Appendix 1.- (Preface, 3)

Note that in modern times philosophy has endeavoured to stage a revival. Human vanity and self-love grew so inordinately, especially in the second half of the last (18th) century, that the entire philosophical heritage was solemnly spurned and abandoned. The sophists who wrote before and during the French Revolution adopted a lofty, insolent tone which showed how they thought, and tried to persuade others to think, that all their predecessors were stupid victims of immeasurable prejudice and corruption. This explains the profound contempt they displayed for all ancient writers, especially those who expounded the traditional teachings of Christianity.

This contempt for ancient philosophy, and to a greater extent for the Fathers and other Christian writers, was communicated to the general public, and instilled a prejudice which can be dispelled only very slowly. It has still not entirely disappeared and operates to the detriment of true, sound teaching. For my part, however, I want to point out here, once and for all, that whenever I can, I quote authors who witness to the tradition of the truths expounded in the present work.

On the other hand, I do not intend to use authorities to settle questions. I would be quite happy if intelligent persons, who may be averse to such authorities, or have bowed to standard prejudice about them, or have little or no regard for them, were to concentrate solely on the arguments and judge tradition accordingly. In fact, there is no other way of laying aside false prejudices and the lack of esteem felt for these authors. Only personal experience of a philosopher's work and careful attention to his judicious reasoning together with true, profound arguments enable us to decide whether an author is serious and worthy of honour. This is the way in which to revise judgment on our predecessors. We do not abruptly rise against them, but show appreciation of their fine, subtle research, their noble judgments, their solid arguments. And we point out that apparently new questions and difficulties about human knowledge which seem exclusive to our age were not unknown to the ancients.

Our prejudices arise, of course, because so few of the ancients are known and studied; our unbridled passion for independence and for total control of our lives has broken the thread of tradition. But we have to believe that people born prior to the 18th century also had eyes and ears, tongues, feet, hands and heads, as we do. Thought is not in any way a modern discovery, nor has any machine been invented to make our thinking more effective, swifter and reliable, less subject to the delusions springing from human passions and the allure of human malice.