The Irish standard., 1903-06-06

man, and the church being by it's ma
ture and essence endowed with that
power of adaptation to external condi-
lions which is characteristic Of a liv-
ing organism, has an inherent right
to speak to each generation in the
language which that generation best
understands. In the systematic devel-
opment of dogmatic truth the church
avails itself of the doctrines of philo-
sophers and formulates its dogmas in
the language of the schools Of philoso-
ply" Under the head, "Patristic
Philosophy are treated in their order,
heretical system, ante-nicene fathers
and post-nicene fathers. Scholasticism
is separated into four periods, begin
nings, growth, perfection, and decay.
In summing up his presentation of
these the author says: This doctrine
of the continuity and independence of
the natural with respect to the SUPER
natural order of truth is the core of
scholasticism. 1t is by this that
scholasticism is distinguished from
Greek philosophy, of which the chief
defect, as we'll as the paramount
merit, was it's complete naturalness. 1t
is by this, too, that scholasticism is
distinguished from the philosophy of
the new era. Modern philosophy
post reformation philosophy it may be
called-was born of the revolt of
philosophy against theology, of reason
against faith. 1t adopted at the very
outset the Averroistic principle that
what is true in theology may be false
in philosophy principle diametri-
cally opposed to the thought which in
spired scholasticism. Scholasticism
distinguishes without separating;
modern philosophy either fails alto
gether to distinguish or distinguishes
and separates" In pointing out the
difference in character between schol-
astic philosophy and the philosophy
of the patristic era, the writer COM
ments as follows: 1.-The fathers as
we'll as the school men taught (as,
indeed, all Christian philosophers must
teacM that revelation cannot contra
dict reason, nor reason revelation.
But, although the fathers employed
reason in order to elucidate revelation,
they did not carry the use Of dialectic
to the extent to which the school men
subsequently carried it; in ultimate
resort, they insisted on the ascetico-
quality OF mind as a condition requis-
tie for the attainment of higher knowl-
edge. Moreover, the fathers We're,
with few exceptions, Platonists, while
the school men were practically all
Aristotlians. Finally, while the faith
ers in conditions more or less unfav-
orable to constructive effort, effected
partial synthesis Of the speculative
elements OF Christian thought, the
school men. in rejuvenatcd and COM
plete]y Christianized Europe, in an
>age in which every circumstance was
favorable to synthetic speculation,
completed the synthesis begun in the
patristic age and developed phil
osophy which is as different from the
philosophy of the patristic era as the
Neo Latin Europe of the thirteenth
century is from the decadent Latin
Europe Of the fifth The final section
Of the book is devoted to Il review Of
modern philosophy divided into three
periods; transition from scholastic to
modern philosophy; from Descartes to
Kant; from Kant to our own time.
Throughout the book, at the end of
each chapter, the author offers sug-
gestions for criticism under the title,
Historical Position Concerning this
criticism, he says in his preface: NO
one is more keenly alive than the
author himself to the absurdity of re-
garding such criticisms as possessing
more than Il relative value If they
sometimes convey to the reader
sense of intended finality, allowance
will perhaps be made for the impossi-
bility of finding within the limits of
text book. space for a more ample dis
cussion which are far from being
finally and incontrovertibly settled"
The History Of Philosophy is written
in simple, direct style that places
the subject matter easily within the
grasp of the average student. The
publishers have issued it in neat,
appropriate and durable dress that
makes an excellent library volume.
The New York Evening Post gives
the following statement in reference
To I,o