PH IL

P H I CA L

S T U D I ES

BY

DA VI D G R I T C H I E
.

SO

ET I M E P R O F E SSO R

OF

OR

OF

OF

L GI C

AND

LL D
.

TH

WI TH

R OB ER T LAT T

O SSO R

E TA P H S I CS I
E U NI VER S I T
N AT U RA L R IG HT S E
C

AN D M

E D I TE D ,

PR FE

L GI C
A UTH

M A

R H ET O R I C

Y OF S T .

IN

D P HIL
U NI VER S I TY O F GL A S GO W

M A
.

TH E

b
a
n
o
n
l
g

M A C M I LLAN

W Y O RK

NE

AND

CO

T H E M AC M I L LA N
1

A [2

0
9 5

ig h ts

A N DRE WS

M E M OI R , B Y

r ese r

v ed

L I M I T ED

OM P A N Y

SO

L A G W: P R I N T ED
BY R

ER T

AT THE U

N I VER I TY P RE

M A C L EH O S E A N D

LT D

SS

P R E FA C E
I N 1 9 0 2 Professor R itchie reprinte d , under the title
Stu dies in P olitical a nd S ocia l Eth ics, a number of essays

practical questions of political

in w hich he d iscuss e d
an d soc ial ethics on the b asis of w hat may be calle d

evolutionary utilitarianism w ithout raising or at least

w ithout d iscussing metaphys ical questions

Th e
present volume on the other ha nd consists o f pap e rs
w hich are e ssentially philosophical although th e y
inclu d e inci d entally many practical applications Three
of these papers are re printe d from the P h ilosop h ica l
Rev iew an d M ind while th e remaining three have b een
selecte d an d arrange d b y m e from Pro fe ssor R itchie s
manuscripts Th e Cogita tio M etap hysica is a general
statement of his vie w s on all the main q uestions of
ph ilosophy an d rel igion He ha d several tim e s b egun
this an d ma d e som e prog ress w ith it only to leave it
asi d e an d b egin again an d at his d eath it remained
Se c tions I to 2 1 inclusive part of section
incomplete
sections 2 3 2 5 an d 2 6 part of s e ction 2 7 sections
2 2
n 3 0 form the complete d
2 8 and 2
an
d
part
of
sectio
9
portion of the last d raft F ollo w ing ind icatio ns in
Profe ssor R itchie s notes I hav e compl e te d section 2 2
from a revi e w of W ar d s N a tu r a lism a na ga osticism
an d I have also expa nd e d som e of th e other sections
from various notes The remain d e r ( from section 3 1
on war d s) I have compiled from note s in a manuscript
,

vi

PREFA C E

volume Which contained a complete outline w ith

h eadings of t h e Cogita tio T h e main parts of th e

Confessio Fidei and the

were
M oral P h ilosophy
included u nder these titles in manuscript volumes ;
but I have freely re arran g e d these divided the m into
sections expanded the m from ot h e r notes and occasion
ally adde d connecting o r explanatory sentences wh ich
are in d i c ated by square bra ckets I have also revised
the references throu g hout and adde d ot h ers
As Professor R itchie s p u blished Wor k s are concerne d
mainly wit h e thics and politics it seemed to me t h at
this post hu mous volu m e s h o u ld represent as adequately
as is now possible t h e p h ilosophical position t h at
u nderlies h is practical doctrine
I h ave t h erefore
devoted th e g reater part of t h e M e m oir to a connecte d
exposition of h is views in philosop h y and m y aim has
been by full quotation s fro m t h e noteboo k s letters an d
ot h er man u scripts w h ich M r s R itc h ie has k in d ly
entr u sted to m e to e x press h is ideas as far as possible
in h is own words As he wrote on th e se h i g h subject s
in a fres h and unte c hnical style I hope that m any
readers w h o k now only his political and et h ical
writin g s m ay nd these studies ill um inatin g an d
suggestive
M y than k s are due to t h e editors of the P h ilosoph ica l
R ev iew for their k ind permission to reprint the arti c les

on the relation of log ic to psycholog y and th e

relation of metap h ysics to episte m olog y to th e editor

of M ind for k in d ly allowin g the republication of t h e

article on the One and th e M any and to M r s

Ritc h ie for muc h valuable help in the preparation o f
the M e m oir an d the I ndex
R L
,

G LA SGOW

pr il,

05

C ONTENT S
PA G E

M EM O R

I
II

og rap h ic al
P h ilosop h ic al
Bi

C O GI T AT I O M ET A PH Y SI C A

Wh at i P h ilosop hy ?

5,

og ic 6 3
M tap h ys ic s
1
4
Psy ch o Phys ic al P arall l is m
M oral ity So c i ty t
4
R l ig io n A rt t
7 44
L

e c

e c

2 2

T H E R ELAT O N O F LO

3,

6,

1 1

GIC

A I

T H E R EL T O N O F M ET

TO

P SY C H OLO GY

AP H Y SIC S

TO

M O LO GY,

AN Y
Lo g ic al P ro b l m
M tap h ys ic al P ro b l m
T h olo g ic al
d Et h ic al P ro b l m

T H E ON E AN D T H E M

I
II
III

Th e

Th e

The

an

EP I ST E
I

72

94

2 07

2 1

viii

C O N T EN T S

I I
T h N at u r
f G o d nd th P ro b l m f Sc pt ic is m
Es n t ial C o nd it io ns f K n o w l dg
Sc i n c
n d th
U n ifor m ity f N at u r
Stat m n t f t h s I d as in T r m s f T h olo g y
K owl dg
fO
Im p rf c t io I m pl i n I d al
T h En d f C o n d u c t
Fr
W ill
Im m ortal ity
G o d Fr d o m I mm ortal ityO bj c t io n
Fr
W ill nd P r d t in at io n
R aso n
W ill
T h Wa n t of O
N at u r
I ol t io n of th I nd iv idu al
P rso nal ity
T h U niv r al nd th I nd iv id u al S lf
R l ig io
Evol u t io nary Fatal is m
So c i ty nd th Stat
D ial c t ic f C o nd u c t C o n ic t f D u t i
P o it io n f th S o c ial R for m r
T h Sig n i c a nc
f M artyr d o m

P A GE

C O N FESS O F D E
1
2

8
.

10

1 1

12

14

2 0

2 1

e o

se

e a

31

33

3+

37

8
3

8
3

2
4

44

e,

44

45

47

I
5

57

60

61

64

72

74

80

82

e o

ur

e,

ee

e,

e e

es a

ee

ee

or

ur

es

s,

e s

n,

e o

e s,

P H I LO SO P H Y O N T H E M ET H O D AN D
SC O P E O F ET H IC S
M oral P h ilosop h y nd Sc i nc
M oral P h ilosop h y nd P sy c h olo gy
i
i
n
S
n
n
i
ty
lf
C
o
o
u
s
ss
R
lat
o
to
h
i
f
T
U
3
M oral P h ilosop h y

i
T
h
i
i
M
i
P
rso
al
ty
n
d
S
o
c
ty
H
tor
c
al
t
h
o
d
n
4
f
S
S
Et h ic s
c
h
m
a
yst
m
f
5

M O R AL

e,

sc

e,

e o

CON TEN T S

i
A
E
t
h
i
c
s
a
P
h
i
losop
h
i
c
al
S
c
n
c
D
i
f
f
r
n
c
( )
b t w n Ph ilosop h y nd Sc i nc
E
i
B
T
h
t
h
c
al
E
d
( )
W
i
C
F
r
ll
( )
Et h ic s nd R l ig io n
T h R lat io of R l ig io to Et h ic s nd M oral ity
Ch r ist ia nity d M oral ity
So c i ty nd it I st it u t io ns
T h C o mm o G o d in R lat io n to C o ndu t
Cu sto m nd M oral Pro g r s
M oral ity nd N at u r
Eq u al ity
M a ns nd End
M orals nd P ol it ic s
e

8
.

10

1 I

1 2

I N D EX

ix

ee

ee

an

es

e,

e,

e e

P AG E
e

83

0
2
3

10

1 2

3 3
1

3 7
1

2
I
3

332
335
0
34

34

345

/
l

MEMO I R
I

B I OGR JP H I CJL

li fe of a scholar an d think e r is sel d om rich in

inci d ent ; an d accor d ingly my purpos e in this M e moir
is not so much to r e cor d e ve nts as to d e scrib e a
p e rsonality in d icating opi nions an d w ays o f thought
an d life
D avi d G eorge R itchi e w as b orn at J e d burgh in
D
1 8
f
e
D
His
ath
h
e Re v
G
eorg
R
itchie
er
t
53
w ho was minister of th e parish was a man of scholar
ship an d cultur e in high re pute in th e C hurch of
Scotlan d o f w hos e Gen e ral Ass embly h e was Mo d e ra
tor in 1 87 0 Through th e Rev D r A itke n of Minto
th e family w as connect e d w ith the C arlyl e s
an d in
1 88
a ne
L
R
itchi
d
t
etter s o
e
e
i
e d a volum e of E a r l
J
9
y
f
Welsh Ca r lyle H e also pu blish e d in the Scottish

Re view an intere sting articl e on

Ge rmany in
foun d e d on th e r e cor d of a tour ma de b y D r Aitke n
w ho m e t H egel at Berlin as w ell as Schlei e rmacher
N e an d e r an d other m e n o f note His gran d uncle
D r W illiam R itchi e was Profe ssor of D ivinity at
E d in b urgh Univ e rsi ty Anoth e r relative was Profe ssor
D av id R itchi e Hamilton s pre de c e ssor in the C hair o f
Logic at E d in b urgh Unive rsity w hose interests how
e ve r
lay rath e r in the d irection of out d oor life an d
of
such sports as curling than in th e stu dy o f
1
philosophy Accor d ing to Professor C amp b e ll F raser
B i g ph i P h il ph i
p 46
TH E

o ra

oso

ca,

M EM O I R

wh o was a pupil of his in the last of h is twenty eigh t

years of professorship h e treated his class more as

an appen dag e to his ministerial charge than as the
professor s s u prem e interest after a fashion not u n
commo n in p h ilosophical professorships in Scotland

about t h at time
Ritchie used to tell how h is father
on his appointment to Jedb u rgh as ke d his uncle for
advice in perfor m in g the duties of h is new charg e

A d vice ! said the Professor

if yo u are a wis e
man you don t need it and if yo u are a fool you won t

ta k e it
And t h ereupon h e began to disc u ss the best
k ind of ies for s h in g the B order streams
Ritc h ie received h is early sc h oolin g at Jedburg h
Acade m y He h ad two sister s but no brother an d
h e was not allowed to ma k e frien d s of t h e to w n
boys Conseq u ently h e live d an u nboyis h life w h ich
h ad profoun d e ects in later years
H e neve r
through out his life learned to play g a m es of any
sort and in t h ese early days h is ch ief re c reation was
solitary shin g M uch mental wor k and insu f cient
e x ercise tended to increase a constitutional n e rvous
ness and as he had no healthy natural outlet fo r
his yo u n g energ y h is m ind becam e too early con
ce ntr ate d on
p u rely intellectual subj ects This early
experience bred in h im a lon gi ng for sympat h etic
c ompanionship and a k een sense of loneliness w h ich
he expresses vividly in his most intimate writin g s
W h en h is sc h ool days were over he m atriculated
at Edinburgh U niversity His bent was towar d s
classical study and he wor k ed h ard at L atin and
Gree k under Professors Sellar and B lac k ie for both
o f wh o m
h e had a lastin g regard Blac k ie as is
well k nown was e c centri c and unsyste m atic in h is
tea c hin g ; but R itc h ie found h im original and stim u
latin g and learned a g reat deal fro m h im He used
to tell of his s u rprise at ndin g when h e went to
6
C f pp
7
49
4 5 ag
-

a,

B I OGR A P H I C A L

Oxfor d that h is G reek prose was approved w hile

in his Latin prose he w as d e cient But in ad d ition
to w hat he o b tain e d from Blackie he probab ly o w ed
much to th e tuition of William Veitch w ho as a
privat e tutor taught most of the ab ler stu d ents at
E d in b urgh d uring many y e ars an d w hose I r r egula r
Gr eek Ver hs w as a famous text book
At E d in
b urgh also R itchie w as introduce d to philosophy b y
Professor C amp be ll F ras e r in whose class an d in
that o f Professor C al d erwoo d he gained the high e st
priz es an d his interest in th e su bject le d him to
j oin th e stu d e nts Philosophical S oci e ty W h e re he
d iscusse d philosophical pro blems w ith the men of
his o w n years I n o ne o f his summ e rs at Edinburgh
he atte n d e d th e class of b otany which was not
require d for th e degr ee an d he thus form ed an
int e rest in natural science w hich was usefu l not
merely as an out d oor ho bb y b ut al so as a preparation
for furth e r rea d ing an d thinking on b iological pro blems
which bore fruit in his ethical an d political theories
In later years when he ha d returne d to Scotlan d
as a professor an d w hen the endless questions of
University re form were un d er d iscussion he spo k e
often of the merits an d d emerits of the Scottish
University system as compared with that of Oxfor d
an d C am b ri dge He b elieve d strongly in the Scottish
lectures to large classes as g iving stimulus bot h to
teachers an d to taught an d especially as evo k ing
inte rest an d responsive n e ss in th e stu d ents B u t he
regrette d the abse nce in Scotland of su icient gui d ance
for the stu d ents rea d ing an d ( in the large Univer
sities ) o f personal inte rcourse between student an d
teacher What he most strongly condemne d was
th e system o f class prizes an d honours awar d e d as
th e r e sult of competition in essays an d examinations
In th is he saw a d ouble evil hinderin g the best
e d ucational results On the one han d it le d to
,

,
.

M EM O I R

bo u ts of over study and crammin g for t h is or t h e

other class alternatin g wit h periods of little else than
note ta k in g instead of m oderate but re gu lar study
from day to day ; and on the ot h er hand it
m ade it almost necessary for a professor to refrain
from g ivin g a d vice and h elp to individual stu d ents
le s t t h ey s h ould get an u nfair advantag e in t h e class
competitions
At St Andrews h e endeavo u red to
lessen these evils by excludi ng essays fro m the com
petition for prizes and by formin g small classes of
students for discussion and tutorial wor k B u t he
always felt t h at this was m erely a m a k es h ift and t h at
nothin g less t h an t h e a b olition of class prizes wo u ld
have really satisfactory results
After ta k in g t h e Edinburg h degree of M A with
F irst C lass Hono u rs in Classics R itc h ie went as an
ex h ibitioner to B alliol C olleg e Oxford where h e
gained a First C lass bot h i n M oderations and in the

F inal
Greats
In 1 87 8 he became a
S c h ool
F ellow and in 1 881 a Tutor of Jesus C olleg e His
wor k in connection with t h at C ollege continued
t h rou gh out his residence at Oxford an d from 1 882
to 1 886 h e was also a Tutor at B alliol In 1 881
he married M iss F lora L in d say M ac d onell w h o died
in 1 888 and he married ag ain in 1 889 h is se c ond
Wife bein g M iss Ellen S Haycraft w h o survives
him along with a d au gh ter of the rst marriag e an d
a so n of the second

The wor k of the

Greats S chool at Oxford
in w h ich Ritc h ie as u nderg raduate and as tutor was
for so m any years en gag e d consisted then as now
m ainly in the application of classical sc h olarship to
the study of anci e nt history and political theory and
ancient p h ilosophy with c ontinual reference to m odern
d evelop m ents and the problems of o u r own day
The rst condition of a ri gh t u nderstandin g of our
institu tions and ways of thin k in g and of a sane pro
-

I OGRA P H I C A L

gress in politics an d philosophy is the stu dy of the

gro w th of our civilisation b oth on the si d e of practice
and on that o f tho u ght from it s roots in ancient
G reek life an d speculation Something lik e this was
th e dominant id e a of R itchie s w ork at Ox for d ; an d
history politics an d ph ilosophy conc e ive d from this
point o f v ie w b ecame th e ch ief inte rests of his life
H is k ee n an d scrupulous scholarly instincts d e liv e re d
him from the d angers of rapi d an d a b stract th e orising
an d they we re save d from passing on the other
han d into p e d antry an d scholasticism b y his living
interest in the soc ial an d sp e cu lative pro b l e ms of
our o wn tim e In his early y e ars at Oxfor d he
came un d er two gr e at an d harmonious inuenc e s
thos e of T H G r ee n an d Arnol d Toyn b e e G ree n s
i d ealism ha d its roots in H eg el to w hom we o we
the vitalising of th e stu d y o f G ree k philosophy an d
th e broa d conc e ption of e volution w hich has le d to
th e r e alising of th e valu e of history in t h e stu d y of
mod e rn thought an d institutions And G ree n s in
siste nc e on th e d uty of practical citiz e nship was in
full harmon y w ith th e w e ll kno w n work of Arnol d
Toyn b ee Not that th ey an d thos e who w e re in
u e nce d b y them hel d the same vi e w s e ither in
politics or in philosophy ; fo r they d i d not com b ine
to institute a propagan d a b ut wer e unite d in virtue
of common interests
Of Green s inuence upon R itchi e it woul d b e
impossi b le to speak adequately w ithout a long philo
sophical exposition ; b ut its nature may b e in fe rre d
from their writings an d from W hat w ill aft e rwar d s b e
sai d her e r egar d ing th e governing id e as of R itchie s
thinking His relations w ith Toynbe e an d w ith oth e rs
of l ike min d are a d mira b ly d escribed b y Profe ssor F C
Montague w ho has giv e n m e an interesting account
o f R itch ie and som e o f his frien d s in the early
e ars
y

o f his li fe at Oxfor d
Although says M r M ontagu e
,

M EM O I R

6
I

had been a c quainted with M r R it c h ie for so m e

time before I rst became really intimate wit h hi m
throu g h t h e meetin g s of a little society of youn g men
to w h i c h we bot h belonged and w hich had been formed
by Arnold Toynbee i n the summer of 1 87 9 Toynbee
was t h en full of enthusiasm for a renovation of modern
politi c s inspired by belief i n a reli g ious and social
ideal H e had ch osen as me m bers of t h e society
several of h is conte m poraries w h o di ffered fro m h im
o n many points or were even rem ote from hi m i n
h abits of thou g ht b u t who would h e t h ou gh t u nder
s tand his aim s and enter into h is aspiration s T h e
ori g inal members b esides Toynbee were A M ilner
P L Gell
D Ro g ers W N B ruce Ritc h ie and
myself and we were j oined some ti m e later by E T
C oo k and B R Wise Eac h of u s too k a depart
m ent of public a ffairs for his province and I remember
that M ilner too k F oreig n R elations and Rit ch ie Educa
tion Our m eetin g s were h eld so m etimes in town
but oftenest in Oxford and then in Rit ch i e s rooms
at Jes u s Coll ege They were always very private and
i nform al U sually b u t not always som e body read a
paper and t h en followed a c onversation The so c iety
lasted abo u t t h ree years but expired as its m embers
became more and more im m ersed i n their own pur
s u its I re m e m ber the stron g ly ori g inal cast of Ritchie s
mind He was i nstin c tively a philosopher wit h a
stron g tenden c y to system
His habit of deducin g
politi c al conclusions from rst principles his disli k e
of co m promise h is remar k ably pointed an d clear ex
pression struc k me as rather French t h an En g lish or
even Scotch Firmly as he h eld his own convictions
h is g entle and sensitive nature ensured him from
h urtin g t h ose who mig ht t h in k ot h erwise Indeed
others were prone to thin k that in t h e eag erness of
disc u ssion t h ey m i gh t have g razed him b u t he was
far too earnest and u nsel sh ever to ta k e o ffence
.

B I OGR A P H

ICAL

Both in w riting and in conversing h e had a re marka bl e

gi ft of fresh lively an d characteristic expression We
all felt that he ha d an original an d stimulating min d
a nd w e learnt much from h im although we m ight not
b e a b l e even to approach agr ee ment
I nee d not
dwell at length on the particular opinions w hich he
expr e ss ed They were su b stantially the sam e as those
w hich he se t forth in his lat e r w ritings H e was a
d emocrat although his mo d e of thought
z e alous
s e e m e d to have little a f nity with that of common
m en
H e w as a socialist an d ha d t h e strongest b elief
in State action wh e re ve r possi ble He ha d I think
an instinctive antipathy to the English way of r e
garding polit ical qu e stions Nor ha d he I think
much sympathy with Toyn b e e s p e culiar t e mperament
nor much ten d ency to approach mo d ern politics from
his spiritual stan d point These d iscussions di d not
b ring t h e m e mb e rs of th e soci e ty near e r in b elief b ut
they w e re fu ll of interest an d I look b ack upon them
w ith a melancholy ple asure in w h ich my r e collection

o f R itchie has a v e ry larg e part

I t nee d only b e
a dd e d that even at this more genial perio d of his life
in Oxfor d R itchie felt k ee nly the sens e of intellectual
lon eliness an d the longing for sympathy to w hich
refe re nce has alr e a d y b ee n ma de an d that at a critical
time his friendship w ith Arnol d Toyn b ee save d him
from a reckless in d i fference a b out himself an d his
future I n the int e rval b etw een his gra d uation and
the b eginning of his teaching w ork he had d i f culties
a b out the choic e o f a profession
He ha d b een
b rought up in the ortho d ox religion of his ancestral
cr ee d ; b ut in e vitab ly as his min d d evelope d ortho d o xy
b ecame to him useless an d untrue Accord ingly he
felt it impossi b le to enter th e clerical profession for
w h ich h e ha d originally b e e n d e stine d an d at the
same time h e shrank from causing a sharp disappoint
ment to his family Thus although his father with
.

M EM O I R

w h om he h ad t h e affectionate but reserved friends h ip

w h i ch used to be common between fathers and sons
left h im untra m melle d in the choice of his life wor k
he passe d throu h a tim e of trying indecision Attracted
to the st u dy o f law by his interest in j urisprudence
constitutional h istory and political philosophy he read
for the E n g lish B ar ; but he h ad no wish to practise
a s a barrister
T h e tutorship at Jesus C olleg e how
ever solved h is di f culties and h e adopted without
h esitation the wor k of teac h in g
A s a teac h er at Oxford h is st u dy and instruction
lay mainly in t h e departments of log ic moral p h ilosop h y
and political theory ; but the compre h ensive co ncep
tion of evolutionary pro g ress whi c h was inherent in
h is idealist philosop h ical position le d him to ma ke a
special study of t h e La m arc k ian and D arwinian theories
in biolo g y with t h e obj ect of W
ei g hin g and consider
in g the use of biolog ical notions in politics an d
ph ilosop h y T h is was an interest which re m ained
wit h him t h roug h life and w h ic h enabled him to m a k e
his most c h aracteristic contributions to the t h oug ht
of his time It g ave h im a de nite eld of h is own
in w h i ch the philosop h ical CO H VlCt I lS he held in
com m on wit h many of his teac h ers and contemporaries
c ould nd an ori g inal applicat ion and a distinctive
expression His characteristics as a teac h er of political
philosop h y at Oxford are well des c ribed in a letter
to M r s Ritchie from Professor W
As h ley of
B irmin gh am who recalls t h e impression whic h Ritchie s
teac h in g and c onversation m ade upon hi m when h e

was a youn g g raduate in Oxford

T h e attraction
w h ic h R itc h ie s speculations i n political p h ilosophy
exercise d on those w h o were drawn to h im was d ue
to the same c a u se as the li k e inuence of T H Green

and Arnold Toynbee t h e comple te fu sion in h i m of

the t h inker an d the citizen R itc h ie absolutely free
as he was from all sentimentality or g us h was yet
,

I O GRA P H I C A L

consume d b y a passionate interest in the w ell b eing of

h is fe llo w men
H e looke d to pol itical philosophy for
practical gui d ance in his own con d uct T h e pro b lem
of the functions of th e State w as no matter o f
aca d emic casuistry to him ; its solution d ete rmin e d his
attitude to eve ry contemporary pol itical measure T h e
se cre t of h is inu e nc e was that he car e d int e ns ely for
the subj e ct an d n ev e r s u ccumb e d to that fe eling o f
b or e d om w hich t e achers in a Unive rsity so o fte n su r
ren d e r to or cult ivate
B u t R itchie an d this was another source o f his

po we r was aca de mic in an exc ell e nt sense W hat

eve r
m ight b e his o wn l e anings h e w as al w ays
scrupulously careful to kno w e xactly what th e gre at
mast ers of the worl d s thought like Plato an d Aristotle
Lock e an d R ousseau ha d actually sai d an d to com
b in e assent to or d iss e nt from th e ir meaning w ith an
accurate k no wle d e of their t e xt I have often thought
since w hen co ng
of so calle d
o nte d with the results
sociological cours e s in Am erica an d els ew h e re w hat
an e normous s e rvic e it was w hich Ritchi e d i d to his
pup ils an d frien d s w hen he insiste d on a thorough
r st han d acquaintance w ith the actual wor d s of t h e
great w rit e rs
Th e oth e r point a b out R itchie w hich occurs to me
o n looking b ack is that h e was one o f th e v e ry rst
among aca d e mic teach e rs to come to close quarters
w ith mo d e rn b iological or pseu d o b iological th eory in
its r elations to social e thics
Those w ho list e n e d to
him m ight conce ivably continue to agree with Her b e rt
Spencer s o bj e ctions to S tate interfere nc e on groun d s
o f exp e d i e ncy ;
th e y co u l d har d ly continu e to have
any int ell e ctual respect for the self contra d ictory
phraseology o f organism an d the like in w h ich
h e w as fon d of clothing them
T h e cru d e in d ivi d ualism w hich bases its el f on the
struggl e fo r e xistence coul d not b e d ispose d of quite
.

M EM O I R

I O

simply It was indeed quite time that somebody

w h o k new the best that the philosop h ers h ave said
s h ould d eal very seriously w ith th e c u rrent notions
of the scienti c man in t h e street
Ritchie did
so
I cannot but t h in k with a larg e measure of

success a success due to h is own acquai ntan c e wit h

biolog ical theory as se t forth by its g re atest exponent
Darwin and h is complete acceptance of it in its own
eld
T h ese co m ments are sadly inadequate
Ritc h ie s
teac h in g entered so deeply into the substance of m y
thou gh t t h at I nd it h ard to disentan gle h is special
inuence I am sure t h at I am not alone i n t h at
respect and t h at his inuen c e has been considerable
and far rea c hin g Not to spea k of m en in England
and Scotland academically educated t h e pirate d e d ition
of h is Da r winism a nd P olitics is eve ry day g ivin g men
in re m ote parts of America a basis for their social

faith
I n s p i te of t h e exactin g duties of a t u torial post
at Oxfor d Ritch ie found ti m e to prepare the g reater
part of his published writin g s during his residen c e

t h ere He contrib u ted an essay on T h e Rationality

of H istory to the volume of Essays in P h ilosop h ica l

Cr iticism edited by Professor Andrew Set h and M r
R B Haldane and p u blished in 1 883 Alon g wit h
Professor R Lod g e and M r P E M atheson h e trans
lated Blu ntsch li s Th eory of th e Sta te and he also
P r incip les of
p u b lished Da r winism a nd P olitics
an d D a r w in a nd H egel ( I
S ta te I nterfer ence ( I
H e was a frequent contributor to various j ournals of
philosop h y including M ind Th e P h ilosop h ica l R eview
and Th e I nter na tiona l f ou r no l of Eth ics an d some of
his articles were reprinted in the D a r win a nd H egel
volume H e also w rote papers for t h e Aristotelian
S ociety w h ich were published in its P r oceedings and
h e contributed a number of arti c les to t h e Dictiona ry
so

B I O GRA P H I C A L

olitica l Economy an d to C h am b e r s s Ency clop a ea ia

P
f
His larg e st book, N a tu r a l Righ ts, w as complete d b efor e
he left Oxfor d, b ut w as not pu blish e d until 1 89 5

This is no small amount of literary pro d uction in

ten or t welve years of a b usy tutor s li fe at Oxfor d
But though R itchi e was full of i nte r e st in his w ork
he felt that much more might b e d one in a Scottish
chair of philosophy with its w ide spaces o f summer
l e isure The climate of Oxfor d also d epre sse d him
an d h e hel d it responsi b l e for a goo d d e al of the
e
trou
b
le
d
him
throughout
his
lif
etite sa nt w hich
p
Accor d ingly he w as mor e than once a can d i d ate fo r
chairs in Scotland an d in 1 89 4 he w as appointe d
Professor of Logic an d M e taphysics at St An d re ws
Univ e rsity in succession to Professor H e nry Jones
of Glasgo w His t e aching ha d h ith e rto b een conc e rne d
more w ith moral philosophy than w ith logic an d he
ha d not b e e n calle d upon to giv e much instruction
in m e taphysics to a d vanc e d stu d ents nor ha d there
b e en occasion for regular lect u res in mo d e rn psycho
logy But h is w ork no w include d a large num b er
o f lectur e s
1 0 or more in th e v e
or
six months
( 5
o f each
w inte r s e ssion) in logic psychology meta
physics and th e history of philosophy Accor d ingly
d uring the early years of his resi d e nc e at St An d re w s
the greate r part of his time w as occupie d with the w ork
of h is class e s H e was also unfortunat e in th e time of his
coming to St An d rews T h e Univ ersi ty w as in t h e mi d st
of a long an d b itter conict involving litigation an d
much party fe eling regar d ing th e position of Unive rsity
C olleg e D un d ee the d ispos ition of th e Berry B equest
an d th e e sta b lishm e nt o f a m e d ical school T h e issues
of the campaign afI e cted not only th e nance b ut the
whole e d ucational future of the Un iv e rsity an d its
inc ide nts ha d more than once a d isturb ing e ec t on
t h e actual teaching in n e arly all th e d epartments of
stu d y I t was impossi b l e fo r the most paci c of

M EM O I R

1 2

scholars if h e h ad any reg ard for h is own and h is

students wor k to stan d aloof from the battle
Ritchie s strong sense of public duty led him to ta ke
his fu ll share in th e controversy of course on t h e
side of progress an d c ommon sense w h ich ultimately
prevaile d T h e extraor d inary and incal c ulable incidents

of the lon g strug gle when the U niversity was lost

and saved again every few m ont h s and the pro

c e e din s of t h e reactionaries in power w ere as tra g ic
g
to the teachin g sta ff a s th ey were comic to the detac h ed
spectator brought m uc h worry and distraction to
R itchie wh o was a b le however to relieve h i m self
occasionally by th e writin g of deli g htfully satiric verse
as w ell as prose s k its on the ways and sayin s of the
torm entors B u t all this was g ood neit h er gr h ealth
nor for literary production and it was not u ntil t h e
dispute had been satisfactorily settled by t h e law courts
the U niversities C omm ission and t h e Privy C ou ncil
that h e was able fully to res u me his wor k as a writer
a nd to publis h h is volume of Stu dies in P olitica l a nd
Socia l Eth ics and h is P la to bot h of w hic h appeared in
,

2
0
9

D urin g his tenure of the ch air at St Andre w s

Ritchie naturally gave most of his interest to t h e lo g ical
and m etaphysical aspects of p h ilosophy At one tim e
h e had it in min d if opportunity occurred to see k
a chair of moral p h ilosophy as t h at s u bj ect was more in
t h e line of his earlier wor k B u t w h en in the last year
of h is life t h e professors h ip of m oral p h ilosophy at
St Andrews was vacant and it was su gg este d t h at
h e mi gh t desire to exchange he preferred to retain the
teachin g of logic an d use d h is inuen c e to sec u re t h e
election of M r B osanquet as h is colleag ue His
studies in et h ics and politics h o w ever h a d an ex c ellent
e ffect on h is lectures in the m ore speculative side of
philosop h y L og ic in his h ands ceased to be a fruitless
art of inte lle c tual j u gglery He conceived it as a real
.

