Ivo Coelho. "Faith and Religion." Jnanodaya: Journal of Philosophy 20 (2013) 1-10.
Thursday, 1 August 2013
Thursday, 25 July 2013
The dialectic of methods in Lonergan's Method in Theology
Chapter 10: Dialectic of Lonergan’s Method in Theology has three sections entitled simply Dialectic of Methods Part One, Part Two, Part Three. One of the questions raised in our seminar on methods of interpreting a philosophical text was: what do these sections really talk about? I am putting down here the answer, which, I must say, ‘emerged’ with something new even for me.
‘Dialectic of Methods’ harks back, for those who are familiar with the corpus, to chapter 14 of Insight, with its section 4 on The Dialectic of Method in Metaphysics (CWL 3:426). The editorial note f is helpful: it indicates that at some point, Lonergan wanted to put this title as Critique of Some Methods in Metaphysics.
So sections 7-9 of Method in Theology are really critiques of some methods. And, like section 4 of chapter 14 of Insight, here too these critiques follow on an exposition of Lonergan’s own method – dialectical method, as it turns out to be, in both cases.
So that clarifies the general title of the three sections: Dialectic of Method. But why the three parts? What we discovered is that they do not correspond to critiques of three different methods. There are only two methods that are criticized: linguistic analysis (in sections 7 and 8) and idealism (section 9). This is borne out by MT 254: “Acccordingly, I shall comment briefly, first, on certain contentions of linguistic analysis and, secondly, on certain conclusions that follow from idealist premises.”
Section 8 clarifies that talk about mental acts – which Lonergan has ‘defended’ in section 7 – is fuller, more accurate and more explanatory in the more differentiated horizons. “We have been talking about mental acts and now we must note that such talk can occur in genetically distinct horizons. In any of these the talk may be correct or incorrect but, the more differentiated the horizon, the fuller, the more accurate, and the more explanatory will be the talk.” (MT 257)
Obviously the most differentiated horizon in question is the world of interiority. “From within the world of interiority, then, mental acts as experienced and as systematically conceived are a logical first….” (MT 261)
‘Dialectic of Methods’ harks back, for those who are familiar with the corpus, to chapter 14 of Insight, with its section 4 on The Dialectic of Method in Metaphysics (CWL 3:426). The editorial note f is helpful: it indicates that at some point, Lonergan wanted to put this title as Critique of Some Methods in Metaphysics.
So sections 7-9 of Method in Theology are really critiques of some methods. And, like section 4 of chapter 14 of Insight, here too these critiques follow on an exposition of Lonergan’s own method – dialectical method, as it turns out to be, in both cases.
So that clarifies the general title of the three sections: Dialectic of Method. But why the three parts? What we discovered is that they do not correspond to critiques of three different methods. There are only two methods that are criticized: linguistic analysis (in sections 7 and 8) and idealism (section 9). This is borne out by MT 254: “Acccordingly, I shall comment briefly, first, on certain contentions of linguistic analysis and, secondly, on certain conclusions that follow from idealist premises.”
Section 8 clarifies that talk about mental acts – which Lonergan has ‘defended’ in section 7 – is fuller, more accurate and more explanatory in the more differentiated horizons. “We have been talking about mental acts and now we must note that such talk can occur in genetically distinct horizons. In any of these the talk may be correct or incorrect but, the more differentiated the horizon, the fuller, the more accurate, and the more explanatory will be the talk.” (MT 257)
Obviously the most differentiated horizon in question is the world of interiority. “From within the world of interiority, then, mental acts as experienced and as systematically conceived are a logical first….” (MT 261)
Tuesday, 16 July 2013
De Smet's interpretation of Sankara
E-mail dt 16.7.2013 from John Vattanky to Ivo Coelho:
Dear Fr. Ivo,
As you know I am also an admirer of De Smet. However a question often comes to my mind: Is there any support for De Smet's interpretaion of Sankara in classical commentators of Vedanta literature in Sanskrit? I mean especially De Smet's understanding of tadatmya sambandha as ontological dependence which involves the concept of creation. Some of De Smet's supporters claim that this is minority view? But even as minority group can they claim any support in the Vedantic tradtion of Sanskrit commentators? If so can you give me some refrences? Does De Smet himself give some reference from the Classical tradition of Vedanta? Since you are well acquainted with all the works of De Smet, if you can give me some enlightenment on this point I shall be much obliged.
