CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, by Arthur F. Holmes. The Craig Press, Nutley, N. J. 245 pp. $4.95. Reviewed by Gordon H. Clark, Butler University, Indianapolis, Ind.
Purporting to be a study in methodology, this book quickly sketches
the views of Descartes, Jaspers, Russell and Wittgenstein, as well as some figures of lesser importance, In doing this the author seems to
oscillate between the idea of philosophy as a system of truth and the
psychology of philosophizing. For
example, as a near definition, philosophy is "the distillation of a vision" and "philosophy ... is an ongoing enterprise with changing
methods and attitudes."
Again, "Philosophy is the elucidation of existence rather than the
acquisition of understanding." If
this third definition actually belongs
to Jaspers, the author nevertheless
seems to approve of it. These definitions are admirably calculated to
serve the author's purpose of emphasizing the innumerable differences among philosophers; but they
do not serve so well in the formation
of a methodology.
Then, too, this psychological interest leads to what I believe to be
a mistaken account of Descartes, for
the account detaches Descartes'
thought from its stimulus in Montaigne and from its development in
Spinoza. But chapter three, "Existentialism and Phenomenology," and
chapter four, the longest in the
book, "Analytic Philosophy" are very
good.
Presumably the final chapter aims
to formulate the methodology by
which the wide and violent disagreements among philosophers can be
handled: "It will be evident by now
that the writer has used historical
dialogue in this book to elaborate
an idea of Christian philosophy that
is intended to do justice to the contemporary understanding of methodology while remaining true to its
guiding perspectives." But this is
not evident at all.
First, no Christian philosophy is
elaborated. Stated are no more than
a few disjointed Christian assertions.
Second, the methodology is far from
clear. Although the author makes
some faint repudiations of syncretism, it is hard to see what else he
offers. He selects a bit from one
philosopher and a bit from another
in an effort to have a middle position that is balanced among them. But no method is elaborated.
The problem, of course, is difficult in the extreme and it would
ae advantageous if other scholars should attempt it.
No comments:
Post a Comment