B I OGR A P H I C AL

analysis of concrete reasoning an d he went b ehin d th e

scholastic an d post scholastic forms of the text b ooks
w ith th e ir a b stract rigi d applications to the de e per an d
fr e er principles of Aristotl e In his d iscussions of
Mill
an
d
Her
b
ert
S
p
e nc e r
as
w
e ll as in his
S
J
lecture s on psych olo y an d m e taphysics h e gave point
to his argum e nts b y elicito u s illustrations an d e xamples
d ra w n from his w ide re a d ing in history pol itics e thics
an d b iology F or h e was never a frai d of m e taphor
illustration an d vivi d ness in e xposition b eli e ving that
metaphors are harmful in ph ilosophy only w h e n th e y
u nconscious an d that the d el ib erate avoi d anc e o f
ar e
th e m is a couns el of d e spair Though no o ne spok e

more strongly o f the p e rils o f picture think ing

no o ne coul d more skilfully e ncourag e a halting
au d ienc e b y concre te st e pping ston e s to high e r thought
An d not mer ely the form b ut th e matt e r of his l e ctur e s
o we d much to h is pr e occupation w ith social pro b lems
A s h e put it in a pap e r r e a d to th e Scots Philosoph ical

Clu b th e stu d y of the m e tho d s of social sci e nc e is

a n e cessary part of logic th e stu d y o f th e social factor
in min d an d of th e r elation b et w een th e in d ivi d ual an d

soci e ty is an essential part of psychology an d of e thics

H e w as convinc e d that th e ultimat e issu e s in e thics an d
in m e taphys ics were fundam e ntally th e same an d he
continu ally i ns iste d o n th e importance of the social
factor in p e rc e ption imag ination thinking an d b eli e f
a s w e ll as in th e history of pol itical institution s an d
moral syst e ms Pro b a b ly th e ve ry fact that the social
e l e m e nt is at rst sight less promin e nt in th e intellectual
than in th e pract ical human activit ie s attract e d him
specially to the stu d y an d teaching o f logic ps ychology
an d metaphysics
I n spite o f th e aca dem ic troubles R itchie foun d much
to satisfy him in his life at St An d re w s H e w or ked
har d fo r his su bj e ct his stu d ents an d the University
as a whol e not caring much for th e d e tails of business
,

M EM O I R

b u t scrupulo u sly atte ndin g and giving his help at t h e

innumerable meeting s whic h are needed to m ove the
w h eels of a place of learning i n S cotland His clas ses
were not so larg e as to be unwieldy and h e h ad special
pleasure i n t h e wor k of his honours st ud ents whom
he c ould k now i ndivi d ually and to w h o m he coul d
g ive of h is best in the fran k and equal dis c ussion whic h
he loved I n g eneral public a ffairs and in conventional
society w h ere t h e interc h ang e of ideas too often falls
al m ost to a least com m on m easure of intelligence he
too k little part He w h o was in t h e best sense social
to his nge r tip s used often ironically to describe hi m

B u t not h in g g ave hi m g reater

self as unsocial
pleasure t h an to beat o u t in lon g talks wit h c olleag ues
and friends t h e larg er q u estion s of p h ilosophy and
politi c s art literat u re and relig ion To t h ese dis c us
sions for w h i c h h e found frequent opport u nity at St
Andrews h e brou gh t not m erely hard thin k in g but
i m ag ination hum our and a rare susceptibility to aes
t h etic impressions His tal k was always ch arg ed with
learnin g t h orou gh ly assi m ilated so as to be a part
of h imself rather t h an even lig htly worn as a coat of
m ail or a weapon or a ower ; and withal h e was
entirely unass u min g and free from self consciousness
He always un c onsciously raised people to his o w n
standard of t h o ugh t and h e never even in tal k with
a child too k u p t h e position of k no w in g what was
ri g ht but arg ued the matter out on equal term s This
i nevitably bro u g h t h im the stron g a ffection of all w h o
k new him well and i n the conditions of life at St
Andre w s favourable alike to intimacy and to antipathy
it miti g ated h is feelin g of loneliness and in c reased the
h appiness whi c h he reg arded as a means rat h er t h an
as the en d of th e best life
The climate of St Andrews s u ited Rit ch ie better
t h an that of Oxfor d His dislike of ga m es prevente d
him fro m playin g g olf ; b u t c y c lin g an d co u ntry wal k s
.

B I OGR A P H I CA L

w hich he gr e atly enj oye d k e pt him in fair physical

con d ition O ne or two attacks of inuen z a d epr e sse d
him an d possi b ly left hi dd e n trac e s of evil ; b ut he
had no illn e ss so serious as to interrupt his teach ing
until th e last fortnight of h is life
His spar e an d
some w hat d elicate looking b ut agil e gur e suggeste d

the type of man w ho is never w ell an d n e ver ill

for w hom one is r ea dy to proph e sy a long life r emem
b ering the prove r b a b out creaki ng d oors that hang long
But h is li fe was d e stine d to b e all too short I n th e
1 0 3 he was much
of
an
d
b
eginning
e nd of 1
2
0
9
9
trou b l e d w ith neuralgic pains To w ard s th e en d of
January he took rest on h is d octor s a d vice an d sp e nt
a fe w d ays in b e d H e grew gra d ually w eak e r an d
on F e b ruary 2 md symptoms of grave n e rvous trou b le
sh e w e d themselves T h e e nd came swiftly and m e rci
I lly the follo w ing e v e ning
I t is d i fficult if not impossi b le to put on paper any
ad e quate impression of R itchie s many si d e d p e rson
ality H is spiritual lin e aments w ere like those which
in som e people make eve ry portrait a d isappointment
Those wh o kn e w him w ell will al w ays in re calling
him think rst of the simpl e inde nab le charm w hich
elu d es d escription a charm not genial in the common
sens e ( for he w as res erve d w ithout b e ing aust e re ) nor
ashing and w aywar d ( for though he coul d coin an
e pigram on occasion
he shone rath e r than glittere d)
b ut a charm of exalte d sanity the charm of one who
takes you as it w e re a few hun d re d feet higher in
thought than you ha d e ver b e en b efore an d give s you
a ne w outlook on familiar things Much o f this charm
was du e to his compl e te fre e d om from pr e occupation
with h imself his w hole an d simpl e d evotion to inquiry
an d to truth an d h is pure h uman sympathy Men
w ho can tak e you to intell e ctual h e ights too o ften d rag
you th ere an d l e cture you u nt il your pleasure in th e
ne w vie w d isapp e ars in
your re sentment at b eing
,

M EM O I R

re garded as pre eminently foolis h an d i g norant

In
interco u rse with Ritchie t h ere was no shadow of this
kind B y his very sensitiveness to excellence in ot h er
people he brou g ht th e n un c onsciously to his own level
and drew from t h em m ore than they seemed to possess
Above all t h in g s he detested inferior and pretentious
wor k whic h he reg arded as seriously im m oral but the
intensity of h is d isli k e to moral and intellec tu al failure
le d hi m to avoid mentionin g c ir cu mstances t h at told
ag ainst others and even to feel a sort of shrin k in g
from such fail u res as if they wounded hi m personally
I n t h is h e was in u en c ed no less by h is social ideals
th an by h is sin gle m ind in the see k in g of trut h F or
it seemed to h im that muc h error in j ud g ment arises
from ma k in g too h ard a distinction between intellec
tual and moral virt u es and defe c ts and h e held that
intellectual i g norance and in c apacity is in great part
a result of indi fference to social prog ress and is thus
moral in its so u rce His own social opti m ism made
him an ardent and in c essant Wor k er restlessly intent
on thoro ug h ness of t h in k in g impatient of abstra c tions
and hazy g eneralisations and scrupulous in his ende a
vo u r to attain accuracy of statement and reference as
reg ards even t h e minutest details B u t t h ere was no
hardness i n his sense of duty I t was rather a buoyant
and optimistic belief springin g from his livin g interest
in human wellbein g and progress F or him the w h ole
d u ty of m an lay not in d oin g g ood thin g s b u t in
d oing them well and from this deep moral conviction
t h ere passed into h is life a courtesy g entleness and
fran k ness that seemed instinctive in its readiness
and ease
Except in matters of cond uct Ritchie was lit tle of
an artist t h ou gh he was unfailin g ly witty and s k illed
in th e craft of letters B u t h e had a g reat love of
poetry and art and in talk about literary and artistic
q u estions his j u dg ments were often l um ino u s and
.

B I OGR A P H I C A L

suggestive Though he ha d l ittle ear for m u sic his

mental al e rtn e ss ma d e him a goo d critic It w as
for instance an i d ea of his o w n that Men d elssohn s
conc e rte d mus ic ha d in it all the elements that were
b rought out consciously an d d evelope d b y Wagner
I n e very kin d of art his appre ciation was for form
rath e r than for colour an d as r egar d s culture in
general his sympathi e s wer e more w ith th e classical

he
than w ith th e T eutonic e lem e nts
I th ink

sai d in a l e tter to Professor Al e xan d e r ( 1 8

the
Weltgeist has harn e ssed th e Te utonic hors e to the
chariot of civil isation b ut the d rive r is an Italian or
a Roman ise d C elt w ho has got his training from
Ath e ns an d J e rusal e m
Eve rything that lifts us
ab ove b ar b arians ( i e mer e Te utons ) has com e to us

from or through I taly

Y e t e v e n in the most
unclassical w r it e rs he foun d w ork w hich h e coul d
appre ciate an d e nj oy Thus he w rote ( in
I am d elighte d at last to hav e foun d a poem of
W alt Whitman s that s e ems to me th e most genui ne
poe try I t is on L incoln s d e ath an d is call e d Whe n
lilac b looms
It is l ike a gran d piece o f music
h
although
it
contains
t
e
w
ords
d
ebr
i
s
d
e Ot
(
p
an d as an e legy one can put it b esi d e

that on Saul an d Jonathan

He w as fon d o f a
goo d novel esp e cially if its art lay in th e d epicting

of character
The b e st treatis e s on moral philo
sophy ar e goo d novels
But this is an esot e ric
d oc trine an d not to b e rashly communicat e d to th e
young nor to those who arrange examinations in
mental an d moral science Suppos e Thacke ray an d
Balzac w ere m a d e su bj e cts of examination in place
of Plato an d Aristotle Lock e an d Kant there might
b e some chance of th e s e latter authors b eing fairly

un de rstoo d an d appreciate d
I n h is thinking as in his li fe the i d eal of social
w ell b e ing an d progress was R itchi e s ruling motiv e
,

M EM O I R

I t was the c omplete dominance of t h is ideal in h i m

its full penetration of h is spirit t h at g ave h im h is
distinctive position and was t h e m ainsprin g of all
h is wor k He drew from t h is h is quic k and w i d e
interest in many g reat studies in politics and history
in institution s and customs civil and reli g ious in
t h e g eo g raphical features of civilised c ountries in
biolo gy and e c onomics T h us when h is speech o r
writin g rose into t h e t h innest air of pur e speculation
it was al w ays enric h ed and vitalised by his k nowl e d g e
of t h e fa c ts of hu man experien c e Yet h e neve r
lost h im self in t h e interest of detail but maintained
t h ro ugh the vivacity and picturesqueness of h is
instances a r m h old on principles t h e g rasp of a
clear mind and a stron g purpose Pre eminently a
thin ker h e ab h orred thin k in g in v a cu o and h is
peculiar stren g t h lay in h is combination of philo
sop h i c insigh t wit h a livin g interest in hu m an a ffairs
past present and fu ture
,

I]

P H I L OS OP H I CJL

W h en one considers the lines of Ritchie s educa

tion and study and th e subj ects which m ainly intereste d
h im one can se e how inevitably h is t h in k in g cam e
to be d ominated by h is view of h istory and s c ience
on the one h and and of logi c et h i c s and politic s
on t h e other From his trainin g in Gree k philosop h y
and in m odern idealism h e received the fundamental
attitude of t h oug ht which in various forms appears
in t h e distin c tions between the question of ori g in
and t h at of validity between h istorical and lo g ic al
m et h o d between fact and meanin g between picturin g
and conceivin g T h e essence of t h is d istin c tion is
as old as Plato ; but it requires r e interpretation an d
fres h discussion in every philosop h ic g eneration
R itc h ie s w h ole t h ou gh t wa s ruled by it and b y

P H I LO S O P H I C A L

problems which I t ra i ses an d the special value

of his w ork lies in this that he di d not merely
reiterate an d defen d it as an a b stract principle but
skilfully applied it to concrete questions in new an d
original ways Although the d istinction is familiar
to all train e d philosophical stu de nts its special appli
cations have b e en only imperfe ctly w orke d out an d
writers as well as rea d ers in many d epartm e nts of
knowle dge nd it diic u lt to assent to it an d to
appreciate its value R itchi e felt this very strongly
In a letter ( F ebruary 7 th
in w hich he explains
th e application of t h e principl e to reli gious qu e stions

he writes :
I fear I w eary you an d v ex you b y
saying the same sort o f thing over and ove r again ;
but I am so much convince d of the truth of it that
it always seems to m e that it must b e owing to some
d e fe ct in the way of putting it that it fails to pro d uce
conviction An d yet as it is a w ay o f looking at
the w hole question o f religion w hich so few p e ople
in Englan d at least w ill acc ept perhaps I s h oul d not
b e so con dent
An d there al w ays r e mains this great
d i f culty in practice The maj ority of p e ople always
ten d to cloth e a spiritual truth in mythological form
i e to think of e ternal relations as if these were par

ticu lar events in time

an d so to state valu e in

terms o f origin
so
that th e re is a constantly
recurring conict An d o ften o ne fe els it wrong for
th e sak e of d i fference in the w ay of expre ssing a truth
to s e parat e oneself from the ordinary C hristian b y
which separation there comes so much loss moral an d
otherwise An d yet again th e utter heedlessness of
truth in the e ccl e siastical min d s e n d s o ne b ack again

into indignant protest an d solitude

T h e most elaborate statem e nt and illustration of
the principl e as R itchie conc e ived it is give n in the

essay on Origin an d Vali d ity in his volum e Da rw in

a nd H e el
s
But
he
a
continually
d
eveloping
the
i
d
ea
w
g
th e

M EM OI R

2 o

it appears in its latest forms i n the present volum e

m ore e s pecially in t h e Cogita tio M etap hysica ( pp 7 6 88
2
While
he
insisted
on
the
reco
g
1
97
7
nitio n of t h e d istinction as necessary for clear thin k in g
in p h ilosophy ethics politics an d relig ion it m ust
not be s u pposed t h at he regarded it as absolute or
t h at he sympathised wit h the view that there are

di fferent sp h e res or k inds of truth consistin g

of j u d g ments of fac t an d j udgm ents of value

ea ch in d epen d e nt of the ot h er and each equally ulti
m ate The business o f k no w led g e is to ascertain t h e
true nature of thin g s and t h is can never be fully
given by any answer to the que s tion of t h eir ori g in
T h e question of vali d ity is t h e ultimate question
As he p u ts it usin g the lan g uag e of Aristotle in t h e

essa y on Ori g in and Validity

the nal cause of
a thin g t h e end whic h it comes to serve must be
k nown if we are to k now the true nature of t h e
thin g ( 3 8% (pim ; T A g
Yet no one c ould b e
more opposed than w a s Ritchie to any teleolog ical

sh ort c uts to trut h He had no sympathy wit h

t h e fac ile and u ncritical testin g of the nat u re of a
thin g by reference to u nanalysed conc e ptions of indi

vidual or nite purpose or

practical e fficiency

The use of a t h in g is d oubtless an expression o f

its nature ; b u t its nature cannot be d e termined o ff
hand by the u ses to which we put it The nal
cause whi ch is t h e ultimate m eanin g and nature of
a thing is an immanent nal cause It is the thi n g
seen not as an event in t h is or that temporal series

or as an element in one or anot h er limite d universe

of discourse but in its consistency with itself and

other thin g s in t h e one all inclusive system of reality
T h us the scienti c historical knowledge of t h in g s as
events or p h e nomena i s at once indispensable and
incomplete S om e answer to the q u estion of origin
is req u ired in order t h at we m ay deal wi th the question
a nd

P H I LO S OP H I C AL

of vali d ity ; b ut an ans wer to the one question ought

never to be substitute d fo r an ans w er to th e other
W e cannot for insta nce rightly relate man to the
w hole univ e rse imme d iately w ithout stu dying him as
he is for physics and b iology as well a s for ps ychology
nor can we rightly r egar d th e physical the b iolog ical
or th e psycholog ical account of him as e xpre ssing
his whole meaning or nature But as we have s ee n
R itchie w as so much impresse d with the harm t h at
has b ee n d on e to thinking by n egle ct of th e distinc
tion b e t w e e n origin an d vali d ity that in most of
h is w riting h e t e n d e d to emphas ise an d illustrate it
rath e r than to dwell upon its aspect of relativity
I n m e taphysics R itchi e appli e d this d istinction as
an e ire nicon in the mo d e rn conict b e tw een mate rialism
or r e alism an d id ealism H e states his attitu d e con
c isel
e fac e to
i
in
the
pr
p
a r w in a nd H e el
D
v
(
y
g
)
Id ealism an d M at e rial ism ar e com m only spok e n
o f as antagonistic types of philosophy
an d in a s e nse
th e y are I have tri e d to sho w that one form of
i d ealism is quite compati bl e w ith that materialistic
monism which is no w a days th e w orking hypoth e sis
of e ve ry sc ienti c explorer in e ve ry d epartment w hat
e ver
oth e r b eli e fs o r d enials he may mor e or less
e xplicitly
an d more or less consist e ntly sup e rad d
Mate rialistic monism it s ee ms to me only b e com e s
false w h e n put for war d as a compl e te philosophy of
the univ e rs e b e cause it leave s out of sight th e con
ditio ns of human k no w ledge which th e sp e cial sci e nces
may conve nie ntly d isregar d b ut w hich a can d i d philo
sophy cannot ignore I t is too pro b a b l e that my
eir enicon l ike other e fforts at p e ace making
may only
r e sult in provoking a t w o fold hostility an d that
Darw inians an d Hegelians w ill b oth look on m e
as a h eretic But I cannot as yet see any other
w ay out of a hopeless controv e rsy than that to w ards
which I have b e e n led esp e cially b y the teaching of
.

M EM O I R

2 2

t h e late T h o m as Hill Green o n the one side and

b y t h e in u ence of scienti c friends on t h e ot h er
And t h is Idealist Evolutionism ( if a label is necessary )
seem s to m e to g ive t h e best starting point for
an exa m ination of the concrete problem s of et h ics
and politi c s w h ic h are after all t h e most u rg ent

di f cu lties with which we h ave to deal

A fuller

acco u nt of t h is Idealist Evolutionism

was g iven

in a paper read at t h e openin g meetin g of a synthetic

so c ie ty in t h e U niversity of St Andrews the obj ect

of whic h was to brin g tog et h er stu dents of scien c e
and st u dents of p h ilosop h y for t h e p u rpose of m utual
discussion and the pro m otion of a better unde r stand
in g between wor k ers in di ff erent elds After appr o v

in g what Hu xley described as t h e

leg itimate
materialism of t h e sciences w h ich simply means
temporary and c onvenient abstraction from t h e cog
n itiv e conditions u nder w h ic h alone t h ere are
facts

or obj ects for us at all as distinct from the dog

matic materialism w h ich is m etaphysics of t h e bad

sort Ritc h ie refers to some of t h e features in m odern

s c ience wh ich show the e ffort to reach a unity behind

t h e manifold of pheno m ena

and points o u t t h e
sig nican c e of t h ese i n relation to an idealist philo

sophy
If I may so express it all our sciences
seem to ass u me a monistic metap h ysics T h e doctrine
of t h e c onservation of energ y is an assertion of t h at
m onis munity amid di ff e rence of m anifestation T h e
evolution theory is an assertion of the principle of
Contin u ity ( on which L eibniz laid stress lon g ag o )
w h ic h is u nity asserte d again amid the di fference of
tim e and chan g e A s already said the sciences w h ich
deal wit h p h enomena in space and time necessarily
u se a materialistic wor k in g h ypot h esis t h oug h t h e
most careful s c ienti c worker will probably be th e
m ost cautio u s in dog matizin g as to w h at m atter itself

Now in these tendencies of modern s c ience in

is
,

'

'

P H I LO S O P H I C AL

pite o f its d i ff e rentiation we have as it were han d s

held out to philosophy Philosophy the en d eavour
afte r sy nthesis must it seems to me ( thoug h I k now
th e re ar e some wh o d eny it in w or d s) be monistic
An ultimate pluralism an acqui e scence in or th e ory
d istinct an d in d epen d e nt entiti e s not in
o f totally

clu d e d w ithin o ne all e m b racing system such a notion

seems to me unthinkab l e F urther all philosophy
it se e ms to m e must be i d ealist I cannot see ho w
an ultimate e xplanation can b e attempte d except in
t e rms of reason or intellig e nce To give any other
To refe r one to
e xplanation is to r e fuse to explain
fe eli ng or emotion is not a philosophical explanation :
a symphony of Be e thove n may seem to many persons
pre fe ra b le to m e taphysics or th e ology ; b ut it is not
a philosophical ans w er to our questions But in
saying that philosophy is i d ealistic w hile the sciences
ar e materialist
I d o not mean to suggest that th e r e
is a necessary conict b e t w e en philosophy an d th e
sciences though there is nece ssarily a d i ffe renc e b e
t we e n the proce d ure o f the und e rstan d ing wh e n it is
d ealing with so m e a b stract isolate d asp e ct o f things
an d th e work of r e ason in its en d eavour to see things
as a w hole Nor on the oth e r han d d o I m ean to
suggest that in th e s e te nd e ncies to w ar d s a monistic
vi e w of th e univ e rse to w hich I have re fe rr e d we
have a nal trea ty of peace b et w e e n the science s on
the one si d e an d th eology an d ph ilosophy on th e
other : the region o f most co ntrove rsy is j ust th e
relat ion b etw e e n the unity w hich a rational th e ory of
the univers e w e might say presupposes an d th e mani
fol d o f phenomena as we kno w them in e xperi e nce
the ol d an d c e ntral philosophical controve rsy a b out

th e r e lation b et w een the one an d the many

I t is not I hol d th e b usiness of philosophy to

int erfere in th e controversies which arise w ithin par
t icu lar scienc e s
I n any case the sp e cial stu d ent of

M EM O I R

p h ilosop hy is not li k ely in t h ese days to have s u fficient

detailed k nowled ge to interfe re pro tably It is his
business to wait and loyally to accept the best results
of scientic k nowledge in his time ; t h ey are part of
the da ta w h ic h it is his business to try to connect and
so to explain
It is a mista k e whic h has constantly
been made in th e past by those who are anxio u s for
t h e spiritual interests of man to interfere wit h t h e
c h an g es t h at are g oing on in scienti c conceptions
Suc h interference has alway s ended i n the defeat of
th e supporters of quasi scie nti c do c trines w h ich the
g rowin g science of t h e time has dis c arded Theolo g y
interfered with Galileo and g ai ned nothin g i n t h e en d
by its interference
Astronomy g eolo g y biolog y
anthropolo gy historical criticism have at di ff erent
periods raised alarm in th e m inds of those w h o dread
a materialistic view of man s nature ; and with t h e very
best intentions t h ey have tried to g ht t h e supposed
enemy on h is own g round eagerly welco m in g for
instance every si g n of disag re e ment between D ar
winia ns and La marc k ians or every dispute between
di fferen t schools of historical critics as if the spiritual
wellbein g of man k ind were bound u p with th e
scienti c beli e fs of t h e 1 7 t h or some earlier century
f
f
m
as if e
it
made
all
t
h
e
di
erence
in
an
s
spiritual
g
nature w h et h er h e was made directly ou t of inorganic
dust or slowly asc e nd e d from lo w er org anic form s
These are questions that m ust be settled by th e
specialists O n the other han d p h ilosophic critici s m
i s in place when t h e scienti c spe c ialist be g ins to
dog matise about the universe as a w h ole w hen h e
spea k s for example as if an acc u rate narrative of the
various steps by whi ch the lo wer form s of life h ave
passed into t h e hig her was a su ffi cient explanation to
us of the mystery of existence
When t h e dog
matic materialist tells us that t h ou g ht i s a secretion
of the brain or spea k s of laws of nature as if they
.

P H I L O S O PH I C A L

w e re personal agents or when he hypostatises Ev olu

tion as if b e for e the b last of that trumpet wor d all
philosophi e s an d theologi e s must fall d o w n th e n it
is time for th e philosophical critic to imitate Socrates
an d to ask trou b lesome que stions a b out the meaning
of common wor d s like caus e and re ality an d to
sho w that an in nit e s e ries o f events in in nit e tim e
past d oes not give a nal explanation of th e unive rse
any more than d oes th e I n d ian mythology which rests
the w orl d on an elephant an d th e e le phant on a tortois e
an d wh ich coul d no dou b t if requir e d have continue d
the se rie s d o w n an d d o w n In raising these ultimate
qu e stions philosophy is only re n ew ing that w onder
w hich in Aristotl e s famous phras e is th e b eginning
of all science An d the a d vanc e of sci e nti c kno wle dg e
has usually not d iminish e d th e magnitu d e of t h e
pro b l e m to b e e xplain e d while it has ma d e it con
to b eli eve in an
tinu o u sly less easy for any one
Th e
ultimat ely chaotic or irrational univers e
d iscoverie s o f a N e w ton or a D arw in give us no com
l
e te ans w er : for we fe e l that the univ e rse w hich can
p
pro d uc e a Ne w ton an d a D ar w in must in its ultimate
natur e b e not l e ss inte llige nt than th ey C onsi d era
tions such as this wh en com hined with th e ep istem ologica l
,

tr u th

th a t

a nd

m a tter

m otion

are

only

k now n

to u s a s

for m s of consciousness may suggest ho w strong is th e

b asis of philosophical i de alism diic u lt an d d ou b tful

as t h e superstructure may be
The form of this vie w on w hich R itchi e most often
dw elt in h is lat e r years is care fully se t forth in his
r evie w o f War d s N a tu r a lism a nd gnosticism a portion
of w hich is r eprint e d in th e Cogita tio M etaphysica 2 2
I t le d h im to oppose strongly on th e o ne han d th e
uncritical u se of physical an d biological cat egories a s
m e taphysical principles which h e foun d in the writings
o f Sp e nc e r an d other philosophical e volutionists
an d
on th e oth e r han d the att e mpts to vin d icate a spiritual
,

M EM O I R

view of t h e u niverse on t h e g round of the i m penetrable

personality of God and of individual men alon g

wit h s u c h t h eories as pluralism the will to believe

and all forms of apologetic which seek to establis h t h e

spiritual by ndin g discontinuity in the natural b y

main tainin g for example the existence of ultimate

g aps in t h e process of evolution

N aturalist
metap h ysics see m ed to him to rest on a confusion of
t h e questions of fact and of m eanin g T h e laws of
p h ysics and biolog y are g eneralised state m ents of fact
t h e truth or vali d ity of wh ic h is dependent on certain
abstract conditions or assumptions reg ardin g spac e
tI m e
matter ener gy org an i sm e nv rr o nm e nt etc
S uc h laws w h en duly established are true as facts
u nder their appropriate con d itions within their special

u niverses of d iscourse ; b u t they cannot on that

account be reg arded a s havin g ne c essarily an ultimate
validity a validity under all conditions as bein g im
m ediately true wit h in the wh ole u niverse of reality
T h ey are true so far as t h ey g o ; but t h ey do not g o
all the way T h ey tell us t h e nature of thin g s up to
a certain point the nat u re of thin g s as events of a
certain k ind ; but t h e q uestion remains : What are
?
events
What are their various k inds and h ow are
they related to eac h other and to t h e w h ole in w h ich
?
they appear
T h is is a question of meanin g rat h er
than of fact and we cannot penetrate to the true
nature of anythin g except by attemptin g the sol u tion
of it If we neg lect t h is we deceive o u rselves by hasty
and m isleadin g g eneralisation On the other h and

those criti c s of naturalism w ho oppos e it by in

sistin g on a certain amount of discontin u ity in t h e
u niv e rse and by tryin g to exclude a spe c i c part of
experience from the sway of mechanical law seemed
to Rit ch ie to err in a similar w ay b u t in an opposite
direction They see k to fortify islands of meaning in
an estran g in g sea of fa c t an d t h ey t hu s are u nable
,

P H I LO S O P H I C A L

to show that the meanings ar e the meanings of th e

The exclusive p e rsonalities on w hich they

facts
insist are just b ecause they ar e exclusive not the
ultimate concre te real ity o f things b ut a b stractions of

in
anoth e r sort a b stractions of purpose
w ill

fe eling
spirit logically akin to t h e
dividu ality

naturalist a b stractions of
matter
energy

P er
organism
natural s el e ction and the rest

sonality h e says in some rough notes on th e su bj ect

is too apt to b e tr e ate d as a solution or rather as a
phrase w ith w hich to stop the mouths or arrest the
progress of inquirers A philosoph ical system is

roughly b rush e d asi d e as untrue ce rtainly as danger

ous b ecause it seems incompatib l e with th e personality

h
of man an d t e personality o f G o d whatever t h ese
phrases may m e an an d w h e th e r th e y mean th e same

thing w ith one another or not

He points out that
only in society ar e there p e rsons
a nd that when
we com e to consi d e r th e ultimate metaphysical problem
of th e relations o f man nature an d G o d w e must use
th e conception o f t h e one in th e many not th e one
alongsi d e of th e many Or as someon e e lse has put

it w e must not e xp e ct to nd th e unity lying a b out

among the d i ff ere nces

T h e rival th e ory o f mona d s
pluralism r e quires unity in or d e r to b e a philosophical
explanation It comes from hypostatising som e o f the
a b stract ions of or d inary b eli e f It is vali d as a protest
on b ehal f o f th e manifol d and the changing in nature
against a monism w hich e xclu d es d ivers ity chang e
But m or e multiplicity is contra d ictory an d so is m er e
e volution
im
8
all change
6
The
only
tena
b
l
e
A
7
th e ory must r e conc ile b oththe one in th e many th e
p e rmanent app ea r ing in change Time and change ar e
not th e n mere illusions Th e y ar e not a b solute ce r
tainly
b ut the man ifestation of the a b solute This
man ife station in time is e volution Thus th e re is a
connection b et w ee n nature an d man an d ye t th ey are
.

vr o

M EM O I R

distinct when cons c iousness appears Spirit co m es to

itsel f in m an
I n brief then Ritchie s metap h ysical
position on its criti c al side is a protest against t h e
hypostatisin g o n the one h and of abstractions of

fact in the for m of scienti c laws and pri nciples

and o n th e ot h er h and of abstractions of m eanin g

cut o ff from fact i n the form of ordinary beliefs

a c cepted witho u t analysis and wit h out i nvesti g ation of
t h eir h istory
The distinction between fact and m eanin g also
g overn s R itc h ie s View of the h istory of philosophy
alt h ough he does not in t h is case expressly apply it

I n a paper on
Philosop h y and t h e study of philo

sophers (M ind Vol V II

h e points out that

t h ere are t h ree mai n attitudes to w ar d s th e doctrines

of th e old p h ilosophers F irst there is the attitud e of

submission to authority This attitude tends to become

p u rely h istorical or p h ilolo g ical rat h er t h an strictly
philosop h ical an inquiry into t h e facts reg arding so m e
t h in k er s opinions rat h er tha n into the meanin g and

value of h is ideas
A g reat deal of t h e prevalent
h istorical interest in p h ilosop h ers of the past is not
properly interest in p h ilosophy ; the t w o inte rests may
even someti m es as G reen said be in th e inverse ratio
M uch of the study of Plato and Aristotle is scholars h ip
M uc h of the minute study of Kant has been correctly
called Ka ntph ilo lo gie
The se c ond attitude is that
represented by B acon and D escartes revolt against
aut h ority assertion of individual in d ependence in thin k
in g Earlier philosophies are re g ar d ed as false They
are systems to be t h rown aside If they are dealt with

M anifes tly such

it is only that t h ey m ay be refu ted
an attitude as t h is implies t h at t h e one question to
be consid e red i s that of t h e validity or meanin g o f
philosophical c onceptions and that the q uestion of their
history is entirely irrelevant to t h is B u t wh ile history
alone cannot answer o u r questions the neglect of t h e
.

P H I LO S O P H I C A L

history of philosophy is a sure metho d fo r the produc

tion of fallacious ans we rs
No avoi d anc e o f meta
physics b ut only serious metaphysical e ffort e na b les
us to d etect the assumptions o f common s e nse kno w
le d ge an d th e special scienc e s
Enough m e taphysics
to get r id of m e taphysical i d eas means in truth a very
thorough m e taphysical training an d not m e rely a gre at
d e al of logical acut e ness in u nravelli ng complex concepts
lurking un d e r apparently simpl e w or d s b ut a kno w
l e d ge o f th e history o f thought in th e past w hich h as
gon e to form th e int ellectual groun d on which we are

stan d ing t h e intell e ctual atmosph e re we b re ath e

W h e n th e religious or the philosophical syst e ms of
th e past ar e stu d ie d in w hat we have com e to consi d er
w h e n cr itic ism pass e s from merely
th e h istorical Spirit
i
ns
r e l tin
op
nio
to
sho
w
ing
ho
w
an
d
why
th
e se
g
opinions cam e to b e h el d a b ove all w he n the co nc ep
tion o f d e v elopm e nt or e volution is e xten d ed fr om the
natural w orl d to th e w orl d o f human thou ght w e have
l e ft b ehin d th e pure ly n egative attitu d e to i d e as that
We no long e r acc e pt an d we come to see the long
series of att e mpts to grappl e w ith the central problems
of kno wle dge an d reality not as stray opinions w ith
w hich we d o not happ e n to agr e e b ut as parts of one
continuous mov e m e nt in w h ich our o w n thinking is

its el f inclu d e d
This is th e thir d attitu d e th e att itude
of H eg el w h ich R itchi e a d opte d as alon e satisfact o ry
I t d o e s not confus e orig in w ith val id ity nor d oes it
n egl e ct either b ut it gives to e ach its appropriate
sph e re W h il e ho w eve r in d iscuss ing sc ience it w as
n e c e ssary to lay str e ss on th e qu estion o f val id ity it
is e qually n e ce ssary in d e aling w ith ph ilosophy to
e mphasis e
w hich philosophers
th e valu e of history
inte r e ste d in unive rsal pro blems rath e r than in facts
ar e apt to ov e rlook
Accor d ingly in this connection
R itch ie dw elt mainly on th e continuity o f philosoph ical
thought in its history th e e volution of i d eas ; b ut he
.

M EM O I R

o
3

certainly did not m ea n to sugg est t h at a k nowled g e

of the history of p h ilosop h y coul d ta k e t h e pla c e of

independent t h in k ing
D espairin g of ndin g t h e
truth people som etimes begin assi d uously to see k t h e
e xact forms i n w h i ch successive errors ha ve b e en h eld
substitutin
g
h
istorical
antiquarianism
for
p
h
ilosop
h
y
(
)
B u t to k now the errors must we not k no w t h e tr u t h
And again Every one must h ave h is own p h ilosop h y
We c an only face t h e problem s ri gh tly if we fa c e them
for ourselves And for t h at reason one of t h e dan g ers
we h ave to g uard ag ainst is t h e sc h olastic h abit of
becomin g t h e mere expositors of any one master h ow
ever g reat F or t h at reason we s h ould welco m e the
rebels and the doubters and s h ould value every o ppo r
tu nity of serious discussion with t h ose w h o have g rown
up u nder di fferent inuences fro m those t h at h ave
m oulded ourselves or w h o by a long labour of
systematic t h in k in g h ave reac h e d an independent posi
tion from which t h ey criticise our m ost c h eris h ed

j ud g ments about t h e p h ilosop h ers of t h e past

I n h is disc u ssions of t h e proble m s of log ic and t h e
t h eory of k no w ledge Rit ch ie c ontinually u rged the
necessity of h oldin g fast to t h e distinction b et ween
log ical questions as questions of validity and psyc h o lo gi
cal questions as q u estions o f fact or orig in He carried
this d istinction out in detail in h is class lectures on
so frequently
ill
s
o ic
and
it
is
illustrated
L
S
M
J
g
in h i s essays in this volume and elsew h ere t h at I need
not dwell upon it H e h eld stron gly that the ideal of
tru t h is the complete self consistency of a rational

system and according ly h e maintained that the in

con c eivabili ty of the opposite if t h e phrase be righ tly

interpreted is the sole ultimate crit e rion of tr u th
T h e for m ula ho w ever is often wron gly understood
bot h by sensationist and by intu itionist t h in k ers who
tend to give it a psyc h olog ical rat h er t h an a lo gical
sense T h e q u estion is not W h at is it i m possible for
.

H I LO S O P H I C A L

this or that person or for all persons at a particular

time to conc e ive ? or what is it impossi b le for anyone
?
at any tim e to picture b ut what is it impossible for
anyon e at any tim e thoroughly an d consiste ntly to
think out ? Whate ve r b y th e very nature of its o w n
content apart from any question of the limits of our
understan d ing as in d ivi d uals or as men in g e neral
cannot b e consiste ntly thought out is false an d its
opposite is true Th e re are d egr ees of truth in the
sense that this or that stat ement may b e true un d e r
con d itions th e vali d ity o f which h as not b e en examine d
But only that is a b solut ely true w hich b y its o w n
natur e taking into account all th e con d itions an d
assumptions which it implies can b e consiste ntly
thought out This of cours e means that truth d oes
not d epen d in the last re sort eith e r upon a b stract
u nive rsal principl e s intuitively kno w n or upon u n
analysab le a b stract particulars given in sensation Both
the logic of a p r ior i i ntuitionism and that o f a p oster ior i
empiricism d ivorc e fact from m e aning partic u lar from
universal
I ntuitionism groun d s itsel f on isolate d
meanings an d en d e avours d e d uctively to approximate
to th e foreign facts whil e e mp iricism b egi ns w ith
isolat e d facts an d s ee ks in d uctiv e ly to establish law s
which ar e not the e ssential m e aning o f th e facts but ar e
m e r ely conveni e nt colligations of them I n r e ality
n e ith e r fact nor meaning n e ithe r part icular nor uni
v e rsal is a given starting point of kno wle dge Both are
i d eals an d kno wl e d ge is th e process of t h e ir re alisation
Truth is th e d e n ition b oth o f the unive rsal an d o f
the particular by a proc e ss of kno wle dg e w h ich s ee ks to
comprehen d th e manife station of th e universal in the
part icular th e ess e ntial nature of the fact in th e light
o f it s
meaning Thus R itchie ha d little posit ive
int e rest in th e sym b ol ic logic which consists in the
m athematical manipulat ion of xe d conc e pts
abstract
(
unive rsals) torn out o f their cont e xt in actual concrete
,

M EM O I R

2
3

discourse and he often dwelt u pon t h e error of dealin g

w ith lo g ical questions in a purely m athematical way
On the ot h er h and h e was equally convinced of the
futility of tryin g to solve pro b lems in logic or t h e
theory of k nowledge by an appeal to s u ch scienti c
theories as natural selection or here d ity T h us for
instan c e b e regarded Spencer s view that w h at is
a
to
t
h
e
a poster ior i to th e race beco m es
r
i
i
n
r
i
o
p
dividual as being an irrelevant answer to the problem
of t h e t h eory of k no w led g e inasmuc h as even if it
were true (w h ich h e doubte d) it would be an answer
merely to the question of fact and not to the question
of meanin g w h ich is the question in dispute W h at
ever m ay be the facts about t h e development o f th e
universals we employ the problem of t h eir validity
remains As he put it in a letter to Professor S
Alexander
Natural selection m ay produce g reater
ease in getting at truth ; but I ca n t see what is
meant by natural selection creatin g truth
Th e
logical problem of necessity seems to me to
re m ain after e very psychological and historical e x plana
tion of the g ro w th of k nowledg e h as been g iven

You see I am stuc k fast in that old distinction

Again natural selection (p lus u se inheritance if you

li k e ) has as yet produced only a very imperfect adapta
tion of our li k es an d dislikes in taste s m ell etc to
what is life furt h ering or life h inderin g : h o w h as it
manag ed wor k in g through a far shorter period to
prod u ce an absolute ly perfect adaptation of our b eliefs
w
h
en
we
t
h
in
k
clearly
an
d
distinctly
about
mat
h
e
)
(
?
To have a li k in g for
m atical axiom s e tc to reality
u n w holesom e things is surely m ore deleterious to the
organism than to imag ine th e diag onal commensurable
wit h the side of the square to try to square th e circle
etc One would h ave expected natural selection to
prod u ce an e x pectation that thin g s that are equal to the
s ame thing will most li k ely equal one anot h er
t h at
,

P H I L O S OP H I C A L

33

nature is so m e tim e s un iform an d sometimes not etc

I think you ar e quit e right in accentuating th e signi
canc e of our organ ic e xperience in d e term ining th e
cat egori e s e g cause is ( exce pt b y
content of our
a special e ffort at el imination of a n im ism ) p icture d a s
su b stanc e an d in d ivi d u
c onscious voluntary age ncy
ality ar e m e taphors from ours elves tim e is
pictur e d as a s e ri e s of d iscre t e mom e nts b e caus e of
t h e w ay our heart an d lungs w ork we ar e s e ns itive
to lat e ral b ut not to v e rtical symm e try in spac e b e cause
e tc ; b ut all that d oes n t s ee m
o f our b o d ily shap e

to m e to touch th e e ss e nc e o f Kant s r e ply to Hume

Psychology in R itchi e s opinion ( v Cogita tio

M etap hysica p
hove rs b at l ike b etwe e n the
sci e nc e s w hich d e al conc e ptually w ith som e more or
l e ss a b stract asp e ct of th e un ive rs e an d som e i d e al
philos o phy o f th e min d wh ich shoul d d eal w ith w hat
is p e rfe ctly concr e t e an d i n d ivi d ual an d ye t take up
into its elf all th e scatter e d l ights of the various a b stract

a nd
partial scie nc e s
But o n th e w hol e h e w as
inclin e d to regar d psychology a s an a b stract sci e nc e
akin to th e natural sc ie nc e s an d thus to d iss e nt from

Profe ssor W ar d s statem e nt t h at psychology nev e r

t ranscen d s th e limits o f t h e in d iv id ual

I n con
side r in
e
h
t
conte
n ts
of
consciousness
pur
as
e ly
g
cont e nts of consciousn e ss we are a b stracti ng from th e
actual or re al experie nc e of any ind ivi d ual an d in
treat ing o f th e ave rag e or normal in d ivi d ual min d

we have a b stract e d from t h e r e al in d ivi d ual

We
ab stract from th e in d ivi d ual ity o f th e ego an d look
fo r th e a nt e c e d e nt con d itions o f i d eas feelings an d
v olit ions as the
caus e s o f th e m ( i e mat e rial causes )
in pr ec is ely th e sam e s e ns e in w hich w e nd caus e s
in nature ; an d w e s ee k to formulate psychological
law s in pre cisely th e sam e sens e as in n ature i e
th ey ar e stat e ments o f w hat u nder cer ta in conditions

must n e c e ssar ily happen

But wh ile psychology is
.

M EM O I R

34

a k in to the natural sciences as a science of fact and

not of meanin g it is in R itchie s opinion an erro r
to regar d t h e methods and conceptions of psycholo g y
as necessarily t h e same as those of the natural sciences
I n the lecture to the St An d rews Synthetic S ociety

e
quoted
abov
p
he
says
Psychology
and
:
(
sociolo g y may be allowed the name and ran k of
sciences ; but it is very often ta k en for g ranted that
t h ey are only scienti c in so far as they are simply
extensions of biolo g y and that t h e ideal metho d of
treatment for them as for all the sciences is th e
reduction of t h eir stubborn m aterial to mathematical
and mechanical form ul ae Now I thin k it necessary
to prote st a g ainst th e assumption that the concepts
and m ethods whic h are adequate in biology and the
less complex sciences are there fore ( w ithout further
proof) a d e q uate to the treatment of the mental and
social life of man It is unreasona b l e to assume that
th e evolution of h uman society and of all the m ani
fe sta tio ns of the human S pirit can be properly un d er
stood when approache d sol e ly from the biological s id e
B iolo g y has undou b t e d ly thrown gr e at light on many
problems of psycholo g y ethics politics an d e conomics ;
but the con d itions of human society are so di ffe r e nt
from t h ose of the in d ividual organism that I am not
sure whether t h e metaphor of th e social organism has
no t introduce d so m uch
confusion into sociological
stu d ie s as to mak e the use of this strikin g phrase a

rather doubtful b e ne fit

Th e b iological co nc e p
tions are not fals e w h e n applied to human soci e ties
any more than mathematical physical chemical con
T
h
e stat e sman
c e ts a r e th e y a r e Simply inad e quate
p
and t h e state sman is or he rather ou g ht to be a

practical sociolo g ist cannot a ffor d to ignore the

truth that
but t h e profoundest knowle dge
of a b stract mathematics will not enable hi m to solve
a S in gl e problem in public nance The statesma n

P H I L O S O P H I CA L

35

cannot a ffor d to ignore th e d octrin e o f th e survival

n
e
o f th e tte st
b
ut
he
w
ill
d
that
nat
u
ral
sel
ction
;
in its b iological se ns e is su htilita ti r er u m h u m a na r u m

longe imp a r
Accor d ingly R itchi e continually insiste d

on the importance o f th e social factor

in m e ntal
d e velopment not m e r ely w ith regar d to th e higher
or more compl e x m e ntal processes b ut in conn e ction

Th e
with th e most el e m entary form s o f cognition
truth is that th e r e is no such thing as w holly indivi
dual exp er ience b e yon d m e re uninte rpr e t e d fe e ling an d
b lin d w illing It is human socie ty w ith its accumulate d
stock o f concepts that mak e s our expe ri e nc e a more
or l e ss orga nic syste m T h e psychologists w ith th e ir
in d ivi d ualistic stan d point ar e I th ink r e sponsi b le for
much mor e con fusion than eve n Mr War d admits
It tak e s mor e than o ne m an to kno w a nything or

to have an i d e al e nd for vol ition

T h e pro b lems o f e thics a nd politics w e re those to
w hich R itchi e gave th e b est o f his thought H e
regar d e d it ho w ever as a fun d am e ntal e rror to
atte mpt to s e parate the o ne d isc ipl in e from th e oth e r

or e ith e r of th e m from m e taphysics

Ho w can

h e ask e d
we
consi d e r th e th e ory of con d uct w ith
out e xam ining th e relation of th e in d ivi dual to soci e ty
e stion of cont e nt
e
t
h
a
qu
an
d
the
r
lation
of
e
i
n
d
i
i
v
(
)
d ual to G o d th e i d e al ( a q ue stion of
A nd

again has m e taphysics more to d o w ith e thics and

?
n
politics than w ith th e ol de r scie c e s
C omt e h el d
that ethics an d pol it ics rema in long er in th e m e ta
physical stage
But is th e re not a r eal r eason

fo r this ?
H is r e asons
for hol d ing e g that
w h il e th e g e om e trician rightly negl e cts b oth th e
ps ychol o gical an d th e m e taphysical qu e stions a b out
spac e th e moralist cannot d o th e sam e w ith r egar d
to th e s el f ar e fully se t forth in th is volum e ( v Cogita tio
M etaphysica p 1 1 0 an d M or a l P h ilosophy
1
2
3
R vi w f W
ar d P hil ph i l R i w V ol I X p 6 5

oso

ca

ev e

M EM O I R

6
3

A scien c e of ethics independ e nt of meta

physi c s wo u ld be a historical scien c e tracin g the

various et h ical i d e als which have been a c cepte d by
men ( a h istory of their vario u s distinctions betwe en
ri gh t and wron g) l e avin g out the question w h at ri g ht
and wron g ultimately m e an or assumin g som e pro

visional e xplanation of them

An attempt to
describ e the fa c ts of morality eit h er in th e in d ividual
or in society as now existing would be very delusive
if th e h istorical orig in of these facts were overloo k ed
because obviously our so c ie ty is in a transitional stage
and the vario u s opinions 0 f right and wrong m ust
be ta k en in connection w ith t h eir history in order to

be rightly un d erstood
On the other hand if
we insist on g oin g beyond these questions of fa ct
and wis h to as k a b out what ough t to be we cannot
shir k an investig ation of w hat ought means i e we
must bring in a m etap h ysic of ethics by which I

only m e an a criticism of the basis of m orality

AS

he puts it in a brief note : That ther e is an ideal

e re
ou
g
ht
end
is
f
How
th
s
h
oul
d
b
e
is
a
a ct
)
(
question for metaphysics T h is m u st be the fo u nda
tion of ethics ; b ut it only gives the form The
content comes from experience
What has been
?
the history of this i d eal e nd
What di ffe re nt form s
?
has it ha d at d i fferent tim e s
History
2
Ho
w
(
); ( )
does it come to S h ape itself in the m ind of e ac h

?
in d ivi d ual
Psycholo
g
y
the
m
oral
sentiments
t
h
e
(
passions character ) ; ( 3 ) ~How can the ideal be ( a )

?
e
develope d ; ( h ) r alised
Practical
Ethics
T
h
e
)
(
fun d amental problems of e thics an d politics are
accor d in gly problems of form meaning validity
such as the nature of the i d eal an d the relation s of
the individual to society an d to Go d B u t th e s e
problems cannot be a d equately d iscuss e d apart fro m
the q uestions of content fact origin T h e c hief errors
in e thical and politi c al speculation arise either from
d

an

P H I L O S OP H I C A L

37

regard ing th e t wo se ts o f pro b lems as th e same or

from att e mpt ing to d eal w ith o ne in compl e t e separa

Th e a d e quate stu d y o f e ith e r

tion from th e oth e r
institutions or i d eas r e quir e s both an historical ex am i
nation o f how th ey cam e to b e what th e y ar e an d
of w hat th e ir value no w is I f it was th e t e n d e ncy
of
con d e nt an d hopeful rationalism o f th e
th e
e ight ee nth
c e ntury to n egl e ct orig ins th e re is an
opposing t e n d e ncy no w som e tim e s pr e val e nt to negl e ct
t h e inquiry as to rationality a nd to d e spair o f truth
or to acqui e sc e in e vils imagi ning that the stu d y
of
pol it ics and la w an d morals consists only in

translat ing th e pr e s e nt into te rms o f the past

Thus R itch ie s attitu d e to wards curre nt controve rsy
a b out th e ma in pro b l e ms o f e thics an d politics was
exactly sim ilar to his v ie w s r egar d i ng metaphysics an d
t h e th e ory of kno w l e d g e
T h e intu itionist an d more
g e nerally th e moralist w ho tak e s h is stan d on a su p

pose d Sharp d ivision b e tw ee n natur e on th e o ne

han d an d human soc ie ty o n the oth e r s ee m e d to him
to b eg the que stion b y acc e pting as fun d amental th e
a b stractions of or d inary b eli e f regar d ing moral distinc
tions without i nquiry into th e ir h istory S uch th ink e rs
mak e abstraction o f the formal el e m e nt in th e moral
law whil e a Similar abstract ion in regar d to its content
is m a d e b y th e empirical h e d o nists and evolutionists
who in th e ir turn b eg the qu e stion b y assuming that
th e d iscovery o f w hat as a matt e r of fact is or has
com e to b e e na b l e s us imm e d iate ly to d etermin e w hat
ought to b e T h e history of moral i d eas is a valuable
mate rial fo r e thics an d the possi b ility of an inter pr e

tation of that history w hich Shall t in w ith an d

not d istort the facts must s e rve as an important te st

But on th e
of th e value of any e thical theory
oth e r ha nd the pre s e nce of an i d eal cannot b e merely
th e r e sult o f an e thical d e velopment b ecaus e it is the
M
l P hil phy p
89
8
M
l P hil phy P
,

or a

oso

or a

oso

M EM O I R

s
3

c ondition of s u c h a develop m ent

In all Ritc h ie s
thin k in g on t h ese matters t h e g overnin g idea is t h e
conception of society Soci al wellbein g is at once the
et h ical and the politi c al id e al
I f we say the ultimate
end is t h e wellbein g of all man k ind and t h e e nd we
should aim at is t h e w ell b ein g o f all that portion of
m an k ind w h om w e can practically a ffe c t we mean t h e
same t h in g as the utilitarian w h en he spea k s of the
g reatest h appiness of the g reatest n u mber but it i s
1
put in a less m isleadin g way
T h e utilitarian ide nti
e s happiness with well b ein g the evolutionist su b sti
and the a p r ior i moralist
tu t e s bei ng for wellbein g
maintains t h at t h ere are ri gh ts and duties independent
of society and of any so c ial ideal Ritc h ie arg ued
a gainst all t h ese views ; but his criticisms were mainly
devoted to the evol u tionist and a pr ior i positions
H e reg ar d ed those w ho say that the en d is happiness

as bei ng cruelly if unintentionally ironical

I f we
use happiness in the sense in which it is used in ordi
nary lan g uage t h e end is not h appiness Happiness
is mainly dependent on th e h ealthy state of the b odily
secretions and is a very important means to t h e attain

m ent of t h e g ood life

And a g ain
su fferin g does
not al ways improve c h aracter ; it often does the t e
verse To most people happiness is bene c ial B u t
to ma k e man k ind at any g iven stage happy would b e
the g reatest curse if it w ere possible I s it not
because at any g iven stag e man k ind have yet reac h e d
the happin e ss o f som e implies the misery of others ?
No civilization h as yet be e n attained which is not

merely a li gh t S k etch on a dar k g round

If happi
ness is the en d w e m ay w e ll d espair and ma k e pes
sim ism
our creed We may be sure we shall not
3
attain it
And t h e extr e me opposite of the utili
tarian view l e ads to the sam e practical result Whether
lM
h
M
l
P
h
i
l
pp
8
l P h ilo phy p
py
99
9
99
.

'

or a

so

oso

or a

Confessio Fidei,

PH I L O S O P H I CA L

39

w e take happiness or s elf m or ticatio n as the en d we

move to w ar d s p e ssimism
I think egoistic asceticism
has done th e w orl d no goo d an d som e harm b ecause

it has turne d e ff ort to d espair

B u t if happin e ss is
unattaina bl e an d asc e t icism is fu tile or pernicious may

not pess im ism b e the true cree d ?

I think p e ssim ism
is a goo d protest against the b lind optimism of the
conte nte d cons e rvative w ho thinks this the b e st of
all possi ble w orl d s ; b ut I think it contains its own
refutation viz the pr es e nce of an i d e al b y which th e

w orl d an d life ar e ju d g e d e vil

W hen w e see th e
mis e ry of l ife we can t h elp also seeing h o w much
of it is re m e d ia ble b y re moval o f a b use s in social
arra nge m e nts e tc I t w ill b e time e nough w hen we ( I
m ea n th e human rac e) have d o ne all we can to make
l ife less an e vil for th e maj ority of mankin d to con
si d e r w h e ther l ife per se is an evil Therefore it is
d e sira b le to a dj ourn th e qu e st ion o f p e ssimism and

consi d e r the qu e stion of socialism rst

Intuitionism again h as its value as a protest against

a narro w h e d o nism
against th e notion that life
coul d go on with col d bloo d e d calculating philosophical

ra d icals d eli b erati ng about e verythi ng

But intuition

ism in e thics an d the

natural rights theory w hich
is its a nalogu e in pol itics b oth err by attempting to
se t up a
or i stan d ar d s i nd e pen d ent of soci e ty
Each
r
i
p
has in its o w n way an in d ivi d ualist b asis Th ey pro
c ee d on th e assumption that in d ivi d ual men are per
sons in the one case w ith d uties in the other w ith
r ights
w h ich soci e ty d oes not d e te rmine That of
c o urs e
means re d ucing to confusion the notion of
moral or political personality To call the rights

n
atural is as R itchie very cl early sho we d to e va d e
th e
d if culty b y the u se of an am b iguous te rm
Nature as we kno w is a w or d contrive d to intro
duce a s many e quivocations as possibl e into all the
L tt r
-

,
-

M EM O I R

o
4

theories political le gal artistic or literary into wh ic h

it enters
And to maintain that the duties and th e

rights are divine is to pre suppose a society ( God

an d ourselves ) separate from all oth er forms of society
wit h out cohesion and incapa b le of bein g clearly thought

out Yet even in s u ch p e rvers e t h e ories ( as R itchi e

regarde d them ) there is one aspect of t h e truth

M an s natur e i s not e xhauste d his aspirations ar e

not satise d i n t h e Sta te There i s an appeal eve n
from the S tate nay even from socie ty to
In
t h e note from w hich I ta k e this the b lan k is left u n
lled
The question points I think to an ambi g uity

i n the word society an d R itchie s ans w er to it m ay

be gathere d from w h at he says else where There is
an appeal from any a c tual society from society at any

particular stage to an ideal so c iety

The person
who pursues ends w h ich di ff er from those regarde d
as the only proper ones by those immediately round
him ( family city nation church) must be actin g as
a m ember of some ( ideal ) community w h ic h may b e
as yet only a heav e nly city a pattern laid up in
h eaven
He may not indeed have thou gh t of it i n

t h at way but it must be i m plicit in h is mind

It
does not follow of course that every appeal to an
ideal society is j usti ed We c an picture clearly o r
va g uely m any k in d s of ideal society an d we can w it h
out understandin g w hat we are doing practically app e al
to an i d eal society whic h w e should nd to be self
contradictory if we seriously endeavoured to thin k it
out The truth of the a p r ior i theories lies in thei r
opposition to the view t h at all rights and duties ar e
i n the last resort determin e d by actual society whether
in a limited or i n the w id e st s e nse The vali d ity of
moral principles does not depend merely on soci e ty
as fact b u t ultimately proce e ds from society as mean
in g T h e ideal society h owever is not somet h in g cut
8
H hhe
p 73
M
l P h il phy p
Si L S t p h
9
,

en,

s,

or a

oso

P H I LO S O PH I C A L

from th e actual I t is th e m e aning of th e society

w hich app e ars an d chang e s in actual histor y I t is not
a Utopia b e yon d the s eas or a soc ie ty w hich can b e
re al ise d o nly b y th e d e struction o f that w hich e xists
A society w hich ought to b e cut o ff from th e soc ie ty
w hich is w oul d as S i d g w ick has po inte d out pr e
suppos e anoth e r soc ie ty to d e te rmin e wh a t it ought
to b e an d S O on a d in nitum An d h e r e in li e s th e
d e fe ct of th e a p r ior i position C onsc iously or u nc o n
it
s
sc io u sl
e parat e s fact from m e aning th e actual from
y
w h ich it sol ely
th e i d e al an d thus l e av e s th e i d e al
emphas is e s w ith a co nt e nt w hich has b e e n s el e cte d in
a practically ar b itrary w ay On th e oth e r han d R itchi e
ma intai ne d that th e categorical imp e rative s o f intu

itio nism an d the so call e d

natural rights ar e not
s el f
e vi d e nt pr inc ipl e s
d ata of e th ics an d polit ics b ut
moral and political i d e als th e val id ity of which d e p e n d s
upon th e proo f that th ey ar e constitut iv e principles
o f id e al soc ie ty
soci e ty as m e aning T h e ass e rtio n
of a b stract in d ivi d ual li b e rty an d innat e e quality t e n d s
o nly to give an app e arance o f reason to th e view s o f
those wh o s ee k to j ustify an d to maintain priv il eg e
an d cast e Men ar e not born free an d equal : th e ir
free d om an d equal ity ar e to b e real is e d in the realising
of th e i d eal S oci e ty T h e d ogmatic in d ivi d ualism of
th e
natu r al r i h t s
h
th
d
o
mat
c
e orist is m e t b y
t
e
i
g
g
in d ivi d ualism of th e cons e rvative w ho b eli e ve s with D r

Johnson that inequality is the source of all delight

h
or w ith C oventry Patmor e that t e d octrines o f
li be rty frat e rnity a nd equality ar e kno w n instinctive ly

o nly by very b a d ch il d r e n
R itch ie s o w n b eli ef was

that all in e quality is a curs e I t is a fact o ft e n b u t

an e vil o ne not a thing to b e comm e n de d

An d
he h el d that we can look fo r a rat ional issu e of th e
conict b e tw e e n th e t w o in d ivi d ualist d ogmatisms only
if w e a b an d on their in d ivi d ual ism an d emphasise th e
Cf M
l P hil phy
L
tt
r
4
o ff

'

or a

oso

M EM O I R

o c ial ideal as the rst principle of ethi c s and politi c s

This is w hat Rit c hie meant w hen he preached social

ism an d described hims elf as a socialist

H e was
not a do c trinaire socialist nor did he accept as a w h ole
of
the
numerous
so
c
ialist
systems
of
recent
times
an
y
B u t he believed profoundly in the socialist attitude as
ag ainst any form of individualism empiri c al or a p r ior i
This socialist belief was also the fou ndation of
his criticism of evolutio nist theories i n ethics and
politi c s T h ey tend to i g nore t h e special character
istics of human society which di ffe rentiate it fro m
a nimal com munities an d which are t h e logical g round
of ethical and political principles by transferrin g bio
log ical c onceptions directly to ethics and politics A S
a stri k in g illustration of this R itchie used often to
ta k e t h e evolutionist appli c ation of the con c eption of
h eredity to so c iolo g i c al ( i e et h ical and political )

problems
The term in h erit in biolog y has a

uite
de
nite
m
eanin
g
in
sociolo
g
y
it
is
a
very
a
m
;
q
It may mean eit h er here dity i n the
b igu o u s w ord
biolog ical sense or w hat for distinction I S h ould pr e fer

call
S
ocial
inheritance
the transmission of ideas
to
sentiments pra c ti c es throug h t h e me d ium of tradition
irre s pective of transmission in the rac e
a nd im itation
or as w e say in the blood
I t is true t hat amon g
the hig her social animals we nd the germs of this
ed
u
cation
of
the
youn
g
by
their
social inheritance
(
parents etc
nurture a d de d to nature Galton ) ;
b ut this kind o f in h e ritance is of enormously greater
rela tive importance among h uman beings who poss e ss
lan g uag e and de nite social an d relig ious institutions
ve h i c le for th e transmission of the re sults of
as a
past experien c e The importance of this distinction
will be seen wh en it is consid e red that am o ng the
lower animals the only possi b ility of improvement
apart from arti cial selection by h uman bein g s
Sy n t h t ic So c i ty P ap r
s

P H I L O S OP H I C AL

43

w hich is not al ways improvem e nt from the point of

Vi e w of th e Spe c ie s of a nimal in question is to b e

foun d in th e unch eck e d ope ratio n o f natural sel e ction
or ( if th e Lamarckian hypothesis b e also acc epte d )
l
u S th e racial inh e r itance of ac
o f natural sel e ction
p
quire d characte ristics ; w h e reas among human b e ings
re e ct ion an d d iscussion may l e a d to a d el ib erat e
chang e in customs an d usag e s an d b eli e fs that are
s u ppos e d to b e inj ur ious to social w e ll be i ng We
m ight call this arti c ial s el e ction appli e d b y a soci e ty
to itself S uch chang e s du e to conscious choic e may
in any give n case b e w is e or foolish b e n e cial or
d isastrous T h e w orking of natural sel e ction is not
eliminate d I t is th e nal t e st But the mere possi
b ility of such d el ib e rat e cha ng e s mak e s it futil e to
stu d y human soci e ti e s as if th e ir history w er e simply

an illustration o f b iological law s

Again in a note

on th e d istinct ion b e tw e en e volut ion in th e social

environm e nt an d th e inh erita nce o f qualit ies in th e
in d ivi d uals ( rac e i nh e ritance ) R itchie points o u t that
th e re may b e cont inuity o f national e x ist e nc e an d
charact e r though n early all the orig inal r a ces w hich
have set th e typ e of civili zation may have d isapp e are d
Of cours e th e ci vilization must re c eive some m o di
cation from its acting on ne w races b u t the d i ff e r e nce
b e t w e en tw o rac e s u n d er the sam e typ e of civili z ation
is l e ss than the d i fferenc e b e tw e e n th e sam e rac e
un d e r t w o d i ffe rent typ e s o f civilization Thus the
Roman civil ization b e cam e th e posse ssion of C e lts
an d Ib erians ; th e N ew Englan d e rs may d ie out b u t
th ey w ill have turn e d I rish G ermans Norw egians an d
I tal ians into
Apart from th e uncritical
applicat ion o f b iological conc e ptions to soc iology th e
e v olutionist v ie w is ina d e quat e in anoth e r w ay
Even
w h e n it cl early re cognis e s th e d istinctive character
istics o f human soci e ty it s ee ks to d e termin e moral
pr inciple s b y re fe r e nc e to actual soc iety an d its history
.

M EM O I R

44

or to the d irection in which as a matter of fact it

seems to be ten d in g It ignores the ideal in any
other sense than that which is li k ely to happen I t
cannot pass fro m w hat h as come to be or what is
g oing to be a s a result of the struggl e for existenc e
to w hat ou g ht to b e except b y a confusion of the
question of meanin g w ith that of fact C onsid e ring
society only as an event or a s e ries of events it
has no logical ground fo r criticis m of the actual it
can nd no criterion of exc e ll e nc e e xcept success All
this is so fully expoun d ed in t h e M or a l P h ilosop hy
that I need not d w ell upon it here
I n t h is c onnection ho w eve r som e t h ing must be
sai d about Ritchie s vi e ws regarding certain problems

of practical ethics and politics

The moralist does
not profess to convert souls ; but ( I ) he cannot
S h ir k the responsibility o f criticising as well as ex
poundin g th e existin g m oral ideal ( and as that varies
so muc h h e c annot e ven expound wit h out criticising
)
and so suggestin g its deve lopment ( 2 ) All thin k in g
honestly d on e in the long r u n betters prac tice The
immoral thou g htlessness of man k ind is t h e c h ief
r e tardin g force an d is too little considered by moral
teachers w h o are too apt to assume that the ideal is
g enerally agreed upon and that th e only question is

ho w to real ise it
T h e ordinary ideal needs enlarg e
ment t o prevent it fossilising ( evils of intuitionism )
and also to s h ow t h e need of a relative x ity as against
mere individualism by constant re ference to a social
goo d N o m ere appeal to instinct or nature will

do
Thus one part of practical ethics is the d e velop
ment or enlargement of t h e social ideal And alon g
wit h this there must g o d e ve lopment in the means
of realisin g the ideal i e development of custom s and
institutions Now it seemed to Ritchie that in t h ese
asp e cts intuitionism S h o w s g reat practical w ea k ness I t
prescribes absol u te laws an d th u s overloo k s ( if it do e s
,

P H I L O S OP H I C A L

45

d eny ) th e progressive n e ss of t h e moral i d eal an d

it t e n d s to minimise th e e th ical importanc e of customs

an d inst itutions
H e re in li e s th e practical e v il o f
intuitio nist syst e ms o f morals that th e y te n d to fossilis e
th e pr inc ipl e s o f co n d uct at th e particular stage o f
soc ial d evelopm e n t w h ich comm e n d s its elf to the

particular intu ition ist

Thus h e dwelt on th e m is

chi e f o f a b solut e moral pr e cepts pr e c e pts w hich

l e ave out of account th e relat ive aspect of d uti e s
th eir r elat ivity to varyi ng con d it ions o f soci e ty an d
to th e various persons or i n stituti o ns to w hom th e y

may b e o w ing S uch a b solute moral pre c epts may

caus e int e ns e m is e ry to co nsc ie ntious persons w ho
feel that th e y ar e not d o ing right to oth e rs in o b eying
th e m an d w h e n o b eye d th e y may cause m isch ie f to
soc ie ty F or e xampl e tak e th e cas e of lial d uty
P er e Gor iot h as n o formulat e d moral ; b ut th e re runs
through it th e s e nt im e nt o f th e a b solute claims of
pat e rn ity T h e e v il is e sp e c ially cl e ar in th e cas e o f
s exual morality an d th e w rong princ ipl e s on w h ich
it is e n forc e d F or th e prop e r w ork ing of family
morality as that is conc e iv e d b y all our strict e r
moralists an d r el igious t e ach e rs ar e not so many an d
such virtu e s ne e d e d as w oul d b e su ffi c ie nt for th e
mainte nanc e o f a fr e e r se t o f institutions w hich insti
t u tio ns Shoul d at t h e sam e t im e not hin d e r b ut pro

?
mote an d stimulat e th e s e virtues
On th e o th e r

ha nd b e for e th e in stitution o f marriag e is con d e mn e d

shoul d we no t ask wh e th e r it h a s e ve r ye t ha d a
fa ir chance ? O nly w h e n w om e n a r e b e tte r e d ucate d
w h e n th e y ar e no long e r d r ive n to r egar d marr iage
as a
profe ss ion a nd more h ealthy acquaintanc e b e
tw ee n th e s e x e s i nd e p e n d e ntly o f marr iag e is poss ib le
than at pre s e nt only th e n will marr iage ge t a fair

c hanc e
Q u e stion w oul d not a gre at many m e n an d
w om e n choos e to go thro u gh life as faithful companions
M
p 3
l P h il phy
no t

'

or a

oso

1 1

2 2

M EM O I R

6
4

to each other without any external bond

B u t w h at
of the wea ker and less worthy of both sexes ? In
the meantime what have the State and the opinion
of society got mainly to concern the m selve s with in
?
this matter
An i ncreased recognition of the r e spo n

sib ilitie s
of parentag e
Public o pinion S h ould e n

de a vo u r to se c ure
a certain mini m um standard of
tness for marriage e g abs e nce o f so m e of t h e more
terrible d iseases L ife insurance amon g the more care
ful mid d le class is oft e n us e d as a test of tness i n
the case of men This sho u ld b e applied to w o m en
also I n course of time the law m ight require a
c e rtain minimum standard Habitual drun k enness and
lunacy m ight be bars to legal marriag e an d also
grounds of divorce or at least j u d icial s e paration
So too w ith crim e s
At present there is a tend e ncy
to tre at many criminals as disease d : their punishment

b
e
whether
death
or
life
lon
g
im
prisonment
s
h
oul
d
)
(
such as to prevent th e m transmitti ng th e ir tendencies
I t may be sai d that it is impossible to inte rfere in
this w ay w ith h uman beings in suc h a pur e ly personal
matt e r as the r e lation of the s e x e s
I t is not im
possi b le for it i s constantly done but on grou n d s
that cannot b e d e fend e d as rational or socially ex
e die nt
For
instance
there
is
interference
w
ith
in
d
i
p

vidual freedom on the ground of ( I ) race prej udice

h
e white man
t
w
ho
marri
blac
k
w
oman
es a
(
2
es
caste
religion
mixe
d
marriag
( )
(
(3)
discourage d ) ; ( 4 ) prohi b ite d d e gr e es ; ( 5 ) social an d
moral e ff ect of la ws a b out marriage an d illegitimacy
f
e
S
cotc
h
la
w
c
libacy
o
clergy
and
of
scholars
e
6
; ( )
g
money
m
eaning
often
survival
o f t h e u n t te st ;
) (7)
(
consid e rations ; ( 8) reasons of State So m e of th e se
might be dropp e d an d considerations of ge n e ral t
ness ta k en inst e ad of them in accor d ance w ith Plato s
maxim th e most us e ful is th e most holy

Fro m a pap r
t h ic al asp c ts f th c o trov rsy a b o u t h r d ity
th
.

on

e e

e e

PH I LOSO PH I C A L

47

d o consi d er that it is th e b usiness of the State

supposing
a
w
organis
ed
S
tate
to
regulate
if
e ll
)
(
possi b l e th e b irth an d c e rtainly th e e d ucation o f
chil d ren so as to give th e m a fair chanc e of grow ing
up into the b e st poss ib le m e n an d wom e n b ut that
apart from that e nd th e State Shoul d not interfe r e
b e tw e e n full y gro wn in d ivi d uals ; an d that th e usual
opinion of soc ie ty w hich con d e m ns e g G eorge Eliot
an d has nothing b ut sympathy for p e ople wh o cause
the e xiste nce o f chil d re n with inherit e d d is eases an d
w ho hav e no prosp ect o f giving th e m a fair e d ucation
provi d e d only th ey hav e gon e through a r el igious

c e r e mony is misch ievous in th e e xtre m e

T h e gre at o b stacl e to th e s e an d oth e r moral reforms
is in R itchi e s op inion th e i nd ivi d ual ism on the o ne
h an d of our s e nt im e ntal b e l ie f in an a b stract righ t o f
l ib e rty an d on th e oth e r han d o f our comp e titiv e
e conomic syst e m
Thus in a lette r ( 1 89 0 ) h e says

I rmly b eli eve that th e ex ist ing ave rage moral

j u dgments a b out th e r elations o f th e s e xe s ca nnot
poss ib ly alt e r till th e w hol e e co nomic structur e of
soci e ty is alte r e d H e r e an d th e r e an in d iv id ual may
ant icipate th e j u dgm e nts o f a futur e age or go b ack
on thos e o f a past But av e rag e morality b e i ng u lti
mat ely con d ition e d b y its e conomic structur e mor e than
b y its political institut ions or anyth ing els e this must
b e so
ho w ev e r count e r it s ee ms to on e s earl ie r not io n s
of w hat morality is T hus e g ( exc e pt in polygamous
soci e ti e s w here all w om e n ar e marr ie d an d k ept u nd e r
guar d or in such plac e s as small villag e s w h e re eve ry
o ne marr ies e arly an d is strictly u nd e r t h e pr ie st
th
ere
)
w ill al w ays b e an unfortu nat e class w h il e w om e n s
e arn ings ar e on t h e av e rag e l e ss c e rtain than thos e o f
m e n an d un d e r a comp e t itiv e syst e m that w ill al w ays
b e so
F or m e n w ill as a r u l e only work ( and stay
in th e country) for w hat w ill support th e m an d a
L tt r (
,

M EM O I R

s
4

w ife an d allo w t h em a glass of b eer Women will

w ork for what will support t h emselves ( w ithout the
b e e r) and so w ill al w ays un d ersell men a nd o n e another
Th us some wom e n w ill al w ays nd life easier b y sellin g
themselves and livin g in comparativ e idlen e ss I k no w
it sounds h orrible b ut I fear it s tru e
M oral and
religious inuences w ill only raise a fe w above the
pressure of circumstanc e s th er efor e circumstances m ust
be altere d
T h e economic c h an g e m ust come
b efore the moral b efore w e can even know certainly

w hat the moral chan ge will be This has always b e en

so in history
H o w ever that s a long story but th e

h istory of Slavery is v e ry instructive in this respect

This may su f ce to g ive an idea of Ritchie s vi e ws
reg ar d in g moral reform s in which he was sp e cially
inter e sted and of t h e way in which he applie d h is
Socialism to practical pro b l e ms His general attitud e
I o s
is clearly set forth in th e M or a l P h ilosophy
99
And w hen we turn to his opinions a b out political
reform in the w idest s e n se we nd furth e r illustration
o f the same bent of mind
He ha d for instanc e little
if any sympathy either w ith narro w nationalism on the
one ha n d or w ith vag u e cosmopolitanism on the ot h er
But he beli e ved rmly in th e i d eal o f t h e federation
of the worl d ag reeing with the doctrine of Kant that
a p e rman e nt ge neral p e ace can n ever be s e cured by
treaties bet w een in d ependent nations but only b y t h e
e stablis h m e nt of a fe d e ration of s e lf g overnin g states
in w hich there is ultimately o ne soverei g nt y and
atte mpts at w ar b e com e equivalent to reb ellion An d
ag ain agre e in g w ith Kant h e felt sure that this m ust
eventually com e to pass Sw itz e rland w hich he r e

g arded as a ve ry la b oratory of political e xperiments

e xhi b its the i d eal in m i n iature an d he spok e with g reat
s ympathy of the prompt w ay in w hich t h e Swiss F e d e r
ate d government suppress e d at onc e b y military force
the revolt o f Ticino punished one member of t h e
.

,
-

P H I LO S O P H I C A L

49

con fe d e ration in ord er to secure the interests of the

w hole War like in d ividual crim e can only b e r e
straine d b y a common governm e nt able to ke e p the
p e ac e b y th e u se of forc e an d h e regar d e d as s el f
contra d ictory and d elusive th e vie w s of those who
preach p e ac e b etw e e n nations b y means o f d isarmament
an d a r e fusal to e mploy forc e w hile they hav e no
o bj ection to th e u se of polic e a nd prisons for the
forci ble mainte nance o f p e ac e b et w ee n in d ivid uals
Again it seem e d to R itchie that o ne gre at step to w ards
th e fe d e ration of th e w orld w oul d b e th e fe d e ration of
th e English sp e aking communiti e s
This also is in
h armony w ith Kant s i d ea that if one po w e rfu l fe d era
tion o f s elf gove rning states coul d b e e stab lish e d other
states woul d in evita bly b e attracte d into it until in
cours e o f time it w oul d b ecome universal I n this sense

R itchi e w as a n imp e rialist an d though no one

coul d b e more fre e from the spirit o f j ingo ism or th e
d e sire for i nd e nite t e rritorial expans ion he stoutly
d e fe nd e d th e Bo e r war against th e vi ew s o f the maj ori ty
of h is o w n party H e w oul d not have h el d his action
on this occasion to b e inconsist e nt w ith an earlier
d e claration of his that patriotism is a valua b l e moral
d isc iplin e in a community that is struggling for fr e e
d om or for natio nal exist e nc e In a triumphant country
it los e s its virtuous charact e r an d is apt to b e a name
only fo r noisy d isparagement o f others an d for self

aggran d isem e nt at th eir expens e

F or h e looke d
upon th e South African w ar not as a war of
aggressio n b ut as an e n d e avour on th e part of th e
suzerain stat e to free the p e ople of one o f its de
p e n d e nci e s from the tyranny of a narrow an d stu bb orn
oligarchy
I n d ealing w ith the pro b lem of th e i d eal r elations

of Stat e s to o ne anoth e r R itchie h el d that we must

distinguish b e tw e e n thos e ideals w hich assum e im
possi b le con d itions an d those w hich take account of
.

M EM O I R

the con d itions of nature and of human nature un d e r

w hich an ideal c an possibly be realised

T h e ideal
of the ol d er U topias and th e mo d e rn anarchist ideal

b oth ass u me impossible conditions

The imitators
of Plato in modern times have been apt to place their
U topias i n remote or i naccessible isla nds so that the
proble m of g ood government coul d b e r e stricte d to
internal wellbein g To ma k e t h is a co n d ition nowa
days is to assume an impossibility G eo g rap h ical
discov e ry t h e spreading of European races over the
rest of th e globe the increased rapidity of communi
cation du e to steam and el e ctri c ity have made it
impossible to nd the undi sturbed solitud e of the old
Utopias In ot h er wor d s if we ar e to attempt nowa
days to construct an ideal political society w hich we
really believe to be an i d eal that can actually inuence
th e practical reformer an d can leg itimately be used
for the criticism of defects in the politi c al w orld we
live in we m ust not please ours elves w ith the fancy
of a small c om m unity in some island bearing all manner
of fruits und e r g enial s k ies unoccupied b y a wkw ard
savag e s and unvisited by tradi ng adventurer or foreig n

warship
On the ot h er han d
we ne e d not lin g er
ove r the ideal of the philosophical anarchist If all
hu man bein g s were or were likely to become a c tuate d
by fraternal sentim e nt an d also g ifte d w ith such in
si gh t as to act not only w ith kin d ly intentions but
with bene cial results we mig ht be content to re g ar d
the ideal of politics as the d isappearanc e of all pol itical
institutions This is what is sometim e s meant by th e
dictum that t h e en d of g ood g overnment is to make
government superuous The end of g ood laws is
to ma k e the iniction of th e penalty for d isobedi e nce
u nnecessary ; b ut that do e s not m e an that the la w
ma ke s itself unnecessary e xcept in the sense t h at the
law passes into an unbro k e n habit If freedo m be put

P ap r n T h id al f a W orl d Stat
1

P H I LO S O PH I C A L

forwar d as th e e nd o f th e State an d therefore of the

whole political en d eavour o f mankin d this cannot
mean the m e re n egative lib e rty o f b eing le ft alon e ;
an d unless we suppos e chang e s in human nat u r e for
which past an d present experie nce gives us no w arrant
such a b solute a b s e nc e of control w oul d mean a return
to the lo w e st savag e ry an d a long te d ious process of
b uil d ing up again th e overthro w n fa b ric of or d e r an d
civil ization I f it b e sugg e ste d that religion might
b r ing a b out th e happy change that w oul d ren d e r
prisons an d policemen an d la wy e rs an d l egislators u n
nec e ssary it is forgott e n that so far as past e xp e ri e nc e
helps u s religion w hil e capa b l e o f b eing the strongest
o f all soc ial forc e s
is a social forc e only in virtu e of

it s organisat ion of i n d ivi d uals in a society a society

w h ich with penaltie s of e xcommunication and threats
of h ell r e can d ispe nse w ith th e j u dg e an d th e hang
man A r eligion which acte d sol ely through the
enthusiasm of d isinte re ste d love i n the h e ar ts of in
div idu als w oul d b e acti ng upon saintly b e ings such
as have n ev e r yet b een num e rous upon e arth We
assum e that human natur e apart from th e d isciplin e of
institutions r e tains som e e rc e animal passions of sel
sh ne ss such as may b e foun d in most h e althy chil d re n
an d ther e fore that li b erty in th e sens e of compl e te
a b se nc e of re straint is not a d esirable e nd F r ee d om
as th e e nd of th e Stat e means th e capacity for self
re alisation It is the positive i d e al o f d oing som e thing
of making things poss ess ing an d using them of
acqu ir ing kno wl e d g e o f living a full an d manysi d e d
social li fe A S a means to this i d eal some tim e s la issez
fa ir e an d som e times social h elp must b e use d ; an d
opinions may reasona bly d i ffer a s to the limits b etwee n

them in each particular case

But li b e rty in t h e

e
e
f
o
s ns
s elf r e al isation is too va u e to give us o f
its el f much information an d u r th er analysis is

nee d e d
An d th e i de al of negative liberty appli e d
,

M EM O I R

2
5

to in d ependent nations means t h e continuan c e of t h e

present constant fear of war and preparation for
It

re gards politi c al reform in Great B ritain Ritc h ie

believed i n imperial federation the g er m of w h ich is
to be fo u nd in t h e suprem e court o f appeal Wit h in
this wider federation t h ere should be a federation of
t h e U nited Kin g dom wit h lo c al leg islat u res ( or co m
m ittee s) for Sc otland
Ireland ( or for eac h province )
and Wales The m e m bers of t h e House of Co m
m ons S ho u ld be paid and t h eir n u mber diminis h ed
A S to the House of Lords the disabilities of peers
Sh ould be removed ; but t h e appeal i n actions at law
Sh ould be retained The House m i gh t be r eco nsti
t u te d a s a
federal senate ( at rst with m ainly
consultative powers) I n t h is case there mi gh t be a
Single chamber for Great B ritain B u t this would be
advisable only if the referendu m were adopted
Ot h erwise t h e second Ch amber for Great B ritain
s h ould consist of life peers and representatives of local
bodies Even in t h is c ase the referendum would be
an advantag e as a means of se ttlin g a possible conict
between the Ch ambers Ritchie however reg arded the
referendum as li k ely to become a question of parlia
mentary politics only in t h e event of ( I ) the splittin g
up of parties into groups so that w e no lon g er had
the dual party system on w h ic h the smooth wor k in g

of our C abinet g overnment depends ; or ( 2 ) th e

abolition of t h e House of L ords or the a b olition

of its power of veto

T h e g reatest advantages of

all i n th e referendu m seeme d to h im to be

t h at it woul d separate futil e discussion as to whether
a g overn m ent has a mandate from the people to do
this or that from pro table disc u ssion a s to whether
a measure is g oo d or b ad and ( 2 ) t h at it woul d
Simplify the m oral problem with whic h t h e co nscien
tious c itizen is constantly confronted
S u ppose I
AS

P H ILO S O P H I C A L

53

strongly approve of an important measure before the

public am rather in d i fferent a b out a secon d an d am
strongly oppose d to a third and yet all three have
?
b e en put in th e party programm e w hat am I to d o
I k no w e g that a vote I am re ally giving for dis
e sta b lishm e nt
w ill be counte d as a vote for Home
R ule or vice v er sa an d moreover I am comp elle d
to vote fo r M r A when I r e ally think M r B
w oul d b e a more useful person in Parliam e nt There
ar e v e ry gr e at
m e r its in our system of t wo parti e s
an d tw o parti e s only ; b ut th e re ar e v e ry gre at d raw
b acks an d if th e syste m Shoul d b re ak do w n I d on t
feel as if o ne w oul d hav e to de spa ir of on e s country
Th e re are oth e r re sources in th e political institutions
of mankin d an d amongst them the r e fe re n d um s ee ms

to m e o ne of thos e most w orth stu d ying

As r egar d s th e relations o f C hurch an d State R itchie
was also oppos e d to the policy o f in d ivi d ualist L i b er

I think d is e stabl ishm e nt a m ove in th e

alism

w rong d ir e ct ion it is a fall ing b ack on th e ol d

anarchical Lib e ral ism o f th e H e rbert Spenc e r type

Is not the d e man d fo r t h e separation of th e C hurch
from th e S tat e a confe ssion o f failur e on th e part of
?
th e C hurch
It is only valua b le as a r e cognition

that r eligion is supra nat ional

O n th e other han d
is d is e sta blishment clearly d esira b l e from th e State s

?
po int of View
In I taly an d in F rance if the
Stat e seve re d all connection w ith the R oman C hurch
woul d not th e clergy form still more an anti
?
constitut ional party than they d o at pre s e nt
IS
it safe to leav e the clergy alone ? I f we ha d
estab lishe d th e Roman C atholic C h u rch in I r elan d
e
governm
e
nt
having
a
veto
on
the
appointm
nt
of
(
b ishops) I think I relan d w oul d have bee n more
e asily
manag e d B u t English Protestant preju d ices

have ma d e that solution impossi b le I fear

In
some note s an d suggestio ns which R itchie sent to
,

'

M EM O I R

54

Mr

P Hayn e s i n c onnection wit h M r

H a yne s s boo k on Religiou s P er secu tion he p u ts the
S
matter t h us :
eparation of C hurc h and State is
ambi g uous ( 1 ) It may exist i n some very important
cases with establishm e nt of one or more churches
e
e
in
F
ranc
and
it
may
n
t
exist
except
merely
o
( g
)
in for m w h ere there is no established churc h but
where certain reli gious bodies dominate political
opinion ( 2 ) I s it true that le gal Separation of
C hur c h and State necessarily secures more toleration
than every form of State recog nition of relig ion p lu s
le g al toleration of certain t h ings and social toleration
due partly to t h e g reater toleration li k e ly to exist
?
within a State church t h an within any ordinary sect
I t h in k we m ust distin g uish between ( a ) the tolera
tion w hich favours intellectual pro g ress and ( h) the
toleration w h ic h favours the rise of all sorts of e cce n
tric sects some of w h i c h may indeed con c eivably
a
i
prove useful
variations
s
better
secured
( )
probably in Germany or Switzerland ( h) in t h e
U nited States of America Where there is no S tate
ch urc h t h e leader of an intellectual advance has gener
ally to leave h is sect and found a new little sect of
h is own Note t h e di ff erence between the Ethi c al
I n Eng land
S ocieties i n America and in En g land
they may h elp to leaven opinion wit h in th e Chu rches ;
i n America in m ost places at least public opinion does
not tolerate t h e man who g oes to no churc h so t h e
ag nosti c or advanced thin k er has to ma k e h is
own little c h urc h and call it an Ethical S ociety I
dou b t if this favours prog ress Nobody perhaps would
thin k of setting up an Establis h ed C hurch le gally in
the U nited S tates now or in any American S tate ;
b u t the Su preme C ourt h as decid e d t h at t h e U nite d
S tates is a C h ristian c ountry whic h means establish
D arw in w as b u r i d in W t m in st r A bb y
H o w wo u l d h

h av b n tr at d in So u t h C arol ina ?
.

ee

es

P H I LO S O P H I C A L

55

ing without e n do wm e nt th e greatest common

measure of the Pres b yt e rian Episcopalian Baptist
M e tho d ist an d the more ol d fashion e d Un itarian
r eligio ns
W here th e re e xists an ancient esta blish e d church
w hos e history is link e d w ith that of th e nation w oul d
tol e ration ( in s e nse ( a ) ) gain b y d isestablishment an d
w oul d the nation ga in b y either han d ing over the
?
cath ed rals to a sect or tur ning them into mus e um s
D is e sta bl ishm e nt in Scotla n d w oul d give an e normous
increas e of m e m b e rs to t h e S cotch Ep iscopal C hurch
Ma ny o f th e laity a nd a goo d many of th e cl e rgy of
th e pr e sent e sta b l ish e d ( Pres b yt e rian ) church w oul d
j o in it rath e r than b e ab sor b e d b y th e Un it e d F r e e
C hurch That m igh t pro d uc e an int elle ctual w i d e ni ng
in th e S cotch Ep iscopal C hurch b ut w oul d incr e ase the
social gap b e t we e n th e mor e culture d an d th e l e ss
culture d form of relig ion I n Englan d d is estab lishm e n t
woul d b e a gr e at gain to th e R oman C atholic C hurch
it alon e w oul d hav e th e historical pr e stige It w oul d
not put th e M e tho d ist or Baptist soc ially in any b e tter

S
h
position I n cotlan d t e non esta b lishe d Episcopal
C hurch has b e caus e of its u se of a stately l iturgy e tc
a soci al prestige in some plac e s ove r the Esta b lishe d
C hurch
Things of that sort se e m to m e w orth consi d ering
b e fore we accept th e American solution as th e b est I t
may of cours e come to b e a d opt e d b ecaus e of the
e xig e nci e s o f party polit ics or b e caus e o f gro w ing anti
Erastianism an d irrationalism in th e C hurch I d ou b t
very much if t h e d isesta b l ishment mov e m e nt is gro w ing
at pre s e nt in spite of th e noise of th e L i b eration Soc ie ty
I n Scotlan d I think it has d e ci d e d ly gon e back D is
e sta b l ishment agitat ion is o n e o f th e caus e s w hy parties
in Scotlan d have alt e re d in strength so much si nce
1 88
0 ; an d sur e ly th e C hurch of Englan d is m uch
stronger no w than it was 2 0 or 3 0 ye ars ago
,

M EM O I R

6
5

Toleration ( t h e abolition of tests in U niversities etc )

has on t h e w h ole diminished its unpopularity Again
has not t h e chan g e fro m the old fas h ioned la issez
fa ir e L iberalism to the new sem i socialistic L iberalism
helped to ma k e th e idea of a Stat e C hurch less stran g e
t h an it seemed to the indivi d ualists of t h e Brig ht an d
?
Cobden period L ord Rosebery h orried old fas h ione d
doctrinaire R adicals by sayin g t h e State h ad as much
ri gh t to establish a c h urch as an army or navy
I ndia is the greatest example of real reli g ious

equality in the worl d not the moc k reli g ious equality

which is equivalen t to the Noncon formist conscien c e
Sabbatarian le g islation the g reatest common measure of
Presbyterian B aptist M ethodist old fashion e d Uni
tarian ( perhaps ) very low An glican et c leavin g out
Jews Seventh D ay B aptists Roman C at h olics ( for
many purposes ) Hi gh A n glicans ( for some purposes )
M ohamme dans M ormons agg ressive Atheists etc I n
In d ia as in t h e Early R oman Empire the mag istrates
admi nister M oham m edan Jewish Hindu Parsee
C hristian law etc accordin g to the reli g ion of the
people
in d i ffer e ntly e x cept as in the Roman
E m pire t h at c e rtain w il d thin g s ( b urnin g of widows

Th e
etc ) ar e put do w n on g rounds of social order
case of the D ou kh obors in C anada S h ows t h e di fficulty

of accordin g complete toleration to a w il d se c t

W h ile
Ritchie could not accept the abstract do g ma of reli g ious
equality in th e form in wh ich I t is usually advocated
he was equally opposed to the contention that dis

sacrileg e or robb e ry of God or any

e stablishment is

thin g o f t h at sort
I f the State was j usti e d i n
w h at it did at the R eformation in S cotland and even in
w h at it did in England the S tate w o uld be j usti ed
in doin g S imilar thin g s now The question is not one
to be d ecided on abstra c t moral principles I t is solely
a question of what is most for the welfare of the people

as a whole

,
,

P H I L O S O P H I CAL

57

To the probl e ms of religion and theology R itchi e

applie d the d istinction b e tween origin an d vali d ity in a
w ay w hich is illustrate d in the conclu d ing sections o f
It appears further in letters
th e Cogita tio M etaphysica
written b etwee n 1 885 an d 1 887
The ultimate value
of th e C hristian religion must d e pen d on the i d eal it
sets b e fore mankin d i e on w hat it is in its high e st
form How it originate d an d gre w is a matte r fo r th e
historian an d scholar T h e J e w s use d to ask Is not
this the carp e nte r s son ? assuming that origin d eter
min e d value T h e d efe nc e o f C hristianity is to b e
foun d not in the I st chapte r of Matthe w b ut in the
t
h
By
their
f
ruits
e Shall kno w them
asse
ts
this
r
5
y
sam e principle o f j u dgi ng b y effe cts ( en d) not origin
T h e fourth G osp e l takes C hrist a w ay from Je w ish
ge ne alogies altogeth e r and i d e nti es him w ith th e
Eternal R eason w hich is i d ent ical with G o d not a
mere in d ivi d ual in a particular tim e an d plac e O f
course it still r emains possi bl e that th e Eternal R e ason
shoul d be sp e cially ma nifeste d ( incarnat e ) in som e in
d ivi d ual ; b ut th e spiritual truth is not d e pen d e nt on
the historical e vent fo r any all ege d historical eve nt
an
d
the
r
e porte d
events
i
n t h e G osp els ar e not w e ll
(
auth e nticate d compare d w ith many th ings in ancie nt
history ) alw ays is op e n to d ispute But o f a Spiritual
tru th th e r e can only b e spiritual evi d e nce the witn e ss
o f G o d in th e soul i e r e ason r e cognising itsel f
I kno w you feel this un d e rmines r e ali ty an d most
people feel that ; b ut it leav e s th e only things that can t

b e Shak e n
Again as to miracles he w rite s
All
th e ol d religions o f th e w orl d ha d their miracles
Th e
e arly C hristian apologists n e ver d e ni e d th e miracl e s of
th e h e ath e n : th e y only sai d they w er e wrought b y the
help of th e devil as the J e w s sa id of C hrist s There
is as goo d h istorical e vi d ence for the Emp e ror Vespasian
h aving cure d a b lin d man mirac u lously as for any of
the miracl e s in the Ne w Testament All anci e nt
.

M EM O I R

8
5

s w arms wit h miracles The d i fference bet ween

Jesus and So c rates is no t t h at t h e former wor k ed
miracles and the latter did not ; but t h at Socrates had
an ideal of life for th e privileged fe w He ev e n sends
the women away that they migh t not be w ith him at
his death and none of h is teachin g was for them or for
the multitude whom h e d espised Jes u s addressed
him s e lf to all especially to the despised and o u tcast
C ami lle D esmoulins was quite ri gh t when he c alled him
16 bon sans culotte de N azareth
T h e essence of
Christianity is democracy in the very w idest sense
Walt Whitman is more a C h ristian t h an an arc h
bishop ran k in g next the Prince of Wales can ever
be ( thou g h I don t th in k him m uc h of a poet) This
e lem ent of C hristiani ty could not be a m ere
invention
thou g h all the aspirations of t h e oppressed m eet in it
This is what I understan d b y th e incarnation of God in
man that man as such h umanity can put on the
Jesus may have wor k e d miracles may
divine nature
have thou g ht h e di d or may have b een only supposed
to do so : that matters little I t is a question for
historical research not for faith H e began the revo
lu tio n of society whic h is yet very far from its end
You will say that is turnin g relig ion into politics
It is ma k in g politics reli g ion I think a man should
g ive h is vote in t h e spirit in which he mi g ht pray
Thy k ingdo m come thy will be done on ea r th as it is
i n Heaven
And if women had votes they w ould be
m ore religious if less un d er the C hurch an d w ould
h elp to ma k e politics more relig ious too You will
in
all
t
h
is
there
is
no
consolation
or
hope
for
sa
y
t h e individual
Perhaps not but it is only as the
individual can work for h umanity i e w it h God that
the individual has moral value or Si g ni cance All
that we k now as best and hi g hest in the lives or ideas
of others or i n our own thou g hts w hich tell us of o u r
awful d efects in feeli ng thinkin g a c tin gt h at is what
h istory

P H I L OS O P H I C A L

59

is morally tru est that is th e i d e al th e r e velation of

G o d th e only G o d we ca n practically kno w an d in
w hom it is a duty to have faith no t in historical state
m e nts or d ogmat ic form u la e W h e n we con d e mn li fe
h
e b e st
a nd sa
it
is
a
poor
thing
at
t
unless
it
is
(
y
Simply d isappoint e d pl e asure s e e k ing) w e d o so only
b y m e asuring it b y an i d eal This i d eal in a pr o gr es
sive age or min d constantly gro w s : That is the
p e rp e tual revelat ion of G o d to man th e Holy Spirit
l ea d i ng u s to all truth
These ar e my sinc e rest con
though to most people I d ar e not expre ss
v ic tio n s
th em Th ey w oul d only b e m isun d erstoo d an d might
ne e dl e ssly o ffe n d

I n G re en s se con d s e rmon you w ill nd t h e nature

of
faith put more truly an d mor e r eve renti ally than
I could put it Accor d ing to such a V i ew w hich I
thoroughly accept miracl e s ev e n if th ey w e r e v e ri e d
a r e qu it e irrel e vant to a r e l ig ious truth
w hich must
al ways b e a truth of principl e inue ncing con d uct not
a stat e m e nt of fact I think only those can consistently
b eliev e in miracl e s having happ e n e d w ho b elieve that
th e y can happen no w T h e or d inary position o f

Prot e stants is quite illogical I Shoul d say transitional

W hen p e opl e r eally b eli eve d in miracl e s th e y b urn e d
ugly ol d w omen as w itch e s an d spre a d p est il e nc e s by
cro wd ing church e s inste a d o f clea ni ng citi es No w
th e re is a sham b eli e f in miracl e s that onc e happen e d
an d happ e n no longer a b eli e f arising from m e ntal

confusion or moral co war d ice

F or b eli e fs a b out
matters of fact we cannot b e h el d morally re sponsi b le
in the sam e w ay that we are for b eli e fs in princ iple s
o f con d uct
That is w hy it can b e plausi b ly main
taine d b oth that
men are not respo nsi bl e fo r their

opinions an d that th ey ar e
Again the C hristian
d octrine o f incarnation if it means only a miraculous
b irth is nothi ng d istin ctiv e o f C hristianity W hat is
d istinctive o f C hristianity is its overthrow o f prej u d ice
,

M EM O I R

6o

of race caste sex and its ideal of losin g life to

save it w h i ch is the spiritual truth in t h e ideas of
incarnation and res u rrection (God becomes man i e
h u m bles him self su ff ers dies to live t h at men may
do the sa m e ) and w h ich is independent of any par

ticu lar events h appenin g or not

Rit ch ie h ad no li k in g for creeds and h e was strongly
averse fro m the use of them in public worship B u t
he did not S hare t h e special disli k e w h i ch is often
felt towards t h e At h anasian creed On the contrary he
preferred it to the others as bein g more m etaphysical

and less mytholo g ical

I have no special obj ection
to the Athanasian creed It is a protest in favour of
t h e H eg elian notion the unity of contradictions a g ainst
t h e abstract metap h ysics of the ordinary understanding
All philosop h ers who don t
A s such it is all ri g ht
a c cept t h at without doubt do perish everlastin gly
B u t as an arithmetical conundrum p lu s so m e strong
Swearin g it is only a d e g radation to t h e souls of
t h ose who utter it and hear it W h y can t they let
one wors h ip without t h e insolence of repeatin g cree d s
Even the Apostles C ree d ( not the creed of the apostles
than k Go d) contains that monstrous parthenog enesis
and the S ittin g at t h e right h and of God ( w h o is
wit h out body parts or passions ) and t h e resurrection
of the bo d y O h adulterous g eneration seekin g after
a Si g n turnin g metaphors into absur d facts ! W h at
vast moral inj u ry is done constantly by tac k in g spiritual

tr u th to materialistic mythology
A g ain if I were
to occupy myself specially wit h Neo Platonis m and
t h e metaphysical c ontroversies of the G ree k Ch u r c h
and to thin k myself into t h e m ental atmosphere of t h e
fourt h century I m ig ht feel quite able to ac c ept the
At h anasian c reed e xcept a few statements at t h e end
which are c ommon to it and the other creeds It
is the creed about which I felt the least diicu lty for
m yself at the time I u sed to thin k theolog ically I t

P H I LO S O P H I C A L

6I

contains har dly any questiona b l e statem e nts of fact

All these propositions a b out th e Trinity an d th e r e
lation b etw een th e d ivin e an d human nature are
m e taph ysical theories not stat e ments of fact fo r w hich
e vi d e nce can b e giv e n or r e quire d ; an d th e o bj ection
to an or d inary E nglish congr egation using this cr ee d
is not that it is false b ut that it is p e r fe ctly meaningl e ss
though
it
may
hav
e a profoun d m e aning to a p e rson
(
w ho has thought himsel f into th e spir it of a G re ek
th e ologian) It has th e sam e morally d ange rous e ffe ct
as th e r e p e tit ion of any oth e r sol e mn an d soothing
formula like Om om padne om or a b raca d abra
n k I must
or t h e b l e sse d w or d M e sopotamia
I
thi
(
have tol d you of th e Scotsman w ho travelling in
R ussia d eclared that he ha d foun d a countr yman o f
his e arn ing an
liv el ihoo d b y b ecoming a
pri e st an d in a d m inister ing the Sacrament using the
w or d s I f it ll d o ye nae gui d it ll d o ye nae harm
to th e great e dicatio n o f th e R ussian peasants But
possi bly this was not Scotch b ut ol d Slavonic ) N o w
though I m ight try to un d e rstan d an d appr e ciate
an d hon e stly acce pt som e metaphysical formula a b out
of Aristotl e or Plotinus or Thomas
th e universe
Aquinas or H eg el or Schop e nhau e r that is quite a
d i ff e rent thing from asserti ng as a historical fact w hat
o ne has no e v id enc e fo r or may hav e e v i d e nc e against
E g Plato was the so n not of th e Ath e nian Ar iston
b ut o f th e Go d Apollo or Julius C ae sar was not
r eally kille d b ut b e cam e one o f th e Olympian go d s
b oth w hich statem ents were b eli e v e d an d in e ach o f
w hich I might r e cognise a moral truth ( the gra nd e ur o f
Plato an d th e perman e nt inu e nce of C ae sar ) b ut w hich
I Shoul d not fe el j usti e d in ass e rting as l iterally true
Suppose that again as in th e Ale xan d rian age th e
course o f progre ss w er e arreste d an d th e wh eels o f
intell e ct instea d of moving on th e min d wer e to turn
roun d on th e mselves sci e nti c philosophy might turn
.

M EM O I R

62

into d og matism and one could easily fra m e a creed

which thou g h quite true for on e self wo uld be mean
ingle ss if repeated by rustics and children
Whoso
eve r will b e saved ( from the ri d icule of all enlightene d
persons ) it is n e cessary above all t h in g s that he hold

D
ar
i
n
i
o
S pencerian fait h
the
And t h e D ar
w
winio Spen c erian faith is this : Evolution is a passin g
from an inde nite inco h erent h omogeneity to a de nite
co h erent heterog en e ity and from an unstable to a
stable equilibriu m in sa ecu la sa ecu lor u m
The
stru ggle for existence an ultimate fa c t natural selection
an ulti m ate fact survival of th e ttest an ulti m ate fact :
And yet they are not thr e e ultimate facts but one
ultimate fact
All k nowled g e is relative and of
phenomena only : all m etaphysical systems that profess
to reac h noum ena and enquire into the caus e s o f
u ltimate
facts shall wit h out d oubt peris h ev er last
,

On the problem of im mortality Ritchie occasionally

expre ssed opinions but wit h out coming to any quite
de nite conclusion H e discusses it briey in th e
Confessio F idei
8 an d in the M or a l P h ilosophy p 5 6
H e was more intereste d in the ethical consequences
of the belief in immortality than in t h e question o f
B elief in an abstract individual immortality
fact

the immortality of individual human souls naturally

indestructible and yet w ith a b eg inning in time was

of course inconsistent with th e general principles of
his thin k in g Apart from this he pointed out that
it is absurd to thin k it bound up with reli gion
B uddhism dreads it Ju d aism is w it h out it
It was
not al ways a C hristian d octrine an d it is really inco m

patibl e wit h theism It requires a theory of pluralism

Are w e not immortal j ust so far as w e cease to be

?
individual merely
His faith in society prevente d
h im from any craving for personal immortali ty H is
optimism his belief in h uman prog ress was so g reat
,

P H I LO S O P H I CA L

63

that he har dly re alis ed th e p e rtinacity w ith w hich

peopl e cl ing to th e hope of p e rsonal survival His
b eli e f in th e rationality an d t h e ultimate goo d ness o f
t h e un ivers e k e pt him from fe e ling th e n e e d of a ny
assuranc e s a b ou t himself a nd w hat w oul d happ e n to
him his w hol e int e rest lay in th e qu e stion o f n d ing
an d r ealising in this li fe th e w ill o f G o d th e i d e al
so far a s w e ar e a b l e to compreh e n d it
Thus for

i n sta nc e h e asks :
I f th e r e is no in d ivi d ual im
mortality ought an yon e to spe n d a life tim e in
spiritual cultivat io n w ithout pro d uc ing anythi ng
?
that w i ll help oth e rs
That seems to m e th e most
d i fficult moral pro b l e m rais e d b y th e d ou b t a b out

immortality
H e did fe e l th e d iffi culti e s w hich th e
b eli ef e nde avours to m ee t ; b ut h e thought it a goo d
thi ng fo r humanity that it shoul d r e main n e ith e r
prove d nor d isprov e d a hop e rathe r than a c e rta inty
or an illusion I n a l e tte r ( 1 886 ) he w rot e
Fo r
many ye ars I ha d give n u p~almost thinki ng a b out
th e qu e stion o f a futur e li fe an d ha d settle d d own
into a sort of acqui e sc e nc e in the id e a that all we
coul d aim at w as if possi bl e to l e a v e thos e w ho Shoul d
com e aft e r us in th e worl d b e tte r or at l e ast not w ors e
tha n ourse lv e s in th e struggle w ith the e v ils of
o ff
natur e an d huma nity
But it was your s everal times
coming b ack on t h e qu e stion D on t you think
?
f
th e r e is any future li e
that se t m e pon d e ring
ove r it again an d ma d e m e mor e cl earl y conscious
of w hat in som e w ay I coul d not h elp fe eling all

along ho w t e rri b ly hop el e ss l ife o ft e n s ee ms w ith

e ve rything
in kno wl e dg e in e motion in con d uct
e v e n at the b est so incomplet e
Practically I d on t
ere
et
b
e
no
b
this
I
think
th
can
eyon d
I
g
( )
satis factory arg u m e nt against the pro b ab ility o f a
futur e l ife for th e in d iv id ual
2
I
think
a
b
asi
s
( )
can b e foun d for moral ity apart from a ny hop e ( or fear)
of th e k in d ; b ut it is a rath e r stoical an d d espairing
.

M EM O I R

64

m orality ( 3 ) If t h e world and h uman life has a n

ethical purpose in it in so m e way or ot h er o u r
e ff orts m ust be not all i n vain ; and I beg in to see
that h umanity apart fro m its i ndividual m e m bers

is an u nreal abstraction but so also is t h e individual

apart from relation to others

I n these as in other matters Rit c hie h ad t r avelled
far in t h ou gh t from his early beliefs B u t h e h ad littl e
sympat h y wit h the explosive or t h e g ay manner

of revolution in t h in k in g
I li k e L iter a tu r e a nd

h e writes in a letter
b u t doesn t
D ogm a
?
I
M atthe w Arnold spread h is i d eas rather thin
t h in k it a very useful boo k m ore useful t h an more
scientic and learned wor k s B u t I don t thin k
one gains anyt h in g b y tryin g to deny to oneself or
others the saddenin g e ffect whic h comes from parting
with old ideas especially w h en t h at ma kes a break
not only in the natural piety t h at Should lin k our
days to g ether but in the possibility of mutual
understandin g between those who belon g in fact or
i n spirit to di fferent generations Still we ough t to

face all troubles

F irmly believin g in prog ress
both in thou gh t and in practice he was equally

convinced that it c annot ta k e place by leaps and

bounds
We m ay turn over a new leaf from tim e
to time ; but i t is folly to try to S k ip t h e whole
boo k except the last chapter The g ood of the future
i s rooted in the g oo d of the past and the present
and we shall only hind e r reform if w e i g nore t h is
I wis h for t h e sa k e of social reformers themselves
to be scrupulously j ust to anythin g of g ood in existin g
institutions and above all to be qu ite j ust to human
nat u re because it is only through what is g ood now
and throu gh the capacities of h u m an bein g s for
g reater g oodness t h at we can ever g et to a better
1
It was in this spirit t h at Rit c hie did all
socie ty
1 L tt r
1 887
.

,
.

65

P H ILO S O P H I C A L

his work in the b elief on the one hand that we

must have a compre hensive ideal lest w e lose our
lives in meaningl e ss littl e e fforts without a ny gr e at
e nd an d on th e other hand
that w e must not merely
re st in this i de al or procla im it as an a b stract d ogma
b ut d evelop it an d apply it in d etail n d ing it as we

realise it
If we ar e al ways gazing at th e mountain

e
i
t
top we Shall n ever r ach
not b eing a b le to y
We must b e content to follow the humbl e path through
forest an d gle n w h e re th e vie w o f the summit is
b id from u s though the thought of it is still in our
min ds W e must not d espise the d e tails of d uty in
th e citi z en s l ife t h e value of institutions though they
ar e human an d may often s eem to conceal the d ivine

en d we wish to attain
Fro m a M S n ot
,

e.

C O GI TA T I O

M ET A P H YSI CA

(
P

er

h aps

w ho

not ever
one
y

2
0
9

r ea ds

b eca u se it is

h or t

w ill gr u m b le

ot h ing h as b n m or inj u r io u s t P h ilosop h y t h a n m at h

ti
t h at i t h a n th im itatio n of it m t h o d in a sp h r wh r it
im poss ib l
f appl ic at io n
Ka n t Unt u h ng ith
di De t

N
ma

t h is

ee

c s,

s,

is
e o
lich heit der Gr u ndsatze den
'

WH AT

e e

'

er s c u

natttr lich en

Th eologie

u nd

er

e e

der M or a l
.

P H I L OS OP H Y ?

IS

ordinary k nowled g e we m ean w h at the Gree k s called

opinion i e u nsystematized isolated beliefs about
thin g s so far as they are consi d ere d true Sci e n c e is
systematized k nowled g e w hen some deg ree of u nica
tion h as been attaine d
T h e uni cation in science is
only partial ( as Herbert Spen c er says ) for scien c e or
rather t h e sciences can only proc e ed by brea k ing u p
t h e rough ly constructed w h oles of ordinary belief and
considerin g c ertain aspects of t h em to the exclusion of
ot h ers Thus th e procedure of the sciences necessarily
involves abstra c tion Th u s science i e the sum of the
existin g sciences still fails to satisfy the de m and for
unication Philosop h y w h ich in its orig in was not
d istinct from science and fro m whic h t h e sciences have

BY

WH AT

P H I L OS O P HY

IS

67

gradually differentiate d th e ms elves is the e ff ort after a

complete uni cation an d syste matization of kno wle dge
In ordinary life and in the sp e c ial sciences we assume
that the w orl d is some sort of cos m os or orde rly
system : philosophy is the attempt to know it as
such an attempt an e ffort onlyfo r complete k no w
ledg e is out o f our reach Ph ilosophy is the love
or striving a fter w is d om ( Pythagoras )
,

Uni cation system is the i deal of philosophy ;

but th e actual w ork it h as to do consists mainly i n
criticism F or th e purposes o f or d inary life an d of
the sp ec ial sciences we have to make a b stractions we
have to mak e assumptions we have to u se conceptions
w ithout testing them thus d ogmatism
e asily ris e s out o f the rough thinking o f or d inary life
an d out of the n e c e ssarily partial vie w s o f the special
scienc e s I t is th e b usiness of philosophy in its e ffort
to uphol d th e i d eal o f compl e t e uni catio n to t e st and
criticis e thes e partial an d one side d vi ews ; to e n
deav o u r to se e th e m in th e ir relation to one anoth e r
I n this aspect o f it ph ilosophy h as b een w ell call e d
th e cr iticism of categor ie s
Plato s phrase (Rep
VI I )
w
dg Od h m
s b rings out the d ou b l e asp e ct

o f philosophy
it is the looking at th ings as a w hole
an d it proc e e d s b y d ial e ctic examining e verythi ng
taking nothing for grante d
When philosophy attempts constructive system atiza
tion w ithout suffici e nt w arning that its ultimate con
str u ctio ns can only b e
tentative an d hypothetical it
is apt to see m an d to b e d ogmatism an d to provoke
sce pti c i sm ln th e w ork of philosophy generally
,

c vuo

r ut

ca

'

uco

~
3

Ph ilosophy is a kin d o f knowl e dge a kin d o f science

an attempt to r e alis e the i d eal of kno wledge an d
,

C O GI TA TI O

68

M E TA P H Y S I C A

scien c e It is a th inking consideration of t h e world

e
He
g
el
It
h
as
to
ta
k
e
account
of
f
elin
g
s
and
(
)
e m otions of t h e practi c al needs and the unsatised
a s pirations of m an k in d as part of the material to be
studied B u t p h ilosophy itself must be intelle c tual in
ch aracter Its business is to k now not to do ; to test
1
and critici s e not to preach H ence p h ilosophy can
never be popular The scien c es h ave all ori g inated in
man s prac tical needs ( g eometry was land m eas u re
2
m ent etc ) b u t t h ere is no science i n t h e strict sense
no p h ilosophy u ntil man g ets beyond t h e m ere cravin g
for t h e satisfa c tion of material wants and in the leis u re
of a civilised society can feel purely intelle c tual wants
3
and see k to satisfy them
T h ose boastfully pra c tical

per s ons who do not i ndulg e t h e desire to k now w h ic h

Aristotle per h aps ras h ly as c ribes to all man k ind though
t h ey may welco m e t h e material conveniences of scienti c
pro g ress do not h ave genuinely scienti c interests and do
not p h ilosop h ise P h ilosop h y cannot be m ade palatable
to them except by be c omin g false to its special end
.

Only confusion c an arise from tryin g to get over

p h ilosop h i c al diicu ltie s by app e alin g to pract ical needs
or to emotion or from expecting philosop h y to do
t h e wor k of relig ion poetry music coo k ery or
m edi c ine T h ere has indeed co m e down to u s from
t h e Gree k world along with t h e name of p h ilosop h y

t h e conception of it as a way of life

Pyt h ag oras
lover of wisdom was t h ou g ht of in later a g es as
a mixture of sag e and saint S toicis m Epi c ureanism
Neo Pythag ore anism Neo Platonism regarded philo
sophy primarily as a rule of life and as a substitute
T st ing th instr u m n ts m ay b m or u s fu l t h a n a ccumu lat i g
f
n
o b s rvat io ns w it h b a d instr um ts
N
ot
o
u
d
ls
wh
r
]
[
h
h
h
v
B
u
r
t
E
P
i
l
p
l
C f H ro d ot u s II
n
G
9
y
py
9
A r istotl M t ph I init
,

en

e a

1 0

ar

r ee

oso

e e
,

WH AT

69

P H I LO S O P H Y ?

IS

for r eligion : an d so came the ten d ency to d isparage

mer e kno wle d ge to su b ordinate th eory to practic e or
e v e n to emotio nal e cstasy
Philosophy to Plato and
Aristotl e was primarily a way o f t h inking a de sire
to kno w th e truth th e w hole truth an d nothing b ut
b ut kno wle dge was to inue nce pract ice as
th e truth
th e ory consc ie nt iously and s e riously h el d m ust always
d o T h e philosopher l ike the man of science m ust
d isc ipl in e himsel f to accept truth ho we ver it may
v iolate his privat e likings H e h as ho we ver to con
si d e r pro b l e ms rais e d b y those asp e cts of the univ e rse
an d of human l ife w h ich the sp e cialist in th is or that
natural scie nc e can altogether d isregar d
I t w ill not d o to alt e r th e multiplication ta ble
b e caus e we ar e g e tting into d e b t an d are afrai d of
poverty : it w ill not d o to twist our metaphysics in
d e anc e of corr e ct thinking b e cause we ar e unhappy
or Shrink from d eath N ee d s an d d esir e s se t going
all our thoughts as well as all our other activities ;
b ut n ee d s an d d esires of thems elves give u s no stan d ar d
of valu e Th e y must themselves b e estimate d What
is our t e st o f truth
What is our test of the relative
value s fo r human b eings of d i ff ere nt b eli e fs an d mo d es
?
o f con d uct
Th e se are the fun d amental questions o f
logic ( in the wi d est s e ns e) an d o f ethics
,

Philosophy cannot b e pro tably pursu e d apart from

consi d e ration of its history To stu d y our problems
fairly we must at the least un d e rstan d the w ay in which
th ey have com e to us To th ink w e can look our
que stio ns in the face una ffect e d b y w hat has b ee n
b el ieve d b y our pre d e cessors is a d elusion T h e very
languag e we u se is permeat e d b y the m e taphysics o f
t h e past
B e s id es if all pr e c e d ing systems wer e false
or worthless d oesn t this mak e it h ighly pro b a b l e that
Cf C n
fE i Fid i p
44
.

'

ss o

C O GI TA T I O M ETA P H Y S I CA

o
7

t h e new syste m will be false also ? W h ereas if all

c ontain some ele m ent of tr u t h and value if the h istory

of p h ilosop h y be itself p h ilosop h y ta k in g its ti m e

g radually wor k in g o u t its solution in a lon g process
of dialectic i e of discussion t h ere is a reasonable hope
t h at t h e new t h o ug ht g rowin g o u t of t h e old and
wor k ed out in relation to it will not be worthless
for t h e fut u re ( cf Aristotle Eth N ic VI I i
We may well distrust any p h ilosop h ical system whic h
be g ins by pro c laimin g itself entirely new Radicalism
to be useful m ust be based o n c onservatism and on a
reasonable respect for t h e wisdo m of t h e past
,

L O GI C

Lo g ic is the most suitable nam e for the whole

p h ilosop h ical s c ience w h i c h discusses t h e question of
Psyc h olo gy professes to deal
v alidity in k nowled g e
with k nowin g
only as a m ental pro
cess : it professes to be a science concerned with
descriptions of w h at is To lim it lo g ic to th e esti
mation of consistency and leave over t h e q u estion of

trut h for
epistemology may be c onvenie nt for
bibliographical or for elementary edu c ational purposes
but it is only a ma k eshift division We ca nnot sepa
rate t h e question o f consistency from t h e question of
truth
M oreover t h ere is a g ood historical reason
for usin g lo g ic to d enote t h e su bjects treate d of in t h e
P oster ior na lytics and not restrictin g it to so m e fra g
m ents of t h e P r ior na lytics and the De I nterp r eta tione
twisted a w ay from reality into a false resem b lance to
mat h ematics The imitation of mat h ematics has been
a curse to the philosop h ical sciences
S
n
t
.

ee

ex

LOG I C

Truth is often said to b e conformity of our thou ht

?
T h e only pure g
w ith facts But w hat ar e facts
act
i
e
t
h
e only fact into w hich th e re enters no e l e m e n t
(
of thinking o f mental construction ) is th e
o f theory
uninterprete d feeling or sensation w hich so long as
it is un int e rprete d means nothing an d cannot b e ex
press e d o r spoken a b out : an d pure facts moreove r
a r e facts only to the o ne
consc iousness that has the
fe eling an d at the moment at w hich the fe eling is
fe lt
I nt e rpr e tation even recognition of a fe eling as
such an d such ( classi cation) involves th e ory The
fact that th e su n ros e at 6 a m to d ay is a theory

an d a fals e th e ory though convenient

I saw the
prisoner on such a d ay in such a place is an inference
possi b ly e rroneous W hat are commo nly calle d facts
a r e statem e nts w hich ar e
acce pte d as tting in w ith
the actual or possi b le experi e nc e of mankin d in gen e ral
or of the exp erts in any special su bj e ct though they
may never d ire ctly have entere d into my e xp e ri e nce
or yours : e g that th e r e is a lonely rock on a littl e
v isite d portion o f th e Antarctic Ocean w hich very fe w
have s ee n or that there is such an d such an elem e nt
in th e atmosph e re of the su n or that Julius C aesar
was kill e d on such a day
All these facts are w ays
o f thinki ng w hich we acc e pt as vali d b e caus e they t in
w ith oth e r w ays of thinking an d oth e r parts of our an d
o ther p e opl e s e xp e rienc e w hich we acc e pt as vali d
T h e sole ult imat e t e st of truth is coh e r e nc e in
thinking an d exp e ri e nc e Exper ienc e inclu d e s thinking
an d th e pure facts of s e nsation an d feeling D escartes

sai d the t e st of truth was clear an d d istinct think

ing
h e meant th is principle of coherence or non
contra d iction (cf M eth od Part I V ; M edita tion
b ut h is phras e was unfortunat e b ecause it s ee me d to
I gnore all r e fe re nce to the ultimate fact of mere
.

