It is necessary to tell, as the author of article "That happened to a tomizm?", despite the conviction that the tomizm became obsolete, notices how it was already said in the introduction to the real work that we should not "forget about Akvinat and to provide it to historians". On it there is following prichiny17:
Absence of the conclusion allocated in the separate section is connected with that the phenomenon of a neotomizm too difficult and many-sided at once to capture it and to draw any conclusion. Besides, it seems that such conclusion and is not required - each part of work speaks for itself. That to personal opinion of the author of work, it is reflected in the material which is selected for the paper, and, partly, - in a manner of a statement of work and its structure.
In the third, the tomizm is not "system" in that sense in what this word is used in relation to other philosophical doctrines (e.g., subjectivity, materialism, idealism, positivism, etc.), i.e. is not the closed doctrine which is not capable to development, following to the principles underlain in it, and represents, in particular in connection with the doctrine about analogousnesses of life, the open explanation of reality capable to assimilation of any new truth and development in a consent with the principles, thus any of new truth does not remain beyond its limits".