Not going to really go into it right now but suffice it to say that Jacques Maritain had quite an interesting life. It probably helps that―for a time, at least―he was a pupil of one of my favorite philosophers, Henri Bergson.
I've been reading a collection of Maritain's works, The Social and Political Philosophy of... and several bits of it wow me. Here's one.
The end of society is the good of the community, the good of the social body. But if this good of the body is not understood to be a common good of human persons, just as the social body itself is a whole of human persons, this conception would lead in turn to errors of a totalitarian type. The common good of the body politic is neither the mere collection of private goods, nor the good of the whole which, like the species with respect to its individuals or the hive with respect to its bees, draws the parts to itself alone and sacrifices them to itself. It is the good human life of the multitude, It is the good human life of the multitude, of a multitude of persons; it is their communion in good living. It is therefore common to the whole and to the parts; it flows back to the parts, and the parts must benefit from it.
Dense stuff, perhaps. But the central theme―that the good of the people can only be applied to that which respects their life as humans, with all that includes―is as relevant as ever.
2 comments:
He did indeed have an interesting life, particularly as regards the fact he was raised far from any religious belief but came to embrace Catholicism to the extent that much of his work became part of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council. Considering my limited understanding of Henry Bergson too I don't quite understand how it was that Maritain fell out with him. But then I can't boast about having spent much time reading either of them.
I see your point in being drawn to the quote: 'The end of society is the good of the community, the good of the social body.. It is the good human life of the multitude, of a multitude of persons; it is their communion in good living.. It is therefore common to the whole and to the parts; it flows back to the parts, and the parts must benefit from it.'
It's a statement of great love and compassion for the human condition. We work because we're amazingly good at cooperating but overall our society is imperfect, we haven't nailed down perfect societal values. Philosophers have been attempting to define one for a long time, the problem being, of course, that any utopia is purely subjective.
It was very interesting to learn the University of Notre Dame is a centre for Maritain studies. I was familiar with a number of Catholic philosophers but not him. Thanks for the introduction, I'll return to the page to learn more.
It's pretty wild that he converted to Catholicism after sometime as an agnostic--albeit with a time of profound questing--and wound up being so influential within the Church. Seems like quite an endorsement. Truth to tell, I'm not clear on why he and Bergson fell out either. Reading their essays you can tell they were two different thinkers as well as writers, but to me they seem to be complementary ones.
Society is more than just the aggregation of individual persons. I think that's his point. And it seems to need restating today, given the atomizing effects of technology. On the other hand, it's harmful when societies forget that they are made up of individuals.
Utopias have frequently failed, and for that matter backfired on their supporters. One big factor in this is that their leaders have lacked humility and believed that only their own beliefs mattered. The first step to an actual better world is to love and respect the people you meet in it.
I had to check on which University of Notre Dame you were talking about. The one in Indiana, it turns out. There are some pretty deep thinkers in what seem on the surface to be obscure places.
Post a Comment