.jpg)
Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 13, No. 16. July 27, 1950
... According To St. Thomas
... According To St. Thomas
This address of Father Duggan's seemed to have arouned some argument, so we are letting it loose here. A further one or two opinions will be printed in our next issue, limited in length. If you have any comments to make on the opinions expressed below, or on the address itself, please confine them to letter length—that is not more than 250 words.
"The Necessity for Philosophy" was the title of a paper presented to a large, interested and extremely critical audience at a meeting of the Catholic Students' Guild on July 17. Speaker was Rev. G. H. Duggan, D.D., S.M., lecturer at the Marist Seminary, Greenmeadows, and reputedly the leading Catholic philosopher in New Zealand. However, it is doubtful if many of those prevent were convinced of his knowledge of philosophy, or even of his greatness as an exponent of dogma.
The paper contained some incredibly bad argument, (a) He appealed to the authority of Aquinas, Aristotle and Maritain, and argued according to these authorities, (b) "With a time-lag, the outlook of University becomes the outlook of the world at large, but the world at large has no outlook—it doesn't think—therefore the University is a spiritual vacuum. It has abandoned philosophy." He did say that no attempt is made to relate the truths of various departmental teachings, which are in an Encyclopaedic form from Art to Zoology.
(c) He divided the philosophers into the idealists and the realists. The "idealists" art Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Marx, who are identified with the Empiricists and the Positivists. Indeed, "Hume is the evil genius that broods over most Universities today." (d) He argued with the use of emotive language, e.g. "Metaphysics is poetry!!!"
| (i) | Descartes—with whom "Modern philosophy begins"—laid down the doctrine "cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) . . . Therefore I know God . . . Therefore I know the outside world is real . . . This Duggan translated as showing that Descartes knows only conceptions. He classified him as a "subjective idealist" of the most radical nature rather than as a realist arriving at a knowledge of the outside world through a knowledge of God. |
| (ii) | Hume's analysis of casuallty. |
| (iii) | "Kant is not a subjective idealist. His moral law—the categorical imperative, is the law of the Universe and it is as objective as anything of which St. Thomas Aquinas would claim knowledge. |
| (iv) | Marx of course is Just a laughable inclusion among this class of philosophers—idealists. His theses are based on matter and change, both of which are objective. In fact Marx is about the essence of realism. |
Unable to Answer Questions
Duggan failed to understand syntactical analysis, as exhibited by his inability to answer a question set to him by Philisophy 1 student Dave Walshe as to whether "the Science of Being" is not merely bad syntax, and is not in any way a definition of syntax.
On the question of existence, he declared that Bertrand Russell said it was a meaningless word, whereas Russell really asserted that the word "exist" can be used syntactically correctly only with descriptions.
Duggan failed to appreciate the analytical method which derives from Moore of Cambridge. When asked to prove the comparative status of the phrase "infinite being," he could only reply—"Prove that it isn't!"
Again on the question of Being, he appeared to be quite non-plussed by Erie Robinson's question—"Being is a summation of qualities. If we have a horse and take away the quality of heaviness, the quality of body, and the quality of 4 legs, what have we left?" Lance Robinson—"The tail." When the roars had subsided he appeared to think that when the tail had been taken away there was left the essence of the tall.
He was quite unable to describe the concept or nature of infinity to a Catholic student for whom the question was of major importance. Asked if Infinity was some sort of abstraction, picture, or merely a verbal conception, Duggan replied that it was a concept transferred from the contemplation of the real world to the spiritual world.
The Syllabus
It seemed that his big gun for the evening was to take the form of an attack on the syllabus of the Philosophy Department, particularly in Stage 1. He had apparently read the 1919 syllabus and the books described therein. However the 1950 syllabus is the important one if any criticism is to be made. It points out that in addition to the prescribed texts, "further reading will be recommended for each class at the beginning of the session." He made an attack on Whitehead, which this year is not even on the Calendar. He then commenced an assault on Mum-ford's "Condition of Man." Edward Lee (Philosophy lecturer): "Mum-ford is not being used." Mr. K. O'Brien being present with a copy of the College Calendar but no knowledge of the Philosophy course, sought to settle the argument by reading the prescribed texts for the year, which included Mumford. A Stage 1 student asserted that at the beginning of the year Mr. Lee had contradicted the Calendar in this particular. This disposed of Father Duggan's 30 pages of quotes from Mumford.
| (a) | That the removal of Psychology from the Philosophy course was a good thing. |
| (b) | That anything published in the Pelican series is "not suitable as a textbook. It is intended for the general public." |
| (c) | "The syllabus is too ambitious. Traditional logic should be in Stage 1—in fact it should be a compulsory at University." |
| (d) | "I only hope the Middle Ages will get a fair hearing. There is danger of too much history of philosophy and not enough practical philosophy. The time of the 'as ifs' is over. We need "This is so.'" |
Facts!
Dr. Duggan declared that he presented only facts. Yet he said that God is the person who requires no cause. He is the ultimate cause, and it is stupid to ask who caused Him. He said that "The difference between Democracy—which is a political institution—and knowledge, is that knowledge is indefinable, whereas democracy isn't." He didn't say how.
Indeed it seemed strange that Duggan should claim that in general the universities have abandoned Philsophy—with the implication that he knew what Philosophy was and what it should teach, for while asserting that VUC had no philosophy in its syllabus, he was yet unable to answer questions set by one who was halfway through the first year of the present Philosophy syllabus. Thus, while we do not necessarily agree with the views propounded in the Philosophy classroom, We do believe that Dr. Duggan has a distinct misunderstanding about the nature and scope of philosophy.
Still he did say that the removal of Psychology from the course was a good thing.
—Stage 1.