Chesterton Explains Thomism
One of my all time favorite passages from one of the standard books that should be put on every student of truth’s bookshelf at a young age:
It will be understood that in these matters I speak as a fool; or, as our democratic cousins would say, a moron; anyhow as a man in the street; and the only object of this chapter is to show that the Thomist philosophy is nearer than most philosophies to the mind of the man in the street. I am not, like Father D’Arcy, whose admirable book on St. Thomas has illuminated many problems for me, a trained philosopher, acquainted with the technique of the trade. But I hope Father D’Arcy will forgive me if I take one example from his book, which exactly illustrates what I mean. He, being a trained philosopher, is naturally trained to put up with philosophers. Also, being a trained priest, he is naturally accustomed, not only to suffer fools gladly, but (what is sometimes even harder) to suffer clever people gladly. Above all, his wide reading in metaphysics has made him patient with clever people when they indulge in folly. The consequence is that he can write calmly and even blandly sentences like these. “A certain likeness can be detected between the aim and method of St. Thomas and those of Hegel. There are, however, also remarkable differences. For St. Thomas it is impossible that contradictories should exist together, and again reality and intelligibility correspond, but a thing must first be, to be intelligible.”
Let the man in the street be forgiven, if he adds that the “remarkable difference” seems to him to be that St. Thomas was sane and Hegel was mad. The moron refuses to admit that Hegel can both exist and not exist; or that it can be possible to understand Hegel, if there is no Hegel to understand. Yet Father D’Arcy mentions this Hegelian paradox as if it were all in the day’s work; and of course it is, if the work is reading all the modern philosophers as searchingly and sympathetically as he has done. And this is what I mean by saying that a modern philosophy starts with a stumbling-block. It is surely not too much to say that there seems to be a twist, in saying that contraries are not incompatible; or that a thing can “be” intelligible and not as yet “be” at all.
Against all this the philosophy of St. Thomas stands founded on the universal common conviction that eggs are eggs. The Hegelian may say that an egg is really a hen, because it is a part of an endless process of Becoming; the Berkeleian may hold that poached eggs only exist as a dream exists; since it is quite as easy to call the dream the cause of the eggs as the eggs the cause of the dream; the Pragmatist may believe that we get the best out of scrambled egos by forgetting that they ever were eggs, and only remembering the scramble. But no pupil of St. Thomas needs to addle his brains in order adequately to addle his eggs; to put his head at any peculiar angle in looking at eggs, or squinting at eggs, or winking the other eye in order to see a new simplification of eggs. The Thomist stands in the broad daylight of the brotherhood of men, in their common consciousness that eggs are not hens or dreams or mere practical assumptions; but things attested by the Authority of the Senses, which is from God.
______________________________________________________
Read the whole excerpt
Buy the whole book
______________________________________________________
UPDATE
Accidental to the point of this post, but more on Hegel here (for one of the reasons he did and does catch on) and here (for one exact way in which Hegel still affects every single one of us today).
i never knew that about wilson that he was a political scientist. it seems impossible for a political scientist to rise to the presidency in our age.
chim
September 21, 2005 at 3:47 pm
It is possible, albeit unlikely. This isn’t all bad though–as the article shows, Wilson did much damage to the Constitution, and any political scientist in our time would likely do the same.
kodiak
September 22, 2005 at 2:03 pm
This reminds me of a great line from the movie “Max Dugan Returns”.
Max, played by Jason Robards, is trying to convince his grandson Michael, played by Matthew Brodrick, to become a philosopher.
Michael: Can you make money from philosophy?
Max: Yeah, if you have the right one.
Norris
September 22, 2005 at 10:45 pm
I’m not a huge Aquinas fan myself, but Chesterton certainly puts him in a good light, over against Hegel. That “eggs” paragraph is pure gold – speaking as a “man on the street,” “armchair philosopher” type.
AJ
October 5, 2005 at 6:51 pm
this is very good
related source
this is very good
April 8, 2006 at 2:49 pm