Page History

When Maurice argues, as he often does, that we want or need a revelation-that God himself must tell us whether we have a ground to stand upon, what that ground is, and so on-he seems to me to be arguing very much as I do, with the difference that he typically speaks only or primarily in the material terms of Christian witness and theology, whereas I tend to speak also and primarily in the formal terms of philosophy. (Not, to be sure, of this, that, or some other philosophy, understood as the _product_ _of philosophical reflection, but of "doing philosophy," of philosophical reflection, or analysis, itself, understood as the_ _process_ _by which any such philosophy must be produced.) In other words, my appeal to common human experience and reason is, in formal terms, an appeal to what is called, in material terms, "revelation," in the sense of reality itself disclosing, or unveiling, itself, to us. More exactly,_ _it_ _is an appeal to one of the two necessary aspects of revelation, i.e., its_ _noetic,_ _as distinct from its ontic, aspect, although being the subjective and therefore relative aspect, the noetic aspect is also the inclusive one._ _think_ _of it, is always "facts," not "opinions," or "notions." I would, o course, prefer to say "reality" instead of "facts" to make the same point, the while fully allowing that the realities that are revealed by Christian revelation, at any rate, are indeed, in the strict and proper sense, "facts," although not only such, because, as Maurice would say, also "laws," including those that are, more exactly, the_ _"eternal_ _laws and principles" which "dwell in \[God\] Himself and which determine His dealings with us" (italics added)._ _him,_ _because men cannot."_