Truth

We are shaped up as a people by a process of socialisation, acculturation, education, as a result of which we come to know the world we live in, its nature, its significant events. Two questions arise, first, have we taken on board our tradition? Secondly, is the tradition sound?

There has been a tendency to see tradition as basically unsound. Would it not be better to be Rousseau’s noble savage; to join the Taleban in destroying Moslem carvings; to date everything from the French Revolution? The Second Enlightenment has restored tradition as a sometimes flawed but necessary shaper of man, who, born into the world, has to learn how to speak and what to value.

The first enlightenment deplored tradition and declared science and reason. But in fact science is a new sort of tradition. No chemist knows all chemistry – the world of knowledge is shared by a whole group. Initially science seemed to be a matter of genius – Copernicus, Galileo, Newton – in fact though, earlier achievements set the conditions for the latter, so there was a sort of collaboration going on across the spaces of time and distance. So in contemporary progress whether in science, history, philosophy, or theology what one needs is a creative collaboration, a method becoming conscious of itself as a method in operation. Part of our modern problem is to allow tradition to march alongside tradition rather than one tradition, say, the natural sciences, saying it is the only thing worthwhile and leading to truth.

Traditions can develop and improve under gifted human contributions or they can go into decline and meanings can be lost. So in the Catholic Church the meaning of marriage is getting lost – 50 years ago there were nearly 10 times more marriages in church. A set of meanings and values has not been passed on to the next generation.

Wittgenstein said one lesson in piano playing does not make one a pianist and one lesson in philosophy does not make one a philosopher. One class on matrimony does not shape one for the life-long sacrament. In Chios in pagan times, divorce was unknown for 700 years because as a matter of course, the older generation of women would take the younger women in hand. There was no TV and there were no advertisements. Everything was passed on by conversation – one might say the positive power of gossip. The interpersonal aspect is really important – so Lonergan writes “excellence in any walk of life is ever a matter of effort, training, education, encouragement, and support”. The more important aspects of formation depend on interpersonal encouragement and support, which I do not imagine computers or even books can give. Divine grace can give interpersonal support, of course, where the human reality has got lost.

I would like to focus a bit on the word “normative”. It is surely an element of conscience. There are norms which should be achieved or we are left dissatisfied with our own performance. So a scientist might falsify his data to achieve success or a scholar might pretend to have read a book when he has not. A doctor should examine the patient before making a diagnosis. A confessor should listen to the penitent before giving pious advice. Each profession has different sorts of things to attend to. One would not expect the priest to get out a stethoscope. But according to one’s position, not to attend to the relevant data is a personal failure.

When someone is talking about something unfamiliar you may begin to get the point but still be left half in confusion. There is a norm to be observed here. What is the connection between matter being defined as changeability and man being potens omnia? If I did get the point can I express it to myself or to another? Can I rest satisfied with a mere glimmer? When one understands a new point, there is a certain delight. To recognise when one is half way there, is normative. To recognise when one has got it, is also an achievement. To pretend though, is to fail to fulfil the norm, “be intelligent”.

Rationality, which meets the question “Is it? Is it not?”, also has norms. Is global warming taking place? Because A + B + C, I think so. Maybe I think so because I ought to think so, because the consequences of being wrong would be so terrible, Or is this a rush to judgement before the evidence is in, and so not recognising the norm be reasonable – have sufficient reason for your affirmation. Maybe my judgement about global warming is influenced by the fact that experts have been wrong in the past when it comes to practical judgements. Malthus thought if the poor were allowed to breed it would end in famine. At the end of the nineteenth century there were those who were worried about coal running out. To make a judgement one might have questions about Krakatau and other earthquakes and about sunspots and their frequency, about forests and their decimation. Pollution is a poor thing, to be avoided, global warming something of a different order.

There is then a set of norms governing conduct – avoid evil, do good. Conduct should be reasonable. The Canadian Prime Minister conducted foreign policy on the basis of tea leaves in his tea cup. This might, I suppose, be justified if his aim was to keep people guessing but on the face of it, it looks like irrational conduct.

If one has followed the precepts, be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable in a normative way then, maybe in a limited way, one knows the world as it is. Certain negative precepts belong to that world – do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not be envious. Positively the commandments of old teach us to worship God and honour our parents. Actually though we have commitments and recognise values, so we have, as it were, positive precepts which we take upon ourselves, for example, remembering one’s wife’s birthday.

Would it be correct to suggest that values are grounded in love, love which purifies, enlightens, and brings one into unity?

Man has been described as self completing so that the other becomes essential to one’s own being. One completes oneself by growth in knowledge and love. This movement sets up a path to be followed if growth is to continue. So as well as valuing one’s beloved, one has values to fulfil along the way. So a nun, holding herself in singleness for her Lord would not normally dress up and go out to nightclubs, though she might if she was looking to help fallen women.

There are values which purify, so one gets rid of what is opposed to the life of love. If one is working for the poor, the more one might simplify one’s dress.

There are values which enlighten, so one applies oneself to understand relevant things better.

There are values which unify – one finds a person’s name and remembers it, and where they come from. With regard to God one sees to it that one says one’s prayers in a reasonably diligent way. With regard to mankind one gives away 10% of one’s income maybe, if one can afford it. Perhaps one studies Economics: “If you want to help the poor, study Economics”.

There are values arising from the norms but it seems to me that personal values arise in one’s freedom and purify, foster and express the life of love which at its heart is free self bestowal. Personal values belong to a person moving to self transcendence and self completion in an authentic way, moved by love. As Aquinas said, things are matter and form but more form than matter, so one might say authentic life is a matter of norms fulfilled and values chosen, but more a matter of values chosen and lived out. The danger is present though that so demanding are values operative, whether religious, political or domestic that the norms cease to be observed and the enthusiast loses his normal human integrity and in time his cause must suffer too.