"Father I have sinned, it has been many years since I was last at confession..."
It has been perhaps 5 years since I last read John Paul II's penetrating encyclical, Fides et Ratio. With its memorable image of the dove (or was it just a bird?) balanced in flight by the harmony of two wings, J-P II draws an analogy to the balanced rise and fall of faith and reason. Not having the text at hand, I recall that the polish phenomenologist was drawing the inference that truth is balance between the complementary activities of faith and reason. Perhaps a more detailed look at this poetic analogy will help us to gather light on the life of the soul and 'psychological realism'.
Let us begin with realism. Not having in mind any other thinkers take on realism, yet informed by the realistic philosophies of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and even Wittgenstein, I am interested in thinking through realism to its essential depth or depth of essence, which is another way of saying 'truth'! I may or may not touch upon other philosophers thoughts, what is crucial to me is the 'thinking through' and not the commenting upon, if you will.
Realism, etymologically is drawn from the latin word, 'res'-which translates "matter" or "thing"---in latin use this term is one of the most general and yet concrete terms. In its substantive use 'realitas' the term reveals an immutability of things --- the way things are. The term also refers to a legal matter or 'case'. In historical thought the term realism has its heyday in late Medieval writing---in fact the dissolution of the medieval mindset into the via moderna is highlighted by a radical division in philosophy between the nominalist Wm of Ockham and an ultra-realist such as Henry of Ghent (Jos Decorte's lecture notes). A great deal more could be said about this debate and the question whether 'universals' are mental shorthand (nomina) or actual existing things (realities).
However for the sake of thinking through the meaning of realism, I will not belabor historical debates concerning the myriad views taken (history of ideas) but rather engage to think through the matter (res) under discussion as best as I am able with the power of my own wings. Having made this proviso, I shall take liberty to either use or discard the thoughts of my philosophical predecessors as the quest at hand determines and demands.
Reality is 'banked' or guaranteed by something that is superlatively real---infinitely dense, in Aquinas' case---'ens realissimum' ("most real being", or "highest being"). This term is an epithet of God and is not per se metaphorical... but rather 'univocal'---in other words it speaks directly to the truth of the phenomenon under discussion---once more the 'res'. It is well known that the angelic doctor was fond of thinking in terms of hierarchies of being---the thing ('res'), the reality, if you will, and then higher 'levels' of things ('realiora': ex. angels) and finally a bedrock of most real being 'ens realissimum': God). The upshot of the nominalist/realist debate may seem trivial depending upon which substance is under discussion. If it is the question of whether 'angel' is a mere vocal utterance (nominalist) or an actual substance makes a big difference if one's entire worldview surrounds angelic intelligence and action as in Thomas. And the stakes are obviously higher if you are discussing God!
Realism, then, or the quality of being real is the guarantor of the truth of the thing. Perhaps this sounds strange to my contemporaries for whom philosophy no longer designates the love of wisdom or the quest for truth but refers to an academic discipline or even a literary genre---in the former sense---a venerable and ancient humanistic study, but unum ex pluribus. There are others: law, medicine, and in the contemporary academy women studies, hermeneutics. In the latter sense, deconstruction, etc... Such generic quibbling is symptomatic of a people who have lost the essential sense of the philosophical act and hence presume that they philosophize as feminists, or Marxists, while their colleagues conduct an activity that is in polar opposition to theirs yet they have the civility to tolerate one another at conferences and in their hiring of the token 'whatever-ist' or 'whatever-ism'. So that even though your truth is "feminist", your opponents' view which is so liberally respected actually undermines the very premise of your "philosophy"---such bipartisanship lends itself to radical nihilization (consider American politics and the futility of democracy) because it begs the question that both opposing parties are conducting more or less the same enterprise. After all we still call a senator a 'senator' whether it is qualified by being democratic or republican. But, in truth, there are points of view that are not compatible in such a dialectic manner---and 'true' philosophy or 'real' philosophy demands a closer look!
