Philosophy Appendix: Philosophers enthralled by material progress lose their role in society.
1. During the academic year 1936-37, the French philosopher Etienne Gilson was invited by the Philosophy Department of the University of Harvard to give a series of lectures honoring the memory of William James. The subject was “The Unity of Philosophical Experience.” In this series he outlined and discussed the ideas of different philosophers throughout the last millennium. In November 1937 those lectures were published under the same title. This interesting book—I recommend you read it—shows clearly the philosophers’ work, the product of their philosophical inquiries and also how their conclusions depend on the starting point: when they ignore metaphysics, philosophy disappears. It would seem that many modern and contemporary philosophers lost their way and they come back to scepticism again and again. (1)
2. In a High School textbook Historia Sencilla de la Filosofia (Simplified History of Philosophy) published in 1961 by Rafael Gambra, professor of the University of Madrid, you find the same idea but it is written at high school level. He pointed out two characteristics of the philosophical work of the modern and contemporary philosophers. The first is a tendency to reduce superior and more complex orders to the inferior, until you reach mathematics, which is purely rational. For example, it reduces religion to psychological phenomena, psychology to physiology, physiology to physics, and in the end physics to mathematics: the absolutely rational order of knowledge. The second characteristic is the goal of unlimited progress: humanity must always advance finding at the end the total knowledge of reality. He concludes: When they ignore metaphysics, philosophy disappears. (2)
3. Let us take time to see in brief what happened in history. Descartes started a new era in philosophy: Modern and Contemporary Times. He was a fine, well- educated man with a brilliant mind. He was not a monk, or a priest or someone tied to religious schools of thinking like many other philosophers in the centuries just before him. His influence is still with us four hundred years later.
4. The great French philosopher René Descartes, an outstanding mathematician and philosopher, was born in 1596 into a noble family. He invented what we call “Cartesian Coordinates” which revolutionized mathematics in analytic geometry, calculus, algebra, graph function, astronomy, physics-mathematics, engineering and so on. We still use many of his assertions in mathematics and physical sciences. He was looking for reliable knowledge –“justified true belief”– in a time of scepticism. He intended to reduce all knowledge to the certainty of mathematics. In other words, he moved the departing point of philosophical knowledge from metaphysics to mathematics. His goal was to apply the mathematics method to philosophy in his inquiry for the truth.
5. Many others followed the same intellectual route. After him came Nicolas de Malebranche, Barush Spinoza… and another great mathematician who was also a philosopher: Gottfried W. Leibniz (b. Leipzig 1646). Leibnitz invented calculus at the same time Newton invented it. His work in mathematics endures in calculus, differential equations, etc. He also had a Doctorate in Law. He wrote many works on philosophy with the same Cartesian Spirit: he left aside metaphysics and based his conclusions on mathematics and physics.
6. There was another view: the practical perception of reality in the British philosophers; the empiricist view. The name describes very well the perceived difference between its founder the English philosopher, Francis Bacon, and René Descartes, a Frenchman and rationalist. Thomas Hobbes, in the next generation, was also an empiricist.
7. In the generations which followed, David Hume professed scepticism in the middle of the 18th century. Another Scot, the Franciscan William of Ockham had come to the same conclusion 300 years before him. It was just a question of time before the most desperate position emerged once more: it is not possible to have knowledge of reality. This view was not just sceptic, but nihilistic
8. The situation was not easy for anyone who seriously wanted to find a way to leave the dead end of scepticism. There was a serious duty: to look for the most important activity of reason—that is, knowledge of truth. Is it a place for philosophy? Can we really know what reality is? Let us briefly review the period of about two centuries before the Council.
9. We will begin with Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) a German philosopher and central figure in modern philosophy. He began his reflections in the middle of a world of sceptic philosophers and the amazing growing world of mathematical and physical scientists such as Newton. He was enthralled by the solidity of Newton’s scientific discoveries. He developed his philosophy based on the physical model of the world according to the natural science revolution of his time. He built his research in philosophy on the scientific method used in the physical sciences. (3)
10. Descartes and Leibnitz were exceptional scientists and they knew exactly what the experimental scientific method meant. Kant was different. He was a philosopher. He studied in the university and earned his degrees in philosophy and stayed there as professor of philosophy, where he worked for the rest of his life. Experimental sciences were not his profession. He wrote about some interesting subjects in experimental sciences, but they were not his field.