C O GI TA T I O

2
7

M ETA P H Y S I C A

feelin g ( t h ou g h p enser cogita r e to D escartes c onscio u s

n ess in g eneral ) and beca u s e it seemed to sug g est
t h at by m ere e ff ort of individual ratiocination co m plete
systems of trut h c ould be built up
A S a matter of psyc h olo gical fact we c annot w h en
thin k in g clearly and distinctly ad m it a belief w h ic h is
inconsistent w it h t h e existin g mass of beliefs in o u r
m ind
Either we m ust rej e c t the new opinion w h ic h
claims our acceptance or we mu st readj ust o u r existin g
syste m of beliefs in suc h a way as to admit t h e new
opinion M ost persons very seldom t h in k c learly and
distinctly and it is impossible for u s to t h in k clearly
and distinctly abo u t o u r whole set of beliefs at on c e
Hence we very easily h old or t h in k w e h old in a
di m vag ue partly realised fas h ion all sorts of beliefs
w h ic h may turn o u t on examination to be inconsistent
wit h one anot h er ; or again we may carelessly rej ect
what is not really inconsistent with what we really
k no w and believe t h ou g h seemin gly inconsistent with
som e m ode in w h i ch we h ave been acc u stomed to
express it T h ese are the reasons w h y the test of
coheren c e or non contradiction or inconceivability of
t h e opposite h as been rejecte d by so m e ( e g M ill ) as
not an infallible test of truth

No proof of t h is u ltimate axiom can be g iven

e x cept by r edu ctio a d a hsu r du m which is an appeal to

the axiom itself Anyone w h o deni e s it must m aintain
that contradi c tory state m ents can bot h be true ( at t h e
sam e ti m e in th e sam e re ference
If so h e must
ad m it t h at t h e axiom itself can be tr u e as well as false
in t h e same sense To deny the axio m is to ma k e

discussion impossible as was seen b y th e Cynics m ore

k een S ighted than modern empiricists
A ll thin k in g all e ff ort to k now and understand the
u niverse in howe ver partial a way ma k es t h e assu m p
tion that so far at least as we can understand it it
i s intelli g ible i e it is a c o h erent rational system
,

L OG I C

73

Philosophy which aspire s to kno w the univers e as a

w hole mak e s the assumption that th e universe as a
whol e is o ne coherent int elligi bl e syste m though th e re
may be much that to min d s such as ours must always
r e main unint ell igi b l e We kno w in part b ut so far
as we really claim to kno w w e assume cohere nc e or
syst e m in what we stu d y We put d o w n th e u n
int elligi b l e to d efe cts in our pre s e nt state of k no wl e dge
To assert that anything that is ultimately real is ab so
lu tely unint ell igi bl e to any int ell ig e nc e w hate ve r w oul d
b e to claim to poss e ss a point of vi e w from w hich
w e coul d survey th e w hol e an d see the chaos as chaos
To e sta bl ish
e xisting alongsi d e o f th e or d e rly part
th e e xistence of a re al e l e m e nt w hich coul d not b e
kno w n in its relation to t h e w hole woul d r e quire us to
kno w w hat b y our profe ssion we cannot kno w Ther e
is ho w ever no n e c e ssary r ej e ction of th e ultimat e prin
c i le
of
coherence
involv
in
a
syst
w
hich
is
ed
em
p

d ualistic or pluralistic so far as to r e cognis e th e

con d itioning an d l imitation of the principle of or de r
an d unity b y the imperfe ction w ith w hich it is mani

fe ste d ( manife st e d to u s that is all we can j u d g e

of
i
n
the
w
orl
d
of
app
e arance or b y t h e coexist e nc e
)
of beings o f d i ff ere nt grad e s of per fe ction The prin
c i le o f coh e renc e by no m e ans
commits
us
to
any
p
a b stract syst e m of monism
,

Truth is o ne an d in d ivis ible in t h e sense that the

unive rs e is o ne syst e m ; b ut in th e o ne system there
may b e many s u b or d inat e syst e ms e ach o f w h ich is
a cosmos or worl d though not th e unive rse ( 6 wa
6 Sh ) ; an d in the o ne system an d in e ach o f such
sub ord inate syst e ms th e r e are many asp e cts an d as we
know part ially a nd incompl e t ely we ar e le d to sp eak o f
th e re be ing m or e than o ne kin d of truth F or we

Cf
Th O
pp 7 99
d th M a y
,

ne

an

2 0

s,

M ET A P H Y S I C A

C O GI TA T I O

74

att e r o u rs elves and say we know som ething to be

tru e when it is very far Short of the whole truth and

nothing but th e truth

I t is thus that we may hold
that there c an only be one true philosophy and yet that
all the g reat and serious philosophi c al systems are so
They seem to conict w ith one
far true and vali d
anoth e r because and in so far as one accentuates som e
element or aspect which is neglected in others
,

~
9

The principle of Identity the principle of C ontra

diction (o r rather non contradiction ) and t h e prin c ipl e
of Excluded M i d dle ar e di ffe rent aspects of this fun d a
mental principle o f coh e r e nce in its most abstract form
They are absolut ely valid if applied strictly but t h ey
can be applied strictly only to what is a b stract A
must be A in the strict sense in which we spea k of th e
sa m e line or t h e same quantity i n abstract m athe
mati e s ; and that A must be either B or not
B is only
n e c e ssarily true if not B is ta k en in the strict s e nse of
the nom en or ver h u m in nitu m applicable ali k e to that
which e xists or w hich do e s not exist provide d only
it be no t B in the strict sense of B
I n ordinary
languag e and even in t h e lan g uage we u se in the
more concr e te scien c es w e d o not sp e a k i n this stric t
sense o f i d entity an d contradiction We d o not thin k
it w orth while to assert that a person is identical wit h
hims elf unless he is in certai n respects di fferent ( e g if
meeting a man after many years have changed him we

sa
he
is
still
the
same
We
often
contra
sa
y
y
dic to r y when w e mean the logical contrary ; and even

w hen w e expressly frame nom ina in nita like not bad

non human they do not apply to the whole of the

universe actual an d possi ble outside the bad and th e

C f A r istotl
M t ph III 3
h
b
m
i
O
d
i
5
9
m
9
1

U CL

PX

GLV

1 00

W GPX ELV G OUVGT OV

a

Ka t

Cf
Th e
.

r lat io n
e

of

GUT

K a t K GT G. T O GU 7 0

lo g ic to psy c h olo gy p

44

L OG I C

75

human

an d th e y com e in u se to acquir e a p o sitiv e

co nnotation H e nce it is that the se fun d am e ntal logical
principl e s ca nnot b e appli e d d irectly or w ithout ve ry
gre at caution to the solution of any concre te pro b lem
N eve rth el e ss th e y r e main th e ult imat e t e st o f truth
e v e n h e re
T h e appare nt exc e ptions that have b een
all eg e d com e from stat e ments being ma d e in confuse d
form w ithout all th e con d itions b eing cl e arly state d

T h e Antipo d e s can b e call e d (a )

conc e ivabl e or

o f gravita
inconc
accor
d
ng
as
w
e
think
h
e ivabl e
i
( )
tion ( a ) as a force acting in th e d ir e ction of th e great e st
mass or (h) as a forc e acting in the d ir e ction o f an

a b solute d o w n
I f we think s e riously of gravitation

as involving such an a b solute d o w n the Antipo d e s

a r e in conc e ivabl e to us still
T h e follo w e rs of H e racl itus ( 6 (p i w s H p A l
n
may
hav
e us e d h is d icta to justify th e m in th e
{ )
a b solut e sc e pticism an d impossi b il ity of pre d ication
w hich they rightly e nough d e d uc e d from the d e n ial o f
th e principl e of C ontra d iction
H e raclitus hi ms elf w as
n o t thinking o f t h e logical principl e w hich ha d not
et
y
b e en formulate d H e w as striving to e xpress th e i d ea
that everything that is actual in th e unive rs e involve s a
unity o f opposit e s : nothing can b e u nd e rstoo d pro
perly in b are a b stract sel f i d e ntity I n mo d e rn phrase
w e see th e truth of w hat h e m eans b y consi d e ring th e
inapplica b ility of m e r e math e matical conc e pts to th e
w orl d o f concr e t e human interests We may speak of
Semi Pe lagians b ut h e w as more math e matician than
the ologian w ho d escri b e d a P elagian as e qual to t w o
Se mi Pelagians
We cannot re move a positive qua n
t ity from o ne Si d e of an e quation w ithout a dd ing it a s a
n egative quantity to th e othe r ; b ut w e must not
argu e like M r Sp e ncer that eve ry new la w nece ssarily
,

e /

a d /( o

aK

eI r

Ar istotl M t ph
I f ot h i g w r a b sol u t ly c rta i
ot h i g c o u l d v b pro b
a b l ot h i g c o u l d b d i d ( C f A r istotl M t ph IV
1

e a

1010

e e

en e

1 1

n, n
.

e a

en
.

C O GI TA T I O M ET A P H Y S I CA

6
7

d iminishes liberty unless we expre ssly de n e li b erty as

mere absence of la w which is what no practical citi z en
means by it John L oc k e spo k e more wisely when he

sai d : Where there is no law there is no liberty

,

10

The principle of su ffici e nt reason is t h e principle o f

c oherence in its more concrete aspect In se e k in g to
interpret the world in which we nd ourselves we
ass u me t h at it is a cos m os that is to say t h at events

and thin g s cannot be regarded as isolate d they form

parts of one syste m Explanation in t h e scienti c
sen se consists Simply in ta k i ng thin g s or events out of
their isolation and seein g them in relation to wider
and w ider aspects of the whole Scienti c description
classi cation ex planation ( if we dra w distinctions
b et w een them ) are di fferent g rades of the same pro
c e ss of linkin g t h in g s toget h er b y the b ond of a reason
or cause (Plato M eno 9 8 A )
Wh ether we call the prin ciple of universal causa
tion an d t h e principle of the u nifor m i ty of nature
ultimate axiom s an d presuppositions of all science
or regar d t h em as scienti c theories accepte d g radually
and only as yet by scie nti cally trained m inds depen d s

entirely on wh at we m ean b y causation and by

nature
T h e fundamental principle of coherence is one w ith

out which we could have no e xperience ( not merely

no science ) we shoul d have nothin g but a succession

of isolated sensations ( or rather to u se a more careful
psychology) a shifting changing blur of confusio n

w hich could only be cal led experi e nc e by court e sy

There would be no de nite things with d e nite
characteristics amid their changi ng aspects suc h as
to allow recog nition ( identi cation) and classi cation
S o c ial fa c tor i th a x io m f th u n ifor m ity f at u r ( Roy c
Th W ld nd th I ndi id l V l II
p
S
nd
f
5
.

,
,

,
.

or

ua

ee

e,

LOGI C

77

M ere

nami ng o f things involv e s ide ntity an d non

contra d iction ; A must b e A an d not other than A
A principl e
maj or pr e m ise ) may b e the logical
pre suppos ition of an infe rence although it is not ye t
formulat e d in w or d s an d though p e rsons of no training
in the u se o f a b stract language might fail to recognise
it or a d mit its truth though th e y had b e en using it
as a principl e of argum e nt all alo ng

Ax ioms ar e often calle d imme d iate

sel f evi d e nt

a
e n to m isu nde r
or i
All
such
phrases
are
op
r
i
p
stan d ing The vie w here taken of axioms d o e s not
imply that axioms ar e got at w ithout any trou b le by
Simply looking at th e m
th e y are

En
imm e d iate only in the s e nse o f not b e ing
d e d uctive conclus ions from highe r axioms ; s elf evi d e nt
o nly in the s e ns e o f not having th e ir val id ity prove d

i
w
b
y
e
x
p
though
e rienc e
e xperi e nc e o f their
(
)
succ e ssful w orking pro duce s convict ion ( dnh ii ) in the
min d an d makes u s realise th e m vivi d ly They ar e
a
or i not in the sens e of b eing in th e min d as fully
i
r
p
forme d pr incipl e s prior in time to th e u se mad e of
th e m but only in t h e sens e of logical priority Th e y
ar e not d ep e n d e nt upon e xp e rienc e
e on th e u se o f
i
(
th e m in e xpe ri e nc e ) for th e ir vali d i ty ; b ecause ex pe r i
enc e is d e pen d e nt on their vali d ity b e ing presuppos e d
I f we ar e consi d ering psycholog ically th e gro w th an d
history o f our proce ss e s of cogitation it is important
to notic e that our o w n re cogn ition o f our sel f i d e ntity
ami d changing e xp e ri e nc e ( a re cognition that is not

f
e
o
a matt r
imm e d iate perception but of su b conscious
in fe r e nce ) an d o f our po w er of so far controlling the
move m e nts of our bo d ie s the course of our thoughts
an d things in th e w orl d aroun d us give s us an original
type o f un ity ami d d i ffer e nc e of su b stanc e an d attr i
b ute an d o f cause an d e ff e ct
I t is important also if w e ar e stu dying th e history
C f inf
p 8 d B r k l y P in ipl of H m n Kn wl dg 7
.

z ecr a

'

vr o r a x u

ac

r a,

10

an

e e

es

e,

M ET A P H Y S I C A

C O GI T A T I O

8
7

hu m an civilization to notice that practical nee d s

in a narrowly mat e rial sense h ave given the starting
point for what have afterwards de velop e d into sciences
e rations
a ntea
an
d
practical
consid
may
cf
(
continue to a ff ect the interpretation put upon principles

use d in science Thus th e warning about plurali ty

of cause s ( which is an application of t h e logical

rule t h at we cannot argue safely from the air m atio n
of the consequent in hypothetical syllo gisms) is only
ne c essar y if we ta k e cause and e ffect i n the sense
in w h ich they are used i n ro ug h practical lan g uage
T h e sam e e ff ect only follo w s from di ff erent causes

if we are in t h e h abit of expressin g our causes

t
h
e
point
where
our
control
over
things
comes
in
)
(

much more carefully t h an e ff ects e g if we want

to k ill an animal for food it may not matter w h ether an
arrow or a bullet or a k nife d oes th e wor k : if we
want to k ill simply to g et it out of the way we may
use poison drownin g dynamite as well F rom a
strictly scienti c point of vie w d e ath fro m any one
of th ese cau ses is not t h e same e ff ect as death from
another of the m
B u t the lo g ical question of validity is distinct from
these psycholo g ical and h istorical questions of ori g in
The principle of co h erence in its most abstract form
an d in its more concrete applications is valid b ecause
without it experience and the s c iences w oul d b e im
possible I f any ing enious sceptic or empiricist arg ues
that this only Sho w s that it is a convenient m e th o do
logical postulate a wor k in g hypothesis whic h may after
all be false we n e e d not fe el disturbed in our assurance
of th e certainty of the pri nciple ; for t h e presupposition
of all k no w le dg e and of all experience has g ot t h e best
testimony to its validity for k nowledge t h at any pro
position can possibly have
Without the assumption ( h owever little reco g nised
in consciousness) of the prin c iple of c ausation in its
of

LO G I C

79

vaguest form i e ev e rything that happ e ns has a cause

i e som e thing w ith w hich it happens w ithout w hich

or
w
ithout
som
analogous
to
w
hich
this
to
e thing
(
allo w for plurality of causes it w oul d not happen
w ithout the assumption o f uniformity of natur e in th e
vagu e sens e in w h ich that is involve d in the principle
of causation ( for if w hat is the same cause d i d not
pro d uce the sam e e ffect wh e n trie d un d e r favoura b le
con d itions we should not regar d it as the caus e)
without the assumption of such gen eral princ ipl e s c o n
ne c tin
our
experienc
e there coul d b e no e xperienc e
g
at all ; b ut such pr I nCI ples in th e se vague forms ar e
quit e compati ble w ith th e ru d e st an d w il d e st beliefs
a b out w hat sort of agenci e s can b e caus e s an d a b out
th e cont e nts of natur e
The unscie nt i c pe rson w ho
b el ie v e s that running wat e r w ill stop a w itch or that
human sacr i ce w ill avert th e w rath of the gods
b elieve s in the princ iple o f causation an d of the same
cause pro d ucing th e sam e e ffect un d e r prop e r con
ditio ns as much as th e man of sc ienc e w ho r ej e cts
th e se ag e nc ie s as u nv er iable hypoth e se s and accepts
the agency of physical chemical an d phys iological forc e s
of which th e mass o f mankin d k no w s noth ing T h e
progress of sci e nti c k no wl e d g e changes the cont e nt of

t h e conc e ptions of
caus e an d natur e : it d oes
not alte r or increas e th e val id ity of th e principle o f
coh e renc e except so far a s it mak e s people r ealis e more
vivi dly the indisp e nsa b l e n e ss an d th e unive rsal applic
a b ili ty of th e principl e W hat was at rst a mere
formal principl e
Everything or at least every chang e

for
at
rst
peopl
d
on
t
trou
b
le
a
b
out
explainin
e
(
g
what has al ways b ee n there : th e thing that has b een
is taken fo r grant e d : only the ne w ra ises the q u e stion

?
w hy ) has a cause ; but anything may b e the cause

o f anything
gains in d e pth an d m e aning as the pre cis e
nature of th e coh e r e nce of things comes to be un der
stood
,

M ET A PH Y S I C A

C O GI T A T I O

80

1 1

At a very early stage in the history of Gree k scienc e

it was seen that we m ust assume the conservation of
matte r ( om nia m u ta ntu r nil inter it) if science is to be
possible T h is principle or its modern equivalent or
supplement th e conservation of energ y does not
involve the assumption that the universe is nite nor
is it inconsistent with the admission t h at matter or
What t h e principle
e nergy may be in nit e in quantity
as the postulate of all accurate scienti c Work m eans
is that in any given section of the universe w h ic h we
can isolate from t h e rest
the substances contained
in a particular test tube ; a g ive n quantity of coal etc )
the sum of matter and of energ y remains the same
so that all appa r ent loss or increase is a proble m that
requires to be accounted for Suc h postulates gain
in acceptance when it is seen that their requirem e nts
can be ful lled i n scienti c investigation even in many
cases wher e it s e em s most di f cult to do so ; but t h e
log ical validity of t h e postulate re ally rests on an
application of the g eneral principle of coherence We
satisfy only the pictorial imag ination which k nows that
light may appear out of darkness sound out of silence
etc an d not the thin k in g reason if we acquiesce in
the lazy solution that thing s may sprin g into existe nce

or go out of existe nc e in a mysterious fashion or

at the bidding of an almighty conj urer

Other scienti c maxims such as Oc c a m s raz or

entia non su nt m u lti lica nda
r a eter necessita tem
and
the
p
(
p
)
principle of C ontinuity ( na tu r a non f a cit sa ltu m ) are in
the same w ay ch e cks upon our in d olence T h e y
prohibit us from falling back upon a co m m onsens e
acquiescenc e in laz y picture thin k in g The y k eep
b efore us the ideal of natur e as a coher e nt intellig ible

system however chaotic and irregular it may yet

appe ar to u S At the same time such max ims may
,

L O GI C

81

b e foolishly as w ell as w isely appli e d G aps prove

sc ience incompl e te ; b ut w e must not stop them up b y
am b iguous phras e s or b y m e r ely m e taphorical or ana
logical expla nat ion N ew el e ments o r forc e s must have
th e ir cr e de ntials ve ry care fully e xamin e d ; b ut w e must
o ft e n a d mit our classi cation to b e incomplete rath e r
than mak e rash i d e nti cations
T h e or d inary sci e nti c hypoth e sis is put for w ar d to
b e prov e d or disp r ov ed : if these fun d am e ntal axioms
or postulates of science coul d b e d isprove d sc ie nc e
w oul d com e to an en d W hat w oul d b e the u se o f
t h e chemist s la b orious analysis if portions of matter
coul d d o dge in an d out o f th e ph ysical un iverse
an d if an i d e ntical su b sta nc e b e hav e d in totally d i ffe rent
w ays in com b ination w ith another su b stanc e on d i ff e r
?
e nt occasions
W hy shoul d we w aste ours elve s in
searching fo r the caus e s of things if things may occur
w ithout any caus e s whateve r or if th e r e ar e no xe d
law s to b e d iscove re d ? T h e sci e nti c work e r Sh e w s
a faith in th e rationality o f the unive rse ( a faith h eld
b y him in sp it e o f th e s e em ing chaos of acci d e nts h e
e ncount e rs : the sc e ptic as to th e a b solut e vali d ity of
)
the fun d am e ntal pri nciples of log ic may or may not
b e acting in th e supposed int e r e sts o f th e ology but
it is only an irrationalist theology that h e can hope
to b ene t He may render pro b ab le th e existence
of the w arring go d s o f Olympus or e ven some l e ss
respecta bl e po we rs ; but h e is not helping to prove
the existe nce o f th e e ternal an d unchang ing I ntelli
g e nc e w ho is sai d to have ma d e man in h is o wn
image an d there fore capa b l e to some extent of un d e r
stan d ing his working
.

12

I nfe re nce the special su bj e ct of logic in its narrower

sense ( an d th e c e ntral su bj ect of logic in any sense )
is b est studie d in its cleare st and most distinct forms
,

C O GI T A T I O M E TA P H Y S I CA

82

applying analysis ( d Am } is an older and perhaps

a better name than A y m ) to them we d iscover the
essential elements of valid inference and are thus a b l e
afterw ards to d etect them in the more rudimentary
forms We understand the lo w er from t h e point of
view of the hi g h e r that has develope d out of it Aris
to tle too k as th e special material for his analysis of
scienti c inferenc e the inferences of geometry the
most advanced science of the time
The rst g ure
of the syllog ism is the form in whic h we apply ge neral
principles to less g eneral or individual cases : it is t h e
form of demonstrative scien c e
I n it alone can we
establish with c e rtainty A propositions
T h e t h ird
g ure is of u se in refutin g universal propositions a f r
m ative or ne g ative : and for refutation I or O is
enou g h T h e second g u re is use d in ta k in g an in
dividual or a g roup de nitely out of a class or from
un d er t h e application of a g eneral rule The h ypo
thetical syllogism where we deny th e consequent
a m estr es or Cesa r e
C
is
one
of
its
most
important
form
s
(
)
The second g ure also forms one o f our m ost common
but m erely pro b able ( and often treac h erous ) form s of
M c o s)
inference AAA ( the enthymeme in F i g 2
is the form of our unconscious or subconscious infer

e nc es
j udgments we call them ) of perception our
in ferences o f practical identication circumstantial evi
d e nce d iag nosis etc The t h ird g ure with an A con
e lusion is the type of inductive g eneralisation of t h e

ruder sort M ore careful inductions ( so called )

T h A r istot l ia n lo g ic h as b n rst n arro w d t h n c ar ic a
d th
t
atta c k d d ig ora tly r j c t d
Fig I i th b r i g ing f a part ic u lar ( i
ind iv id u al ) c as or
c as s ith r w h olly part ially u nd r a g n ral r u l a f r m at iv
n g at iv
Fig II i th
x cl ud ing f a part icu lar c as
c as s it h r
w h olly or part ially fro m a g ral r u l i m ti
n g at iv
Fig III i th proo f f th ( part ial ) c o in c id n c
d isa g r m n t
f c rta i c h ara c t r ist ic s t h ro ug h n x a m pl
x a m pl s u s d d
n it ly
in part va g u ly
By

ua

ucr

'

ur e

en

e.

ee

an

or

e e

or,

e e

e,

e,

e or

e or

ene

ve

or

or

or

ee

L OG I C

83

represent the b ringing of cas e s un d er a rul e or e x

clu d ing them from a rule ( Ba r h a r a or Ca m estr es)
Mill s in d uctive canons ar e maj or premise s o f th e
rst or s e con d gures
.

S ci e nce

is a d vanc e d not b y m e r e accumulations of

facts an d gen e ralisations from the m Mere facts teach
nothing
S ci e nc e is a d vanc e d b y th e framing of
hypotheses ( i e b y guessing at causes ) b ase d upon our
e xist ing se t o f b e l ie fs
Scienti c hypoth e s e s must be
such as to b e capa b l e of proof or d isproo f or at l e ast
of b eing ren d er e d more or l e ss pro b ab l e b y t e sts applie d
in p a r i m a ter ia
The only us eful obs e rvations or
accumulatio ns of facts are those ma d e un d e r th e gui d
ance of som e hypothesis or se t of alte rnative hypotheses
Exp e rim e nts al w ays presuppo s e an h ypothesis of w hich
they are the t e st
T h e proce d ur e o f or d inary life is logically of the
sam e kin d as that o f th e sci e nces o f o b servation an d

exp erim e nt though it is carrie d on in l e ss care fully

guard e d an d in l e ss conscious fashion Eve ry perc e pt ive
j u d gment is an hypoth e sis to account for a sensat ion
This looks soli d This is w oo d not stone ; This hill
must b e 1 0 mil e s
Eve ry p e rc eptive j u dgment
is thus an inference ( an e nthymem e in F ig
T h e metho d of philosophy is of the sam e character
We fram e hypotheses to account for the facts We
thro w out gu e sses an d must then proc e e d to test them
We make th ese guesses on the b asis o f our accepte d
syst e m o f b eliefs H e nce th e importance of th e history
o f philosophy an d of th e crit icism o f conc e pts
Hence
it is that philosophy s ee ms so much occupie d with dis
cussing the m eaning o f wor d s and the m e aning o f
ancient theories It must d o so if we ar e not to b e
the victims o f idola for i and th ea tr i The ultimate
Cf Ar istotl M t ph I
nd
.

e a

C O GI T A T I O M E TA P H Y S I C A

84

hypotheses of speculative philosophy ( ultimate m eta

physical o r ontolo gical or cosmological th e ories ) can
n e ve r a d mit of veri cation o f th e kin d w hich is possi b le
wh e re w e can u se scienti c facts such as those of
chemistry or can look to se e wh e ther e g a suppos e d
planet e xists in such a r egion o f the heave ns They
are however q uite analogous to wider scienti c hypo
theses such e g as those d eali ng with th e ori g in of
species the ne b ular hypot h esis hypotheses about the

past ge olo g ical history of the earth which can only be

H made more or less probable accordin g as t h ey t b ett e r
with the known facts If w e start w it h an initial faith
in the rationality of the universe we m ust include
a m ong the facts whic h ultimate metaphysical theories
must account for and with which they must h armonise
the prevalence of relig ious beliefs and philosophical

theories
at
certain
times
We
cannot
expect
to
nd
7
all these beliefs and theories true ( for many of them
are contra d ictory of each other an d some are full of
inner contra dictions) but we mu st account for their
prevalence and should hope to Show that havin g been
widely hel d they h ave had so m e value for h uman bein g s
.

M ET/ {P H YS I CS
1

With in w h at is g enerally called

M etaphysi c s

Aristotle
s
F
irst
Philosophy
we
may
distinguis
h
(
)
from speculative philosophy the indispensable work of
c riticis m of cate g ories w h ic h includes t h e
e iste
p
m o lo gical proble m :
How is k nowled g e possible or

what are the conditions of vali d intellectual processes ?

T h is proble m is at once a necessary part of lo g i c
in t h e fu ll sense of that ter m ( cf above 6 ) an d a
2
necessary preliminary of speculative metap h ysics
It
C f Ar istotl Eth N i VII
5

Cf
M tap hys ic s nd Ep ist m olo g y p 1 7 5

c.

M E T A P HY S I C S

85

is prel iminary ho w e v e r only in th e s e ns e of logical

priority : we cannot k ee p our min d s free of all gue ss e s
a b out the ultimat e nature o f things till w e have s e ttle d
the con d itions of human kno wl e dge F or our min d s
are alre a d y inuenc e d b y theori e s of th e past w hich we
hav e inherit e d in th e i n t ellectual atmosphere we br e athe
an d we cannot e xamin e th e m e re form o f kno wl e d ge
e xc e pt in r e fe r e nc e to some matt e r or cont e nt
The
pro b l ems of th e th e ory o f kno wl e d ge or th e critic ism
o f pur e reason ar e b e st tr e ate d th e refor e in conn e ct ion
w ith th e various cat egori e s w hich we ar e in th e habit
of using in thinking a b out th e w orl d Exist e nc e
R e ality Ex pe rie nc e Space an d Tim e C aus e Su b
stanc e Min d an d Bo dy Nature an d Sp irit Such are
some of th e fun d ame ntal concepts w hich must b e

e
d alt w ith b y w hat we may call logic if w e tak e that

i
s
e
inclu d ng the w hol pro ble m of kno wl e dg e o r if we
a
r e strict logic specially to the consi d e ration of infere nc e
an d th e proce ss e s imme d iately conn e cte d with it we
may call it m e taphysical criticism But as we cannot
d iscuss the mean ing o f th e s e concepts w ithout consi d e r
ing th e ir relation to one a noth e r w e cannot s e parate
m e taphysical criticism from some hypothesis
o ff this
a b out th e ultimat e nature of things
,

I t d oes no t matter w heth e r we say to b eg in with that

metaphysics d eals w ith Re ality as such ( or th e ultimat e
natur e of Re alit y ) or that it d eals w ith e xp e rience as a
w hol e ; for R e ality can 0 y
far a s
an
To b egiii b y assuming that there is a R eality w hich
falls entir ely outsi d e all possi b le experi e nce of ours is
to assum e that we kno w th e existenc e of that of
w hich we pro fe sse d ly ca n not know anything not
e ven
w heth e r it e xists or not F or to profe ss to
know th a t something exists w hilst w e cannot know at
,

C O GI T A T I O M E TA P H Y S I C A

86

all

exists

it is is to make our that and

so a b solutely empty of meanin g that we might quite

w ell substitute does not exist for exists

If I
I
k
no
w
there
is
an
animal
in
that
hole
but
I
don
t
sa
y
k now w hat sort of animal it is I say somethin g ; but
I at least profess to kno w that it is an animal ( which
m eans somethin g to m e) and by Sayin g it is in t h at
hol e I mean something about its size habits etc I f
however I say that the ultimate R eality is altog et h er
un k nowable I say what m eans nothin g ; and t h ose w h o
say this sort of thin g will be found to g o on to spea k
of this U n k nowable as a F orce or Power or to treat it
as an obj ect of reverence
which is to determ ine in
however vag ue a way wh a t it is
Experi e nce h owever if treated as t h e obj ect of
J m etaphysics m ust be ta k en in the widest sense t h e
sense i n whic h it includes t h ou g ht and must not be
limite d to sensation and feelin g In ordinary usage it
is often specially applied to feelin g in antithesis to

tho ug h t I have an idea it may be said of w h at

you are spea k in g about but I have never experienced

it an d yet an idea is surely an experien c e thou g h it
may ma k e a very Slight impression on the mind On
t h e other han d the fact that I have an experience in the
sense of having a feelin g or a s e nsation does not of
itself tell u S anything about the value nor even a hou t th e
na tu r e of the feeli ng or sensation
Th e feelin g or
sensation may be wron gly interpreted b y me ( i e
wron gly th ough t about ) or it may be a very d isagree
able fe e li ng o r o ne that I may come to hold that I
ou g ht not to have experienced or ough t at least not to
encourag e Experiences are of all sorts Religio u s
an d artistic emotion extend a m an s experience ; but so
also will O pium eatin g and drun k enn e ss and vice and
crime and temporary insanity The most experienced
person in t h is sense mig ht be th e person who combined
relig io u s emotion with crime and sens u al excesses of all
wh a t

M E TA P H Y S I C S

87

sorts W h e n w e Sp e ak how ever w ith respect about

an exp e ri e nc e d person we m e an a p e rson w ho has
,

m e r ely felt b ut h as d on e a gr eat d eal of thinking

practical think ing in d e e d b ut st ill thinking
W heth e r an experi e nce is val u a b le or not ( valua b le
to the in d i v i d ual an d to oth e rs ) must d e p e n d on tests
of reaso n an d o f social cohesion an d social progress
D
o
1
e s t h e exp e rienc e mak e you a w is e r m a n mor e
( )
?
2
cl ear hea d e d more capa b l e of j u dg ing san e ly
( )
D o e s it mak e you more us eful to your fello w citiz ens
?
m
your fello w e n Th e se ar e the t e sts b y w hich we

j u dge e thically th e valu e b oth of luxury and of

asc e ticism It w ill b e s ee n that th e y ar e particular
applications of our ge n e ral te st o f coh e renc e ; an d that
t e st in its Sp e c ially intelle ctual form must be applied
w h e n we are e stimating the valu e for kno w le dg e o f any

in d ivi d ual s e xp e ri e nc e
D o e s it as interpre te d by
th e in d ivi d ual ( an d it must b e interpre te d b y concepts
in order to b e communicate d to oth e rs) cohe re with the
rest o f his exp e rienc e ( as int e rprete d) an d w ith the
e xperienc e of oth e rs
as
int
e rpr e t e d an d communicated
(
b y them ) A S a matt e r of history it is inte resting to
note that th e nee d s of social coh es ion ar e w hat lea d to
t h e a d option of xed stan d ar d s of j u d ging b et w e e n true
an d false ; b ut the practical n e e d s of social coh e sion are
not
th e logical proof o f the vali d ity o f theoretical
(
r
V
o
o
s
i
t
i
n
i
ery
rough
approximat
ons
an
d
partly
o
s
gp
p
e rron e ous b e liefs w ill o ft e n d o w ell e nough m e r e ly to
e na b l e p e opl e to un d erstan d one anoth e r s w ants and
e t on tog e th e r
h
That
e e arth is at that th e e arth
t
g
do e s not move that t h e su n goes ro u n d the earth that
th e re is an a b solute up an d d o w n in the universe are
principl e s that have d on e perfectly well as a b asis for
social coh e sion ( at an early stag e of the w orl d s history )
Knowl e dg e is not th e pro d uct o f m ere in d ivi d ual
activity any more than con d uct our language the

if

M ET A P H Y S I C A

C O GI T A TI O

88

system of u a Cr S ltleS m easures weights stored up

exp e rienc e a b out the world previous theorie s religions

etc are our social h e ritage T h e solitary thin ke r

is d e pen d ent on the society w hich h as made it possible
fo r him to think w ith a certain d eg ree o f clearness and
with a certain amount o f material to thin k about ( con
tent for h is thoug hts ) an d t h e society in its turn may
g ain from the wor k of the unpractical savant or philo
sop h er a g eneral pro g ress throu g h gainin g power over
nat u re over h uman nature over inherite d delusions
1

and idola
Practical utility was the source of the
m ultiplication table of tables of log arith m s etc
but

their trut h ( validity) depends on considerations of c lear

and d istinct thin k in g absolutely certain and not on th e

u c tuatin g consideration of w h at is or may be u seful
,

Reality

It is customary to oppose Thou gh t to

a mere idea is contrasted with w h at is real ideas
are val ued only if they correspon d to reality This

common sense distinction cannot however b e rig idly

m aintained
Reality is a very ambiguous term ; an d
in no intelli g ible sense can it be entirely opposed to
2
t h o ugh t
,

Existence as a pre d icate seem s separate from mean

in g ( or validity ) only if both be taken in a very abstract
way T h e co nception of a m at h e matical gur e m ay
be easily distin g uished from an actual d iag ram occupy
in g a certain portion of space and made at such an d
such a time What exists is al ways individual ; mean
in g is always a u niversal or some combination of
u niversals B u t if in meani ng we include t h e possi
b ility of realisation as e g in a rectilineal trian g le as
C f H ux l y M eth d
nd R
lt p 5 3

Cf
Wh at i R al ity ? in D win nd H g l pp 8 87 9
.

o s a

esu

s,

ar

e e

1,

M ETA P HY S I C S

89

d istinct from a rectilin eal b iangle we se e that the

latte r gure has no m e aning i e it involv e s contra

d iction an d so cannot exist

A m ap of a larg e islan d in mi d North Atlantic has

a m eaning for u s only if we l ea ve out th e qu e stion

w h ether such an imaginary place ts in w ith th e r e st
of w hat we kno w to e xist
Thought can b e us e d to d e termin e existence most
easily in w hat is ab stract an d so more compl e t ely
un d e rstoo d That w hich we un d e rstan d least ( isolate d
events ) is that o f w hich we can pre d icate m e re e xist
enc e }
,

8
.