Philosophy held to its mission of searching for truth cannot by definition commence with an agnostic or skeptical starting point. Plato's 'turning tables' argument shows that for anyone who begins by saying that there is no truth, Socrates can add, "Oh, is that true?" You see to assert anything at all implies a kind of truth or value in assertability, otherwise you can keep your mouth shut. The burden lies upon the skeptic to demonstrate to the philosopher the value of their skepticism. It follows that the skeptic or agnostic in defending the value of their thought commences to give substantive value and hence undermine their own skeptical view. Skepticism and agnosticism in such radical statement is untenable and should not be taken seriously. All of this is well known and in fact was the argument du jour in the time of Socrates---the sophists were characters who best exemplified varying forms of skeptical persuasion, stating two polar views so that the essential point under discussion is nihilized (Gorgias) and other versions of what Socrates called "making the weaker argument stronger" were the bread and butter of the Sophists, and the true philosopher embodied in Socrates makes his career by proving that these Sophists were dangerous and self-contradictory. Philosophy can be seen in this sense to mean "the effort to demonstrate or search for truth in the face of very persuasive liars." To my mind the definition still holds. The only problem in the XXIst century milieu is that the so-called practitioners of philosophy are wolves in sheeps clothing. If the only philosophers allowed to teach were the ones who pursued truth there would not be any more philosophy departments. In fact the term 'philosophy' department is an oxymoron, in the Socratic sense, as Kierkegaard well stated, because philosophy is an act of an individual seeking truth. Well it is clear that such an essential and authentic human activity could never be institutionalized, or departmentally compartmentalized! So much for this can of worms. At the end of the day academics no more love truth than they love actual labor.
On the other hand, the lover of truth may still exist in the contemporary milieu. Such a person would never conform to being a 'Blanks-ist' (Marx-ist, feminist or whatever-ist). Such a person would not even emphatically declare that they were anything else than a person searching for truth a la Socrates. Philosophy has no content or ideology, it is a verb---'to philosophize'--- and the verb means "to love sophia". Note that 'philosophare' does not mean "to think" or "to reason". It does not mean to be an expert follower of some dead thinker, or someone who holds allegiance to dogma of any sort. If it is a discipline, it is content-less.
Back to the discussion at hand: we are seeking the truth concerning 'realism'? But isn't this redundant? We are seeking the truth ('philosopherein') of realism (the idea that reality underlies truth). yes it is redundant. Nonetheless we continue in this line of inquiry because in the quest for truth one must begin somewhere. It is like an apology, no matter how sorry a lover may feel for his harsh mind, he must at some point either speak or write or in some incarnate manner express this apology. One must hitch oneself up to the question of truth and the starting point can be any phenomenon or thing ('res') at all. So, although this looks circular, to investigate realism in order to find the real, the true, nonetheless this is our way.
To substitute the epithet 'ens realissimum' for the word 'God' leads to all sorts of valuable insights and this brings us back to Fides et Ratio . Instead of inserting the term 'god' which is laden with all sorts of semiological baggage, we would do better to insert the term 'really real'. What is obtained in this transposition is an immediate grasp of philosophical realism. Truth is how things really are... Moreover faith undertakes the same quest to know how things really are insofar as they cohere in a "most high being". Hence the aptness of the two winged bird metaphor in the Holy Father's encyclical. Think through God to mean the essential core and guarantor of how things really are, the anchor of actuality. Think of this as the aim of the intellect---the discovery of the way things really are (i.e. truth). And also think of this as the goal or telos of faith---the most high and really real anchor which is necessary in order that things may cohere in reality. Now we introduce the 'ens necessarium' Thomas expression for a being which logically must precede all merely contingent beings.