Thanking you and wishing you all the best,
John Vattanky,S.J.
Reply dated 16.7.2013:
Dear Fr Vattanky,
Thank you for your mail and your query.
I am no Indologist, even though I have tried to edit Fr De Smet's work, so I will not be able to give you any hard answers.
In De Smet's work, I do not remember having come across any evidence of support for his interpretation among the classical or even contemporary Vedantic commentators.
Perhaps you could have a look at my Introduction to the recent UNDERSTANDING SANKARA: ESSAYS BY RICHARD DE SMET, 10 copies of which have recently been sent to Fr Keith Abranches. From there you could go to the texts themselves.
What I remember De Smet saying to me is that his scholarly audience, who at first tended to reject his interpretation, slowly seem to have begun accepting it, or at least parts of it. It would be a great piece of research to study the reception of De Smet's work among indologists.
My own feeling is that there is much to be said in favour of De Smet's interpretation on several counts:
1. Sankara knew the Buddhist Vijnanavada, and rejected it.
2. Far from inventing the technique of laksanaa, he found it in his tradition, and made use of it.
3. When he says that the world is not unreal like the son of a barren woman, but rather like a dream, he gives us a strong indication that he is talking analogously or at least comparatively: the world cannot be understood to be Real in the same sense as Brahman; but it is not unreal, it is not nothing, like the son of a barren woman.
4. The relationship between Brahman and the world is sui generis, unique, and so it always remains a node of great difficulty for any thinking, and one of the primary conundrums for thought. All other instances of causality are bound to be inadequate, and consequently every attempt to talk and think about the relationship is bound to face difficulty. I believe that Sankara suffered the same fate at the hands of his commentators as Thomas did at the hands of his. Lonergan talks about a 'lag' between thought and expression, and I believe we find this lag or gap in Sankara.
5. We have to also take into account also the whole history of translation: the decision to translate maya as illusion, for example, and the various influences at play. At the turn of the last century, with the dominance of Idealism in Britain, it should not be surprising to find Indian scholars and thinkers tending to adequate Sankara with that strand of thought.
But, as I have said, I am not an Indologist. I can only hope that the recent publications of De Smet's work will open his work to greater scrutiny and debate.
Thank you dear Father.
Ivo
Dear Fr. Ivo,
As you know I am also an admirer of De Smet. However a question often comes to my mind: Is there any support for De Smet's interpretaion of Sankara in classical commentators of Vedanta literature in Sanskrit? I mean especially De Smet's understanding of tadatmya sambandha as ontological dependence which involves the concept of creation. Some of De Smet's supporters claim that this is minority view? But even as minority group can they claim any support in the Vedantic tradtion of Sanskrit commentators? If so can you give me some refrences? Does De Smet himself give some reference from the Classical tradition of Vedanta? Since you are well acquainted with all the works of De Smet, if you can give me some enlightenment on this point I shall be much obliged.
Thanking you and wishing you all the best,
John Vattanky,S.J.
Reply dated 16.7.2013:
Dear Fr Vattanky,
Thank you for your mail and your query.
I am no Indologist, even though I have tried to edit Fr De Smet's work, so I will not be able to give you any hard answers.
In De Smet's work, I do not remember having come across any evidence of support for his interpretation among the classical or even contemporary Vedantic commentators.
Perhaps you could have a look at my Introduction to the recent UNDERSTANDING SANKARA: ESSAYS BY RICHARD DE SMET, 10 copies of which have recently been sent to Fr Keith Abranches. From there you could go to the texts themselves.
What I remember De Smet saying to me is that his scholarly audience, who at first tended to reject his interpretation, slowly seem to have begun accepting it, or at least parts of it. It would be a great piece of research to study the reception of De Smet's work among indologists.
My own feeling is that there is much to be said in favour of De Smet's interpretation on several counts:
1. Sankara knew the Buddhist Vijnanavada, and rejected it.
2. Far from inventing the technique of laksanaa, he found it in his tradition, and made use of it.
3. When he says that the world is not unreal like the son of a barren woman, but rather like a dream, he gives us a strong indication that he is talking analogously or at least comparatively: the world cannot be understood to be Real in the same sense as Brahman; but it is not unreal, it is not nothing, like the son of a barren woman.
