I’ve been a member here since inception and hardly recall him being mentioned. I’ve read some references to him and articles about him, but he’s one of those philosophers whose work is so voluminous that it would require considerable reading to get a start. Others may have a different view of course. That said, if you could point to something pithy and on-point I’d be more than happy to read it.

Never heard of him before looking it up, but it sounds like the theories have some strong applicability in the modern world in terms of providing a possible foundational structure to develop a general AI.

hmm, not-sure there's anything pithy that he wrote, unless it's an introduction to his major works like Insight and Method. For me, his 1972 Method in Theology was useful for describing "scientific" method (i.e., methods that result in knowledge, from the Latin root *scientia*). Using the categories of subjective operations and objective outcomes he explains, in three levels, the combinations of collecting data or evidence, interpreting ideas or meaning, and verifying (or falsifying!) fact or knowledge. At this time, in the field of physics education at least, the dominating ideology was that facts simply are objects. Lonergan demonstrates how you can't have science without the scientist.

Lonergan demonstrates how you can't have science without the scientist. — theThomist

As did Edmund Husserl. Any similarities there?

you bet! If you like Husserl then you are in a good position to evaluate if Lonergan improves on the general landscape of phenomenology, and the particular features of realism, naive realism and critical realism. thanks for writing!

If you like Husserl then you are in a good position to evaluate if Lonergan improves on the general landscape of phenomenology, and the particular features of realism, naive realism and critical realism. thanks for writing! — theThomist

Hey I'm open to what you're saying, but you're not giving us much to go on! How about, put together an OP - have a look in https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/44/help first particularly Creating an OP, and Forum Tips and Tricks - and then maybe link to an article or introductory text.

Thanks, maybe I'll post something about the nature of science, cheers.

@theThomist,

Will be keeping a look out for more.

encouraging smile

I am aware of him because I've read a number of articles put out by the Lonergan Institute. However, I didn't even know what the group was named for until yesterday when I was looking at one of the detailed summaries of one of D.C. Schindler's books and decided to check. The coincidence must be a sign that I should check him out.

Sounds up my alley. I am fairly familiar with St. Thomas, although approaches to St. Thomas are pretty varied. Those I am most familiar with tend to emphasize his connection to the earlier Augustinian tradition, similarities to St. Bonaventure, Dante's fusion of St. Thomas, more strictly Augustinian voices, and Islamic "Neo-Platonists," and the continuities from Aristotle as received by late-antiquity through Plotinus, Porphyry, etc. I have read other takes that tend to focus on different areas (or rarely, even set up St. Bonaventure and St. Thomas as opposite poles, opponents even). I don't think I have encountered "transcendental Thomism," in any depth before though.

I would take that as a sign. When I was studying history in college, I heard-about Voegelin in a class on the history of historians. A few years later I found myself at a library shelf holding Gene Webb's Philosophers of Consciousness; one of whom was Voegelin and another Lonergan. This fortuitous encounter was significant because Gene was teaching at the UW and I benefited from his generosity. I found, like Dante with Statius, that Voegeln was salvific, but Lonergan was saved.

Gene Webb's Philosophers of Consciousness; — theThomist

:chin: