THE
PHILOSOPHICAL BATTLEFIELD
259
from thinking since it was natural to man.
This
was comparable to
saying that it was pointless for a man to demand air
if
he were de–
prived of it because breathing "by its very nature" was free. A little
more than a century ago Metternich, the architect of the Holy Al–
liance, had cynically denied with a similar argument that his severe
censorship decrees restricted freedom of thought in any way. When
it was pointed out to Professor Pos that the question was not whether
man thinks by nature but rather whether governments should be per–
mitted to control the
expression
of thought by police methods, he
retorted,
"If
a philosopher is not allowed by a government to think
freely, he should leave the country." He did not indicate what a
philosopher should do
if
he were prevented from leaving the country.
One of the most dramatic moments in the discussion was the
impassioned speech of the Catholic philosopher and logician, Father
Bocbenski of Switzerland, in support of the resolution. It followed
hard upon the eloquent remarks of Professor Frondizi, the philosophic
exile from Argentina, who urged the meeting to adopt the resolution
because in
his
country no philosopher could hold a university post
who did not subscribe to the Thomist philosophy. To my surprise I
discovered that some of the clerical philosophers at the Congress,
deriving from orders not conspicuous for their defense of philosophic
freedom in previous centuries, were among the strongest advocates
of the resolution. Indeed, throughout the Congress, on every issue
which involved intellectual and political freedom, these philosophical
priests lined up solidly with the democratic forces. One sensed that
their experience in the various resistance movements combined with
their defensive position on the Continent, so different from their po–
sition in the United States, had produced a new awareness of the
dangers of authoritarian institutional controls to the integrity of the
philosophica1life.
The discussion resulted in a compromise amending with a few
ambiguous words the draft constitution of the new International
Federation of Philosophical Societies. One of the
aims
of the Fed–
eration is "to help develop an exchange of views and scientific rela–
tions among philosophers of all countries." To this was added
((in a
spirit of liberty and reciprocal respect."
Those who opposed the reso–
lution supported the amendment with enthusiasm and explained in
a
bewildering
volle face
that "it really meant the same thing." They
