The task of the Christian philosopher today

GIVEN THAT divine revelation implies certain fundamental natural truths, a question of some moment must now be raised: What should be the attitude of the Catholic philosopher now that Thomism is no longer universally identified as the only philosophy that properly corresponds to divine revelation? Before we answer this question, however, we must deal with the processes of organic growth in philosophy to which we referred in Chapter 3. Philosophy begins with direct contact with being The principal prerequisite for discovering significant philosophical truth is an unprejudiced analysis of the intelligible data of the cosmos. All philosophical discovery begins with genuine wonder and questioning, and demands a readiness to listen to the voice of being in all its intelligible manifestations. It is this contact with being that is manifested in the history of philosophy whenever great insights are achieved, such as Plato's discovery of two different forms of knowledge in the Meno, Aristotle's discoveries in logic in his Organon, or St. Augustine's distinction between uu (use) and frui (enjoyment).
Philosophy completes incomplete truths An intuitive contact with "the given," a constantly renewed consultation of reality, also produces that more modest real growth in philosophical knowledge which occurs each time an incomplete truth finds completion. We must again emphasize that an incomplete truth is in no way an error, nor can it be termed a "relative" truth. An incomplete truth is as true as a complete truth, even though it still calls for completion. The statement that "the morally good is a value and not merely subjectively satisfying" is true although it is incomplete since it does not indicate the specific nature of moral values or show what distinguishes them from intellectual and aesthetic values. Numerous examples of such incomplete truths can be given, all absolutely true notwithstanding their incompleteness. The act of completing incomplete truths may take diverse forms. It may appear as a further differentiation, a greater specification, or even the perception of new distinctions within the framework of an already conquered truth. It may take the form of a discovery of another aspect of a being. Sometimes it involves delving deeper into a realm of being and continuing former insights, but seeing heretofore unseen complexities and ramifications. This kind of development can sometimes be found in the lifework of an individual philosopher, as well as in the entire history of philosophy. Philosophy disentangles truth from errors A third important process in the growth of philosophy is the disentangling of a formerly discovered truth from errors connected with it. Thus, Plato's great epistemological discovery in the Meno is allied to such errors as the pre-existence of the soul. Freeing this great truth from error by showing there is no necessary connection between them would represent a real advance in philosophy. Kant's discovery of the difference between a hypothetical and a categorical obligation and his explicit emphasis on the categorical character of moral obligation is a very important insight, but he linked it with the unfortunate formalism of the categorical imperative and thereby severed all morality from the value on the object side. This case, too, calls for disentangling truth from error.

Philosophy replaces weak arguments with strong ones A fourth process of growth in philosophy involves replacing weak arguments for an important truth with convincing ones. This is an especially urgent work, for as we have seen, many naively believe that significant insights are false because the arguments that have been advanced in their support are not valid. Philosophy unmasks fundamental errors A fifth process consists in the unmasking of fundamental errors that have barred the way to truth throughout the history of philosophy. This is sometimes done by showing the equivocal nature of a term, as Edmund Husserl did when he showed that the term judgment simultaneously signifies the personal, conscious act of affirmation and the sentence composed of subject, predicate, and copula indeed, two radically different entities. These hints show that growth in attaining philosophical truth is neither automatic nor governed by the rhythm of thesis, an-tithesis, and synthesis. As we saw, although this rhythm may sometimes be found in the course of history, a synthesis need not by any means be nearer the truth than the preceding "stages" and, in fact, may be even further from the truth. It is against the background of this analysis that we must pursue the question of the attitude the Catholic philosopher should adopt today. Wrong as it was to remain imprisoned in a strict Thomistic system and fight as error every philosophical thesis that did not fit into this system, bad as it was to believe that all philosophical questions could be answered by Thomism, it is yet much worse to react as do many types of progressive Catholic philosophers.
Some moderns abandon Thomism for relativism

There is first of all the one who, the moment his belief in Thomism as the ultimate word in philosophy is shattered, suffers a traumatic disillusionment. His belief in philosophical truth as such is undermined and he becomes more or less a relativist. Instead of disentangling the great insights of St. Thomas from various imperfections, instead of confronting everything with the plenitude of being and thus completing the discoveries of St. Thomas with new distinctions and new differentiations, he becomes an historical relativist. This is the opposite of greater open-tnindedness. This is to ape the man who, having been disappointed in love, now despairs of the possibility of any woman's being faithful.
Some moderns embrace false philosophies

A second type is the man who exchanges his wholesale acceptance of the Thomistic system for an equally wholesale acceptance of a philosophy such as that of Heidegger, Hegel, Kant, or even Freud. Such a man does not despair of the possibility of attaining philosophical truth, but rather yields to a modern system of philosophy with the same uncritical and self-surrendering abandon that possessed him when he occupied the fortress of Thomism. However, the philosophy to which he gives himself now is a complete error and in its very foundation incompatible with the Christian faith. Instead of doing second-hand thinking based on great Catholic thinkers, he now does second-hand thinking based on mistaken secular thinkers. Apart from the fact that he continues to do second-hand thinking (manifesting thereby a regrettable conservative tendency), the life of his spirit undergoes a profound change. He now seeks shelter in

thought that actually tempts him to contradict the truths of divine revelation. One can apply to such a person the words of the Gospel: ".. . and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first." (M att. 1 2 :4 5 ). Some moderns mix Thomism with false philosophies A third type of contemporary Catholic philosopher believes that he can overcome a narrow Thomism by making a concoction of Thomas and Kant, or Hegel, or some other influential modern thinker. He fails to see that the former narrowness did not result from the content of Thomism, but from the erroneous belief that one can find an answer to everything in the consistency of a closed system. Defense of the system often replaced consultation of reality. The proper remedy is an unprejudiced approach to "the given," not the admixture of another system with Thomism. The reaction of this third type also overlooks the absolute incompatibility of the new ingredients with divine revelation. The mission of the modern Catholic philosopher The proper response of the Catholic philosopher today requires a deeply reverent and organic contact with the great insights of traditional philosophy coupled with the continual consultation of the plenitude of being, as he attempts to complete the great truths conquered in the past with further corrections, differentiations, and insights.38
38 We have exemplified the task of the contemporary philosopher with respect to ethics in a lecture delivered at Catholic University: "When the ideas of a great philosopher have formed a school and taken on the character of a closed system that can be taught like a textbook, the members of such a school do not even do justice to the master whose disciples they claim to be. Because of the love for a system as such, they are led to overlook several important insights of the master which do not fit into this system. "[The] rehabilitation of ethics... would rather revise traditional ethics by conforming it with reality: the world of moral data offered to us in life, in Holy Scripture, and in the saints. What is required is a rethinking of all the answers in ethics, and this will arise from a close contact with moral reality and with the plenitude of moral values and disvalues. "Such contact will make it possible to see that in many cases the truths grasped in traditional ethics call for further differentiation, for completion, and for enrichment. Above all, it will make evident the need for a full philosophical grasp of the many realities which are silently presupposed in traditional philosophy, though not explicitly recognized and expressly admitted. In this reflection there will be appreciated the full philosophical meaning of a reality which is known in the immediate, living contact with reality. Such, for example, was Aristotle's appreciation of the four causes. This review also implies the elimination of all the tacit but never proven presuppositions which often bar the way to an adequate knowledge of the real nature of morality... " But apart from the positive mission of the contemporary Catholic philosopher, there is another one that modern times impose on him. In the morass of present day ideological confusions, it is imperative that the Catholic philosopher unmask widespread philosophical myths, destroy arbitrary constructions, and refute fashionable pseudo-philosophers.