11. In Kant’s early work in philosophy, published in 1763, it is possible to see how he formed his research method. Inquiry Concerning the Clearness of Principles in Natural Theology and Ethics (4) shows his view about what happened with the declining philosophy of his time and the extraordinary development of experimental sciences, and showed what would be his philosophical method. The scientific investigation method, particularly Newtonian physics, was solid, but it didn’t work with subjects such as metaphysics, ethics, law or religion. For him, these subjects didn’t get their solidity from the evidence of their conclusions, but from the importance of their subjects. Mathematical methodology showed it did not work with those subjects. He found his own philosophical method liberating him from the mathematicism of Descartes’ method. What is important here is that he was not shifting from mathematics to philosophy; rather from mathematics to physics as the method for philosophy. He began a Physicism Philosophical Era (5), to use another Gilson neologism.
12. According to Kant, “Human concepts and categories structure our view of the world and its laws, and that reason is the source of morality. His thought continues to hold a major influence in contemporary thought, especially in fields such as metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics.” (6)
13. Kant’s major work, about human knowledge, The Critique of Pure Reason (7), came 18 years later, in 1781. He wanted to bring reason together with experience and to move beyond what he took to be failures of traditional philosophy and metaphysics. He hoped to end an age of speculation where objects outside experience were seen to support what he considered futile theories, even while he opposed the scepticism of thinkers such as Hume. (8)
14. For him, there was always conflict between philosophy and universal human reason: when the existence of things outside us should have to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it occurred to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with satisfactory proof.
15. Kant proposed: “Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but … let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition.” (9)
16. In simple terms, Kant pointed out that we all shape our experience of things through the filter of our mind. The mind shapes that experience, and among other things, Kant believed the concepts of space and time were set in us, as was the notion of cause and effect. We never have direct experience of things as they are and what we do experience is the phenomenal world as conveyed by our senses.
17. Kant published other important works on ethics, religion, law, aesthetics, astronomy, and history. These included The Critique of Practical Reason (10), The Metaphysics of Morals (11), and The Critique of Judgment (12). In these other works we can see how fragmented his thinking was. He could not deny the soul, god, freedom, love, etc. He worked to give explanations but they did not stand the test of time. He rejected the possibility of metaphysics. When he decided to reject metaphysics he also decided, indirectly, that his way of thinking would not have unity. These subjects had no place in his Critique of Pure Reason, but they could not be denied and he put forward a practical way to accommodate them. In other words, he included them in a practical materialistic vision of reality.
18. Kant aimed to resolve disputes between empirical and rationalist approaches. The empirical asserted that all knowledge comes through experience; the rationalist maintained that reason and innate ideas were prior. Kant responded that experience is purely subjective without first being processed by pure reason. He also said that using reason without applying it to experience leads only to theoretical illusions.
19. He is seen as a major figure in the history and development of philosophy. German and European thinkers were much influenced by his work in his own time. They remain influenced and his work still inspires philosophers today.
20. We can see in Kant’s work how far Descartes’ method went. Submitting philosophy to mathematics, Descartes’ philosophy method passed, and with it his first followers in philosophy. He paved the way, which so many took after him and continue to take with the same result: they submitted philosophy to other sciences instead of having it be their guide. But as a mathematician, Descartes led the way. It was his field; he absolutely succeeded in mathematics.
21. Kant’s ideas influenced many thinkers in Germany during his lifetime. He settled and moved philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists and empiricists. Philosophers as Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer amended and developed the Kantian system, thus bringing about various forms of German idealism some of which have supported ideologies such as Marxism.
22. The 19th and 20th centuries were a turbulent time in world history. There were many questions and many controversial ways of thinking within a society anxious for permanent answers. People wanted permanent truth; they were beyond partial and continuously changing answers supporting new ideologies, which supported clashes in societies and between countries.
23. The free and proper exercise of reason by the individual was a theme both of the Enlightenment, including the philosophers of the French Revolution, and of Kant’s approaches to the various problems of philosophy. Some moved to extremes and, in some way, they followed the way initiated by Kant.
24. In the mid19th century John Stuart Mill expressed, perhaps, the most extreme version of empiricism: some name him utilitarian. For him, matter is the “permanent possibility of sensation”. His empiricism went further: induction is necessary for all meaningful knowledge including mathematics. Mathematical truths were merely very highly confirmed generalizations from experience. Mathematical inference is generally conceived as deductive and found first in nature. In his view, logical and mathematical necessity is psychological. For him, we cannot conceive possibilities other than logical and mathematical propositions. There was no real place for knowledge based on relation of ideas. He came to the same dead end: scepticism.