I will leave you with a practical exercise: the next time you pray, do not think with the term 'God' but rather attempt to think through the meaning of this expression: "that which is really real". Granted it presupposes being...but being as such needs a guarantor of truthhood, otherwise the skeptics and Sophists' enterprise is legit. You will not win any popularity contests in the modern academy for practicing philosophy in this manner, but you will rest solid in your knowledge that your opponents and colleagues are confused and that the victory is already won for the man or woman who in faith accepts that truth is, that the battle has been won. Proceeding along this way you may then "put the puzzle" together as a realist---to put the puzzle together means that you begin to think by holding in your heart the faith that the quest you are undertaking is not doomed to futility---as is the skeptic, agnostic or ideological approach. To my mind there are some wonderful people carrying torches of this -ism or that -ism, well meaning people who have not finished thinking through their own words and meanings. If they were to do so and to join us in this undertaking they would immediately realize that their intellectual endeavors and teachings are radically confused, fragmented and ultimately self-defeating. If you will join me in thinking things through to the root to the very origin, you will rejoice in knowing that there is One in Whom all truth coheres. You will fly in truth because your intellect and faith are balanced. You will rest assured that the battle has already been won!
The careful reader my rest now that my essay is complete and yet still harbors nagging doubt---why didn't I mention the soul as promised in my title? I will leave that riddle for you to ponder. Happy thinking. I can hear the words of the priest in my ear: "Your sins are forgiven you, now go in peace." The link to John-Paul's encyclical is below.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
It has been perhaps 5 years since I last read John Paul II's penetrating encyclical, Fides et Ratio. With its memorable image of the dove (or was it just a bird?) balanced in flight by the harmony of two wings, J-P II draws an analogy to the balanced rise and fall of faith and reason. Not having the text at hand, I recall that the polish phenomenologist was drawing the inference that truth is balance between the complementary activities of faith and reason. Perhaps a more detailed look at this poetic analogy will help us to gather light on the life of the soul and 'psychological realism'.
Let us begin with realism. Not having in mind any other thinkers take on realism, yet informed by the realistic philosophies of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and even Wittgenstein, I am interested in thinking through realism to its essential depth or depth of essence, which is another way of saying 'truth'! I may or may not touch upon other philosophers thoughts, what is crucial to me is the 'thinking through' and not the commenting upon, if you will.
Realism, etymologically is drawn from the latin word, 'res'-which translates "matter" or "thing"---in latin use this term is one of the most general and yet concrete terms. In its substantive use 'realitas' the term reveals an immutability of things --- the way things are. The term also refers to a legal matter or 'case'. In historical thought the term realism has its heyday in late Medieval writing---in fact the dissolution of the medieval mindset into the via moderna is highlighted by a radical division in philosophy between the nominalist Wm of Ockham and an ultra-realist such as Henry of Ghent (Jos Decorte's lecture notes). A great deal more could be said about this debate and the question whether 'universals' are mental shorthand (nomina) or actual existing things (realities).
However for the sake of thinking through the meaning of realism, I will not belabor historical debates concerning the myriad views taken (history of ideas) but rather engage to think through the matter (res) under discussion as best as I am able with the power of my own wings. Having made this proviso, I shall take liberty to either use or discard the thoughts of my philosophical predecessors as the quest at hand determines and demands.
Reality is 'banked' or guaranteed by something that is superlatively real---infinitely dense, in Aquinas' case---'ens realissimum' ("most real being", or "highest being"). This term is an epithet of God and is not per se metaphorical... but rather 'univocal'---in other words it speaks directly to the truth of the phenomenon under discussion---once more the 'res'. It is well known that the angelic doctor was fond of thinking in terms of hierarchies of being---the thing ('res'), the reality, if you will, and then higher 'levels' of things ('realiora': ex. angels) and finally a bedrock of most real being 'ens realissimum': God). The upshot of the nominalist/realist debate may seem trivial depending upon which substance is under discussion. If it is the question of whether 'angel' is a mere vocal utterance (nominalist) or an actual substance makes a big difference if one's entire worldview surrounds angelic intelligence and action as in Thomas. And the stakes are obviously higher if you are discussing God!
