( Original copy- Veil believes it appeared (sometime)in “The Wanderer” www.thewandererpress.com)
By Alice von Hildebrand
One of the great laws of history is that we never learn from history. We keep making the same mistakes; lack of wisdom is inherited from generation to generation. One example that comes to mind is that when a thinker makes some important contributions to philosophy but unfortunately also makes a serious mistake, one can predict that the latter will influence the following thinkers, whereas his valuable contributions will be paid scant attention to. A simple explanation is that whereas health is not contagious, many sicknesses are, and the human mind infected by original sin, has a weakened immune system, and offers little resistance to poison.
Another reason is that the human mind has a tendency to value highly what is new, what is creative. The field of errors is so vast that it is not difficult to be original, or to present an old error garbed in modern vestments. From this point of view, it is true to say that some heresies never die: they keep re-appearing. Their hat might be tipped a bit differently, but the substance is unchanged. But a thinker who sheds light on a truth can never claim to be creative, for the plain reason that no thinker – great as he might be, can claim to be the source of truth, that is Truth itself A statement is not more true because it is adequately formulated, nor less true because it is misrepresented. It has the glorious seal of agelessness.
The fashion of the day is to deny God’s existence. This denial is a mere flatus vocis, an empty chatter which, loud as it is, cannot alter the fact that God is the creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
There is one bond that unites all those worthy to bear the aristocratic title of philosopher – that is lovers of wisdom : it is their common love of truth.
Socrates fully deserves to bear this noble title. He said: I am interested in nothing but the truth. Centuries later, St. Augustine echoed the same ardent desire; Oh! Truth, Oh! Truth, how did the very marrow of my bones yearn for you when I heard them utter your name. (Confessions).
To formulate a truth is to duplicate in words what is independently of the human mind. It is an act of intellectual humility, a submission of man’s mind to what exists independently of his subjective wishes.
Skepticism, relativism, subjectivism, and the long list of isms all have the same genesis: man’s refusal to bow in front of reality and to yield to the temptation of mastering reality, instead of submitting to it.
Another temptation deserves our attention, namely the one typical of those who claim that they sincerely love truth and pursue it. When they find it, however, through some sort of intellectual perversion, they view it as their own property. This subtle perversion will manifest itself by the fact that when truth is challenged or attacked, their defense mechanism makes them take its defense, not because it is true, but because they feel it to be a personal insult to their views. We all know people who are very indulgent toward thieves as long as they rob other people’s property, but become fierce as soon as their own property is threatened. Their mine is sacred. There are husbands who, while often mistreating their wives, are enraged if she is treated disrespectfully. She is viewed as their property. She is my wife; I will not tolerate your mistreating her.
Such people deserve to be called fanatics. Their fierceness when challenged, originates not because truth is being violated, but exclusively because it is the truth they have endorsed.
Fanaticism is widespread and potentially a danger for all of us. This fact must have inspired the wise words of Cardinal Newman who wrote that the worst thing that can happen to a cause is when some men decide to defend it. The reason is clear: their motivation is impure. They are not fighting error; they are fighting for their intellectual honor. They said so; therefore, it must be true. Woe to those who reject their views.
Such people are not truth-lovers; they are in love with their own views. Their motivation is not a joyful submission to truth; arrogant pride has replaced a humble submission to truth – which can never be My Truth or my possession.
To dare challenge their views is to offend their honor. They defend their position with the same fierceness with which Don Quijote challenged anyone who refused to recognize Dulcinea of Toboso to be the most beautiful woman in the world. By so doing, they prove that their so-called love for truth is, in fact, a disguised self-love in the negative sense of this very ambiguous word.
They feel heroic in defending truth, but they lie to themselves (the most difficult lies to detect): they are the victims of what Sartre calls mauvaise foi. In fact, all they want is to have their position vindicated and to be declared the victors. They are right, because they are always right. How can people dare challenge this undeniable fact?
The tragedy is that when such people defend an objective truth, their inject poison into it and undermine its validity.
This perverted attitude has many ramifications It also manifests itself in the fact that some intellectuals are always preying on the contributions of their colleagues eagerly looking for some flaws. The very fact that it was not their insights, makes them suspicious toward the works of others: they seem to resent that anyone could possibly perceive something that they themselves have not seen. For they assume that they are the privileged ones, who alone are capable of unveiling unperceived truths Any truth perceived by others is – by the same token – suspicious. Only their personal insights have the seal of validity.
I once heard a very talented and famous thinker (names are hateful), being asked: What do you think of Professsor X˜s article? The answer was prompt and unequivocal: Half of it is outstanding, but he plagiarized me; the other half is junk.
The question of plagiarism is an interesting one: because, as truth is available to every human being, the fact that two thinkers come to the same conclusion, is no proof that one has plagiarized the other. Totally unaided, a young French teenager, Pascal, discovered Euclid’s geometry. The reason was that this geometry is valid (as errors are multiple: truth is one) and therefore, in principle, accessible to every one. The laws of logic were admirably formulated by Aristotle but it is quite conceivable that other thinkers before him found the very same truths and that their manuscript has been lost. One should be very careful when accusing others of plagiarism. Obviously we are not referring to artistic creations in their varied forms. Then obviously the situation is radically different. It is inconceivable that someone would have written Hamlet, word for word as Shakespeare did. The question of plagiarism is a vast one: we purposely limit ourselves to self evident truths, or experiments that two scientists perform independently of each other) One thing is to invent; quite another is to see.
No one can claim to have a patent for truth; however every erring mind should be given one for his mistake, but it is not a glorious one.
The obvious fact that truth cannot be a personal possession has important consequences; the first is what I shall call, the missionary task of those who see. They have the obligation to share truth with others, be it supernatural truth accessible only through revelation or any natural truth, particularly when these are essential to live a life worthy of man’s dignity as a person. A medical doctor who knows the cure of a deadly disease has the obligation to share it with others.
The second conclusion I would like to draw is that we have the duty to fight a cancer rampant in colleges and universities: namely that universal peace can only be achieved if and when all men acknowledge a person’s right to pick and choose his own truth.
In fact, dictatorial relativism is a Leviathan, a key to universal chaos. The intellectual trick used by some professors to confuse already confused students, is to convince them that the belief in an objective truth, valid for all people, would force them into a corset whether intellectual or moral, that would deprive them of their freedom of choice. They use their oratorical talent to preach that as long as some people claim that their religion alone is the true one, that their philosophy alone is valid, conflicts will necessarily arise, endless wars, endless hatred. The main culprit is the Catholic Church, the only one claiming to have a magisterium – a word that triggers horror in the minds of those who fight for freedom of thought. This is why rabbis and Protestant pastors can be appointed in secular universities; Catholic priests are taboos¦ that is, if they unconditionally accept the Church˜s dogmatic and moral teaching. Such people have capitulated that is have renounced their right to pursue truth according to their liking.
Liberal professors have inherited a ciceronian eloquence in declaring that once people mature, that is realize that every single individual is entitled to claim the validity of his views, the door will open to universal peace -a peace for which all men aspire.
In fact, the very opposite is true.
What binds people is sharing, by drinking at the same fountain of truth- a truth which being universally valid, is no one’s property, but is common to all because they are all sons of the same father. This common love for truth, for what is, for what is universally valid, will inevitably lead all men of good will, to acknowledge the Existence of the only One in history who said: I am the truth. On that blessed day, all will be one.
Alice von Hildebrand
