Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T15:22:11.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Insight, Method and Professor Hepburn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2009

Hugo Meynell
Hugo Meynell
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy , Volume 51 , Issue 195 , January 1976 , pp. 90 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hepburn, R. W., ‘Method and Insight’, Philosophy, 48, No. 184, (April 1973). PP. 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Hepburn, p. 156.

3 Method in Theology (London 1973), p. 343Google Scholar. ‘The basic terms and relations of systematic theology will be not metaphysical, as in medieval theology, but, psychological.’ However, ‘the point to making metaphysical terms and relations not basic but derived is that a critical metaphysics results’ (my italics). Someone who took Hepburn's remarks at their face value would be surprised to find Lonergan, in a very recent paper, writing about the divine nature and attributes in the metaphysical terminology of traditional Scholasticism (Language, Truth and Meaning, edited by Philip McShane, pp. 311–312).

4 Cf. Method, Chapter I; Insight: A Study of Human Understanding (London 1957), Chapters XI–XVGoogle Scholar; Verbum: Word and Idea in Aquinas (London, 1968), Chapters I and II.Google Scholar

5 On the nature of metaphysics and its relation to the sciences, cf. Insight, pp. 390–396; and Isomorphism of Thomism and Scientific Method (Collection, London, 1967, pp. 142–151)Google Scholar.

6 Insight, p. 416.

7 Hepburn, p. 158.

8 Lonergan has distinguished four ‘transcendental precepts’; ‘Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible’ the first three are to be followed if we are to come to know the truth, the fourth in addition if we are to do what is good. Cf. Method, p. 53.

9 Insight, p. 399.

10 Method, p. 213f.

11 Cf. Insight, pp. 84–86.

12 Hepburn, p. 158.

13 Insight, Chapter XIX. Cf. Method, p. 101f.

14 Lonergan himself, in writings subsequent to Insight, has been at pains to emphasize that proof is no replacement for conversion. Cf. Method, p. 338.

15 Hepburn, p. 156.

16 Method, p. 101f.

17 Insight, Chapter XX and Epilogue.

18 Cf. Insight, Chapters VI and VII; Method, Chapter 2.

19 Insight, pp. 721–724; Method, pp. 117–118.