Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Hilltop: A Literary Paper. Volume 1 Number 3

B. Sutton-Smith and Pat Wilson

B. Sutton-Smith and Pat Wilson.

Sir,—An illuminating idea imparted by word of mouth does not always appear so convincing in cold print—even the tidy print of Hilltop. This is how I feel about Dr. Munz's article. And especially because his central idea—namely, his emphasis on the truth about persons rather than about ideas as the historian's concern—is sound, one feels almost iconoclastic in pointing to flaws in his conception of it.

The central difficulty is that Dr. Munz seeks to get moral benefit by understanding many historical persons in their "own terms" page 30 while still standing apart from all of them. The obvious dilemma is that he has in some sense to identify his mind with theirs to attain real understanding; but that on the other hand if he goes too far he will go mad (like the lunatic who imagines he is Napoleon). The other dilemma lies in the choice of material. You may delude your readers— and even yourself—into thinking that you are disinterested and impartial, by choosing some obscure uninvestigated personage whose interests extend no further than the vegetable-garden; but as soon as you start dealing with persons of a challenging stature, you cannot avoid presuppositions in the form of a selective approach to "the facts" (as witness the many differing interpretations of Augustine and Rousseau). And of all this Dr. Munz is doubtless aware, even if it is not made explicit.

Dr. Munz, however, tries to solve his dilemmas by lopping off from his task the question of the truth of ideas. "If we must value the truth about people," he seems to be saying, "we can at least reject the value of their ideas and not be at all interested in whether they are right or wrong. So far—yes—but no farther! For might we not begin to tread on the edge of a precipice if we take these people's ideas seriously or allow that they might even have something to teach us ? Each age, indeed each person, is different, so let us beware of regressing to the past." This view is all very well until we ask what has happened to the historian's humility. How can he assume that he has sufficient answers to render the truth of other people's ideas irrelevant, or that our knowing scepticism may not be modified considerably by the additional evidence of other sources? And if we don't take the ideas of people in the past seriously, why take any other person's ideas seriously? The truth is of course that we do learn to take seriously the ideas of others (whether past or present). And indeed this is not unnatural, for most of our "own" ideas are really borrowed from either tradition or contemporaries; if this were not so education would be futile, if not impossible.

Scepticism is not enough. If he really is to penetrate a thinker's mind, the historian must face the impact of the ideas for himself. Similarly a genuine historian of music could not be content with studying Mozart's environment and technical apparatus; he must learn to appreciate his music and reach the reality expressed by the composer. Without such an effort, I can see little future in Dr. Munz's attempt to produce moral education, in the form of his three rabbits, out of the hat of historical scepticism. Morality (and moral education) exists only on the plane of action. And morality will soon die in the atmosphere of ultimate detachment which seems to be implied when Dr. Munz talks of positive scepticism and "acquiring" other people's experiences and beliefs. The addition of the adjective "positive" in such a context is unconvincing. It is more likely to end up as a negative tolerance, not so very different from an enlightened cynicism. And the refusal to treat the ideas in other men's minds as serious issues indicates that, after all, you are not really willing to stand where they stand or understand them in their own terms.

Dr. Munz links his positive tolerance to a "sense of freedom from one's own beliefs." But does such a "freedom" exist, except for the schizophrenic and the dead? If tolerance is to be positive and moral it must surely get rid of this very "freedom from" complex and take its stand on convictions which so grip the personality as to provide a standard of judgment and a will to tolerate the other differing personalities by whom the person is continually challenged. Perhaps this sounds altogether too "positive" for the health of historians, too much akin to that dangerous ogre, the "artificial, willed faith." Indeed, there are dangers involved in having convictions—but there are more insidious dangers in pretending to have none at all; all I ask is that the historian should be honest in bringing what he holds out into the light. That is more likely to lead the historian to ultimate truth than is the alternative, and I believe it to be a truer view of the way we can meet and tolerate other persons.

A. C. Moore.

Sir,—In printing "An Idea of History" by Dr. Peter Munz, "Hilltop" has rendered a very real service to all those readers who are not content to remain mentally inactive in that condition of "disillusionment and scepticism" which certainly constitutes, if not the chief, one of the chief, problems of our age. The page 32 whole argument is developed with such force and cogency that it would be an impertinence to attempt to go over the ground again, and I assume that anyone who so much as glances at this letter will have read the original article. It follows that he will have compelled to ponder the thesis that the study of the novel and of history constitutes the most appropriate intellectual activity towards, and may be our guide to, "a new and firmer belief in truth." An end greatly to be desired.

But I would venture to challenge the writer's attitude to what he calls "our Christian faith," and to suggest that in the study of that (to his mind) discredited faith there may be found yet another activity leading to the same goal, "a new and firmer belief in truth." For most of the pessimists and the disillusioned of the younger generation, surely the possessive abjective here is ill-chosen. Is it not rather a "return" to a conventional religion, tightly held in the dead hand of tradition, that Dr. Munz has in mind? As one reader of "Hilltop" put it—"What they were taught years ago in Sunday School." So any return would be to the religion of the older generation, and, by hypothesis, that generation has failed, and all its achievements are as of dust and ashes. The second point made by Dr. Munz against religion seems to be either that the exposition of the Christian faith as we know it has left us no choice but rejection and unbelief, or that it is thanks to Christianity that we are in our present plight I have to confess that I am not quite clear as to the implication of the words used. The third point is admirably clear, however, and I cannot conceive any reluctance to accept the statements (a) that we cannot retrace our steps, and (b) that, standing "on a frontier," we must ourselves "build the bridge which will lead us from the past into the future": nor can there be any doubt that any line of study pursued with intellectual, integrity will help us in the building. Dr. Munz makes a strong case for history, which appeals to me as a humanist, and I can think of students who would make an equally strong case for science.

