PUSTphilo - Agenda 2002-2003: The Role of Philosophy: Paper by Fr. Guido Vergauwen OP

The role of philosophy

Fr. Guido Vergauwen OP
Philosophy in the Order

Studium philosophiæ non est ad hoc quod sciatur quid homines senserint sed qualiter se habeat veritas rerum.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, De cælo et mundo, 1, 22

1. Philosophy in the Order – situation and basic orientations of General Chapters and in the RSG

1984, at the occasion of the centenary of the Faculty of Philosophy of this University, the periodical Angelicum published a series of outstanding articles on the situation of philosophy in Dominican formation. We read about the relation between philosophy and theology (Jean Hervé Nicolas), about the relations between philosophy and sciences (Bernard Vinaty). Abelardo Lobato explores the dialogical structure of the philosophy of Saint Thomas and William Wallace presents the goals of our Dominican philosophical formation. He presents very concrete proposals for the philosophical curriculum. Alfred Wilder shows the richness of the Dominican philosophical work in the last hundred years and Liam Walsh gives a description of the teaching of philosophy in the different centres of study in the Order, in the provinces and at the international level. I think that this information and reflection should not be repeated here – nevertheless it might be interesting to compare the actual situation of our philosophical teaching with the balance made by Liam Walsh. I mention some facts which are still relevant or the present situation but without repeating the full content of the instructive article:

We have brothers (and sisters) who teach philosophy at universities, outside a Dominican setup (i.e. centres of institutional studies).
Only few provinces have still their own centre of study with a complete philosophical program – they rely eventually on the help of professors from outside. Among those we can mention Argentina. Mexico, Colombia, St. Joseph, St. Albert, Holy Name, Poland, Aragon, Philippines, Canada. Other provinces or General Vicariates send their students outside the Order – sometimes trying to give complementary courses on Dominican tradition.
Few Dominicans have done higher studies in philosophy since 1970. There is a serious problem of staffing.
We have closed centres for philosophy, such like Valladolid, Alcobendas – but we have still excellent philosophical libraries and revues published by our brothers (e.g. Studium, Estudios filosoficos).
There is not a common understanding of the role of philosophy in the Dominican formation and we do not have a unified curriculum. I want to add that today we have philosophically relevant new initiatives such as the Institute M.-D. Chenu in Berlin.
Nearly everybody agrees that it is important to know, to continue, to foster the Dominican-Thomist tradition. But what does it really mean? May be one could explore this question through the very long list of Dominican philosophical and theological revues such as Angelicum, Analogia, RSPT, Revue Thomiste, The Thomist, Sapienza, FZPT etc.
In Fribourg there was once a full Dominican staffed philosophical faculty. This is no longer the case. We have still a mainly Dominican staffed philosophical faculty at the University Santo Tomas in Manila and of course here at the Angelicum.

I am sure that the group-discussions during this symposium will help us to focus our attention on more relevant facts about the situation of philosophy in the Order – especially about the local and cultural differences and needs. We will have to work on concrete proposals for the renewal of the philosophical profile of the teaching ministry of the Order.

The general chapter of Providence which commissioned the philosophical faculty of the PUST to organise this symposium was definitely not the first chapter of the Order to deal with the philosophical formation of the brethren. But a short exploration of the texts of the chapters of the Order in the last 50 years and even before showed that there were very few fundamental statements about philosophical studies in the Order. Earlier chapters insisted certainly on the philosophical part of the curriculum of the Dominican formation but without developing a more profound reflection on this topic. It was taken for granted that philosophy belongs to our basic formation, which finds its orientation and norm in the teachings of Saint Thomas. Nevertheless, more recent chapters do not only mention the three years of philosophical formation – they try to establish a link between the philosophical curriculum and the context of our mission.

Quezon City 1977: How can we adopt the methods and the analyses of human and natural sciences in theological reflection? It is not just enough to know the importance of those sciences. In order to be able to approach them in a critical way, the brethren should receive a solid philosophy of science. “In conjunction with the experimental sciences and nourished by them, philosophy gives access to the fundamental principles of being.” To develop theology, i.e. the investigation of the divine revelation “in a properly scientific way” we need “the light of philosophy” (85).

