Eric Voegelin’s Philosophy and Its Significance for a Catholic University
In The Australian, July 22-23, 2023, there was an article by John Carroll titled Death of the Humanities. Carroll began by observing that in some American universities, English, history, and philosophy majors have been eliminated. He considered this situation as an implosion of humanities enrolments and suggested that a similar problem is growing in Australia, and also in Catholic universities where there is a 30 percent drop in humanities enrolments. His article considered the decomposition of humanities occurring in many universities, arguing that teachers have lost faith, particularly, in Western Civilization. After discussing the societal repercussions of a decline in humanities education, he highlighted some marginal areas in Australia where the humanities are still being taught, i.e., the support provided by the Ramsey Centre and the Campion College in western Sydney. I found the current survey of the decline of the humanities[1] very significant. It reminded me of an attempt I made several years ago, researching the role of theology and philosophy in the University, particularly in Catholic universities, that resulted in a paper I presented at the Aquinas Campus in 1995, drawing on From the Heart of the Church[2] and Eric Voegelin’s philosophy. At the time, there was very little interest in the subject. However, the problem has only escalated since.[3]
In my paper, I raised the question of philosophy and its place in a Catholic University. Perhaps, this is reminiscent of a scholar, who almost a hundred and fifty years ago, gave a series of lectures on the importance of theology in the University: of course, John Henry Newman.[4] He attempted to establish a place for theology in the University at a time when tolerance for religious pluralism was not abundant.[5] To argue his case, he produced a series of profound and enlightened lectures which are still useful today. Unlike Newman, the topic I would like to raise today is whether philosophy has a role to play in the contemporary University, in particular, the Catholic University.[6]
For the last several years, the works of the philosopher Eric Voegelin have been the focus of my study. It was Voegelin’s aim, to recover the roots of philosophy, which he deemed buried under layers of secondary symbols that had lost their meaning. He retraced these symbols (which today we call ideas) to the very experiences documented by those who engendered them. ‘Symbols’ give expression to the human experience of participation in the Whole which transcends anyone’s particular existence. The ‘symbol’ I wish to focus on here is ‘philosophy’ and its place in a Catholic University.
THE SYMBOL ‘PHILOSOPHY’
If we make a cursory review of philosophy over the past three hundred years, we note that an enormous shift has occurred. Enumerating all the reasons for this would comprise a history of philosophy, but my focus here is to point to some distinct contours of this shift that have been forgotten. To see the full implications of this shift we need to return to the original meaning of ‘philosophy’ (philo – love, sophos – wisdom), the love of wisdom, and what this means in the philosophy of Eric Voegelin.[7]
During his formal training in philosophy in the 1920s, Voegelin became profoundly aware that certain sectors of reality were being ignored:
[…] why do important thinkers like Comte or Marx refuse to apperceive what they apperceive quite well? Why do they expressly prohibit anybody to ask questions concerning the sectors of reality they have excluded from their personal horizon? Why do they want to imprison themselves in their restricted horizon and to dogmatize their prison reality as the universal truth? And why do they want to lock up all mankind in the prison of their making? [8]
Voegelin argued that philosophy should focus on humanity’s experience in the search for the ground of being. Consciousness or thought should not be confined only to the analysis of separate parts of knowledge, but to the experience of participating in being. He understood the world and society, God and man as forming what he termed the “primordial community of being.” He viewed the modern reductionist approaches to understanding humans and society as despising reason, an aspernatio ratio.
Reason, in its fullest sense, includes the noesis of the ancient Greeks[9] and the ratio aeterna [eternal reason] of St. Thomas; which differs from ‘pragmatic rationalism’ which conceives of an immanent reason divorced from the divine source of order.
In the following section, I explore some basic philosophical principles drawn from Voegelin’s article, “On Classical Studies.”[10
A. “Philosophy is the endeavor to understand the order of man and society.”[11]
It was Voegelin’s contention that the philosopher is not an opinion-maker. An ‘opinion’ in Voegelin’s terminology is an irrational perception of reality which reductionist towards the nature of man and society. A distinction is to be made between knowledge [episteme], and opinion [doxa].