Ther e are many grad es of reality an d any i d ea that

any o ne actually has howe ver foolish its content is
real as a m e re psychical occurre nc e An i d e a which
ts in w ith oth e r conc e ptions that w e accept as vali d
is r eal in a much full e r s e ns e

To say that som e thing is app earanc e ( pheno

menon ) is not to say that it is an illusion An illusion
is re al only in th e s e ns e that it is an i d e a that som e one
has I t is unreal in t h e sens e that it is an inte rpreta
tion of some sensation or fe eli ng that d oes not t in
w ith th e rest of a p e rson s exp e ri e nc e or w i th th e
I f a p e rson thinks
e xp e rienc e o f p e opl e in g e n e ral
h e s ee s som e one w hom h e kno w s to b e d e a d w alking
about ; or if he thinks he is Emp e ror of C hina w h e n
no b o d y els e thinks that we say he h as an illusion
o r if ther e se e ms no sugg e stion in anyth ing o bj e ctiv e
for w hat he b eli eves we call it an hallucination To
hol d ho w eve r as B e rk eley d i d that t h e worl d kno w n
through s e nse p e rc e ptio ns is not re al in th e same
degr ee as th e conscious spirits wh o have such p e rc e p
tions is not to say that th e w orl d is an illusion To
C f i Lo g ic
I t s io Ex t s io n
A alyt ic Sy t h t ic
,

n en
n

en

C O GI T A T I O M ETA P H Y S I CA

0
9

hold that time an d space w hich condition all our

perceptions are not con d itions of all thinkable realities
is not to hold that they are illusions
We kno w things imperfectly but imperfect k now
ledge is not illusion Appearances di ffer in degre e of
reality Appearance is not u ltimate or absolute reality
b u t it may be appearanc e of reality
So far as we approximate to co m plete knowledge
of an ythin g we k now the universal in the particular
e
we
do
not
k
now
natural
selection
if
we
have
m
erely
g
in o u r min ds some abstract phras e s ta k en from a te x t
boo k nor have we k no w ledge if we m erely notice as
a fact the peculiar shape of the c olumbine without
seeing in it the wor k in g o u t of the results of successive
2
s elf fe rtilisation and cross fertilisation
We appr o x i
mate to complete k no w led g e in proportion as we see
the connection b et w een u niversal principles and par
tic u lar cases
,

Time cannot be an ultimate reality : for it h as only

a meanin g in conne c tion with chan g e Yet we must
not call it an illusio n for we wor k with it successfully
an d t h e k no w le dg e of the way in which thin g s must
appear to u s an d to other similar bein g s m ust b e in
clude d i n a perfect or complet e k nowledg e of the
universe j ust as the way in which a picture w ill appear
to the spectator is part of what the artist knows about
it There is no re ason to suppose that Om niscience

knows only abstract universals m athematical form u lae

w it h out any k nowl e dg e of the w ay in whic h t h in g s

will appear to b e in g s conditioned by time and space
and perception throu g h a limited number of senses
Kant saw that only the unchan g in g chan g es To

Cf
Th O
p
nd M a y
T h c olo u r f t h t ig r fro m t h ju ngl s d iff rs fro m t h c olo u r
f th l io
d s rt
fro m t h
.

ne

e e

2 10

M E TA P H Y S I C S

b e aware of change of succession we must in some

se nse stan d outsi d e th e succ e ss ion We cannot th ink
universal movement unless we imagine something
stationary relat ive to which or w ithin w hich t h e move
ment tak e s place
Our habit of using measurements of tim e giv e s a
false suggestion of t im e as a succession or s e r ies of
d iscr e te mom e nts The rhythmic move m e nt of various
organic s e nsations h elps to pro d uc e this notion But
w h e n we th ink care fully inste a d of m e rely p icturing
we se e that th e moment o f tim e is an ar b itrary unit
Even if we d iscover the normal p e rio d o f time
f
e rence to som e fraction of som e cosmic
measure
d
in
re
(
m ov e ment such as the r e volutio n of the e arth roun d
t h e su n) w hich an in d i v i d ual th e av e rage human b eing
can grasp as a unity that normal perio d can b e e xte n d ed
or d iminishe d b y ( I ) inatt e ntion or ( 2 ) atte ntion
All this is psychologically important T h e lo w est
stag e o f m e ntal process is m e re a wareness of a ow
o f s e nsation or fe e ling
I n th e high e r proc e ss of think
ing w e grasp a unity ami d d i ffe r e nce ; an d we may b e
a b l e to se e the succ e ssion the tim e proc e ss as the
a
ea r a nce of a realit
w
hich
is
not
itself
con
d
itione
d
pp
y
b y time e g w h e n we appre hen d a d emonstration
compl e t ely s e e ing the conclus ion in the pr e mis e s or
when we grasp a w ork o f art as an organ ic unity Ye t
the math e matician who conveys his de monstration to

e
oth r min d s has to give it out b it b y b it b y a
succession in time He may put th e nal conclusion
rst as the pro b an d um then h e gives the prem is e s
an d conclusion in a temporal or d e r w hich gen e rally
i
h
e
b
ut
not
al
w
ays
repr
s
nts
or
expr
ss
e
s
t
log
cal
e
e
e
(
)
or d e r T h e d ramatist h a s to put his w ork in a s e ries
.

pp

we

oy c s

Cf R
2 0,

4
In

t m spa n

Th e

W ld
or

ad the

I ndividu al,

V ol I
.

pra c t ic w g rally t h in k
t h in k or stat th pr m is s
e

en e

an

stat o u r c o n c l u s io ns
e

b e for e

C O GI T A T I O M E T A P H Y S I CA

2
9

of scen e s h e can t let people hav e it all at once

Yet
if the w ork has an artistic unity it is more than a mere
succ e ssion of scen e s it is grasped (approximat e ly ) as a
unity where each part is con d itione d by the whole :
and t h e beginnin g n e eds the end to e x plain its m ea ning
fu lly

I f we distin g uish mere existence mere fact event

from meaning we can say that what exists is no w

and ceases to exist when it is not no w but its meanin g
is not thus conditioned by time though m eanin g can
only be manifested in a time process

2 0

To ordinary opinion w h at exists must not m erely

be now b ut there ( f} m 2 i da seyn) T h e soul

is tho ugh t of as in the body or ou t of the body : God
Even a feelin g is thought of as e xisti ng
is in h e aven
in th e nerves or b rain or a soul insi d e t h e body I n

primitive thin k ing there is no existence e xcept in

spac e (note that even Parm e ni d e s envisages h is 6v a nd
h
as a p lenu m
6
w
w
i
It
is
almost
i
m
y p
g)
possible to k eep the notion of space out of the
connotation of existe nce ( ex sister e) ; and so it is easy

to fall into the notion that nothing is real except

what is in space ye t the w ord real can more easily

iib e use d for what is Si g ni cant what has meanin g w h at
has validity We mi g ht say of a falling Government
It exists i e o may nd the o f cials i n t h eir o f ces
u
( y
)

but it is no lon g e r a r e ality i e people do not obey it

do not believe in it On th e oth e r hand a truth a
principle may be very real true or valid ; ye t its only
existence may be in some m ind or perhaps w ritten
down on paper B u t the written words or even the

vi o
-

uz u ,

et

I t was h in to x ic at d p rso w h o h ar i g th b ll f St P a u l s
str ik t w lv sa id C a t yo u g iv u s all t h at at o nc
B ing d r u n k
h w as d m a d i g a m yst ic stat
f c o n s c io u s ss tra ns c n d in g th
l im itat io s f or d inary hum a n k o w l dg
1

e,

ne

M ETA P H Y S I C S

93

Spo ke n w or d s th e m er e existe nc e is nothing unle ss

th e m e aning is un d e rstoo d an d acc e pt e d
Space is th e con d ition of all that c a n b e kno w n
through th e senses The d istinguishi ng o f three ;
d im e ns ions in space only m eans that to x a posit ion
thr e e things must b e state d and to stat e more is
sup e ruous Tw o d im e nsions o ne d imens io n ar e not
w hat we h egin w ith (th e spac e we actually k no w e xt e n d s

roun d
us eve ryw h e re an d may b e tre ate d as o f
in n it e d imensions if we lik e) ; they ar e a b stract ions
fo r th e co nv e nience of math e mat ics
,

"

3
'

2 1

All our or d inary la nguag e b eing d e p e n d e nt on s e ns e

inn e r as th e m e ntal
e xp e ri e nce th e d istinct ion o f th e
out e r or non m e ntal is a m e taphor w h ich
from the
T h e plai n man m e ans b y th e
is v e ry apt to m islea d
exte rnal w orl d th e w orl d outside his b o d y H e nce
popular misun d ersta nd i ngs o f B e rk el e y W hat
th e
Berk eley insists on is a small matt e r p e rhaps b u t it is
the e ssential b eginn ing of any careful thinking a b out
N o th ip g e xists w ex E t w hat com e s as
th e w orl d
E

i
b
ec t
into
our
consc
ousness
C can suppose
an
p j
the ex iste nggfif w hat d o e s no t com e into our consc ious
ness b ut remains at a lo w e r l e v e l in a su b conscious
or unconscious stag e which n e v e rthel ess is contin u ous
,

ma

spa c w orl d t h i d iv idu al i s im ply wh at i s parat d

in spa c fro m so m ot h r in d iv idu al
in t h w orl d f m a n i g t h is
i n t n c ssar ily so
h
f
w
n
i
r
al
s
l
k
o
w
c
o
s
c
o
u
s
ss
t
n
i
n
g
c o nta i s th tr ib al s l f t I t i th d iff r nc b t w n xt n i n
n d int n i n in lo g ic
I n t h sp ir it u al w orl d t h pr i c ipl s f th
i appl ic a b l
q u a n t itativ
xc pt as o ft n m isl a d ing m tap h ors
n d m a ny
f t h m h av to b r v rs d
part c o nta in s th
Th
On ; h
wh ol ; th T h r
t h at los s h i l if sav s it
P l u ral is m ta k s th p ic t u r t h i k i g f th spa c w orl d nd appl i s
it stra igh t a way to th
sp irit u altr at ing so u ls as ato m s Wh y
m y
t th
so u l g ro w n d b c o m at o nc wid r nd m or
I n t ns ?
1

th e

In

e e

e so

e c

e,

no
e

e e

ar e

ee

e so

ee

ar e

C O GI TA T I O M E TA P H Y S I CA

94

with the conscious or of w hat exists for consciousnesses

other than ours b ut of e xist e nc e altogether apart from
any mind existenc e which cannot possibly come into
any consciousness we can ha ve no k nowledge
It
is a meanin gless phrase
e
I
l
What
e av e s many questions over
e r k ele
g ( )
y
g ives statements about the pri m ary qualities of matter
a greater certainty or vali d ity ( o bj ectivity ) than any
possible statement about th e secondary qualities w h ich
?
h
e
t
are purely subj ective
This
was
question
for
(
Kant
How are mathematics possible as a pr ior i
e d to ot h er

How
are
our
nite
minds
or
e
g
os
relat
2
( )
minds or egos and to the mind of God fro m w h om

?
er
k
el
y
holds
the
ideas
come
to
s
u
e
B
W
h
en
(3 )
we have admitt e d that all that is ( w ith any meanin g for

us) is m ental when we have said all wit h out is

w ithin w e h av e still to fac e the problem of t h e relation

between that part of the c ontent of our ideas ( in the

widest s e nse o f anythin g in the mind Vor stellu ng)

which we construe as in space an d that part which w e

distinguis h as inner or not extend e d p u rely mental

or spiritual the proble m which appears m ost pro
m ine ntly as that of the relation between body and m ind
in
w
ider
terms
of
nature
and
spirit
)
(
M aterialism as an ultimate m e tap h ysical h ypot h esis

is r e futed by B er k eley s idealism (epig gm o lggiqal

I dea
M aterialism cannot e xplain itsel f ; but
er
idealis m leaves u s still with the problem

of the relation between spirits and t h eir m ental

processes as such on the one Side and that portion

of our ideas which w e call our bodies and th e

material worl d on the ot h e r B erkeley doesn t den y
the matter of ordinary belief but h e doesn t discus s
its relation to min d
T h is B r k l y did n t r c og is h nc h i tr at m n t f minim
i ih ili
as a b sol u t s h i d ispara g m n t f a d va nc d m at h
t
m ti
H r L ib ni w as f a h a d f B r k l y
t
Cf H ux l y C ll t d E y Vol VI pp 9 5 99
79
1

v s

a,

cs,

e c .,

e c.

e e

o ec e

e e

ssa s,

ar

e e

P S Y C HO P H Y S I CA L P AR AL L E L I S M

95

2 2

M ind

d B ody

an

L L EL I S M

Pd

P S YCH O P H YS I CAL
'

as

tzvo

a s ects

Many philosophical men o f scie nc e have su b stitut e d

th is conception fo r that cru de mate rial ism w hich in
ancie nt tim e s re solve d th e soul into certa in ve ry ne
atoms an d w hich in mo d e rn tim e s has calle d thought
a se cr e tion o f the b rain ; an d many psychologists have
look e d upon this conc e ption as th e most conveni e nt
w orking hypothesis b y w hich to e xpr e ss th e r elatio n
b e tw e e n psychology an d physiology Mr War d rightly
r egar d s th e conc ept ion as th e outcom e o f Carte sia n
d ual ism But th e d ualism of D e scartes w as assure d ly
not th e inv e ntion o f that philosoph e r b ut rather the
survival in his syste m o f th e populariz e d Platonic d ual
ism o f soul an d b o d y w hich ha d b e come sti ff en e d into
an accept e d d ogma in the C hrist ian consciousn e ss All
our or d inary languag e no w assum e s th e antithesis
b e tw e e n th e inner li fe of th e soul an d th e out e r life o f
the b o d y The plain man m e ans of course b y th e e x
t e rnal w orl d th e w orl d outsid e h is b o d ily s elf : an d h e r e
th e d istinction o f out e r an d inner is liter ally corr e ct
t h e outer Sk in of e ach in d ivi d ual d ivi d i ng all spac e
into t w o parts But then the plain man has b ee n
furthe r taught to regar d the soul as a thing insi d e
his b o dy an d so w hen h e thinks h e is thinking
more d ee ply h e puts his conscious exp e rience as

such insi d e his soul har d ly awar e that he is no w

using a metaphor an d th e n he oppos e s to that an
e xternal
w orl d w hich he assum e s to b e th e sam e
fo r every min d an d from w hich th e min d is suppose d
1

'

ollow g pa g s

h
T
e f
in
[
N a tu r alism

War d s
IX

pp

53

to

a nd

(9 5

to

1 00

Agnosticism in

ar e

th e

ta k

ro m a r v w f
V ol

f
e ie
P h ilosophical Review,
en

M E TA P H Y S I C A

C O GI T A T I O

6
9

passiv ely to rec e ive impr e ssions I t is thus that the

dualism of popular philosophy is e stablished ; of this

common s e nse
d ualism D e scartes accepted u ncr iti
cally th e initial antithesis b e tw een th e m e ntal and
giving it how e ver a de e per an d truer
th e e xternal
m e aning by turning it into the d istinction b e tw een
thought and extension and b e coming aware of th e
( problem s to w hich it leads The doctrine of psycho
physical parallelism as formulate d b y Spinoza is a
attempt to solve the problem whic h popular
serious
philosophy conceals under its easy m etaphors of
images and impressions b ut which D escartes h ad
Or do et connexio idea ru m idem est
I clearly realised
S pinoza it s h ould be
r er u m
a c or do et connexio
observe d does not use t h e m etaphor o f parallelis m :
he ass e rts an identity bet ween the physical and the
psychical or d er
And this identity in duality is
maintained by th e more car e ful philosophical psych o lo
g ists ( e g H offding) who have employed Spinoza s
conception as at least a wor k in g hypothesis The
psychical and the physical are two aspects or mani
fe sta tio ns of one su b stance
W h ether that substance is
material or m ental or is u n k nown is left over as a
qu e stion for metaphysics M r Ward seems to m e
har d ly quite j ust to t h is sug gestive idea of Spinoza s
He considers only somewhat crude expressions of it
C
li
ord
s
illustration
by
reference
to
the
relation
f
f
e
g
be t w e e n th e spoken and the written sentence or
Huxley s comparison of consciousness to the sound
o f the
bell or the Shadow of the moving train
These illustrations are d efective because bot h sides
are in p a r i m a ter ia
The sound as waves in t h e
atmosphere is a for m of energ y and t h e S hadow of
the moving train is in the physical world
On t h e
other han d the soun d as heard the Shado w as S een
a r e in the psyc h ical world ; b u t so
also are the bell
as seen the train as seen the senten c e as h eard or
.

P S Y CH OP H Y S I C A L P A RA L L E L I S M

97

e i h e no m o n
,
pp

s ee n W h e n consciousness is call e d an
this is really an inaccurate interpretation of metaphors
lik e that of the Sha d o w : it is a way though a way
philosophically in de fe nsi b le of escaping th e a b sur d ity
o f calling consciousn e ss a physical pro d uct a s e cretion
or a vi b ration an i d e a w hich woul d contra d ict the
conservation o f en ergy T h e phys ical counte rpart of
a state of consciousn e ss must b e on th e principle

of continuity some hypothetical b rain mechanics

som e j olt or j ar among vibrating mol e cul e s G H
L e we s s a d aptation from Aristotl e o f th e illustration
of the conve x an d c oncav e asp e cts of the circumfe re nce
of th e circl e is a b etter m e taphor to express the
relat ion o f physical an d m ental We m ight elab orat e
such an image a littl e an d say that eve ry one o f us
s ee s only th e inn e r surfac e o f a hollo w sph e re but
that surface we can constru e into a mo ving picture ma d e
of sphere s w hose insides we can n e ve r se e b ut some
or poss ib ly all o f w hich we conj e cture to have minds
insi d e the m perceivi ng only inn e r surfaces such as
we se e ; for we can only int erpret things on the

analogy of our o w n exp e rience Th e myth or

picture d o e s not w ork out ve ry well ; it b rings u S

b ack to th e ol d antith e sis o f inn e r an d outer

b ut in a w ay that p e rhaps h elps to sugg e st inst e ad
of to conc eal the d i f culties involve d in that antith e sis
The b est illustration of w hat Spinoza s d octrine w ith
som e mo d i cation may be ma de to signify is how
e ve r
a n illustration use d seve ral times b y Mr War d
hims elf but not in conn e ctio n with psychophysical
parallelism ( see e g Vo l I I pp 2 6 4
Not the
relation b e twe e n the spoken sentence an d the writte n
sente nce b ut th e relation b e tween the sentence spoken
or w ritten on the one Si d e and th e meaning of
that sent e nce on the other si d e may serve as an
analogy o f th e relation b e t we en b o dy and soul or
m ore gene r ally b e tween the material and the S piritual
.

CO GI TA T I O M E T A P H Y S I C A

8
9

Aristo tle s d e nition of je ; as the realisatio n of

t h e bod y belongs in the main to the same mode of
thinking as distinc t from the notion of soul an d
bo d y as separate substanc e s We might as a matter
of specula tion mor e on the lines of L e ibniz than
of Spino z a apply the conc e ption of psychoph ysical
parallelism in som e such way as this :
L et us for convenience u se R oman capitals for
t h e physical series and t h e correspondin g ( i e
fundamentally identical ) Gre e k cursives for the
psychical seri e s Then A may den ote t h e ( as yet
almost entire ly h ypothetical ) sphere of psycholog ical
p h ysiology so far as it relates to the physical
mechanism of the h ig h er mental processes ; these
processes as k no w n in consciousness will be
Le t
B d e note living org anisms as the s u bj e ct matter of
the biolog ical sciences and C d enote matter an d

motion ( or Shall we Simply say energ y

as the
subj ect matter of physics It will be observed that
in descendin g the scale we co m e always to what is
more abstract ; and below C w e might place separ
ately D the abstract relations of space an d quantity
thoug h C is already SO abstract in comparison with
B that we may be co n tent w ith three main divisions
of the u niverse in its p h ysical aspect spatial extension
being the characteristic that b e longs to the whol e of
it Now can w e g ive any meaning to 8 and 7
and any subsequ e nt G ree k letters as representing
stages in th e ps ychical scale ? Applyin g the same
principle of continuity wh ic h le d us to ass e rt th e
reality ( as an obj ect of a conceivable science ) of A
but applying this principle in the rev e rse order we

m ust reco g n ize 8 as the region of obscure percep

tion and o f feelin g s of attraction and aversion not

et
risen
into
the
clear
consciousness
of
As
y
the psychical side of C ( motion ) we nd m e re
psyc h ical activity or blind will
This is really an

\/

P S YC HOP H Y S I C A L P ARAL L E L I S M

99

a b straction so far as o u r conscious exp e rie nc e goes

b e caus e we n e v e r e xp e rie nc e pure vol ition w ithout
any thought ( b e coming conscious o f it mak e s

it thought
any more than we ev e r exp e ri e nce
pur e thought w ithout activity ; b ut we may follo w
S chop e nhau e r an d call this m e r e activity r egar d e d

as psychical
will a p otior i b e caus e it is th e b as is
an d lo w e st stage of w hat we kno w as conscious volition

in
W ill in such a s e ns e that we coul d apply
it to th e s el f d ir e ct e d activ iti e s o f an imals an d plants
is al w ays foun d in som e com b ination w ith feel ing o r
w ith w hat in th e cas e of plants w e may call such b y
court e sy But this w ill s ee ms only a high e r d evelop
m e nt o f w hat we may think o f as th e inn e r or
psych ic al asp e ct of th e inorgan ic mass or atom w hich
h as in e rtia or th e cona tu s o f s elf mai nt e nanc e : 7 is
In our
t h e s elfhoo d of m e re a b stract in d ivi d ual ity
m e ntal exp e ri e nc e we have noth ing mor e abstract than
an d so we cannot
th e vagu e t e n d e ncy to activity :
nd intellig ib l e psychical aspects o f anything more
a b stract than motion
M e re spac e or e xtension is

m e r e outw ar d n e ss an d we can gi v e it no inn e r

meaning I t is th e charact e ristic of th e w hol e phys ical
univ e rse b ut not of th e psychical It is in quasi

Platonic languag e th e oth e r of thought But wha t

is most a b stract is j ust for that r e aso n w hat can b e
most compl e tely kno w n on th e ph ys ical si d e b e ing
l e ast kno w n on th e psychical si d e We can think
th e ge om e trical an d th e m e chanical asp e ct o f things
cle arly an d d istinctly Our sci e nc e is l ess a bl e to
grapple w ith th e organic an d l e ast w ith th e physio
logical asp e ct o f the psychical w here if we ar e car e ful
we hav e to a d m it th e ina d e quacy of our m e chanical
conc e ptions On the oth e r S id e we can have vivid
consc iousn e ss o f our o w n thoughts an d fe elings an d
o f th e
e n d s we
are strivi ng fo r b ut we can only
conj e cture th e e xp e ri e nce of oth e r b eings : an d wh e n
,

C O GI TA T I O M E T A P H Y S I CA

I OO

attempt to interpret the inn e r life the a c tual

e xperi e nce
of plants or of what we call inanimate
thin g s we have to u se anthropomorphic expr e ssions
which we a d mit to b e inaccurate because too complex
Obs e rve ( I ) this w ay of loo k ing at the relation of
mind and body is an application of th e distinction

between (a ) existence in the sense of existence in

time and S pace ( here and now ) and ( h) validity or
a
meanin g Ta k e the analo g y of writin g
S
a
a
( ) y
frag ment of papyrus with brown mar k s on it of various
S h apes T h is obj ect existin g in space can be describ e d
scienti cally it can be weigh ed m e as u red tested
physically and c he m ically ( h) T h e mar k s may be
interpreted as havin g a meanin g
Each sentence
Some we s uc ceed in
word has a m e anin g
e ach
un d erstanding : so m e we cannot ma k e out ; per h aps we
cannot read the m ar k s quite clearly ( i e we are not

uite
s
u
re
about
t
h
e
fa
c
t
t
h
e
but
even
if
q
we can we m ay be una b le to see what it means i e what
its sig ni cance is in relation to t h e whole of whic h it
apparently is intended to for m a part We m ay gu ess
at the meanin g of the doubtful w ords or clauses and
a t what is meant when th e re is a la cu na by considerin g
the apparent intention or purpose of the w h ole pas
sag e
We do not ho wever get comp letely at the
meanin g of a passag e unless we have the wh ole context
to which it belongs I suppose the piec e to be not
a mere series of disconnected entries but to have so m e
unity such as the unity of a poem or of a continuous
philosophi cal d iscourse : the author if a g ood poet or
a c areful and skilful philosop h ical thin k er and writer
must ha v e had a clear idea of t h e w h ole of h is m eanin g

a nd ea c h s e ntence
if possible each word mu st have
been chosen and placed w h ere it is to brin g out that
total e ffect S entences w h ich in isolation loo k cl u msy
o r see m to convey some false or absurd state m ent m ay
in the ir conte x t be j ustiable : one senten c e h as to be
we

P S YC H OP H Y S I C A L P A RA LLE L I S M

1 01

suppl e ment e d b y others in or d e r to ful l its full fu nc

tion as contri b uting to the w hole No w if we may
apply this analogy to the relation not mer ely b etwe e n
th e in d ivi d ual human mind an d b o d y b ut to the w hole
r elation b et we e n th e spiritual w orl d an d the mate rial
unive rse of things an d events may we not sp e ak of
G o d as the ultimate m e aning of th e whole for w ho m
are all th ings : or if we keep up our image r y as the
author of the w hole b ook o f nature an d of human
history wh o alone compreh e n d s the relation of ev e ry
part to the total meaning ? We se e only fragm e nts
an d ther e fore our kno wle d ge of th e
o f the b ook
meaning eve n of the parts is always imperfect I n d i

vi d ual n ite human souls have a s e parat e e xiste nc e

i e th e y hav e a mani fe station in particular perio d s of
time an d portions o f Space b ut th e ir fu ll meaning
their full spiritual ( int e llectual ethical religious ) signi
cance can only b e kno w n in r e lation to the w hole :
th e y ar e an alogous to isolat e d sente nces I n r e a d ing
we hav e to start w ith th e in d ivi d ual wor d s an d se n
The w hole is only a vague i d e al
t e nc e s as our d ata
they are our d ata We
so we start w ith in d ivi d uals
try to nd the unive rsal aspect in th e m in order to
T h e w ord s an d l e tt e rs of w hich
un d e rstan d them
thes e sent e nces ar e compos e d may sym b olise the parts
which go to make up th e e xperience o f this or that
in d ivi d ual See n as m er e events or occurrences in tim e

G d h im s l f i th
b st po t
d th r al i h i so g
W
k o w o ly i fra gm ts i so m f wh ic h w d is c r b a u ty d
g ra d u r M uch w c a ot u d rsta d
I
s l f c o s c io u s ss d o t fa c t d m a i g c o i c id ? O
rat h r i th s l f c o s c io u s ss f th i d iv idu al ( g m p ir ical
psy chology d als w it h it d tr i s to d s c r ib it g t ic ally ) th fa c t
f wh ich t h Et r al S l f m a if st d
d d iff r t iat d i th syst m
f t h u iv rs
i t h u lt im at m a i g ? T h p rso al ity f th
i d iv idu al i a p hl m wh ich it
d s a m tap h ys ic al t h ory to solv I
Wo u l d it b b tt r to b n a bsol u t ly i d p d t b i g wh o m G d

c o u l d t a n ih ilat t h a to b a S ig i c a t s t c a l iv ing
i th Boo k f G d ?
Ep istl
.

en

e,

ne

no

ro

e a

an

as e

e en

an

n n

en

en

en e

n ee

e n

e n n

an

an

no

e n

an

nn

ne

e n

e n e n e,

M ETA P H Y S I C A

C O GI TA T I O

1 02

words rea d o ff from the recor d ( spoken w or d s that

have to b e spoken in succ e ssion ) mak e the best
analogue of the mental processes dealt with by the
psycholog ist Their mea ning ( their worth as estimated
b y logic or ethics ) is something ove r and a b ove the

mere facts something which has meaning an d not

merely existence Thes e things are an alleg ory
e asp e ct theory b e
If
t
h
e
d
oubl
ta
k
en
as
here
2
( )
w e have not a m e re parallelism b etween two orders of
bein g on the same level li k e a document existin g i n
two di ff erent languages each of w h ich equally well
the sam e meaning ( or the two clo ck s of
e xpresses
Ge u linx or Leibniz s illustration ) we have a relation

between two perfectly di fferent kinds of bein g

between existence on the one Side ( i e existence in
time and S pace) whic h forms the subject matter of
those sciences w hose business is to apply the categ ories
of quantity so far as possible and to describe everyt h in g

as far as possible i n terms of its mechanical basis

and on t h e other side a world not of existences ( such
a phrase is only misleadin g) but of meanin s valu e s
e nds which do not a d mit of t h e cate g ories 0 g
quantity
and whic h are the proper subj ect matter of log ic
aesth etics ethics
Aristotle
in
his
I
reco
g
nised
that
D
e

n
i
3
I
)
x
(
must be st u died di fferently by the q w s and by the
d A c s and his de nition of l xn as V h X
G i/
s represents a point of vi e w which a g rees wit h
that h ere ta ken The soul is what g ives meanin g to
the body
T h e aspect of exist e nce is that in whic h
M a n y p opl w h at v r t h y allo w
to say a b o u t G d w o u l d n t
lik to b tol d t h at t h ir so u ls
n t
x ist nc s b u t m a i g s T h at
n
d
asto is h i g f m a ny p opl w h il o c cu py i g spa c
t b
d poss ss d f x ist c
nd m ass d o
v y
t app ar to h av
mu ch m a ingt h o ugh d o b tl ss a sy m pat h t ic im a g i at io
th
fa it h f a ch ar ita b l
r l ig io n w o u l d d is c ov r m a ning nd w ort h

v n i t
h m
T h so u l too i im m ortal wh r a so u l
n b
d is c r n d
.