Walberberg 1980: The chapter made a fundamental statement about the twofold motivation for the life of study: the desire to preach and the experience of prayer (103, 2). It refers to the preceding chapter of Quezon City which had underlined the need and the importance of a scientific approach to theology. Walberberg is aware that it is difficult to attain this goal, because theologians today do not have a clear view of what systematic theology, its nature and methods could be And the chapter adds: “Nobis videtur quod ratio principalis huius incertitudinis est carentia bonae formationis philosophicae.” (103, 3) There will be no new definitions and new methods for theology as long as the philosophical formation in the Order is weak, as long as it is limited to some historical information about certain philosophers – without giving criteria for a personal judgement. “Urget gravis necessitas de hac formatione philosophica in Ordine providendi” (103, 3). The chapter has the impression that – because of this deficiency in systematic theology - many brothers take their refuge in biblical studies, which seem to be more adapted to preaching and prayer, which seem to be of a more immediate use for our pastoral mission. The chapter confirms the importance of biblical theology, but this biblical-theological approach needs a further systematic elaboration – with the use of philosophy and other human sciences. This should lead towards a “iudicium sapientiale”, in which the interpretation of Gods Word is brought into a synthesis with the social and cultural situation of our pastoral practice.

Caleruega 1995: “Reconocemos que el conocimiento de la filosofia y las otras sociedades y culturas es esencial para el entendimiento y diálogo con otras sociedades y culturas. Por eso, insistimos en que la formación inicial debe incluir al menos dos años de filosofía, una introducción a las s ciencias humanas y estudios ecuménicos e inter-religiosos. Afirmamos también la importancia de estudios especializados de filosofía para la comprensión de la cultura contemporánea. “ (99. 2)

Providence 2001: The chapter expresses some doubt about the kind of philosophical formation which is given in the Order. At the same time it shares the conviction of many brothers, that philosophy “seems more important than it has been in the past.” (118) Therefore the chapter says: “Special care should be given to the study of philosophy and its neighbouring disciplines as a key to understanding the world to which we are sent.” (141) “Philosophy must be understood in the context of its neighbouring social, natural, and human disciplines that give us insight into the human condition and our place in the cosmos. As Dominicans we have a special responsibility to the heritage of St Thomas that we have received, but if we take seriously the radicality of the Gospel, our preaching must likewise be attentive to new knowledge and new ways of understanding the world around us.” (119)

For our purpose it is good to examine also the text of the newest Ratio Studiorum Generalis of the Order (1993). It gives a fundamental orientation for the understanding of the philosophical and theological studies in the Order.

The RSG establishes a strong link between study and the ministry of preaching as it underlines the apostolic character of study. The focus of our study is “salus animarum” – and more directly the cultivation of humanity’s inclination toward the truth (cf. LCO 77, 2). Therefore our study, which seeks “a living understanding of the mystery of salvation” (RSG, Preface II), has to answer to requirements which go beyond the frontiers of the Church. The study of the Holy Scriptures and the doctrinal tradition of the Church should enable us to clarify basic human questions – the modern quaestiones disputatae linked with the ambivalent political and social, technical and medical developments, with problems of cultural pluralism, with the loss of confidence in our intellectual capacities, with brutal fundamentalism.
We are called to a sapiential study which enfolds itself as intellectual compassion (cf. Providence 106), in which we share the joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the people of this age. (cf. Gaudium et Spes 1 quoted in Providence 109) According to RSG Dominicans should develop a creative and liberating intellectual activity (cf. Preface II) which enables them to preach the Gospel in dialogue with varying religious traditions, cultures and contexts.
Study should help to develop not just a personal intellectual culture but also a critical sense, a real solidarity with others and an aptitude to follow scientific progress. And in the line of the constitutions the RSG speaks about Saint Thomas as the model for our basic attitude towards study – "optimus magister et exemplar" – because he was aware “of the profound harmony between the preaching of the Gospel and the search for truth. He lived in full harmony with his time and its challenges, and thus revised in depth theology and philosophy.” (Preface IV)
In the RSG the intellectual formation is seen as a single, organic and structured process, in which the different stages and disciplines are linked together, not just chronologically or externally as a curriculum but because they have a common finality. (Preface V) The chief purpose of our study is the acquiring of an intellectual – sapiential habit, the acquiring of the capacity of making critical judgements and to discover and to appreciate the truth – I would add: also in positions which do not correspond entirely to my point of view, to my way of saying things, to my habit of acting. The RSG puts the accent on the search for a doctrinal synthesis – for a vision of faith to which contribute “theology in its different areas, philosophy, human sciences each considered specifically under its own discipline and methodology” (Preface VI).
This search for unity and coherence is counterbalanced by the respect for plurality and by the need to teach the faith “in a manner new and appropriate to each epoch and to each culture” (Preface VII). This requires, as the RSG points out, a particular attention paid “to the questions raised by contemporary thought and its dangers, to the various natural and human sciences, the different ways of thinking and living” (Preface VIII). The key-words are here: interdisciplinary and intercultural character of dialogue – encounter with the great religions and philosophies of different cultures – attention to creation, to our environment, to the human person as manifestations of God’s creative Word.