25. Yet, another way of thinking was emerging. There were philosophers who believed philosophy is the science of “why”, the science that inquires for the first causes of nature—and particularly for us human beings—in other words, for metaphysics. Apparently, some of them understood the good of progress in natural and social sciences, but did not give up the search for deeper answers. They stayed on the right track in the midst of so many voices talking about philosophies rather than Philosophy.
26. I have to say that there have always been philosophers who kept metaphysics as the foundation of their works. Some universities and institutes in the world deserve particular mention. For example, the University of Leuven in Belgium, the University of Munich and the University of Tubingen in Germany, the University of Notre Dame in USA, etc.
27. I particularly want to mention Henri Bergson (1859-1941), a professor at the Sorbonne, who was able to write in such a way that ordinary people wanted to read his books. He worked through various ways of thinking. He started as a positivist. Then, he developed a real philosophical environment in which current themes of interest were discussed in depth. He tried to maintain philosophy answers from the First Causes, not just how this or that works. He left a great legacy for future generations. He did not give up.
28. In some catholic universities there was an interest in maintaining scholastic philosophy. Aeterni Patris, the encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII, renewed interest in Thomism (the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas). Some intellectuals produced interesting studies in the years before the Council: Fr. Sertillange and Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange in Rome. Fr. Cornelio Fabro, who studied certain areas related to philosophy, theology and religion, deserves special mention. Fabro also wrote so much on the history of philosophy which is especially valuable for those studying the 16th to 20th century philosophers. But there were also some who remained tied to the old ways and were reluctant to respond to the needs of the times, adhering to the old-fashioned ways of thinking and teaching. (13)
29. There were deep thinking metaphysicians among the independent philosophers: Jacques Maritain, Etienne Gilson. We will return to them later in this series of Conversations. For now, it is enough to know they gave a new refreshing insight to intellectuals of the 20th century.
30. American philosophers have made significant contributions. William James (1842-1910), is well known in many circles as the founder of pragmatism. Other Americans who thought the same way: Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914), Josiah Royce (1855-1916), John Dewey (1859-1952), George Santayana (1863-1952), have given us very practical insights.
31. The best representative of the British philosophers is the liberal philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell who worked from the beginning of the 20th century to 1970. He is called “one of the founders of analytic philosophy”. He expressed his ideas very clearly. His work is consistent with the way of thinking found in British philosophy. He wrote about many topics and analyzed different facts and situations in his lifetime in a pragmatic way. (14)
32. Bertrand Russell’s contribution to philosophy was prolific and of his own kind. It is evident in his History of Western Philosophy […]. (15) Right from the preface you know you are reading a different kind of thinker: smart and direct. He gives his opinions about the philosophers he describes. You could say that he presents a Philosophy of the History of Philosophy written in the last years of his life; that it is the mature fruit of his long life. It was published when he was almost 90 years old. It is written in very elegant English.
33. A good work showing predominant philosophy in the British and American cultural environment, in the years before the Council, showed us that without metaphysics we lean again toward relativism. The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870 – 1945, published in 2003. (16) After a short, very well written historical introduction, we read the index and discover there is no philosophy any more. The concept of “friends of wisdom” was changed in the British and American world to a “cultural practical concept”—that is, good to represent how people think about art, psychology, politics, science (philosophy is not a science any more), legal theories, religion, etc. There is a chapter called “Knowledge, Language, and the end of Metaphysics”. I think it was not the goal of the author to come to that conclusion, but we can see that they were reduced to scepticism in the end.
34. A study of other world philosophy is beyond the limits of this discussion, but for our Western Civilization it is an essential part. Philosophy underpins Western Civilization.
35. In the 20th century, Philosophy broke down as a discipline and was pushed into a corner in many Western universities and schools. The interest in the formation of students shifted to emphasize job training. It took the form of good talk sessions in the social sciences, for example, which essentially discouraged confidence in reason as the way to address and answer the real questions about who we are; our origin and existence; questions about life and death, family and nationality, life after death… and have brought us to the point where we have no basis for knowing anything for certain.
36. There were always those brilliant minds which continued inquiry on the true path, but they were a minority and they were frequently silenced by the majority voice and social trends, such as the rapid growth of business, social sciences and technology.
37. Society missed the input of those who think deeply about reality and look for permanent answers. When we have no permanent values, there are, consequently, no ethics. Relativism and Nihilism are the result and a dead end for reason and are, in the long run, a threat to humanity. We are seeing this right now in society. It is the result of replacing, “why” questions with “how” questions and answers.
