I’ve been reading Karl Rahner’s: ‘Spirit In The World’. It’s been a struggle-trying to make sense of the technical jargon he uses. In his ‘transcendental’ approach to Thomism, Rahner uses a mixture of Heidegger and Kantian idealism to synthesize a single comprehensive worldview to theology. I can see that Rahner covertly implicates idealism within the substructure of his theology, while brandishing it as Thomistic at the surface. What needs to be understood about thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant, is that they’re like oil and water. These two separate influences can never be bridged together as a workable view to understanding reality. One side seeks to describe reality ‘as it is’, as you’d have in a realist like Aquinas, while Kant seeks to overthrow objective certainty, undermining reality by describing it as an appearance to our senses at every turn, yet never knowing the essence of what’s true passed the point of human perception. Fusing the two leads to intellectual obscurity and a fragmentation to objective truth. Kantian idealism always seeks to undermine reality ‘as it is’. That’s why ‘Transcendental Thomism’ is flawed from the get go. It doesn’t provide the clarity as it intended, but simply creates obscurity, uncertainty and self-doubt. I believe that’s something Rahner failed to take notice at when looking at the long term trajectory of where his influence would lead the intellectual world for Catholicism.
Kant’s antirealism, Stefan, has no place for the “pre-apprehension of being” central to Rahner and Transcendental Thomism. Rahner has a realist take on the limit that Kant’s critique of reason bumps up against. This limit is something; it is universal, a fundamental relation or telos; it resists articulation or obvious fulfillment; but won’t leave us alone either. That’s its transcendental quality. As Moses ascends Sinai he progresses from light into darkness. So “obscurity and uncertainty” are not necessarily objections. They may make us hungry and ready for revelation; patient too. This is not superseded or made redundant by the categorical revelation in Christ. The cross is a passage into darkness. Aquinas models this apophatic approach, too, though you might not know it from some presentations of his work. I don’t know how successful Rahner was purely as a philosopher, but his decision to pick up Kant’s ball (Hegel’s too) and run farther with it than they did, was inspired. When you challenge a few key presuppositions, their insights become fruitful and available to theology. In this, Rahner offers a day and night contrast with Protestants like Bultmann or Kaufman who made of Kant a straight jacket for theology. And a welcome contrast with Catholic thinkers who presume the problematic aspects of Kant and Hegel render them entirely worthless.
I’ve been reading Karl Rahner’s: ‘Spirit In The World’. It’s been a struggle-trying to make sense of the technical jargon he uses. In his ‘transcendental’ approach to Thomism, Rahner uses a mixture of Heidegger and Kantian idealism to synthesize a single comprehensive worldview to theology. I can see that Rahner covertly implicates idealism within the substructure of his theology, while brandishing it as Thomistic at the surface. What needs to be understood about thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant, is that they’re like oil and water. These two separate influences can never be bridged together as a workable view to understanding reality. One side seeks to describe reality ‘as it is’, as you’d have in a realist like Aquinas, while Kant seeks to overthrow objective certainty, undermining reality by describing it as an appearance to our senses at every turn, yet never knowing the essence of what’s true passed the point of human perception. Fusing the two leads to intellectual obscurity and a fragmentation to objective truth. Kantian idealism always seeks to undermine reality ‘as it is’. That’s why ‘Transcendental Thomism’ is flawed from the get go. It doesn’t provide the clarity as it intended, but simply creates obscurity, uncertainty and self-doubt. I believe that’s something Rahner failed to take notice at when looking at the long term trajectory of where his influence would lead the intellectual world for Catholicism.
Very very interesting. I started reviewing his concept of dogma which is very illuminating
Kant’s antirealism, Stefan, has no place for the “pre-apprehension of being” central to Rahner and Transcendental Thomism. Rahner has a realist take on the limit that Kant’s critique of reason bumps up against. This limit is something; it is universal, a fundamental relation or telos; it resists articulation or obvious fulfillment; but won’t leave us alone either. That’s its transcendental quality. As Moses ascends Sinai he progresses from light into darkness. So “obscurity and uncertainty” are not necessarily objections. They may make us hungry and ready for revelation; patient too. This is not superseded or made redundant by the categorical revelation in Christ. The cross is a passage into darkness. Aquinas models this apophatic approach, too, though you might not know it from some presentations of his work. I don’t know how successful Rahner was purely as a philosopher, but his decision to pick up Kant’s ball (Hegel’s too) and run farther with it than they did, was inspired. When you challenge a few key presuppositions, their insights become fruitful and available to theology. In this, Rahner offers a day and night contrast with Protestants like Bultmann or Kaufman who made of Kant a straight jacket for theology. And a welcome contrast with Catholic thinkers who presume the problematic aspects of Kant and Hegel render them entirely worthless.