Realism, then, or the quality of being real is the guarantor of the truth of the thing. Perhaps this sounds strange to my contemporaries for whom philosophy no longer designates the love of wisdom or the quest for truth but refers to an academic discipline or even a literary genre---in the former sense---a venerable and ancient humanistic study, but unum ex pluribus. There are others: law, medicine, and in the contemporary academy women studies, hermeneutics. In the latter sense, deconstruction, etc... Such generic quibbling is symptomatic of a people who have lost the essential sense of the philosophical act and hence presume that they philosophize as feminists, or Marxists, while their colleagues conduct an activity that is in polar opposition to theirs yet they have the civility to tolerate one another at conferences and in their hiring of the token 'whatever-ist' or 'whatever-ism'. So that even though your truth is "feminist", your opponents' view which is so liberally respected actually undermines the very premise of your "philosophy"---such bipartisanship lends itself to radical nihilization (consider American politics and the futility of democracy) because it begs the question that both opposing parties are conducting more or less the same enterprise. After all we still call a senator a 'senator' whether it is qualified by being democratic or republican. But, in truth, there are points of view that are not compatible in such a dialectic manner---and 'true' philosophy or 'real' philosophy demands a closer look!
Philosophy held to its mission of searching for truth cannot by definition commence with an agnostic or skeptical starting point. Plato's 'turning tables' argument shows that for anyone who begins by saying that there is no truth, Socrates can add, "Oh, is that true?" You see to assert anything at all implies a kind of truth or value in assertability, otherwise you can keep your mouth shut. The burden lies upon the skeptic to demonstrate to the philosopher the value of their skepticism. It follows that the skeptic or agnostic in defending the value of their thought commences to give substantive value and hence undermine their own skeptical view. Skepticism and agnosticism in such radical statement is untenable and should not be taken seriously. All of this is well known and in fact was the argument du jour in the time of Socrates---the sophists were characters who best exemplified varying forms of skeptical persuasion, stating two polar views so that the essential point under discussion is nihilized (Gorgias) and other versions of what Socrates called "making the weaker argument stronger" were the bread and butter of the Sophists, and the true philosopher embodied in Socrates makes his career by proving that these Sophists were dangerous and self-contradictory. Philosophy can be seen in this sense to mean "the effort to demonstrate or search for truth in the face of very persuasive liars." To my mind the definition still holds. The only problem in the XXIst century milieu is that the so-called practitioners of philosophy are wolves in sheeps clothing. If the only philosophers allowed to teach were the ones who pursued truth there would not be any more philosophy departments. In fact the term 'philosophy' department is an oxymoron, in the Socratic sense, as Kierkegaard well stated, because philosophy is an act of an individual seeking truth. Well it is clear that such an essential and authentic human activity could never be institutionalized, or departmentally compartmentalized! So much for this can of worms. At the end of the day academics no more love truth than they love actual labor.
On the other hand, the lover of truth may still exist in the contemporary milieu. Such a person would never conform to being a 'Blanks-ist' (Marx-ist, feminist or whatever-ist). Such a person would not even emphatically declare that they were anything else than a person searching for truth a la Socrates. Philosophy has no content or ideology, it is a verb---'to philosophize'--- and the verb means "to love sophia". Note that 'philosophare' does not mean "to think" or "to reason". It does not mean to be an expert follower of some dead thinker, or someone who holds allegiance to dogma of any sort. If it is a discipline, it is content-less.
Back to the discussion at hand: we are seeking the truth concerning 'realism'? But isn't this redundant? We are seeking the truth ('philosopherein') of realism (the idea that reality underlies truth). yes it is redundant. Nonetheless we continue in this line of inquiry because in the quest for truth one must begin somewhere. It is like an apology, no matter how sorry a lover may feel for his harsh mind, he must at some point either speak or write or in some incarnate manner express this apology. One must hitch oneself up to the question of truth and the starting point can be any phenomenon or thing ('res') at all. So, although this looks circular, to investigate realism in order to find the real, the true, nonetheless this is our way.
To substitute the epithet 'ens realissimum' for the word 'God' leads to all sorts of valuable insights and this brings us back to Fides et Ratio . Instead of inserting the term 'god' which is laden with all sorts of semiological baggage, we would do better to insert the term 'really real'. What is obtained in this transposition is an immediate grasp of philosophical realism. Truth is how things really are... Moreover faith undertakes the same quest to know how things really are insofar as they cohere in a "most high being". Hence the aptness of the two winged bird metaphor in the Holy Father's encyclical. Think through God to mean the essential core and guarantor of how things really are, the anchor of actuality. Think of this as the aim of the intellect---the discovery of the way things really are (i.e. truth). And also think of this as the goal or telos of faith---the most high and really real anchor which is necessary in order that things may cohere in reality. Now we introduce the 'ens necessarium' Thomas expression for a being which logically must precede all merely contingent beings.