But man does not live by intellect (or by instinct) alone. He is a strange compound: Pascal's words are ever true—"L'homme est a lui-meme le plus grand probleme de la nature." (I quote from memory.) This idea of our being lined up at a frontier—so vivid a picture of any European of this decade—calls to my mind a book Freethinkers of the 19th Century. The men and women there portrayed were conscious in their day of having to cross a frontier, renouncing a region in which they could no longer live with sincerity, and going forward to they knew not what. So in every generation must those who are truly living souls and not dead echoes face the frontier and build the bridge.

But, strange thought it may appear, having struggled across the bridge of his own enquiries and perplexities and doubts and gropings, on the other side of the frontier the traveller sometimes finds God, the God who transcends all frontiers. He may even come to realise that more strangely still it is the "God and his fathers." He has not "returned," nor do those left .behind on the other side always understand or approve this newness of life. But "forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before," he has pressed on seeking only the truth, and he finds the truth in "the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." (St. Paul.) He does not deny the claims of reason, but he has to admit that in his new philosophy "le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait pas," (Pascal) and he is not ashamed. He is content to see that while all his life long there will be frontiers to be crossed one by one, the chief end of man remains "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever."

Olive Wright.

Sir,—There are many points which Dr. Munz makes in his article "An Idea of History" which I would like to contest, but I am going to confine myself to his attack on Christian faith, and his assumption that we must have a "positive scepticism" and that "by accentuating our scepticism we can evolve a new and firmer belief in truth, because it obliges us to transfer our interest from ideas to people."

Dr. Munz then concludes that we should cultivate this scepticism plus intellectual discipline and move forward in the direction we have been moving.

page 34

The purpose of this letter is to refute these ideas and to show that a change takes place when Christ becomes the object of our personal faith.

Where does Dr. Munz's view lead us? He says we must rid ourselves from the obsession of any absolute allegiance to any one set of ideas or beliefs. If we carry this to its logical conclusion, what ate we going to do with truth? What is it? What do we mean by it? Even when we know the answers and have decided on what is truth we must not strictly follow it because of this principle of non-allegiance. No, with all due respect this philosophy leads us up a blind alley. Can we build anything in the material or spiritual world without the solid bases of some loyalty? The answer is No. Truth as set forth by Christ and His followers is a solid basis to build on and surely history proves this. All history points down to, and from Christ. Calvary is the focal point, the crossroad of history.

Why divorce ideas from people? Are they not bound up together? What about some of the great personalities whose lives show adherence to Christian faith? Dr. Livingstone, Sir Wilfred Grenfell, Sadhu Sunda Singh, and Dr. Albert Schweitzer? A moment's thought will show that we can go back into history and find inspiration and courage to face the future. If I were to list all the great characters of history who adhered to the Christian faith I would need much more paper than is at my disposal here.

Dr. Albert Schweitzer in his book Civilisation and Ethics writes: "Resignation as to knowledge of the world is for me not a hopeless fall into a skepticism which lures us to drift about in life like a derelict vessel," and continues," every world view that does not start from resignation in regard to knowledge is artificial and a mere fabrication, for it rests upon an inadmissible interpretation of this world". All this from a man who holds five doctorates, including philosophy.

The great apostle Paul said "Faith is the substance on things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." This is opposed to Dr. Munz's view, that we must build our life on a "positive skepticism."

Christ said: "I am the way, the truth and the light of the world." One could go on pilling up evidence from history with its courses of action, good, bad and indifferent, but it shows that any individual, society or nation is doomed if it departs from the right relationship with the author of all truth, God. Rather than trust to a "positive scepticism" I would prefer to trust in Christian faith and God.

Raymond R. F. Jones.

Sir,—Dr. Munz suggests that through the objective study of history and the modern novel we should seek to understand people within their own terms rather than judge them in relation to our own scheme of values.

Short of completely identifying ourselves with other persons, in which case we should cease to be what we were, I contend that this is impossible. Everyone, including the author of "An Idea of History," has a scheme of values to which he relates the actions and motives of other people. For example, Dr. Munz believes that the study of history is more important than the study of history is more important than the study of (a) the New Testament or (b) "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." He believes in 'understanding' and the "tolerance' which it breeds. Through the study of the novel and history we 'free' ourselves from "the obsession that we owe allegiance to any one set of ideas or beliefs." People are more important than ideas.

Here now we possess a substantial part of Dr. Munz's creed. Like any other creed it is full of implicit value judgments concerning the lives of other men. Just imagine how pleased Luther would be to find he was being understood in his own terms by a man who virtually dismisses his concern for the truth of his theory of trans-substantiation. This tolerance, too, stops strangely short, for Dr. Munz sets "outside the pale of human intercourse" all those who evaluate the world against background of personal belief. That's a powerful lot of men. Finally, it might be asked, what of a Dostoevsky or a Greene who see their characters etched in against the vast backdrop of Christian theology?

I do agree that where our own universal values are narrow and inflexible we become inquisitors rather lovers of mankind. By all means let us read novelists and historians who have both breadth and sympathy, but let us page 36 Not confuse this with that loss of intellectual consistency and integrity to which Dr. Munz's course, if adopted, would inevitably lead. For the whole way of life of a people only becomes possible where it does owe allegiance to one set of ideas out of which it can agree to make set laws.

John Summers.