B. “Society is man written large.”[12]
This means that society reflects the philosophical conception of humanity. There are many societies where the reverse is true, i.e., that ‘man is society written large’, where the individual is subsumed to the ‘group mind’ in extreme forms, and humans are merely cogs in the wheel.
C. Education is the art of periagoge, of turning around (Plato’s term for the reorientation toward the Good.)[13]
True education requires growth that can be challenging and may at times involve discomfort and periods of uncertainty, facets that contemporary philosophy often disregards in its demand of certain and clear answers to the question of existence.
Pure rationalization is a process divorced from the “life of reason” [noetic reason] which illuminates human existence, and demands the recognition that persons are living beings with nous [mind].
D. “There is a definite structure of man that puts limits on perfectibility.”[14]
Voegelin endorsed the Hellenic perspective that human nature does not change. Recognition of this premise means that those who dream of constructing a so-called ‘new world and new man’ do not take into account the full structure of reality, and hence are doomed to failure. Voegelin regarded these endeavors as gnostic attempts to change the structure of man and society. Such attempts were abundantly manifest in the twentieth century, in the form of Darwinianism, Communism, Nazism, ethnic cleansing, scientism, and so on.[15]
E. Humans exist in erotic [desire, love, longing] tension toward the divine ground of their existence.[16]
In other words, this is a desire for the summum bonum, the greatest good, the agathon, the transcendental perfection and divine measure. This finds expression in both Hellenic philosophy and in Augustine’s quest for God, “Long have I sought thee beauty ever new and ever old”. Voegelin argues that this divine drawing [helkein] and seeking [zetesis] is a reality of human existence which is a two-way movement – the quest to seek the divine and the simultaneous experience of being sought by it.[17] Unfortunately, this sublime movement is lost to modern philosophy, the “measure of man” replaces the divine measure.
F. “The Question”. Man is disturbed by the question of the ground of being. By nature, he is a questioner [aporein] and seeker [zetein] for the whence, the where to, and the why of his existence. Thus “the Question”: why is there something rather than nothing?[18]
The Question points to human awareness of the Whole[19]. This approach stands in stark contrast to the modern philosophical discourse, where there is a refusal to see the big picture, the broader, holistic view of reality.
G. The feeling of existential unrest, the desire to know, the feeling of being moved to questioning, and the underlying force that drives this seeking itself, are all experiences in which the reality of divine-human participation [metalepsis] becomes luminous.[20]
The exploration of the human-divine encounter, and the articulation of this exploration, primarily occur through language and symbols. as well as its articulation of the exploratory action is through language symbols. In Plato’s case, this is a central focus of the philosopher’s efforts. In contrast to this approach, contemporary society tends to prioritize the pursuit of certainty, security, and closure to elements that might introduce the transcendent or disrupt the everyday “here and now” world.
Voegelin stressed that gnosticism denies two great principles governing human existence: “what comes into being will have an end,” and the recognition that “the mystery of the stream of being is impenetrable.” Gnosticism ignores and perverts these principles into their opposites. For example, “the idea of the final realm assumes a society that will come into being and have no end, and the mystery of the stream of being is dissolved into speculative knowledge, as an end in itself.[21]
This tendency to negate these fundamental principles and pursue the quest for absolute knowledge is evident in various ideologies. Voegelin argued that these ideologies can diminish the importance of the “truth of the soul” and undermine the significance of classical philosophy and Christianity. However, these Gnostic variations cannot alter the intrinsic nature of human beings or separate the human spirit from the transcendent structure of reality. In essence, they cannot fundamentally change human nature in its essential connection to the transcendent structure of reality.[22]
H. Through the life of reason [bios theoretikos] man realizes his freedom[23]
Only by acknowledging the noetic element is one free. When the noetic element is suppressed, human nature is falsified by opinion-makers. Yet, Voegelin points out that although noetic reason is “brushed off as stuff and nonsense,” its importance as a tool of analysis has surfaced in other areas such as comparative religion, comparative literature, art history, the study of mythology, the history of philosophy, intellectual history, the examination of primitive symbols in ethnography and anthropology, the exploration of ancient civilizations, archaeology, prehistory, the study of Hinduism, Islam, the Far East, Hellenistic mystery religions, the Qumran texts, Gnosticism, early Christianity, and the Christian Middle Ages, as well as classical studies.[24]
These subjects comprise what Voegelin called the “historical sciences” and serve as a counterforce to the prevailing belief that noetic reason holds no significance.
