Reaction on the Article “Is Thomistic Philosophy Relevant in Seminary Formation?” Cl. Marc Will R. Lim, SDB
It gives me hard time to react on an article written by someone whom I perceived belongs to the rule makers, standard bearers and theory setters. Having graduated from a Pontifical University run by Dominicans and with a degree afar from the course which subjects everything to critical reflection, I found myself on the verge of completely adhering. But, now after obtaining a clear purpose, to provide a clearer understanding and appreciation, I am now led to construe and not to merely concur but, to subject it with proper scrutinizing, at least to the point of providing stronger supports to the claim or to totally pose arguments that could attest its inappropriateness.
The question “Is Thomistic Philosophy relevant in Seminary Formation” does not pose simple query but rather more so it entails a deeper search for significance, the suitability in terms of the relationship between two subject matters, namely the Thomistic Philosophy and the Seminary Formation notwithstanding, of course its timeliness. These two factors are main objectives from which I am seeking to be answered so as I will remain or deviate to the conclusion of the respectable black friar.
Relevance, in accounting parlance finds its implication primarily in decision-making. Alone affects greatly a financial decision. In addition, together with timeliness it finds its fullness to give a substantial aid. However, taking them both can make precision and reliability suffer. Relevance signifies suitability considering all other factors affecting.
For example, in the decision to replace equipment that has been used for the past six years, the original cost of the equipment does not have relevance. In other words, the original cost is irrelevant or is not relevant in the decision to replace the equipment. What will have relevance are the future...