38. We come to the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st in the middle of a jungle of theories about who we are, what is the meaning of life, what is ethics… Is the death penalty reasonable, after and before birth? To organize a war, terrorism, torture…? Is it honest to invest in profitable weapon manufacturers’ companies or abusive pharmaceutical companies…? It is commonplace for “experts”, giving a presentation on one subject, to extend the exposition to include how to do something or to offer opinions and even to come forward to represent and organize our society. One example may illustrate the point: the book Benjamin, Martin. Philosophy & This Actual World. An Introduction to Practical Philosophical Inquiry, 2003. Just the name gives you an idea of where the author is going. (17)
39. In the last 60 years, we have seen the situation going to extremes. The decline in some areas led to extreme pragmatism: a way of seeing the human being, family and society in education, politics, economy, and particularly strongly in ethics. It is extremely clear in bioethics, business and communications to such an extent that technology and the market are taking over, and are ruling our lives. On the other hand, the dictatorship of political organizations rules the lives of countries and individuals, denying essential human rights, supporting or organizing wars, etc. When the human person disappeared, and is just an individual, a vote, or a party member… there are no more permanent values. Everything we value: law and family, for example, needs to adapt and adapt again and again, to changes that suit the pragmatic insights of the moment according to the rulers of organizations, communities and countries. Everything becomes relative. There are no more permanent values; just changing theories. We live in a very challenging time. I like the challenge of our times! We have such an opportunity to improve our society through the search for truthful values and the building of our society!
—————–
Notes 1 Gilson, Étienne. The Unity of Philosophical Experience. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999. Cited in the following pages as Gilson. 2 Gambra, Rafael. Historia Sencilla de la Filosofía. Madrid: Rialp, 1961. 3 The work in the History of Philosophy Johannes Hirschberger (as cited at the end of this appendix) is the best guide to follow his life and works. The best way to understand why he came to his conclusion is in Gilson’s book in the chapter “The Phisycism of Kant”. For easy references see Wikipedia. 4 Untersuchung über die Deutlichkeit der Grundsätze der natürlichen Theologie und der Moral, 1763. 5 cf Gilson pp. 179-189. 6 cf Wikipedia last modified version on 26 September 2013 of Kant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant. Note taken from Immanuel Kant (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Plato.stanford.edu. 20 May 2010. Retrieved 2011-10-22. 7 Critic der reinen Vernunft, 1781. 8 cf Wikipedia last modified version on 26 September 2013 of Kant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant. Cited in the following pages as Wikipedia Kant.Wikipedia 9 cf Kant. 10 As cited by Wikipedia Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, 1788. 11 Die Metaphysik der Sitten, 1797. As cited by Wikipedia 12 Kritik der Urteilskraft, 1790. As cited by Wikipedia 13 Fabro, Cornelio. God in Exile. A Study of the Internal Dynamic of Modern Atheism. Originally published as Introduzione all’ Ateismo Moderno.1964. Translated and edited by Gibson, Arthur. Toronto: University of St. Michael’s College, 1968. 14 Wikipedia last modified version on 24 September 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell 15 Russell, Bertrand. History of Western Philosophy and its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1961. 16 Baldwin, Thomas. The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870 – 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 17 Here is the link: http://books.google.ca/books/about/Philosophy_and_this_Actual_World.html?id=4GA72P-d720C&redir_esc=y
Works Cited If you are interested in the subject, I strongly recommend you read Gilson’s book. You will find a very good analysis with more than enough information about different ways of departing from philosophy, while still thinking you are doing philosophy.
Gilson, Étienne. The Unity of Philosophical Experience. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999.
For references to a certain author, the following books can give you more information. All of these works were published before the Second Vatican Council.
Hirschberger, Johannes. The History of Philosophy. Originally published as Geschichte der Philosophie. Translated by Rt. Rev. Anthony N. Fuerst, S.T.D. With a Section on American Philosophical Thought and the Western Tradition. By Donald A. Gallagher. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1959.
Bréhier, Émile. The History of Philosophy. Originally published as Histoire de la philosophie: Vol. 5 in 1930 and Vol. 6 in 1932. Translated by Baskin Wade. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967; 1968.
Gambra, Rafael. Historia Sencilla de la Filosofía. Madrid: Rialp, 1961.
Fabro, Cornelio. God in Exile. A Study of the Internal Dynamic of Modern Atheism. Originally publish as Introduzione all’ Ateismo Moderno.1964. Translated and edited by Gibson, Arthur. Toronto: University of St. Michael’s College, 1968.
Russell, Bertrand. History of Western Philosophy and its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1961.
Comments