In Defense of Walter J. Ong's Philosophical Thought: Against Timothy Mark Chouinard's Critique
2020-09
No Thumbnail Available
View/Download File
Persistent link to this item
Statistics
View StatisticsJournal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Title
In Defense of Walter J. Ong's Philosophical Thought: Against Timothy Mark Chouinard's Critique
Authors
Published Date
2020-09
Publisher
This version was not previously published.
Type
Scholarly Text or Essay
Abstract
In my 7,300-word review essay "In Defense of Walter J. Ong's Philosophical Thought: Against Timothy Mark Chouinard's Critique," I first thoroughly elaborate how the American Jesuit Renaissance specialist and cultural historian Walter J. Ong (1912-2003; Ph.D. in English, Harvard University, 1955) of Saint Louis University developed his philosophical thought about visualist cognitive processing -- and how he never tired of referring to Eric A. Havelock's book Preface to Plato. Next, I turn to Timothy Mark Chouinard's succinctly stated critique of Havelock and Ong in his Ph.D. dissertation in English at Saint Louis University titled T. S. Eliot: A Philosophy of Communication for Literature and Speech. Because Chouinard also explicitly refers to the thought of the Canadian Jesuit philosopher and theologian Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984), I also bring Lonergan's thought into play in responding to Chouinard.
Description
See the above abstract.
Related to
Replaces
License
Collections
Series/Report Number
Funding information
N/A
Isbn identifier
Doi identifier
Previously Published Citation
This version was not previously published.
Suggested citation
Farrell, Thomas J. (2020). In Defense of Walter J. Ong's Philosophical Thought: Against Timothy Mark Chouinard's Critique. Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/216249.
Content distributed via the University Digital Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions applied by the depositor. By using these files, users agree to the Terms of Use. Materials in the UDC may contain content that is disturbing and/or harmful. For more information, please see our statement on harmful content in digital repositories.