The German-American political philosopher Leo Strauss addressed this dilemma in his own way throughout his long and prolific academic career. In one essay on the subject, he writes about the productive tension that is at the bottom of Western society which is the insurmountable clash between the two. Strauss sees in faith and reason a conflict between a mode of living which, it would seem, is relentlessly skeptical to the point of nihilism (nothing is held sacred)- or perhaps is relentlessly experiential and empirical? - quest that is the philosophic life; and faith is seemingly an "obedience" to a God-given law. It is out of this conflict between these two camps that our civilization springs.
Catholics are divided over Strauss (and for that matter so are conservatives). I tend to sympathize with those "Straussians" who view the Straussian view of faith and reason relatively positively. As a commentator (to which I link above) remarks, Strauss offers much from which Catholics can learn. I don't think that Catholics have much reason to disagree with him. While he is not a theist let alone a Catholic, he seems to hold views on faith and reason that are hospitable to Catholicism. In his essay (linked above) he does not claim that philosophers cannot engage with theology, nor does he claim that believers cannot engage with philosophy. He simply marks the boundaries of their respective territories and seems to argue that they need to remain within those boundaries. That does not seem to be too radical a position to take. That faith - or to be a person of faith - demands a submission to a kind of authority which would be anathema to philosophy or the philosophical life is not terribly surprising. Nor is it all that damning of a claim made about either one of those ways of knowing. This does not seem to be a terrible restriction of either one of those modes but rather it is an acknowledgement of something that at the end of the day makes sense. How can I be a philosopher if my quest has an answer already predetermined, that being the truth of God found in the Truth of the incarnation or the Word that is the Christian faith? On the other hand, how can a believer possibly accept the truth of the faith if, according to Strauss' understanding of philosophy it would seem that he simply can't this action called philosophy even though he has discovered the truth in revelation? As Strauss writes in the essay, philosophy is a "way of life" that is "animated by a peculiar passion, the philosophic desire or eros, not as an instrument or department of human self-realization." It is a relentless quest which while aspires to "wisdom" (or knowledge of the whole is how i think he puts it) may not ever reach that. For Strauss the dilemma between faith and reason offers to a person alternative ways to live. Truth is a matter of living not just a matter of knowing. Both philosophy and theology (or as Strauss refers to the alternative, the bible), make radical claims upon the human person in his choice to live. The choice between philosophy and faith seems to be for Strauss an existential dilemma, and that is something that Catholics I think should respect and recognize. I notice that I often get caught up in the institutional trappings or legalistic rules of the faith - and even faith as a form of knowledge - but it is useful and humbling to remember that to be a Christian is to be a person who chooses to act. And an important element of the Truth of Christianity is bound up in or manifests itself in the way one lives his or her life. There is a potentially inherently humbling awareness that accompanies the often unconscious or t least passive acceptance of the truth of the faith, which only becomes more powerful during those times that a believer is aware of the choice he has made. It is an inescapable choice between two ways of life and I think Strauss can capture the gravity of that choice in a way that Christians can appreciate.
No comments:
Post a Comment