I will leave you with a practical exercise: the next time you pray, do not think with the term 'God' but rather attempt to think through the meaning of this expression: "that which is really real". Granted it presupposes being...but being as such needs a guarantor of truthhood, otherwise the skeptics and Sophists' enterprise is legit. You will not win any popularity contests in the modern academy for practicing philosophy in this manner, but you will rest solid in your knowledge that your opponents and colleagues are confused and that the victory is already won for the man or woman who in faith accepts that truth is, that the battle has been won. Proceeding along this way you may then "put the puzzle" together as a realist---to put the puzzle together means that you begin to think by holding in your heart the faith that the quest you are undertaking is not doomed to futility---as is the skeptic, agnostic or ideological approach. To my mind there are some wonderful people carrying torches of this -ism or that -ism, well meaning people who have not finished thinking through their own words and meanings. If they were to do so and to join us in this undertaking they would immediately realize that their intellectual endeavors and teachings are radically confused, fragmented and ultimately self-defeating. If you will join me in thinking things through to the root to the very origin, you will rejoice in knowing that there is One in Whom all truth coheres. You will fly in truth because your intellect and faith are balanced. You will rest assured that the battle has already been won!
The careful reader my rest now that my essay is complete and yet still harbors nagging doubt---why didn't I mention the soul as promised in my title? I will leave that riddle for you to ponder. Happy thinking. I can hear the words of the priest in my ear: "Your sins are forgiven you, now go in peace." The link to John-Paul's encyclical is below.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
1 comment:
Your discourse touches on my own personal ruminations on the relationship between “truth” and “real.” In Italian, veritas implies that something is both true and real. The two words are interchangeable, they are one. In English, you can reason that an object, say a piece of literary fiction, or a movie, is real, but by definition not true. Or, that someone who is paranoid, to take one example, is experiencing something that exists a “res”, but that it is not real. This may seem like circular semantic quibbling, but I think it points to properties of language which inherently limit its utility in moving toward clarity, or the “light”. The principles of contradiction, identity, causation, finality, eternity, self-reference, etc.. which shows that science can not get you there – assuming that there is a desire to move toward knowing and the truth (an assumption found in both Aristotle –that man by nature is curious and wants to know and also found in JP II when he says in Fides et Ratio that “…the desire for truth is part of human nature itself. It is an innate property of human” and related to your highlighting Socrates undermining of the Sophist statement that there is no truth inherently self-contradictory).
Coming back to Fides et Ratio, accepting that man (some men) are drawn to seeking the truth, gaining clarity or entering into a state of grace is best, or rather only achieved by both reason and faith as in JPII poetic opening of his encyclical, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit
rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth -- in a word, to know himself…” A rabbit, or any other creature doesn’t need the Delphic admonition to “know yourself,” it is in man that it becomes a core principle, a principle that leads you to the “other”; it is the special province of humans that one can only come to know himself through a “communion” or conversation, interaction – use whatever term you want.
I have only just started reading Fides et Ratio, but I have already begun to appreciate the veritas splendor of JPII words. His view that Philosophy has emerged as “one of human’s most noble tasks” and that “[w]ithout wonder, men and women would lapse into deadening routine and little by little would become incapable of a life which is genuinely personal” resonates strongly. The key is that philosophical enquires, or philosophy in general, is only a resource, one that in JPII’s beliefs is to be highly valued. The degrading of philosophy that you touch on as being “departmentalized” and thereby being rendered flas also resonates strongly and true. The role that the Catholic Church has taken as the only legitimate mediator/interpreter of the “Word become incarnate” in Jesus raises other questions which would lead me thoughts at this point astray….
The statement of “that which is really real” and its presupposition of “Being” as “a guarantor of truthhood” will take some deeper contemplation than my preliminary reading of your post…in any event thanks for the link and I hope you continue with this thread of thought…
Post a Comment