It seems to me that those basic reflections in the RSG constitute the framework for the more detailed indications about the different disciplines to be taught. “The search for truth” is the overall focus – the “option for truth” is the deepest expression of our charism. The intellectual, doctrinal formation should be shaped in such a way that the brethren learn to love the truth they encounter in each of the disciplines studied (cf. RSG, Chapter 1, 5). Our intellectual formation is not just oriented towards information and acquirement of knowledge. It has to do with motivation; it is the introduction into a basic option, into a sense for reality. It is getting familiar with methods of understanding, with “the ability to do intellectual work, to have discernment and a critical spirit” (RSG, Chapter 1,4).

The RSG proposes a curriculum of at least six years – at least two years philosophy and theology at least four years. It is left to the different RSP to organise the study of philosophy and theology. They can be taught simultaneously – mutually co-ordinated and integrated – or as separate curricula.

It is important to examine number 14 of this first chapter of the RSG as it describes the place of philosophy in the global curriculum. The text proposes four fundamental orientations:

Philosophy prepares us for a knowledge of reality and opens the mind for a dialogue with contemporary culture.
Philosophy allows the acquirement of criteria of judgement to tackle cultural problems and to have an organic vision of humankind. The doctrine and scientific method of St. Thomas transmits a metaphysical consideration of being which gives a solid foundation for other philosophical disciplines such as anthropology, epistemology, ethics, philosophy of religion.
Philosophy cannot exist without the support of the human and natural sciences. In comparison with them philosophy retains a primacy of importance. On the other hand those sciences provide the contact and dialogue with questions concerning mankind and problems of epistemology.
Philosophy should also be attentive to social questions and economics – especially in the light of the Order’s promotion of justice and peace.

2. Fides et Ratio

If we want to rethink our Dominican philosophical formation we should not just deal with problems of curricula. We have to become more specific about the actual need for philosophical reflection within the context of the theological formation and the preparation for our Dominican doctrinal mission. We should reflect again about the nature of philosophy and its relation to theology in a “post-modern” context.

In the late nineties Cardinal Ratzinger has published, at several occasions, an evaluation of the situation of faith and theology, in which he anticipates some basic statements of the encyclical Fides et Ratio (1998). Marxism had tried to replace the promises of religion by a political praxis based on a scientific understanding of history. The defeat of this political and economic system which claimed to present the only possible scientific solution for the human problems has left a moral vacuum.

According to Cardinal Ratzinger relativism has become the global philosophical attitude. This is not just a resignation before the immensity of truth. Relativism can also be positively appreciated in relation to basic attitudes such as tolerance, dialogical knowledge and freedom. At the political level this is normally linked with democratic developments which constitute a positive value compared to forms of political totalitarian systems. But on the level of religion and ethics relativism touches fundamental questions of faith, especially when it considers e.g. Jesus Christ as just one of the religious geniuses and not as God’s ultimate revelation to humanity – which in the last consequence leads to the idea that all religions are equally the expression of transcendence.

