On the Use of Philosophy: Three Essays

by Jacques Maritain

The first and second essays in this book, "The Philosopher in Society" and "Truth and Human Fellowship," were originally given as lectures at the Graduate School of Princeton University, "The Philosopher in Society" also appears in Le Philosophe dans La Cite, published by Alsatia, Paris, in 1960. "Truth and Human Fellowship" contains some extracts from Ransoming the Time] copyright 1941 Charles Scribner's
Sons

Genres: Philosophy

71 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1961

About the author

T. S. Eliot once called Jacques Maritain "the most conspicuous figure and probably the most powerful force in contemporary philosophy." His wife and devoted intellectual companion, Raissa Maritain, was of Jewish descent but joined the Catholic church with him in 1906. Maritain studied under Henri Bergson but was dissatisfied with his teacher's philosophy, eventually finding certainty in the system of St. Thomas Aquinas. He lectured widely in Europe and in North and South America, and lived and taught in New York during World War II. Appointed French ambassador to the Vatican in 1945, he resigned in 1948 to teach philosophy at Princeton University, where he remained until his retirement in 1953. He was prominent in the Catholic intellectual resurgence, with a keen perception of modern French literature. Although Maritain regarded metaphysics as central to civilization and metaphysically his position was Thomism, he took full measure of the intellectual currents of his time and articulated a resilient and vital Thomism, applying the principles of scholasticism to contemporary issues. In 1963, Maritain was honored by the French literary world with the national Grand Prize for letters. He learned of the award at his retreat in a small monastery near Toulouse where he had been living in ascetic retirement for some years. In 1967, the publication of "The Peasant of the Garonne" disturbed the French Roman Catholic world. In it, Maritain attacked the "neo-modernism" that he had seen developing in the church in recent decades, especially since the Second Vatican Council. According to Jaroslav Pelikan, writing in the Saturday Review of Literature, "He laments that in avant-garde Roman Catholic theology today he can 'read nothing about the redeeming sacrifice or the merits of the Passion.' In his interpretation, the whole of the Christian tradition has identified redemption with the sacrifice of the cross. But now, all of that is being discarded, along with the idea of hell, the doctrine of creation out of nothing, the infancy narratives of the Gospels, and belief in the immortality of the human soul." Maritain's wife, Raissa, also distinguished herself as a philosophical author and poet. The project of publishing Oeuvres Completes of Jacques and Raissa Maritain has been in progress since 1982, with seven volumes now in print.

Reviews

[Daniel Stepke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maritain's work is classic and excellent. Much to say here, but the insight I found most fascinating was his insight that the really intolerant are those who say we shouldn't believe anything too strongly, lest we persecute them. These think persecution would be justified, were we to have certainty on things. But we who know things and yet know that man deserves to appropriate the truth for himself in himself are against persecution altogether, really believing things and yet really being tolerant. Truth undergirds tolerance.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A 20TH CENTURY CATHOLIC “THOMIST” LOOKS AT PHILOSOPHY

Jacques Maritain (1882-1973) was a French philosopher who converted to Catholicism in 1906; he was known as a prominent "neo-Thomist."

The introductory section explains, “The first and second essays in this book, ‘The Philosopher in Society’ and ‘Truth and Human Fellowship’ were originally given as lectures at the Graduate School of Princeton University. ‘The Philosopher is Society’ … [was] published… in 1960.”

He says in the first essay, “Even when they are in the wrong, philosophers are a kind of mirror, on the heights of intelligence, of the deepest trends which are obscurely at play in the human mind at each epoch of history.” (Pg. 4) He adds, “many things are questionable and oversimplified in the commonplace insistence on the insuperable disagreements which divide philosophers. These disagreements do indeed exist. But in one sense there is more continuity and stability in philosophy than in science. For a new scientific theory completely changes the very manner in which the former ones posed the question, whereas philosophical problems remain always the same, in one form or another.” (Pg. 5-6)

He observes, “The philosopher in society witnesses to the supreme dignity of thought; he points to what is eternal in man, and stimulates our thirst for pure knowledge… of those fundamentals---about the nature of things and the nature of the mind, and man himself, and God---which are superior to, and independent of, anything we can make of produce or create… because we think before acting and nothing can limit the range of thought: our practical decisions depend on the stand we take on the ultimate questions that human thought is able to ask. That is why philosophical systems, which are directed toward no practical use and application, have… such an impact on human history.” (Pg. 7)

He continued, “[The philosopher] reminds society that freedom is the very condition for the exercise of thought. This is a requirement for the common good itself of human society, which disintegrates as soon as fear, superseding inner conviction, imposes any kind of shibboleth upon human minds. The philosopher, even when he is wrong, at least freely criticizes many things his fellowmen are attracted to.” (Pg. 9)

He suggests, “philosophy, especially moral and political philosophy, can perform its normal function in our modern society, especially as regards the need of democratic society for a genuine rational establishment of its common basic tenets, only if it keeps vital continuity with the spirit of the Judeo-Christian tradition and with the wisdom of the Gospel… if it is a work and effort of human reason intent on the most exacting requirements of philosophical method and principles… and guided by the light of the supreme truths of which Christian faith makes us aware.” (Pg. 13)

In the second essay, he points out, “Actually, each great philosophical doctrine lives on a central intuition which can be wrongly conceptualized and translated into a system of assertions seriously deficient or erroneous as such, but which, insofar as it is intellectual intuition, truly gets hold of some aspect of the real.” (Pg. 27)

He adds, “Thus there is not TOLERATION between systems---a system cannot ‘tolerate’ another system, because systems are abstract sets of ideas and have only intellectual existence, where the will to tolerate or not to tolerate has no part---but there can be JUSTICE, intellectual justice, between philosophical systems.” (Pg. 28)

In the third essay, he says that “recognizing that phenomena are but as aspect of a deeper reality, [scientists] endeavor to go beyond phenomena, they do so through an extrapolation of scientific notions which, brilliant as it may be, is essentially arbitrary; or, looking for a ‘noetic integrator,’ they borrow it from some kind of metaphysics unaware of itself and disguised as science---and there is no worse metaphysics than disguised metaphysics.” (Pg. 53)

These essays will interest those studying Maritain, or modern Thomist thought in general.

[Motorcycle Tourist · Rating 3 out of 5]

Essay II: After the violence and cruelty of wars, whether for religion or freedom, a period of skepticism usually occurs. The pendulum will swing from one extreme to the other. Some people believe that to live in a Democracy they cannot believe in any specific truth, because to do so would be intolerant, and they could not live in peace. But Democracies must have common practical beliefs in certain truths: freedom, justice, law, etc. Attempts to live in a peaceful and pleasant quiet are acquired at the price of consistency. I prefer the word “fellowship” to “tolerance”. Has a man a moral obligation to seek religious truth and cling to it when he sees it? Absolutely. Has the Church a right to condemn errors opposed to the divine revelation with which she has been entrusted? Yes! The word “fellowship” connotes something positive and elementary in human relationships. It conjures the image of traveling companions, who meet by chance and journey through life - however fundamental their differences may be - good humoredly and in friendly and cooperative disagreement.