WHAT SIGNIFICANCE DOES PHILOSOPHY HAVE FOR THEOLOGY?
Karl Rahner considered that the relationship between theology and philosophy is difficult to determine because it hinges on the crucial distinction between “nature” (the realm of human understanding and reason) and “grace” (the divine or supernatural aspects of faith and revelation). Rahner noted that philosophy and theology differ in their principium and their objectum. For this reason, a precise distinction must be made between the two subjects. He writes:
theology is based on grace of revealed faith and regards the revealed mysteries of God, while philosophy proceeds from natural reason and is concerned with objects accessible to this.” Furthermore, “natural reason is always subject to the finality of grace, whether accepting or rejecting it.[25]
Rahner observes the importance of considering the broader horizons of philosophy and recognizing that no one can remain entirely neutral when it comes to the concept of grace. He emphasizes that there can be a positive relationship between philosophy and theology, as these fields are not entirely separate from one another.[26]
Rahner’s rather vague explanation of the relation between theology and philosophy can be substantiated by the scholastic concept of “natural philosophy”. I suggest using the term “noetic theology” as a different approach to explore the nature/grace issue, a concept drawn from Voegelin’s analysis of the Hellenistic, Israelite, and Christian experiences. Voegelin emphasizes the “structural” experience and the importance of recognizing the principle of differentiation in how humans have encountered and symbolized their experiences of the transcendent. He writes:
Who is this God who moves the philosophers in their search? What does he reveal to them? And how is he related to the God who reveals himself to Israelites, Jews and Christians?” He points out that ‘the God who appeared to the philosophers’ (Plato and Aristotle Parmenides and so on, is the ‘same God who revealed himself to Moses as, “I am who I am,” as the God who is what He is in the concrete theophany to which man responds,’ and God lets himself be seen, whether in a burning Thornbush or in a Promethean fire, He is what he reveals himself to be in the event.[27]
According to Voegelin, noetic reason as analyzed in the Platonic vision is not only illuminating but illuminates truth in general. He draws a comparison between the experiences of Moses encountering the burning bush and the Prisoner in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. In both instances, there is a compelling force that urges the participants to “hear” or “turn around,” respectively. These experiences involve human hesitations, doubts, and struggles, which Voegelin sees as elements of the same theophanic event.
Voegelin was deeply aware of the problem of reifying symbols and saw this as a constant problem that faced “Christian philosophy:” For this reason, he argued that the Platonic analysis as expressed in the plurality of ‘pulls’ [tension of existence] was more precise than the contemporary symbols “man” and “God,” which have become “loaded with various doctrinal content.” Voegelin believed that these symbols have been derived from insights drawn in classical philosophy. To reconsider the experience as engendered by these insights, there is a need to restore their meaning more precisely. The metaxy, the divine presence, should not be reduced to mere propositional forms or rigid doctrines. Voegelin’s comprehensive perspective on truth underscores the strength of the Gospel, emphasizing that its central point is the recognition that the truth of reality is centered not in the broader cosmos, nature, society, or imperial authority. Instead, it is found in the presence of the Unknown God within the existential experience of life and death in human beings.[28]
MODERN SPIRITUAL CRISIS
Voegelin asks why the Christian experience is a problem for our contemporary world, and points to a “social phenomenon” that resists any “appeal to the noetic balance.” This problem of imbalance is also evident in the historical development of Christianity, particularly in what is commonly referred to as the separation between scholastic or systematic theology and mystical or experiential theology.
Voegelin explains that theology once formed “an apparently inseparable unit and was still present in the time of Origen.” However, “this unfortunate separation” of these theological dimension was considered by Voegelin as one of the great causes of the modern spiritual crisis. Many attempts have been made to cope with this problem, including the emergence of crisis and existential theologies, as well as the recognition of the loss of experiential reality through excessive doctrinal focus.
