Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J.F.

Buch: Collection: Papers bei B. Lonergan

Titel: Collection: Papers bei B. Lonergan

Stichwort: Vergleich: Coreth - Gilson

Kurzinhalt: ... while Prof. Gilson's immediate realism cannot be mediated and so is dogmatic, Fr Coreth's immediate realism ... is mediated;

Textausschnitt: 2.3 Gilson and Coreth

197a Thirdly, to complete our circle of comparisons, we must now turn to Prof. Gilson and Fr Coreth. Here we are met with massive similarities, and it is the difference that requires clarification. For both are realists: they acknowledge the real existence of minerals, plants, animals, men, and God. Both are immediate realists: though Fr Coreth mediates this immediacy, still for him no less than for Prof. Gilson realism is immediate truth. In both immediate realisms an a posteriori component is recognized: neither attempts to restore the pure reason that Kant undertook to refute. Not only are both Thomists, but also both are quite convinced of the priority of metaphysics over everything in general and over cognitional theory most particularly. Finally, as realism for Prof. Gilson is a whole, as his thinking deals with philosophies as wholes, so too for Fr Coreth the priority of the whole over the parts is cardinal. (Fs)

197b The basic difference is that, while Prof. Gilson's immediate realism cannot be mediated and so is dogmatic, Fr Coreth's immediate realism not only can be but also is mediated. For Prof. Gilson realism is a whole that one must accept or reject, and with this Fr Coreth agrees. For Prof. Gilson realism is a whole that cannot be assembled step by step with every step guaranteed as alone rational, and with this Fr Coreth flatly disagrees. His transcendental method is essentially the method for explicitating the whole: for transcendental method ascertains conditions of possibility, and the first and foremost of all conditions of possibility is the whole itself. (Fs)
198a Let us attempt to get clear this point about a philosophy as essentially a whole. Aristotle and Aquinas distinguish the expert and the wise man: the expert orders everything within a restricted domain; the wise man orders everything. Further, to call a congress of all experts representing all restricted domains does not secure the presence of a wise man, for none of the experts knows the relations between the restricted domains. Knowledge of the whole, then, is distinct from knowledge of the parts, and it is not attained by a mere summation of the parts. The very fact that the expert restricts his domain implies that he also restricts the number of aspects under which he considers the objects within his domain; as the restrictions are removed, further aspects come to light; only when all restrictions are removed do all aspects come to light; and once all restrictions are removed, there can be no ulterior and higher viewpoint from which new aspects come to light with a consequent revision and reordering of previous acquisition. So the unrestricted viewpoint is ultimate and basic: it is wisdom and its domain is being. (Fs)