If there is one conflict that succinctly describes the history of western philosophy and thought, it is the never ending debate of reason versus revelation. The dichotomy has shaped the great conversation for millennia, and have shaped the mindsets of thinkers from Aristotle and Plato to Biblical writers and Saint Augustine. As the great historian of natural law, Leo Strauss, put it, western philosophy has been divided by the two conflicting schools of thought known as Athens and Jerusalem, Athens representing practical reason as a tool for revealing the world’s intelligibility, and Jerusalem, representing the Judeo-Christian tradition of divine revelation as a source of universal wisdom and truth. Writers like Plato and Aristotle use practical reason to search for truth and persuade others, whereas Saint Augustine and Biblical writers appeals to God in the search for truth and wisdom. The Great Conversation of western civilization has been a constant struggle to reconcile the two competing ideas of reason and revelation, and find a balance where each can exist.
In early Greece, Socrates asked the guiding question of western philosophy: what is the best way for man to live? The question asks not what the best way for a Greek, or a Roman, or a Persian man to live is, but what the best way for man is. The question demands an objective answer. Thus, if there is an objective answer to such a question, some answers may be better or worse than others. Not all ideas are inherently equal, and we can clearly discern good ideas from bad ideas with the use of practical reason. Few do this better than Plato and his student Aristotle. In Plato’s dialogue, Crito, Socrates masterfully uses logic to persuade Crito that he should not break out of prison and flee. Socrates explains to Crito that “I am the kind of man who listens to nothing within me but the argument that on reflection seems best to me.”(4) According to this view, an idea can only be evaluated as good if it stands the test of logic and critical thinking. Emotion and piety have no role to play in determining the validity of an argument, as rational thinking clearly reigns supreme. Socrates goes on to explain, “we must examine whether it is just for me to try to get out of here when the Athenians have not acquitted me. If it is seen to be just, we will try to do so; if it is not, we will abandon the idea.”(6) The role in determining right from wrong resides not with a religious authority or doctrine, but through logical reasoning and sound thought. Socrates goes on to use logical arguments in his favor, persuading Crito that breaking out of the prison would be unjust. In Aristotle’s writing, there is a very similar sentiment expressed. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle seeks to determine what the best way for man to live is. In attempting to find the highest good possible, he writes that “an examination of all the different opinions would perhaps be a little pointless, and it is sufficient to concentrate on those which are most in evidence or which seem to make some sort of sense.”(7) Implicit throughout his writing, as well as this quote is a belief that analysis and reasoned thought are the arbiters of truth. Evidence and rational thinking are the tests that every idea and opinion must be tested against. Finding the highest good possible demands inquiry that rests on logical analysis. He writes that the goodness of any expert is “thought to reside in his proper function, so the goodness of man would seem to reside in whatever is his proper function.” This sort of “if, then” logic is a staple of Aristotle’s arguments, as it presents a rational basis for his convictions. Additionally, Aristotle uses practical reason to his advantage in dismantling Plato’s Forms. Because of the variety of goods and its many meanings, “the good cannot be something universal, common to all cases, and single; for if it were, it would not be applicable in all categories but only in one.”(11) Because of the multiplicity of understandings related to goodness, Plato’s singular Form of the Good is proven wrong. Aristotle does not appeal to a divine or religious teaching, but to his own intellect and ability to form a cogent argument. This elevation of practical reason over divine purpose and emotional instinct is the ethos of early Greek thought that serves as a contrast to the Judeo-Christian tradition’s emphasis on divine purpose.