It is obvious that the understanding of religion and its place in society as well as the problem of inter-religious dialogue, which is involved in this question, have become the most challenging philosophical problems of today. The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith points out, that philosophical education has to deal – in relation with the problem of relativism – with an anti-rational tendency in society. A cosmocentric vision of the world makes disappear the subject. Forms of new polytheism become popular. Cardinal Ratzinger sees also the need for a critical analysis of the philosophical, i.e. neo-kantian and post-metaphysical presuppositions of the modern methods of exegesis. He pleads in favour of a new dialogical relation between faith and philosophy. Reason without faith cannot be healed; faith without reason is not human. This refers already to Fides et Ratio, which speaks about the relationship between theology and philosophy as a circle (73), as a reciprocal relationship (79). “Theology needs philosophy as a partner of dialogue in order to confirm the intelligibility and universal truth of its claims” (77).

We will have the occasion to discuss together more in detail the importance of Fides et Ratio for the philosophical formation in the Order. I would just like to mention – without any systematic claim and without developing more explicitly the already mentioned problem of inter-religious dialogue – some challenges which are expressed in this rich text and which could be inspiring for the discussion about new accents in our philosophical curriculum.

In relation to the modern crisis of rationalism and post-modern scepticism (the “shifting sands of widespread scepticism”), for which the time of certainties is irrevocably past (cf. 91), the encyclical underlines that the search for the truth is a question of “to be or not to be” for humanity. The pope wants to encourage his readers to dare to rise to the truth of being, to step towards a truth which transcends them, to believe in the human capacity to know the truth (cf. 5). He considers the undifferentiated pluralism, for which all positions are equally valid, as “one of today’s most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth” (5). The encyclical wants to meet this “widespread distrust of the human being’s great capacity for knowledge” (5). This is mainly a new challenge for philosophy today: “With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation” (6). For the encyclical this truth is not abstract, it is “immersed in time and history” (11). It has a human face and a sacramental form: it is the universal and ultimate truth revealed in the incarnation of the Word of God, “which strives the human mind to ceaseless effort” (14), to widen its horizon. This truth can be only one: the truth which is Christ (92, 34).
We know that the encyclical insists on the fact that “the truth conferred by revelation is a truth to be understood in the light of reason” (35). There is an intimate relation between revealed truth and philosophical learning, so that from its side revealed truth offers the fullness of light to reason and illumines the path of philosophical inquiry (cf. 79).
At the end of the presentation of the important moments in the encounter of faith and reason the encyclical points out the enduring originality of the thought of Saint Thomas (43-44). For him there is an harmonious relation between the supernatural character of faith and its reasonableness: faith is an exercise of thought. Aquinas establishes a programmatic reconciliation between the secularity of the world and the radicality of the Gospel. The encyclical makes a rather pessimistic diagnosis about the actual situation as it talks about the drama of the separation of faith and reason. Philosophy has been gradually reduced to one of the may fields of human knowing – it has been consigned to a wholly marginal role (cf. 47). Against Gianni Vattimo and others who recommend “weak reasoning” (pensiero debole) the encyclical evokes the “boldness of reason”, which is open for the “newness and radicality of being” and which can contribute to understand faith in its universal claim (cf. 48).
We know that the encyclical pleads courageously for a renewed understanding of the autonomy of philosophy, which is only given when it is accepted that truth is not born of a consensus but of a consonance between intellect and objective reality – which is a fundamental position of the great philosophical tradition (cf. 56, 75, 77, 79, 85). The pope encourages all philosophers “to trust in the power of human reason and not to set themselves goals that are too modes in their philosophising” (56). “It is necessary not to abandon the passion for ultimate truth, the eagerness to search for it or the audacity to forge new paths in the search” (56). The pope mentions the thomistic and neo-thomistic renewal but also philosophers of the oriental tradition (cf. 74). He evokes those thinkers who established “the epistemological foundations for a new consideration of faith in the light of a renewed understanding of moral consciousness” (59) <Newman?>, the philosophy which “starting with an analysis of immanence, opened the way to the transcendent” (59) <Blondel?> and “those who sought to combine the demands of faith with the perspective of phenomenological method” (59) <Scheler?>. The pope notes with surprise and displeasure that many theologians show a lack of interest in the study of philosophy. The reasons could be: distrust of reason and the abandonment of metaphysics; the replacement of philosophy by human sciences; the option for expressions of popular wisdom in link with the interest for the inculturation of faith (cf. 61). “A theology without a metaphysical horizon could not move beyond an analysis of religious experience, nor would it allow the "intellectus fidei" to give a coherent account of the universal and transcendent value of revealed truth” (83).
