changes, that it could be otherwise, it isnpossible but not necessary that this ornsome other universe exists. On thisnquestion of many possible universes,nAdler sounds like no one so much asnC. S. Lewis or J. R. R. Tolkien in theirntravel and space stories. The comparisonnis not merely playful; I sometimesnwonder if, on this account, Adler wasnas free of theology as he thought. Innany case, his proof “persuades”; his passagenfrom thought to existence acceptsnthe basis of Aquinas’s notion that somewherenin the argument we must begin,nor at least contain, something that doesnexist (in this present case) with thenwhole cosmos.nAdler is careful to avoid the problemnfound in Anselm and his followers ofnwanting to “prove,” on the basis of God’snexistence, the content of Revelation.nThere is no mere rationalist here! Tonbe able to “prove” Revelation, of course,nwould be to make our intellects notnanalogously like God’s, as the argumentnrequires, but equivalent to his. Thisnwould mean that reality must not be angift but a “justice,” the most terrible ofnthe world-exalting theories, no doubt.nOnly God can know God, which means,nultimately, that what is not God oughtnto be content with being “a little lessnthan the Angels.” But, of course, it isnnot, so that the natural desire of thensupernatural does not seem to allownphilosophers to be, in desire, at least,nonly philosophers. Was it not Plato whonLiberal CulturenGannett’s PantheonnA midwestern Gannett “family”nnewspaper teaches the newngeneration about America’s hallowednpast. Under the title “Getnto Know Revolutionary WarnFigures” are listed George andnThomas and Benjamin and Johnnand Abigail and Citizen Painenand Marquis de L. and BetsynRoss. Who’s missing? Of course.n28inChronicles of Culturensuggested that if this gap is to benbridged, it could only come from thenside of the Good?nJohn Paul II, whose work in manynways parallels Adler’s (cf. the Pope’snThe Acting Person, his discourse ofnNovember 17, 1979 on Aquinas) wouldnlike this book, I think. The Holy Fathernis interested especially in a true philosophynwhich, while remaining philosophy,ndoes not methodologically or voluntarilyncut itself off from “the act ofnexisting,” so that if God does speakn”existentially” true philosophy can atnleast will to listen or, to be sure, notnto listen.n”Simply put,” Leopold Tyrmandnremarks:nThomism leads to a theory of humannliberty that is entitled to distinguishnbetween the absolute and the dogmaticnin matters of faith, and firmlynrejects determinist philosophies, suchnas Marxism.nCardinal Wojtyla belongs to thatngroup of Catholic theorists who havenearly found a striking relevance ofnSt. Thomas’s thought to the 20thnCentury’s sociopolitical reality. (WallnStreet Journal, December 6, 1978).nMortimer Adler’s reflections on Godnserve to remind us that behind any defensiblensocial theory lies metaphysicsnand its relation to revelation. The ultimatenerrors of social philosophy lienold Alexander, that unrepentantnreactionary, who saw action innthe line of fire, unlike the goodnprogressive Paine, who wrotenbut never fought. Who fills innfor Mr. Hamilton in Gannett’snpantheon? Ms. Deborah Sampson,nwho as described by Gannett’snhistorians:nwore a soldier’s uniformnand passed as a man for almostntwo years to help thenRevolution. She was shot innthe leg but removed thenbullet herself so she couldncontinue fighting. CDnnndeeper than social philosophy. MortimernAdler, then, as he himself acknowledges,nremains precisely a “20th – CenturynPagan,” or, as Rosalind Murrayncalled her father, Gilbert, “The GoodnPagan.” Adler knows what the revelationnteaches in terms of being, even ifnhe cannot believe it: grace is not to bencommanded. Adler’s philosophy doesnnot conclude that He Who Is cannot, innprinciple, act towards the wills and intelligencenof the persons who do existn(concretepersons, not abstract persons).nGilson, whom Adler often cites withngreat respect, remarked in his “Futurenof AugustinianMetaphysics,” that therenwas a way to God through the real existencenof the contingent, concrete person,nthe real existing Augustine. Gilsonnnoted that this concrete person, Augustine,nwas the most immediately realnthing there was to any philosopher.nAdler does not mention Gilson’s essaynon St. Augustine, but while he was arguingnagainst Aquinas’s proof from contingencynhe seemed to want such anproof. Perhaps, then, Augustine, whomnAquinas cited so often, is the real placento go before we reject so finally then”proof” of Aquinas. And Aquinas does,nafter all, say he is “demonstrating” atnleast that God is, in his proofs.nL>hesterton somewhere talks aboutna certain Mr. Grant Allen, who oncenwrote a book against the existence ofnGod. Chesterton remarked that henwould much prefer to read a book bynGod on the existence of Mr. Grant Allen.nMortimer Adler is neither God nornMr. Grant Allen, but, after finishing hisnremarkable book, we can more easilynthink about both, if we will. From thenGod of the philosophers to the God ofnthe revelation there perhaps are no finaln”bridges,” as Mr. Adler says, but thenrevelation, as it presents itself, does alsonaddress the philosopher. For all his carefulness,nMortimer Adler remains anThomist and a pagan—someone whonmay not hear, but someone whose systemndoes not prevent others from hearingnthe reasons why. Dn