Well after Socrates asked what the best way for man to live is, a profoundly new idea was born in the Middle East: one God, not just for one nation or people, but for all nations and men. Most importantly, in this tradition, wisdom and truth were derived from Holy Scriptures that were determined to be divinely inspired. All knowledge was the result of coming to faith in God, and for one to have a good life, they must look to the Bible and pray to their Lord for guidance. This form of thought has come to be known as revelation. Truth and wisdom are acquired when God wishes to reveal it to human beings. This is seen in both Jesus’s teachings and Saint Augustine’s Confessions. As Jesus was seen as both God and man, his teachings were considered to be divinely inspired. When a scholar of the law asked Jesus to explain how to inherit eternal life, Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan and tells the man to “go and do likewise.”(95) Jesus does not evaluate the proposition of helping the man, and whether or not saving him would be just, but treats the idea of mercy and compassion as self-evident. There is no argument over the virtue of saving the poor man, as Jesus teaches his followers that showing mercy to the man is the path to eternal life. No individual can dispute his argument, as the Son of God alone knows the path to eternal life and is sharing it with humanity. Jesus’s teachings and words are to be revered and treated as truth. The truths that originate in the Judeo-Christian tradition come from an approach that stems not from logical analysis and persuasive argument but from the teachings of religious authority that are to be accepted as fact. We see this reliance on God’s divine wisdom and all-knowing nature in Confessions as well. Saint Augustine explains to his God, “I do not contend with you in a court of law, for you are the truth.”(6) In celebrating and rejoicing his God, Saint Augustine asserts that God alone is the truth, that none can contend with him. There is no disputing the wisdom of the divine sovereign, as he alone is the source of wisdom and truth. Augustine complains that philosophers such as Cicero “say ‘truth, truth’, and they had a lot to tell me about it; but there was never any truth in them. They uttered false statements not only about you, but also about the elements of your world, your creation.”(40) Cicero was more Aristotelian than Christian, as he based his assumptions on the Greek tradition of practical reason. Augustine asserts that the truth that Cicero and others proclaim fundamentally rejects the role of God in revealing his truth to humanity. To Augustine, the assertions of such philosophers are shallow and devoid of meaning in the face of God’s supreme knowledge and wisdom. In failing to base their assertions on God’s teachings, they are incapable of finding truth. Cicero could not possibly know truth if he misunderstood God’s role in revealing his truth to the world. Divine revelation is a staple of the last two thousand years of philosophy and serve as a rejoinder to the thought of the Greeks.
Implicit in both schools of thought is a notion that these ideas are not meant for one particular people, but for all men. Western Civilization, at its core, is a creedal notion that every individual has the opportunity to join in it, regardless of their racial or ethnic makeup. When one speaks of “Western Civilization,” they do not refer to any one particular group, but to a set of ideals. Western thought insists that not every idea is inherently equal, and that we must have the intellectual courage to identify those that are effective and worth preserving, as opposed to those that must be discarded and left in the past. Additionally, Christianity and its traditions prelude no one from embracing God’s love and wisdom. The idea of a God that is accessible to any individual, without regard to their place of origin, so long as they accept the ideas and beliefs was a radical idea that made the world over again. While the history of Western philosophy is marked by the cantankerous relationship between Athens and Jersualem, each side must be represented in the Great Conversation in order for it to progress. If one side were easily refuted by the other, philosophers would have found so by now. Finding a balance between the two schools of thought has been a millennia-old project passed down the generations. It is a challenge that is not easily resolved, yet the answer is not so much important as is the dialogue and inquiry among thinkers. If Western thought is to survive, it must constantly be searching to find a balance between the two ideas, as intellectual inquiry and discussion is what makes the West what we know it to be.
Every individual must remember that when asking the deepest questions about our existence, they are engaging in the same Great Conversation that thinking men have engaged in for thousands of years. Thinking men and women asked these same questions far before us, pondering how to explain the world. Every idea that we hold is the result of thousands of years of recorded thought and intellectual inquiry. From Socrates came Aristotle, and from Aristotle came Cicero, and so on. Men have struggled long before us to strike a balance between reason and revelation, devoting their lives to understanding the world we live in. This is not to demean the importance of this historical moment however. While this moment in time may seem utterly insignificant in relation to the advances in thought of the last few millennia, we still join the same Great Conversation and walk hand in hand with the likes of Aristotle and Augustine in conversation when we wrestle with the same questions they concerned themselves with.