4. The relationship between Brahman and the world is sui generis, unique, and so it always remains a node of great difficulty for any thinking, and one of the primary conundrums for thought. All other instances of causality are bound to be inadequate, and consequently every attempt to talk and think about the relationship is bound to face difficulty. I believe that Sankara suffered the same fate at the hands of his commentators as Thomas did at the hands of his. Lonergan talks about a 'lag' between thought and expression, and I believe we find this lag or gap in Sankara.
5. We have to also take into account also the whole history of translation: the decision to translate maya as illusion, for example, and the various influences at play. At the turn of the last century, with the dominance of Idealism in Britain, it should not be surprising to find Indian scholars and thinkers tending to adequate Sankara with that strand of thought.
But, as I have said, I am not an Indologist. I can only hope that the recent publications of De Smet's work will open his work to greater scrutiny and debate.
Thank you dear Father.
Ivo
Friday, 5 July 2013
Moral conversion and moral perfection
I am reading ch. 10: Dialectic of Lonergan's Method in Theology, in preparation for the seminar session, and just realized the clarity with which Lonergan distinguishes between moral conversion and moral perfection. To be morally converted is to opt for the truly good, and even for value over satisfaction when the two are in conflict. But to be morally converted is not yet to be morally perfect, for moral perfection adds doing to deciding.
Tuesday, 28 May 2013
Lonergan on Henri de Lubac
Lonergan has quite a pungent but extremely clear remark about Henri de Lubac in CWL 18:350. He acknowledges his confrere's erudition and his holiness, but says that he is not a competent speculative thinker.
This might have all sorts of ramifications, since de Lubac was von Balthasar's teacher.
This might have all sorts of ramifications, since de Lubac was von Balthasar's teacher.
Saturday, 4 May 2013
Is every synthesis a higher viewpoint?
Maria Arul Anthuvan wrote: With regard to "higher viewpoint", I had mistaken it with the "higher synthesis" of Lonergan's description of cosmopolis in IN: "higher synthesis of the liberal thesis and the Marxist antithesis." [Insight CWL 3:266.]
My reply:
higher viewpoint: a very technical term in L. yes, i am myself not sure whether the higher synthesis of the two would be a higher viewpoint.
this much i am sure: not every advance in knowledge, not every new insight or set of insights, qualifies as a higher viewpoint.
when first defined, the HV is: a new set of rules that integrates the old rules and yet goes beyond. Thus the simple rules for addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and squares get into trouble when negative numbers, fractions, and surds appear. how to add +1 and -1, for example? and how to multiply them? and divide them? and what would be the square root of -1? we need to expand the old rules, and the new rules, when they are found, will have to do the work of the old, plus face the new situations. the new rules constitute the higher viewpoint.
in the biological area the case is somewhat more difficult to understand. See ch. 4, probably on the matter. when there is a set of events that is merely coincidental on a particular level, say the biological level of cells, there can arise, within this merely coincidental set of events, new schemes of recurrence. When they do, we have evidence for a higher genus, which is equivalent to the higher viewpoint. This new genus does not abolish the lower genus. the cells will continue to function; but now there is a higher unity, perhaps a multi-cellular organism. the fact that we say organism indicates a higher unity (though you must be careful to understand that any organism is not just one scheme of recurrence, not even just many schemes of recurrence, but a 'crossroads' of a number of schemes of recurrence, and that too at many levels).
in the human area, the most interesting is the intellectual. here the 'stuff' of progress is ideas, if you wish. and the higher viewpoints are in the realm of ideas. thus algebra, which is a higher viewpoint to arithmetic. and Einstein's theory, which is definitely a higher viewpoint to that of Newton. but still I cannot say for certain about the case you mentioned. will have to be read carefully.
