Foundations of Philosophy Brian Cronin 1999 Introduction This work now being offered is the 1st Internet edition of Fr. Brian Cronin’s Foundations of Philosophy: Lonergan’s Cognitional Theory and Epistemology, written primarily as an introduction to the first half of Fr. Bernard Lonergan’s Insight: A Study of Human Understanding. The print edition first appeared in 1999 as a publication of the Consolata Institute of Philosophy, based in Nairobi, Kenya (PO Box 49789). Hence, it is not readily available for purchase in Europe or America although orders for purchase can now be placed with the Newman Bookstore in Washington, D.C. The full postal address is as follows: Newman Bookstore; 3329 8th Street NE; Washington, D.C.; 20017; U.S.A.; tel. 202-526-1036. On Internet, Fr. Cronin’s book can be ordered from the Newman Bookstore at [email protected]. In the preparation of this Internet edition, to synchronize the pagination in tandem with the print edition for reference purposes, numbers within square brackets have been inserted in the text to indicate where the pages break in the print edition, as in [267] or [viii]. The Table of Contents above has been similarly synchronized. The numbers cited within square brackets indicate the pagination of the first print edition. "In preparing this edition, many thanks are owed to Mr. Robert Gumm, Mr. Jaime Gonzales, Mr. Timothy Dobiac, Mr. James Werner, and Mr. William Koerber. Bob introduced the pagination with square brackets to synchronize this Internet edition with the print edition; Jaime initiated the process of file conversion for Internet publication; Tim converted almost all the files into html format; Jim scanned and inserted images for those chapters with diagrams and tables; and Kin completed this process and edited the remaining chapters prior to posting." 1. Foundations. To my surprise I discovered that there are a group of contemporary philosophers, who not only do not have foundations for their own philosophy, but even claim that any search for such foundations is an illusion, a chimera, a psychological hang-up which we must grow out of. Marx has apparently revealed the political bias underlying class consciousness and a philosophy is merely the expression of class ideology. Freud has uncovered the psychological need for God, for stability, for a view of the world but these are merely props and have no value in themselves. Nietzsche combined these attacks with his own blistering indictments of any form of knowledge morality, or claim to truth. We would seem to be condemned, like characters in an existentialist play, to continue to philosophize but with no hope of ever reaching any kind of coherent conclusion. It is indeed a strange scenario. You have the so-called anti-foundationalists claiming that it is an illusion to seek for philosophical foundations; yet they are fairly clear and explicit about where they stand themselves, about their own foundations or lack of foundations which amounts to the same thing. You have relativists claiming that all is relative, that there is no such thing as absolute truth; and yet they seem to be very dogmatic in propounding their views. You have skeptics explaining that we can [5] know nothing; but yet they are convinced of the truth of their own position. It is then clear from the contemporary situation that it is not an easy thing to establish foundations for a philosophy without falling into dogmatism, relativism or nihilism. In a stable traditional society it was relatively easy to know where you stood. You accepted the beliefs and values of the society and handed them on to the next generation. It was a matter of repeating the past: no initiative was required, emphasis was on the community rather than the individual, it was a matter of conformity, the individual was not expected to show innovation or personal discrimination. But nowadays everything seems to be changing. Technological developments impose changes on our economic modes of production; social and cultural changes follow to integrate new ways of doing things into a whole way of life. Historical studies have familiarized us with the idea that the past is different from the present, not only in political and social institutions but also in their meanings and values; cultures are changing, intermingling, shifting, incorporating new elements all the time. Languages have a history: the English of the nineteenth century is not the same as that of the twentieth. Meanings change with these changes of language. Is there anything that remains the same? Is there any permanence to truth? If so, where is that permanence to be found? Philosophy has traditionally been the area for solving these overall problems of truth and value. But nowadays there is a plurality of philosophies; even there one finds oneself faced with a choice of philosophies. In order to become a student of a philosophy one must also decide which university to attend, which books to read, which courses to follow, which position to adopt. We seem to be caught in a catch twenty-two: we need to be already wise in order to learn about wisdom; we have to be already good in order to learn about goodness. Philosophies are many and we already need criteria in order to discriminate among them. [6] An alternative might be to 'Follow Science.' Science has been so successful; scientists have a method, they have technology, they can do so many things, solve problems of the universe; they seem to be able to do anything. However, scientists do not seem to have much to say about morals; they are not great at giving an account of their own method; something beyond science seems to be demanded. Since this is not very convincing as a worldview, you might be attracted to a benevolent eclecticism, namely, pick and choose from science, philosophy, New Age, Eastern meditation, etc. This might satisfy for a time, but like the house built on sand it will eventually fall. The thesis of this text is that personal philosophical foundations are possible and indeed obligatory. By foundations I simply mean taking a position on the basic issues of 7 Introduction knowing, being, the universe, truth and values and being able to defend that position intelligently and reasonably. These foundations are not to be found in the formulated propositions of a philosophy or a tradition. They are to be found in a patterned set of mental activities by which we think and know and decide. This set of cognitive activities is common to all philosophies, cultures and traditions; this set of activities by which we discern the truth and evaluate moral and religious questions is, in fact, the source of all philosophies, opinions, truths, and beliefs. We all perform these cognitive activities whether or not we are yet able to identify them clearly. By identifying these activities we can make explicit the foundations of our own intellectual life while at the same time honing a tool for discriminating between the various philosophies present in contemporary culture. It is also our thesis that this cognitive analysis reveals the way we should think and know; implicit in the procedures of thinking and knowing are the norms or imperatives which are the source of all logics, moral laws and methods. Our examination of mental processes manifests not only how the mind works, but how it should work. The mind is dynamic, developing, pushing towards a goal of better understanding and knowing. If we can recognize its imperatives we can recognize the source of all logics, methodologies and procedures; we will have found the foundations [7] we are seeking, the underlying dynamic, the source of both permanence and change. This can be done fully only step by step one issue at a time; it cannot be done all at once. There are no facile solutions. The process demands personal self-examination; it takes time and effort. But it is an enormously liberating experience to find that the key to truth and goodness lies in our hearts and minds. We do not have to depend on any Authority or Teacher or Philosophy, to attain to it. 2. Clarifications and Presuppositions. Let us just be clear about the aims and presuppositions of this text. We are not just proposing another theory or possibility but suggesting a journey of self-discovery. Starting point. Where do we start? Euclid started his great work in geometry with a set of axioms, definitions and principles; he then applied these to simple straight lines, triangles, circles and later to three-dimensional bodies such as spheres, cylinders and cones. His approach is a model of system, and the presupposition of many disciplines is that all respectable study must emulate it. Some modern philosophers (Kant and Hume for instance) started with principles and definitions regarding the extent and possibility of human knowing, and worked on 8 Foundations of Philosophy from there, but in this case that procedure seems rather bizarre. How can one reasonably lay down the preconditions for knowing without being already engaged in the activity of knowing? Can we step out of ourselves with our prejudices and limits in order to establish what these limits are? Other contemporary philosophers have tried to work out a presuppositionless philosophy, for example Husserl. But is there such a thing as a philosophy with no definitions, principles or axioms that have been learned within a tradition? These more recent ventures do not seem to have been successful, either. Our approach is to start with the subject in his native bewilderment and confusion - with you and me. Start where we are in the present situation in the unfolding drama of history.