Abstract

The philosophical faculty of the Jesuit Berchmanskolleg in Pullach has long since made its mark in the publishing world, and the new series of philosophical studies from Father Lotz and his associates, of which these two volumes are an auspicious beginning, shows every sign of living up to the high standard we have come to expect. Volume I is a collection of five essays: a comparison between the Thomistic and Kantian theory of knowledge, by Fr. de Vries; the transcendental method in Kant and in Scholasticism, by Fr. Lotz; the Absolute in the Kritik der reinen Vernunft, by Fr. Brugger; formalism in Kant’s ethics, by Dr. Schmucker; and the relationship between Kant and Heidegger, by Fr. Coreth. It concludes with a particularly useful bibliography of scholastic literature on Kant between 1920 and 1955, compiled by Fr. Brugger. After Jansen, Maréchal is the scholastic writer with most published studies on Kant to his credit, and it is not surprising that his influence should make itself felt in the present volume. His monumental Le point de départ de la métaphysique marked a definite turning–point in the scholastic attitude towards Kant, and one has only to read this collection of studies to realise how the atmosphere has changed in the course of the last fifty years. Fr. de Vries devotes almost two–thirds of his essay to what St. Thomas and Kant hold in common with regard to the discursive nature of human understanding, the structure of the sense–image and its relation to the intellectual concept, though he also brings out the fundamental difference between the two on the questions of self–consciousness, natural theology and the reality of the external world. Not only does he show a healthy respect for the many grains of truth in the philosophy of Kant, but he insists that Thomists have much to learn from the German philosopher on the question of strict, critical method. Scholastics of the traditional school were satisfied with what Fr. Lotz describes as the “objective method” and rejected the “subjective” as smacking of subjectivism or idealism. In the longest essay of the five, Fr. Lotz compares the Kantian and Scholastic methods. Kant himself described his Kritik der reinen Vernunft as a “treatise on method rather than a scientific system”, and in the course of the book he condemns the objective approach as dogmatic and uncritical, leaving only the subjective method, which rules out any possibility of metaphysics. Fr. Lotz rightly asserts that even the most modern scholastic cannot dispense with the objective method, but he maintains that it demands to be completed by the subjective. Many scholastics will agree with him on the usefulness of the latter, and indeed an amount of research has been done in this field in recent decades. But how many will agree when he says that scholastic objectivism includes the subjective or transcendental method as the only way, or the only basis on which objectivism can stand? Maréchal’s influence is evident in his treatment of the faculties of the soul. But, however one may quibble at individual points in the book, it nevertheless remains a very valuable contribution to the scholastic literature on Kant.