Voegelin argues that these efforts attempt failed to deal with this problem, which essentially involves the separation of theology from the genuine human experience of the divine. To explain this transformation, it’s important to understand that the development of doctrines and dogmas in Christian history, intended as protective measures, has unintentionally solidified or reified the Christian experience. The consequence has been that the original connection between the profound human experience that inspired religious symbolism and the divine reality it represents has been severed:
At a time when the reality of the Gospel threatens to fall apart into the constructions of an historical Jesus and a doctrinal Christ, one cannot stress strongly enough the need to understand the status of a Gospel as a symbolism engendered in the metaxy of existence by a disciple’s response to the drama of the Son of God.[29]
The pervasive “split” between the original experience of the “Unknown God,” referred to by Voegelin as the theotes, and the subsequent theological dogmas has had far-reaching effects. It has not only obscured the reality of the Unknown God but has also impacted the understanding of the participatory mode (of the Metaxy), which represents the in-between realm where the divine and human intersect. The practical question of how to acknowledge the eschatological dimension was the concern of Plato and Aristotle,
This eschatological tension of man’s humanity, in its dimensions of person, society and history, is more than a matter of theoretical insight for the philosopher; it is a practical question. As we have said, Plato and Aristotle were very much aware that the action of philosophizing is a process of immortalizing in this world. This action does not come to its end with Plato and Aristotle; it continues, though in every concrete situation, the philosopher has to cope with the problems he encounters in his own position concretely. If the Classic philosopher had to cope with the difficulties created by a dying myth and active Sophistic aggressiveness, the philosopher in the twentieth century has to struggle with the “climate of opinion” as Whitehead called this phenomenon.[30]
Voegelin’s approach to what I have called “noetic theology” highlights two aspects. Firstly, how to analyze the huge accumulation of “religious phenomena.” He contends that knowledge in this field cannot advance beyond the present state without the acknowledgment of the Greek noetic effort. At present, he observed “a discrepancy between the mountains of materials and the poverty of their theoretical presentation.” There have been many efforts to investigate topics in the historical sciences, but very little research relates these religious phenomena to “the structure of consciousness in the sense of noetic analysis.” Secondly, it is often forgotten that one of the great achievements of the Greeks was their perception of the order of human existence and their struggle against those who falsify this insight.
Voegelin suggests that one of the problems contributing to the failure of research in this area of noetic analysis is historical positivism. This issue emerges when the focus on using a specific method takes precedence over ensuring theoretical relevance. In this situation, researchers tend to accumulate a wealth of pertinent facts, but there is no adequate theoretical foundation to apply principles of selection and interpretation of these facts. The result is instead that theory is derived from political preferences, personal idiosyncrasies and uncritical opinion.
PHILOSOPHY IN A CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY
The mission statement in the document From the Heart of the Church [31] underscores the vision of a Catholic university as “an incomparable centre of creativity and dissemination of knowledge for the good of humanity.” How can this goal be achieved, without a broad, foundational philosophical perspective capable of providing theoretical relevance across various research areas?
In this context, philosophy and theology are closely intertwined[32]. A major task of the university is to bridge the existential gap between two aspects of reality that are sometimes seen as conflicting: the pursuit of truth and the certainty of already possessing the truth.[33]
As we know in our contemporary world, the growing disparity between these two dimensions of reality is progressing so rapidly that few can fully comprehend the present situation. This raises the crucial question of how philosophy and theology can be effectively marshaled to confront the enormous technological and global challenges presently confronting the modern world. What principles are at stake?
It is for this reason that we need to examine the relationship between philosophy and theology. By doing so, we can establish a platform for effective communication and constructive debate in the pursuit of truth. Theology cannot be left alone with the burden of disseminating the “very meaning of scientific and technological research, or of social life and of culture” and more importantly, “the very meaning of the human person.”[34]
Researching and communicating these truths in a relevant language requires a close working relationship between philosophy and theology. This symbiotic connection is possible because both fields share a common concern for truth, the dignity and immortality of individuals, and their relationship with the world.
In the document From the Heart of the Church there are allusions to this idea of working toward a comprehensive synthesis of knowledge. To achieve this, philosophy and theology must make specific contributions to determine the relative place and significance of various disciplines within a broader visionary context together with “a careful and thorough study of philosophy and theology.” The emphasis is placed on how human reason continually raises broader and more profound questions.[35]
While people are open to explore these questions, there is also a growing sense of confusion about how, in the midst of all this knowledge, one can discern the goal of the summum bonum. This prompts the fundamental inquiry: what tools do universities provide to equip students to analyze, interpret, and discern truth?