My reply:
higher viewpoint: a very technical term in L. yes, i am myself not sure whether the higher synthesis of the two would be a higher viewpoint.
this much i am sure: not every advance in knowledge, not every new insight or set of insights, qualifies as a higher viewpoint.
when first defined, the HV is: a new set of rules that integrates the old rules and yet goes beyond. Thus the simple rules for addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and squares get into trouble when negative numbers, fractions, and surds appear. how to add +1 and -1, for example? and how to multiply them? and divide them? and what would be the square root of -1? we need to expand the old rules, and the new rules, when they are found, will have to do the work of the old, plus face the new situations. the new rules constitute the higher viewpoint.
in the biological area the case is somewhat more difficult to understand. See ch. 4, probably on the matter. when there is a set of events that is merely coincidental on a particular level, say the biological level of cells, there can arise, within this merely coincidental set of events, new schemes of recurrence. When they do, we have evidence for a higher genus, which is equivalent to the higher viewpoint. This new genus does not abolish the lower genus. the cells will continue to function; but now there is a higher unity, perhaps a multi-cellular organism. the fact that we say organism indicates a higher unity (though you must be careful to understand that any organism is not just one scheme of recurrence, not even just many schemes of recurrence, but a 'crossroads' of a number of schemes of recurrence, and that too at many levels).
in the human area, the most interesting is the intellectual. here the 'stuff' of progress is ideas, if you wish. and the higher viewpoints are in the realm of ideas. thus algebra, which is a higher viewpoint to arithmetic. and Einstein's theory, which is definitely a higher viewpoint to that of Newton. but still I cannot say for certain about the case you mentioned. will have to be read carefully.
Thursday, 25 April 2013
"Despoiling the Egyptians"
The first great inculturation of Christianity was into the Graeco-Roman world.
The basic transculturality of Christianity. A translation of the Koran, for example, is not the Koran. The Koran is the Koran only in the original language.
The call to a second great inculturation (by John Paul II in Fides et Ratio) - which is not to say that this begins with this call!
The caveats: the second inculturation will not and should not take place by abandoning the first great inculturation. The permanently valid achievements of the latter should be transposed into the new inculturation.
The great question is, how?
We find a model in Aquinas: wisdom and discernment, not without controversy (the Franciscan bishop wanted to condemn him posthumously).
Lonergan: objectivity as fruit of authentic subjectivity, where authentic subjectivity involves intellectual, moral and religious conversion.
The core problem here: judgment and truth. Is everything fine? will all things be okay? Can just any interpretation do? Or is there a limit, a boundary?
Gadamer has a spontaneous criterion of truth.
Perhaps also others like Ricoeur.
Lonergan offers an explicit, methodical criterion of truth, which, in Method in Theology, is found in the functional specialty dialectic.
In our Indian context: we cannot reject in principle the Brahminic contribution. See Newman's advice to Despoil the Egyptians. It is time to retrieve the great contributions of the past. (De Smet says somewhere that it is time. Search for the bibliography of Indian Christian Theology in an early issue of Indian Theological Studies, I think.)
Study the Calcutta School of Indology. It is the before of De Smet. Study also the after of De Smet.
See also my blog ICW.
The basic transculturality of Christianity. A translation of the Koran, for example, is not the Koran. The Koran is the Koran only in the original language.
The call to a second great inculturation (by John Paul II in Fides et Ratio) - which is not to say that this begins with this call!
The caveats: the second inculturation will not and should not take place by abandoning the first great inculturation. The permanently valid achievements of the latter should be transposed into the new inculturation.
The great question is, how?
We find a model in Aquinas: wisdom and discernment, not without controversy (the Franciscan bishop wanted to condemn him posthumously).
Lonergan: objectivity as fruit of authentic subjectivity, where authentic subjectivity involves intellectual, moral and religious conversion.
The core problem here: judgment and truth. Is everything fine? will all things be okay? Can just any interpretation do? Or is there a limit, a boundary?
Gadamer has a spontaneous criterion of truth.
Perhaps also others like Ricoeur.
Lonergan offers an explicit, methodical criterion of truth, which, in Method in Theology, is found in the functional specialty dialectic.
In our Indian context: we cannot reject in principle the Brahminic contribution. See Newman's advice to Despoil the Egyptians. It is time to retrieve the great contributions of the past. (De Smet says somewhere that it is time. Search for the bibliography of Indian Christian Theology in an early issue of Indian Theological Studies, I think.)
Study the Calcutta School of Indology. It is the before of De Smet. Study also the after of De Smet.
See also my blog ICW.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