One of the most interesting parts of the encyclical is the formulation of the requirements of the Word of God and of faith regarding philosophy, and this not just on behalf of theology but for the sake of philosophy itself and without destroying the legitimate autonomy of philosophy.
- First of all: Philosophy has to ask the question of the meaning of life, it has to recover its sapiential dimension and to develop a renewed and sharpened sense of ultimate values – this means finally that philosophy has to engage in the search for the natural foundation of the meaning of life, “which corresponds to the religious impulse innate in every person” (81).
- A second requirement: “that philosophy verify the human capacity to know the truth, to come to a knowledge which can reach objective truth by means of that 'adaequatio rei et intellectus'” (82).
- A third requirement follows: “the need for a philosophy of genuinely metaphysical range, capable … of transcendent empirical data in order to attain something absolute, ultimate and foundational in its search for truth” (83). The encyclical calls this the move from phenomenon to foundation. This requirement points to a philosophy of being which is understood as “a dynamic philosophy which views reality in its ontological, causal and communicative structures” (97).
In relation to the need for a metaphysical approach in philosophy the encyclical makes some important remarks about hermeneutics and the analysis of language. With reference to the use of analogy the text says: “Faith clearly presupposes that human language is capable of expressing divine and transcendent reality in a universal way – analogically, it is true, but no less meaningfully for that” (84). With reference to the understanding of revelation – Divine Word in human language – we are not taken in an endless sequence of interpretations. Especially biblical hermeneutics have to take in account the kenotic structure of revelation. “Human language embodies the language of God, who communicates his own truth with that wonderful ‘condescension’ which mirrors the logic of incarnation” (94). The interpretation of the texts has to take in account the life of those texts in the (doctrinal, liturgical and practival) tradition of the Church – the “world”, the history created by those texts through the centuries. At the same time the interpretation has to be aware of the sense of the biblical narrative and of the specific relation which exists between the historical events and their meaning in and for the history of salvation (cf. 94). This is the crucial philosophical problem of the reconciliation between the absoluteness and the universality of truth with the unavoidable historical and cultural conditioning of the formulas which express that truth (cf. 95). “Truth can never be confined to time and culture; in history it is known, but it also reaches beyond history” (95). We should notice the optimistic realism of the encyclical as it says: “The hermeneutical problem exists, to be sure; but it is not insoluble” (96).
In the domain of human acting Fides et Ratio underlines the importance of “philosophical ethics which looks to the truth of the good, to an ethics which is neither subjectivist nor utilitarian” (98). Philosophy is practical wisdom and an education for life (cf. 37). This approach presupposes “a philosophical anthropology and a metaphysics of the good” (98). In relation to this matter one of the most urgent topics for philosophy is certainly the domain of anthropology – a search for a new understanding of the subject, of the human person and its ultimate purpose. The encyclical formulates some short descriptions of the human subject. “One may define the human being as the one who seeks the truth” (28). In their search for the truth “all men and women are in some sense philosophers” (30). “The human being – the one who seeks the truth – is also one who lives by belief” (31). Human beings need community, tradition, the confidence to accept the witness for the truth given by others. Against the “masters of suspicion” the text affirms that dialogue and sincere friendship are the basic conditions for the search of the truth (cf. 33). The encyclical gives finally a christological foundation for its understanding of the human person, of its dignity and freedom in quoting several times Gaudium et Spes 22: “The truth is that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a type of him who was to come, Christ the Lord. Christ, the new Adam in the very revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals man to himself and brings to light his most high calling” (60, 14, 12).
A last topic, which is quite relevant for the philosophical curriculum and which I want to mention, is the problem of the dialogue of cultures and of inculturation. In spite of their diversity cultures have a more profound unity as they show that human beings are basically open to the universal and the transcendent (cf. 70). This gives to the cultures a specific dynamism. On the other hand is has to be stated that the Gospel is not opposed to any culture – it brings to the different cultures a message of “genuine liberation from all the disorders caused by sin” (71). Those who receive the Gospel do not loose their cultural identity – but the Gospel creates its own culture, its own ethical and esthetical expressions. In contact with other cultures, with different philosophical traditions, the Gospel shows the universal value of what the encyclical calls “the world of the Greco-Latin thought” (72), which has contributed to universalise Christian faith. Not the world of the religions, but philosophy is the 'locus' in which the truth of the Gospel can manifest the dialogical character of its universal value.

