Chapter One
WHAT IS PHILOSOPHICAL FAITH?
If WE ASK by what and toward what shall we live, one answer will no doubt be: by revealed faith;for outside it there can be only nihilism. A theologian recently declared: ‘It is no mere presumption on the part of the Church to say that the crucial alternativeis: Christ or nihilism.'—If this were the case,there would be nophulosophy.There would be on the one hand a history of philosnphy, that is, a hustory of unbelief lead- ing to nihilism,and on the other hand a system of concepts in the service of theology Phelosophy utself would be deprived of its heart,and where a theological atmo- sphcre has prevatled, this has indeed been its lot. Even when works of consummate intellectual arustry have been created in such an atmosphere,they have taken their mood from an ahen, non-philosophical source, ecclesiastical relgion; their independence has becen bor- rowed and illusory,and tbey have not been taken qulite seriously as philosophy
Another answer to our question is that we should live by human reason,by the sciences, which point to meaningful aims in the world and teach us methods of achieving them.For apart from the sciences,it is said, there are only illusions.Philosophy is not autonomous; step by step it has sloughed off all the sciences,and in the end even logic has become a specialized science. So that by now nothing is left.-If this were so,there would again be no philosopby.Philosophy was once a road to the sciences.Now at best it can drag on a more or less superfluous existence as a handmaiden to the sciences,perhaps in the form of epistemology.
But both these conceptions seem to contradict the inner meaning of philosophy in the three millennia of its history in China, India and the West.They are in- compatible with the seriousness of our attitude toward philosophical problems to-day, at a time when philo- sophy has ceased to be the handmaiden of the sciences as it was towards the end of the nuneteenth century, yet has not relapsed into a position of subservience to theology.
These facile altematives of revealed faith or nuhilism, of total science or illusion,serve as weapons of spiritual intimidation;they tob people of their God-given re- sponsibility and make them subservient.They rend human possibilities into antinomies,and authentic humanity is forgotten.
Those who accept such alternatives declare that any one who dares to carry on the venerable tradition of philosophy must either be a nuhilist or an illustonist. And if we do not live up to the preconceived picture, we are reproached with shallowness, inconsistency, trivial rationalism,unworidliness;we are attacked from both sides,by the proponents of an exclusive revealed faith and of a 'science' that has developed into superstition.
We shall take up this challenge.We shall attempt to kecp open the horizons of humanity in our philoso- phical thinking.Philosophy must not abdicate.Least of alll to-day.
We live in the awareness of perils that were unknown to past centurics;our communication with the men of other ages may be broken off;we may hecdlessly deprive ourselves of tradition;human consciousness may de- cline;there may be an end to open communication among men.In view of the dangers with wbich we are faccd,we must in our phulosopluzing prcpare for every cventualiry, in order that our thinking may hclp humanity to preserve its highest pocenriahries.Pre- ciscly because of the catastrophe that has overtaken the Western wotld,philosophical thought can tegain full independence only by discovering its relation to the primal source of humanity.
I wish to speak to you of philosophical faith,which underlies all these ideas. The subject is vast. In order to stress certain sumple principles, I shall divide our in- quiry into six lectures:
Faith is a different thing from knowledge. Giordano Bruno believed and Galleo knew.Ourwardly they were both in the same situation. An inquisitorial court demanded of them both a retraction on threat of death. Bruno was willing to retract certain of his propositions, but not those which he regarded as essential;he died a martyr's death.Gahleo retracted his theory that the earth revolved around the sun,and according to the apt but apocryphal anecdote later remarked:Eppur si wwwwe.Here is the differcnce:On the one hand we have a truth that suffers by retraction,and on the other a truth which retraction leaves intact.Both men acted in keeping with the truth they stood for.A truth by which I live stands only if I beconse identical with it; it ishus- torical in form; as an objective statement it is not uni- versally valid,hut it is ahsolute.A truth which I can prove,stands without me; it is univetsally vald, unhistoncal,umcless,but not absolute;rather it depends on finite premises and methods of atraining knowledge of the finite. It would be unftring to dic for a truth that is susceptible to proof.But ar what point the thinker who believes he has plumbed the depths,cannot retract his statements without hurm to the truth itself-that is his own secret.There is no universal principle demand- ing that he become a martyr.But when,like Bruno,he suffers martyrdom,not out of emotional enthusiasm, not out of the defiance of the moment,bur after a long and arduous conquest of himself,he reveals authentic faith,that is,certainty regarding a truth which I cannot prove as I can prove a scientific theorem regarding finite things.
Nevertheless the case of Bruno is unusual.For philo- sophy is not ordinanly concentrated in propositions that assume the character of a credo,but in intellectual statements that bear upon existence as a whole.That Socrates, Boethius,Bruno are in a sense the saints of philosophy,does not make them the greatest philo- sophers.But they are revered for vindicating a philo- sophical faith after the manner of mantyrs.
As against the platitude thar man might base every- thing on his intelligence--if only there were no stupidity or ill will,everything would be all right-as against this rationalistic delusion,but still on the terrain of the rational,we designate the otber thing to which we are bound as the irrational.One may reluctantly accept this irrational element,or one may cultivate it as an intrinsi- cally unimportant play of the emotions,as an illusion indispensable to the psychic organtsm,as recreation for one's lersure time.One may even find in this irrational clemennt forces to which one appeals as psychological passions,in order to achieve certain aims with their help.Or,finally,one may find the truth in these forces and plunge into the irrational,raking frenzy for authentic life.
But faith must not be taken to mean the irrational. This polarity of rational and irrational has only led to confusion.The insistence,now on science, now on some undiscussible and supposedly ultumate instance, the tendency to invoke now reason,now emotion,has given rise to an endless exchange of opinions without communication. Such a game was possible as long as the light of a great tradition,though growing steadily weaker, still served as a beacon. The life of the spirit ended when man knowingly based it on the irrational. It butned itself out in cheap artacks on everything, in stubborn adherence to arbitrarily selected ideas which were held to be effective,in the frivolous squandering of tradition through a seemingly superior freedom,and in high-sounding unreliable statements.All this cannot be combated,for there is no advcrsary to grapple with, but only an opaque,shifting,Protean muddle,so ephem- cral thar the intellect cannot pin it down; this situation can be surmounted only by determination to think clearly.
The irrational is at bottom mere negaton;our faith cannot be a plunge into the darkness of anti-reason and chaos.
Philosophical faith,the faith of the thinking man, has always this distinguishing feature: it is allied with knowledge. It wants to know what is knowable,and to be conscious of its own premises.
Unlimited cogmition,science,is the basic elemnent of philosophy.There must be nothing that is not ques- tioned,no secret that is withheld from inquiry,nothing that is permutted to veil itself.It is through critique that the punty and meaning of knowledge are acquired,and the rcalization of its limits.Anyone who engages in philosophical activity can protect humself against the encroachments of a sham knowiedge,against the aber- rations of the sciences.
Philosophical faith must also elandate itself. When I philosophize,I accept nothing as it comes to me,with- out secking to penetrate it.Faith cannot,to be sure, become universally valid knowledge, but it should be- come clearly present to me by self-conviction. It should become unceasingly clearer and more conscious,and by becoming conscious unfold more and more of its inner meaning.