NOTES:
[1] See an article by Simon Kennedy, “The Death of Humanities, the Death of the University” Quadrant On line15/9/2023, he notes: But even the Catholics are abandoning the humanities. News has just emerged that ACU is shutting down its world-leading medieval and early modern studies research streams at the Centre for Religion and Critical Inquiry. At the same time, it is closing the Dianoia Institute of Philosophy, which it established in a blaze of glory only a few years ago.
[2] From the Heart of the Church. Ex Corde Ecclesiae Apostolic Constitution of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, On Catholic Universities. August 15 1990.
[3] The problem is particularly significant in America. See The Atlantic, The humanities are in crisis, Benjamin Schmidt 23/8/ 2018; The end of the English major, Nathan Heller, 27/2/23.
[4] The Idea of a University is frequently listed as 1852, the year in which Newman first presented five lectures to a Dublin audience from 10 May to 7 June.
[5] John HenryNewman, The idea of a University 1952 DISCOURSE II Theology a Branch of Knowledge (pp. 14-32):
There were two questions, to which I drew your attention, Gentlemen, in the beginning of my first Discourse, as being of especial importance and interest at this time : first, whether it is consistent with the idea of University teaching to exclude Theology from a place among the sciences which it embraces; next, whether it is consistent with that idea to make the useful arts and sciences its direct and principal concern, to the neglect of those liberal studies and exercises of mind, in which it has heretofore been considered mainly to consist.
[6] Originally this Paper was written in 1995. At that time, ACU was just establishing a theology and philosophy department.
[7] Eric Voegelin, born Jan. 3, 1901, Cologne—died Jan. 19, 1985, Stanford, Calif., U.S.), German-American political scientist and interdisciplinary scholar known for his studies of modern political thought and for his efforts to create a comprehensive philosophy of man, society, and history.
[8] Eric Voegelin, “Remembrance of things Past.” In CW 12: Published Essays: 1966-1985, ed. Ellis Sandoz (Baton Rouge), LA : State University Press, 1990. 304-305.
[9] Classical Greek philosophy beginning in 6th century BC.
[10] “On Classical Studies.” In CW 12: Published Essays: 1966-1985 ed. Ellis Sandoz.
Originally written in 1973 in Modern Age 17: 2-8.]
[11] Ibid., 258.
[12] Ibid., 258.
[13] Ibid., 260.
[14] Ibid., 258.
[15] For example, in the current climate, gender identity and unproven theories of climate change.
[16] “On Classical Studies.” In CW 12, 258.
[17] Ibid., 259.
[18] Ibid., .258.
[19] Whole to Pan Greek, the Cosmos, literally, “the all.”
[20] “On Classical Studies.” In CW 12, 259.
[21] Voegelin, “Configurations of History.” In CW 12: Published Essays 1966-1985, vol 12, 107.
[22] “On Classical Studies” In CW 12, 258.
[23] Ibid., 260.
[24] Ibid., 262
[25] Karl Rahner, “Philosophy and Theology.” In Encylopedia of Theology: The Concise Sacramentum mundi 1981, 1228-1233.
[26] Karl Rahner, “Philosophy and Theology.” In Sacramentum mundi 1981, 1228-1233.
[27] Voegelin, Order and History (Volume 4): The Ecumenic Age. In CW 17, 293. University of Missouri Press, 2000.
[28] Voegelin, “The Gospel and Culture.” In CW 12: Published Essays: 1966-1985, ed. Ellis Sandoz. vol 12. 210.
[29] Ibid., 201.
[30] Chapter 27 in Eric Voegelin’s Autobiographical Reflections. CW 34 (University of Missouri Press, 2011)
[31]From the Heart of the Church- Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesia.
[32]Francis J. Moloney, “The Direction of Theology at Australian Catholic University.” Compass,1995, vol. 29, 7.
[33] From the Heart of the Church– Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae 1990. See Introduction.
[34] From the Heart of the Church– Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae 1990. See Part I Identity and Mission, No 19.
[35] From the Heart of the Church– Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae 1990. See Part I Identity and Mission, Nos 15-17.
Related Posts