3. Amatores sapientiae

Not every brother who studies philosophy will or wants to become a professional philosopher. But this does not mean that philosophy has only to be considered as a function of theology. We have seen that the encyclical affirms clearly the autonomy of philosophical thinking. But at the same time it is said that philosophy has to tackle questions which are difficult to resolve if the data of Revelation are ignored (cf. 76). There are specific contributions of faith to philosophical thinking. One can mention among others the notion of person as a spiritual being, the importance of history as event (cf. 76). But some questions remain – also among our students in formation: what do we really mean by philosophy? What is the importance of philosophy? What do we really learn through philosophy? I would like to answer briefly those questions with the help of some thoughts – may be they are just motivations – formulated by Josef Pieper in his book Was heisst philosophieren?

Philosophy is useless – it cannot be used or applied immediately in a world, in which everything is ordered according to practical concerns. It’s the attitude of wonder – which children still can have, which inspires poets and lovers. It’s the expression of freedom towards reality without calculating the usefulness and the practical application of thinking. Learning and teaching philosophy has first of all to do with 'theorein', contemplation – looking at things, receiving reality in its being, without the primary intention to change it. In spite of Descartes the philosopher does not consider himself as “maître et possesseur de la nature”, in spite of Marx he continues to be an interpreter of reality, who wants to understand and not just to change the world.
In philosophy we become aware of our deepest relation to the world in which we live: it is not merely a relation of work and production. We can know reality as it is – in its truth. We learn that our presence to the world in its totality is a “spiritual” one, and that, through this presence to the world – and to the others – we become also present to ourselves as persons. In this sense philosophy has to be epistemology and anthropology at once – theory of knowledge and spirituality, i.e. doctrine of man in its concrete relation to the whole of reality.
In philosophy we learn to ask radical questions. What is this finally? 'Quomodo sit verum quod dicitur?' The philosopher is not the person who has last answers, but he or she who dares to deal with ultimate questions. Traditional philosophy has seen in 'thaumadsein', astonishment, wonder, 'Erstaunen', 'mirari', the basic impulse for philosophy, its very permanent origin. Modern philosophy has changed this. At its beginning has been put the methodological doubt! The inner direction of the astonishment is not to produce doubt, but to awaken the insight that being is not understandable and mysterious – that being in itself is a mystery – not darkness, but a light, inexhaustible, unlimited. To be astonished means: not to know, not to understand – but in the sense that there is the acting desire to know. There seems to be a relation between astonishment and joy. Philosophy as a contribution to the joy of discovering what is not known yet, what is new, never heard and seen … There is an intimate relation between philosophy based on astonishment and hope, which is basically linked with our existence as pilgrims, 'viatores'. Philosophical thinking has the structure of hope! Philosophical questions are never definitively answered. Philosophy is, as a matter of fact, the quest for wisdom. Philosophers are “amatores sapientiae”. But who is really wise and who owns wisdom as its own possession? Who knows finally the essence of reality? The wisdom which we acquire in this loving quest for truth is always something which we receive as a loan. It is at the very end the wisdom, which only God possesses – since He is himself origin and ultimate aim of all reality. This means for the philosophical thinking, that it accepts the fundamental distinction between God and the world ant the conviction, that philosophy cannot be conceived as a system, which is closed in itself as if it were the complete explanation of the world, the golden formula! And yet: “Illud modicum quod ex ea habetur, praeponderat omnibus quae per alias scientias cognoscuntur” (Thomas, In Metaphysicam 1, 3).
A philosophy which is really alive, has to be developed as the counterpoint – not as the opposite – to Christian theology, to the radical and existential questions linked with Christian revelation. Revealed truth makes philosophy more difficult, more complicated, because it forbids to escape into easy solutions e.g. regarding the understanding of the human person, the problem of evil and justice. It obliges the philosopher to oppose to those options which offer quick answers to the problems in link with history, science and technology, human acting. It forbids the flirt with nihilism in the guise of aesthetics.

