chesterton's book on Aquinas. Chesterton is a marvelous writer, but being a devout Catholic, he assumed the reader would know Aquinas' philosophy. I picked up this book to learn more. I didn't. Strathern constantly sacrificed his point for the sake of cruel witticisms. Other than a bit of history about Aquinas' life, I came away with the impression that Strathern: (a) considers Catholics beneath contempt: (b) believes the people of Medieval times have nothing to say to us (c) is so embittered toward Christianity that he can scarcely bear to credit it with any good. More than anything, this book irritated me because it never gives the basic points of Aquinas' philosophy. Even when granting Aquinas' intellect reluctant praise, Strathern doesn't elaborate on why Thomas was brilliant. I agree with the other reviewer who wondered if Strathern had even read Thomas Aquinas. If all the books in the series are this bad, I won't waste my time.

Rating:
Summary: A different take
Review: I disagree with the previous five raters for this item.

First of all, look at the goal of the book. It is meant to be a brief introduction, not a comprehensive survey. No one will be an Aquinas scholar after reading the book, but no one should expect to. It's a reasonable introduction to his life and times and I learned a few things from it. It's a good perspective.

Second of all, the author may not have much good to say about Catholicism, but very few authors and academicians these days have much good to say about any Western religion.

Third, his writing style is a bit snide at times, but the alternative is a dry style that few people will read.

My major criticism is that the book is a bit short on his actual philosophy and a bit too long on the times he lived in. I do think his Timeline on Philosophy and the life of Aquinas was very useful, and his brief description of the philosopher's last days was downright charming.

Perhaps a better brief source on Aquinas would be the section in Will and Ariel Durant's series on the Story of Civilization.

By way of background, I have an M.A. in Philosophy and a doctorate in antother field.