In our formation we do not just prepare philosophers – we prepare brothers to become preachers of the Word of God, who are able to arrive at a personal critical judgement about the world in which they live, to which they are sent. In II-II q 45 a 2 Saint Thomas points out, that wisdom involves rectitudo judicii. But this is not just the right use of reason. It is realised “per connaturalitatem quandam ad ea de quibus iam est iudicandum”. The philosophical knowledge should, for that reason, not just be abstract – it should be a knowledge linked with a form of life, of community in the quest for the truth: in dulcedine societatis quaerere veritatem (Saint Albert).

4. Conclusion

Why do we study philosophy? Not just for the sake of theology – although the arguments which Saint Thomas uses in Boetii de Trinitate, Proeem., q. II, a.3 remains valuable: "Illi qui utuntur philosophicis documentis in sacra Scriptura redigendo in obsequium fidei, non miscent aquam vino, sed convertunt aquam in vinum".

We study philosophy in order to learn how to understand ourselves in a world marked by the problems of modernity – by its social, economic, political and religious dialectical consequences. Those problems show a progressive rationalisation, which partly has the positive effect of liberating people from prejudices, anxieties, superstition, unquestioned domination by powers. It has set free new possibilities and applications of science in technology, medicine, education and communication. But there are questions to be answered! Has modernity really given an answer to the need for a new form of life ('Lebensform') – after the loss of confidence in the continuity of life and its possibilities within a given divine order of things? Everything can be submitted to radical criticism. This is a move without end, without 'telos'. But did the only light of reason really enlighten the world and eliminate all forms of irrationality? Why are we not already living in Utopia? Why must the so called progress be bought at the prise of so many sufferings of innocent victims? Or should we replace ethics just by a theory of communication, which explores the formal conditions and necessary procedures for an endless discourse (Jürgen Habermas)? Can we stick to linguistic analysis as if the language we use really the clear mirror of reason? Must we not rather go back to the exploration of the historical conditions of our understanding and get to know the 'loci', 'topoi', in and through which our understanding, the rationality of our living together with different cultures and religions, is shaped? We are thrown back to the beginnings of understanding (D. Bonhoeffer) in order to learn the sense of basic epistemological realities such like history, experience, communication. We have to deal with the problem of history, with the secular eschatological visions and their development of power; with the problem of language, i.e. the problem of interpretation (hermeneutics) and with new forms of communication and the hidden lies in the domain of the all present media; with the problem of aesthetics and the creation of an illusionary and virtual world, in which we can live in a permanent ‘as if all is beautiful, good and true’.

All this comes to the basic question: how do we live together in freedom, how can we learn to understand and accept the other, how do we act in a responsible way in order to prepare a common future? It seems to me that our teaching of philosophy (history of ancient and modern philosophy, ethics and anthropology, epistemology, philosophy of language and hermeneutics, philosophy of religion) have to prepare our brothers to perceive the Christian offer of a form of life as an answer to the questions I have formulated – to take the risk to expose this answer in an arguing way to the requirements of reason and its quest for truth.

Fides et Ratio: the problem is given back to us. 'Philosophia ancilla theologiae'? “The term can scarcely be used today, given the principle of autonomy to which we have referred, but it has served throughout history to indicate the necessity of the link between the two sciences and the impossibility of their separation.” (Fides et Ratio, 77). Rationality as the inner dimension of faith, as its permanent and sometimes uncomfortable company, as its moment of inner restlessness?

We do well to listen to Meister Eckhart in his Exposition on the Gospel of Saint John, where he says: “learn to look more carefully and attentively, and if you can, join reason and faith. Its presumptuous and an expression of temerity if you only want to believe when you have understood. But on the other side it is also a sign of laziness and carelessness if you do not investigate what you believe with the help of natural reasons and comparisons, especially because all creature has at least a trace of the creator and more general the effect of his cause.” ("Diligentius intuere et fidem si poteris rationemque coniuge. Sicut enim praesumptionis est et temeritatis nolle credere, nisi intellexeris, sic ignaviae est et desidiosum quod fide credis, rationibus naturalibus et similitudinibus non investigare, praesertim cum omnis creatura ad minus sit vestigium creatoris et effectus universaliter suae causae.")

Guido Vergauwen, o.p.
Rome, Easter 2003