\x u

'

a uco

ca

eKT

u I aTo

\r v

Te

e ca

e,

an

ar e

no

ee

e n

e e

e n n

no

or

en e

one

or

er

ca

P S YC HOP H Y S I C AL P ARA L L E L I S M

1o
3

mat e rial

apply th e concept of
cause
and o f

form
7
8
in
facts
accor
d
ing
so far as we group
9
(
)

to law s
T h e asp e ct of m e a ning is that in w hich
w e b ri ng in th e conc e ption of en d purpos e an d
in w hich also we can prop e rly u se th e conce ption
e nts
w
hich
w
h
applie
d
to
ev
in
of d
en
9
}
5
px
space an d tim e as such ( as e ve nts ) is apt to intro d uce
animism ( ill egitimat e anthropomorphism )
All this may se e m fanci ful It can only b e put
v ery b ri e y an d formally h e re But it is an att empt
to give a possi b l e m eaning to th e ol d antithesis o f
physical an d psych ical an d to carry out a littl e furth e r
than is usually d on e t h e b est w orki ng hypoth e sis b oth
fo r th e sci e nc e s o f natur e on th e o ne sid e an d fo r
psychology on th e other I f w hat proves a goo d
w ork ing hypoth e sis for all th e special sci e nces can b e
tte d in w ith a soun d e pist e molog ical th e ory an d with
a consistent sp e culativ e m e taphysics then it h as
rec e ive d as much veri cation as hypoth e ses on such
ultimate matters a d mit o f The sci e nces o f natur e
pro fe ss to work e ntirely w ith w hat tak e s plac e in space
a nd t ime
to apply math e matical an d m e cha nical con

ce tio ns a s far as possi b l e

an
d
to
allo
w
no
causal
p

e xplanation
exc e pt in t e rms of w hat is mat e rial i e
o f the sam e k in d w ith the spatial phenomena to b e
e xplaine d
To re cur to my sym b olic l e tte rs A m u st
b e e xpresse d in t e rms o f B B o f C a nd so on
Just
as in or d inary language in spite of C opernicus w e
sp eak o f sunrise an d suns e t so we may continue to
talk of B causing
an d of
causing B ( a stat e
of th e b o d y caus ing a mo d i cation of consciousn e ss
an d v ice v ersa ) while rej ecting th e ol d d octrine o f
interaction or in
ux u s physicu s ;
and such languag e
is sp e cially conve nient b e cau se of our almost com
l
e te ig noranc e
8
of
A
an
d
of
compar
d
with
our
e
p
c omparatively full knowl e d g e of
an d of B But th e
Fro m P y h l gi l R i w l
to
it pp
57
59
we

/2 6 6 66
x ix

s c oo

ca

ev e

oc

C O GI TA T I O M E T A P H Y S I C A

1 04

ideal of scienti c explanation is complete de scription of

A B C in their simplest and most abstract terms M r

War d obj ects t h at mec h anical explanations are mere

hypothetical descriptions ; but explanatio n i n a science
of nature only aims at s uch description and p u rposely
discards all teleology w h ic h falls outside t h e physical
series Teleolo gy in a sense must c ome in w h en we

are dealin g wit h the or g anic str u ctures exist for func
tions B u t this states a problem of natural science and
is not itself a solution To ta k e refu g e i n p h rases li k e

a tendency to prog ression or a nisus for m a tiv us is

si m ply to restate t h e problem as if it were the sol u

tion
o c c u lt qualities are not scientic explanations
T h e only causes wit h w h ic h the nat u ral sciences c an

explain are w h at Aristotle called material ca u ses

3 CE3 w i e t h e su m total of conditions t h at are
equivalent to the phenomenon to be explained on its
purely material ( i e S patial) aspe c t
I t would s ave
much a m big uity if we could revive t h e Aristotelian
distinction or introd u ce som e adaptation of h is four

So far aS I can ma k e out M r Ward allow s

causes

no m eanin g to t h e word cause except that of ef

cient ca u se
I t is therefore inevitable t h at h e S h oul d
ta k e all causation to imply activi ty of the k ind that we
only k now directly in our own conscious strivi ng after
en d s This is precisely t h e view of B er k e ley to
whom curiously enough M r Ward n e ver refers in
t h is conn e ction B er k eley li k e M r Ward resolves
t h e substantiality of thin g s into causali ty and inter
r e ts all true ca u sality as will
what
are
called
causes
p
and e ffects in scienti c p h rase b eing merely antecedent
and consequent ideas ( i e phenomena ) which serve as
si g ns of one another E f cient causation the dpx ; mi
9 is in place when we are explainin g so m e particular
occurrence and wish to discove r w h o or what is
responsibl e fo r it W h o thre w the stone t h at m ade
the apple fall from the tree ? Or wa s it w h at lawyers
.

77 :

0 6 00

la

P S YC H O P H Y S I C A L P A RA LL E L I S M
an

10
5

call
act of G o d ? But science d eals not with
particular eve nts ( save as e xperiments or illustrations
or when we cannot get b eyon d th e particular as in the

purely historical parts o f g e ology) an d consequ e ntly

the d i ff e r e nce b e twee n one antece d ent con dition an d
the others is only relative The b iologist as such is
not concern e d to explain why th is ow e r has an
a b normal num b er o f petals b ut to d iscove r if possi b l e
On th e oth e r
th e con d itions o f variation in gen e ral
mi ws is important in histor y ( though
han d the
th e an e c d otal historian is apt to over e stimat e its relativ e
importanc e ) a nd it is all important in ju d ic ial inve st i
atio ns an d the material caus e s ar e apt to b e ove r
g
look e d T h e d istinction bet w een th e in d ivi d ual an d
p e rce ptual su bj ect matter o f history on th e o ne si d e
an d on t h e oth e r the ge n e ral an d conce ptual subj e ct
matte r of sci e nce is a d mira b ly put by Mr W ar d at th e
close of h is secon d volum e But I think he e rrs in
exp e cti ng from men o f science a typ e of e xplanation
w hich the y d o not ( if they are w ise) profe ss to
gi v e
The Aristotelian formal caus e is usually suppos e d
by scienti c m en w ho have r e a d M ill s L ogic to b e
out of d ate But th e formal caus e is exactly w hat w e

m ean by a la w of nature
I t is th e universal or
conce ptual formula which is mani fe st e d in a numb e r
of particulars An d the ve ry common hab it of hypo

statizin
Energy
G
ravitation
Evolution
etc
3
g
1

la

oe

a nalys is f c a u s s i volv s so m a b stra c t io n so m rat h r

art c al isolat io n f a t c d t d c o ns q u n t I n i t ll ig ib ly
I t h k d ist i gu is h ( ) a m ov m nt f th n rv s fro m (h) th
m ov m nt f th ar m wh ich follo w s it nd ( ) a t f f l i g s nd

id as fro m ( h ) th
x t r al d y t m oral a c t io n to wh ich t h y
g iv r is ; ( ) ( ) I c all f c i n t c a u s s I a dm it t h at t i tly w
n v r
n sp a k
f th r al c a u s
f n a c t w it h o u t ta k i g th wh l
a c t in all it asp c ts in to a cc o u nt ; b u t t h n t h is c o nc pt io n f

i
n
t
F
c a u s i s wallow d u p in m at r ial
ro
m
tt
r
to
L

(
P ro f A l x a n d r )
1

An
i i
in
e

ca

c e
.

e n

an

ee

e o

sr c

oe

se

n e

ca

an

e e

en

n e e

CO GI TA T I O M E T A P H Y S I C A

1 06

recurrenc e to th e mythological interpre tation to

w hich the Platonic doctrine of ideas or unive rsal

form s w as expos e d
The habit again of sp e a k in g
of these a b stractions with capital letters as e f cient

caus e s is th e result of animism

it is so d i f cult to
eliminate anthropom orphic i nterpre tations eve n in
scienti c thin k ing
?
W
h
at
is
the
place
of
psyc
h
olo
g
y
(4)
If we turn no w to t h e psychical order we nd
the proper sphere of nal and of e f c ient ca u s e s In
our actual conscious experience w e are aware of our
selves as strivin g for ends and as initiatin g events in
suc h a sense that w e are held responsible for them
Here we are in the re g ion of what is strictly in
d ividual and concrete If psyc h olog y be t h e science
that deals directly wit h what I have called
and
hypot h etically w ith 8 and y t h en w e may accept M r

Ward s vie w that psycholo g y never transcends the

limits of the individual

I nd it h owever rather
d i f cult to u nderstand the account g iven of the
province of psyc h olo g y in M r Ward s treatise which
h as done so much to reform the conc e ption s of En g lish
psycholog y but w h ich still remains buried in the
i nconvenient columns of the Ency clop a edia B r ita nnica
Psycholo g y h overs bat li k e bet w een the sciences whic h
d eal conceptually wit h so m e more or less abstract
aspect of the universe an d some ideal philosophy o f
m ind w h ic h s h ould deal with what is per fectly concrete
an d individual and yet ta k e up into itsel f all the
scattered li gh ts of the various abstra c t and partial
sciences What I call
as it really exists i e as
the actual conscious experience of some individual ego
contains in it all A B C etc so far as t h ey are
k nown to t h at ego ; t h ey are abstractions except so
far as they exist for some mind and of course t h ey
are also abstractions as apart from the totality or
org anic u nity of a B u t a strict acco u nt of so far
is o nly a

P S YC H OP H Y S I C A L P ARA L L E L I S M

I 07

as possi bl e w oul d b e a compl e t e auto b iography not

a sp iritual auto b iography or con fession only ( for

such accounts o f t h e inn e r l ife as a rul e imply

a b straction from a gre at part of exp e rie nc e ) A science
d e al ing with
must gen e ral ize an d e mpty it t ill it
b e comes the poss ib l e common or a verag e exp e ri e nce
of an
t
e ct as
human
an
d
that
too
onl
in
i
s
asp
e
o
y
y
g
e xisti ng
r consciousn e ss
or
for
su b consc ious fee ling
o
f
i
if
such
an
xpr
ssion
may
tol
rat
e
d
in
a
b
stract
on
e
e
b
e
e
(
)
from its cont e nts
An d as such a sc ie nc e psychology
is usually treate d T h e psychologist in h is e n d e avour
to mak e h is pursuit l ike t h e sc ie nces of nature is
o b lige d l ik e thos e occupi e d with th e se oth e r sci e nces
to de al w ith a b stractions ; an d it seems to m e only a
matt e r of degree ( though that d oes not make it u n
important ) w h e ther we start w ith th e e xtr e m e a b str ac

t ion of se nsations or simple id eas ( in L ocke s

s e ns e ) or w ith w hat Kant calls th e mani fol d of

sen s e or w h e ther lik e Mr War d we start w ith

th e
prese ntation continuum as it may b e suppos e d
to exist in the ave rag e norm al min d and co nsi de re d
simply in its pr e se ntative asp e ct In cons id e r ing th e
conte nts of consciousn e ss pure ly as cont e nts of con
sc io u sne ss we a r e a b stracting from th e actual or r e al
e xp e ri e nc e o f any in d ivi d ual ; an d in treat ing o f th e
av e rage or normal in d ivi d ual min d w e have a b stracte d
from th e real in d ivi dual
But if psychology b e a sci enc e we must as in th e
oth e r sci e nc e s look for mat e rial an d formal causes
E f cient an d nal caus e s b elong more properly to
practical li fe an d to ph ilosophy In psychology as a
sc ie nce e ven in any psychological diss e ction of on e s
sel f the s elf must b e tre ate d as an o bj e ct a quasi
thing analyzabl e into various factors T h e m o dic a
tions of consciousness must b e tr e ate d as ev e nts that
happen an d have to b e explai ne d by refe renc e to
antece d ent ev e nts We a b stract from the in d ivi d uality
,

C O GI TA T I O M E TA P H Y S I CA

1 08

of the ego and loo k for the antecedent conditions o f

ideas fe elin gs and volitions as the cau se s of the m

e
h
material
causes
in
precisely
same
sense
in
t
e
i
(
)
which w e nd causes in nature : an d w e see k to

la w s in precis e ly t h e same
formulate psy ch olo g ical
s e nse as in nature i e they are statements of what
m ust necessar ily h appen All
u nder cer ta in conditions
la w s of nature are true unive rsal proposition s abstract
an d best formulate d as hypotheticals At the psycho
lo g ical point of View th ere is no e scape from ne c essity
The psycholo g ist ( 1 ) leaves out space ( 2 ) ta k es events
as k no wn only in conscio u sness ( 3 ) but l e aves out
considerat ion of m eani ng Hence psyc h olog y is th e

bat amon g t h e sciences neither among t h e natural

sciences nor completely amon g the philosophical
It h as been denied ( by M r Sh adwo r th Hodgson )
that we can spea k of t h e agent of self consciousn e ss

This is true if we mean by ag ent w hat the wor d

has come to mean in careful mo d ern scientic thin k in g
w hen e g we are spea k in g of physical c ausation Th e

age nt is then Simply a necessary condition of an

ev ent happening
T h e self is not one amon g the
s e ries of physical events On the other hand ag ent
in its literal s e ns e applies more properly to the self
than to any physical phenomenon ; for our only
k nowledg e of ag ency in t h e sense not of m ere
movement in spac e an d time but in the sense of
purposive action for which we ackno w l e d g e respo nsi
b ility ( in s) is in our own consciou s experience
We
transfer t h is to external ag ents ( animism ) The s e lf
is not an a gent in the sense in which the com
b u stio n of wood causes heat or in the sense in
w h ich gravitation caus e s a body to fall ; but it is
our only directly k no w n type of ef cient causation
I a m c onscious of willin g to m ove my arm an d
of bein g responsi b le for the consequence of that
volition
,

P S YC H O P HY S I C A L P A RAL LE L I S M

10

The
d
istinction
b
e t w een e xiste nce
or
fact
an
d
(5)
m e aning may b e further illustrate d b y L e ibniz s

and
d istinction b et we en
nature
grac e
and
Kant s d istinction of phenomenal an d noum e nal
e nal
w
ithout
ar
b
itrarin
e ss
of
the
noum
On
t
h
e
)
(

this vie w the un i ve rse must b e regar d e d as through

an d through mechanical ; through an d through tele o

logical

Either th e unive rs e says Mr War d is m e c h ani

cal o r it is t e leological ; it is not likely to b e a mixture

of th e two ( II p
M ay not the universe b e
b oth at onc e through and through m e chanical w h e n
regar d e d in its mate rial or spatial asp e ct tel e ological
w hen regar d e d in its spiritual asp e ct w hen that asp e ct
is not b e i ng treate d a b stractly for the purpos e s of
a quasi natural sci e nc e o f psychology b ut as the
m ea ning o f the w hole proc e ss a mean ing such as w e
hav e in our consciousn e ss of th e e n d s an d Signi cance
of some part of our o w n activities of thought an d
d ee d ? I f e piste mology sho w s us that noth ing can
ever b e kno w n to us as having any actual e xistence
sav e as an o bj e ct for thought it th e n b e comes a
re asona b l e philosophical faith though it go e s b eyon d
kno wl e dg e to suppose that
t h e lim its o f possi b l e
t h e ultimat e r e ality of all things animat e an d inanimate
is their meaning fo r the o ne min d which is the uni
vers e in its inn e r asp e ct This conclusion though
d ra w n from some o f th e pre mises that Mr W ar d
qu e st ions is not I think very d i ffere nt fro m h is
o w n : it may b e calle d a spiritu alistic monism but
it is not w ithout a d ualist an d not w ithout an agnostic
el e m e nt

t h oro ugh go i g id al is m mu st g o n to d ny t h at a nyt hing

i m at r ial o u ts id
f or alo ng s id
f th sp ir it u al
T h or g a n ic
w orl d c a nnot b c o m pl t ly u nd rstoo d b y m ch a nical x pla nat io ns ;
n is m
i so m t h i g w
b c a u s th
or
g
a
k
n
n o w partly fro m
w it h in in th asp c t f nd p u rpos
m a ning
1

e e

e,

ca

,
.

1 I O

C O GI T A T I O M E TA P H Y S I C A

I t is quit e unreasonable to
o r ies of physics , chemistry ,
g

suppose that t h e cate

physiology should b e
adequate to explain the psychical : q uantity cannot b e
applied in psychology The unit of We b er s law is
a pure ly relative thin g and is moreover subj ectiv e
S till less can the cat egories of q uantity and m e chanics
apply to the psychical as interpreted i n respe c t of its
m e aning P h ysics and chemistry will not explain t h e
perception of a picture nor the m eanin g the picture
has to the spectator who recognis e s what it is about
and j ud g es it beautiful S ubstance and cause ( i e
material or formal ) belon g to t h e world of existence
in space and time Subj ect is the world on its inner
side

M OR 1 7L H r , S O CI E 7 r , ETC

C an any science be properly treated independently

?
of metaphysics
i e can any scienti c investi g ator
continuously shir k an examination of t h e conceptions
?
he is using
We may answer no and yet recognise
a sens e in w hich the various special s cien c es are wisely
enough treate d an d successfully treate d and advanced
without a m etaphysics ; their fundamental conc e ptions
being p r ov isiona lly assume d an d accepted i n some more
or less vag ue way Thus obviously enou gh the geo
metrician does not investigate the nature of space and
th e p h ysicist m a
assume
some
rough
provisional
y
concept of matter or force In t h is sense then can we
have a science of ethics ( i e of human conduct as
right and wrong ) independent of metaphysics ? We

can but it w ill not b e what is very com m only u nder

N ot s fro m a M S vol um Ethi
.

e,

ca

ETH I C S

III

stoo d b y ethics I t w oul d b e a historical sci enc e

tracing th e various e thical i d eals w hich have b een
acc ept e d b y m e n ( a history o f th e ir various d istinctions
b et w ee n right an d w rong) le aving out th e ques tion
w hat right an d w ro ng ultimat ely mean or assumi ng
some provisio nal explanation o f th e m e g that the right

is w hat furth e rs social w ell b e ing

b ut all questio ns
a b out th e ultimat e natur e o f th e moral law an d a b out
free w ill must b e expr e ssly exclu d e d an d ar th e r most
of th e psychological qu e st ions commo nly intro d uc e d
into e thics must also b e l eft out b ecaus e th ey involve
metaphysical qu e stions
A n attempt to d escri b e th e facts of morality eith e r
in th e i nd ivi d ual or in soci e ty as now e xisting w oul d
b e v e ry d elusiv e if th e h istorical orig in o f th e s e
facts we r e ov e rlook e d b e cause o b vio u sly our soci e ty
is in a tra n sitional stag e an d t h e various opinions o f
right an d w rong must b e take n in con ne ction w ith
th eir history in or d e r to b e rightly un d e rstoo d So
that a d e scr iptive sc ie nc e of e th ics must b e historical
or d elusive On th e other h an d if we insist on
going b eyon d the se qu e st ions o f fa ct an d w ish to ask
a b out w hat ough t to b e we cannot Shirk an inv e st iga

tion of w hat ought m e ans i e w e must b ring in

a metaphysics of e thics b y w hich I only m e an a
cr iticism
of the b asis o f morality No w to call thi s
a sci e nc e of ethics is I think claim ing more c er
tainty than w e can rightly claim for a ph ilosophical
in v estigation Ph ilosophy must al ways b e te ntativ e :
it must al w ays b e critical Philosophi e s unfortunat ely
a r e al w ays t e n d ing to b e come d ogmatic ; b ut j ust in
SO far as th e y d o so
th ey cease to b e part o f th e
living movem e nt of philosophy which m ust go on in
e ve ry a e an d in ev e ry in d ividual wh o n d s hims e lf
g
torm e nt e d b y th e d esire to t h is various i d eas
toge the r an d see how th ey stan d in relation to o ne
another T h e w orst k in d o f d ogmatism may be that
.

C O GI T A TI O M E TA P H Y S I C A

I I2

of the sci e nti c specialist who applies some one con

c e tio n w ith w hich he has wor k ed successfully i n h is
p
own sphere to unloc k all mysteries We are not
goin g to free ourselve s from theolog i c al dogmas to
fall under the s w ay o f a d ogmatism of t h is k ind
C ontradiction prove s falsehood somewhere ; absence
of c ontradiction does not necessarily prove trut h b u t
may only prove that we have ta k en very few ele
ments into account T h e greater t h e c omplexity the
more di f cult it is to avoid contradiction Th u s the
term m oral p h ilosophy is really m ore m odest t h an
science of ethics : it o u g h t to i m ply a confession
that we are dealin g with problem s that we cannot
h ope completely to solve and wit h so m e problems
that we ca n t solve at all but can only h ope to for
m u late clearly so as to w arn ourselves and others
We need not therefore be u nduly puzzled by the
non progressiveness of moral p h ilosop h y because
philosophy m ust be born ag ain in t h e m in d of every
thin ker B u t for this very reason the great ph ilo so
phies of the past do not li k e t h e scienti c discoveries
of th e past becom e superseded by and absorbed in
later expositions of the science ( I ) They have t h e
value which all g enuine prod u cts of t h e human m ind
have li k e g reat wor k s of art or g reat reli g ions ( 2 )
It is ne c essary to know somethin g of th em if merely
to be on our g uard ag ainst the metaphysical con
c e tio ns w h ich are e mbedde d i n our ordinary language
p
and t h e ordinary materials of our thin k in g
We
must study old m etaphysics if we really wish to
escape fro m d e lusio n s which are the e ff ects of t h em
f
T
h
e
history
philosophy
may
wit
h
all
trut
h
o
(3)

be called p h ilosophy itself ta k in g its time ; it is

the perpetual antit h esis of criti c ism passin g into
dogma and requirin g new criticism in turn not a
m ere internecine quarrel of rival sects but a
c ontin u ous self
correction of t h in k in g a contin u o u s
.

E TH I C S

I 13

truggle to war d s a more ade uate conception of

t h e m ultitudinous phenomena 0 gour exper ie nce a n
a ttempt to get some unity w hich shall not ignore the
multiplicity of facts w hich th e special sciences d eal
with Just b ecause th e various sp e cial sci e nces are
al ways amassing new material an d propoun d ing new
th e ori e s the perpetual renew al of philosophy is a
n e cessity B eca use th e sciences progre ss continuously
philosoph y can t progr e ss continuously b ut has
al w ays to b e b eginning over again Y e t there are
certain great lan d marks in th e history of philosophy
which d o see m to represent points b e hin d w hich we
n e e d not go R ath e r th e y are turning points at
w hich the w ay o f putting the c e ntral question has

b e e n change d Such ar e th e d ialectic of Socrates

as
appli
earlier
G
reeks
e d to the d ogmatism of the
(
)
an d his turning philosophy mainly to h u m a n pro b lems

Aristotle s d octrine o f
d oubt of
th e

D e scartes sh ew ing us that thought or conscious

ness must be our starting point an d th e critic al
metho d of Kant who insists that before we try to
settl e wh a t this or that is w e must as k ours e lves
what are th e con d itions an d limits of our knowl e dge
of it Observ e that each of these philosophical
revolutions results in a lim ita tion of the pro b lem of
philosophy in a check upon d ogmatism
Li m it
philosophy as we may its pro b lems remain larg e
e nough
s

three enquiries and in t h e

Ethics m ay m e an
wi d e st sens e shoul d include th e m all : ( I ) A scien
t i c stu d y as to the
sentiments j u dgm e nts an d
practice o f mankin d in d i ffere nt ages an d in d i ffe r e nt
places an d sections o f society no w in respect of their
conduct : in these of course woul d have to be in
clude d the opin ions of more reective persons on
,

1 I

C O GI T A T I O M E TA P H Y S I C A

conduct and t h at includes the opinions of professed

1
m oralists an d moral philosophers
T h is is p er se an

historical and in d uctive inquiry too much neglecte d

b ecause of the long prevalent assumption that human
nature is muc h the same every w here and that

moral law
has b een th e sam e at all times and in
all pla c es The discussion of moral sentiments will
involve a certain amount of psycholo g i c al analysis
in the brin g in g into consciousness of w h at is not
g enerally c learly conceive d
T
h
ere
are
the
more
properly
p
h
ilosophical
or
2
( )
m etaphysical questions w hic h arise out of a reective
c onsideration of h uman conduct and t h e sentiment s
and j udgments about it : H o w is it we h ave the

?
idea of an ou g ht confrontin g facts
What i s

moral ideals
moral law
d u ty
m eant b y

virtue
t h e g ood for man ? This ( in its
widest form ) is the question of the relation between
man as a social bein g and as a conscious reective
bein g on th e one S ide and nat u re as t h e su m of
p h enomenao n t h e ot h er In t h is is incl u ded t h e
question of free will

It is idle to di s cuss whether t h is

metaphysic of

ethics should precede or follow the purely historical

and inductive enq u iry Without havin g attended to
t h e fa c ts to some e x tent we Sh o u ld not raise t h e
proble m s of p h ilosop h ical ethics : o n the ot h er h and
t h ese problem s g ive a reason for enq u iry about t h e
fa c ts w h ic h we s h ould otherwise lac k The nat u re
of moral law and of our k nowledg e of it g ive a
reason for enquirin g into the actual j udg ments of
man k ind T h e reco g nition of a common ele m ent in
all t h at can be c alle d morality ( e g t h e hypot h esi s

of natural law or the Vie w t h at conscience is the

tribal self ) g ives a guidin g principle in t h e c olle e

T h is last s c t io n w o u l d c o m u nd r th h a d of wh at Aristotl
i p O
c alls i A y dy
a
b
o
u
t
c
o
duc
t
n
n
p
,

nt

eva

or

r t

a i l/

E TH I C S

1 I

tion o f facts Wheth e r in a complete syst e m the

philosophical or th e historical part Shoul d b e plac e d
rst is a matt e r o f literary or d i d actic conv e nience

R
e
ction
a
b
out
con
d
uct
ho
w
e
ver
o
b
j
ectively
e
(3 )

a
i
sci enti c an d imp e rsonal in its m cannot fail to re act
upon con d uct an d on th e s e ntim e nts an d j u d gments
a b out con d u ct Mor e over the re cognition that th e
ought confronts the is an d that i d e als have varie d
in th e past an d b e e n d evelop e d makes necessary t h e

d iscussion o f w hat our i d eals ought to b e an d

in w hat r e spe cts g e ne rally acc epte d i d eals an d j u dg
m e nts an d s e ntim e nts may r equire alteration This
is t h e practical asp e ct o f ethics
I n a sense it in

casu istry b ut th e ol d casuistry ha d its

clu de s
charact e r aff e ct e d b y th e assumption of a b solutely
x e d moral la w s
Our vi e w s a b out many practical matters must d i ffer
accor d ing as we r egar d what is right an d w ro ng as
d et e rmine d ( 1 ) b y an a b solute standar d reveale d to
e veryone s conscience or to an authoritative bo d y of
persons b y a superhuman po we r or ( 2 ) b y some end
such as social w ell b e ing w hich can b e stu d ie d b y
historical and experiential m ethods I t ma kes a di ffer
enc e also if eth ica l d uties are to b e recognise d which
fall altog e ther outsid e any social o b ligations or tests
I f so a man may be doing right when h e is acting
in such a way as to lea d to the d estruction of t h e
society aroun d hi m

It d oes not conict w ith a humanist or social

estimate of right an d w rong if we regar d evolutionary
.

A ll
p o a Eth i P art II Prop 4 9 D m nd Sch ol
t h g s ollo w ro m th t rn al d cr f G d b y th sa m n c ss ity
as ollo s ro m th ss nc f a tr ia ng l t h at it t h r a ngl s
q u al to tw o r igh t a ng l s
A R u ss ia n s c t t h
f
Do ukh o b ors as k d th g ov r nm n t
A in b i to ass ig n t h m la nd w h r
t h y m igh t b s u bj c t to
N
G d o nly
sa n c iv il is d g ov r nm nt c o u l d g ra nt s u c h a
r q u st I t wo u l d b to r c o gn is a nar ch y
1

C f S in z
in f
f
it f
w f
.

ca,

e e e

e e

ss

e e

ee

e e

ar e

e o

ee o

o a

C O GI TA TI O M E TA P H Y S I CA

ethics as inadequate metap h ysically to e x plain t h e

is
proble m of ough t v
T h e d o u ble aspect

theory helps u S here tho ugh carried up i nto t h e less

S
urely
e
x
ternal
spacial
aspect
itself
elf
realisation
)
(
p
an d t h e c om m on g oo d as the end consciously sough t

after m ay b e seen as the int e rnal or psychical aspects

of w hat on its purely external side appears as t h e
stru gg le for ex istence where there seem s only success
by m ec h ani c al pressure out of t h e less t B u t in
st u dyin g h uman evolution we can t ta k e a merely
external point of view we learn m ost by loo k in g fro m
within Self realisatio n is not opposed to the common
g ood beca u se the self w h ich realises itself is socia l

t
h
i
c
s
is
I
based
o
n
c
usto
m
becomin
g
a
u
t
h
ority
E
( )
of
r
u
lers
priests
s
a
c
red
boo
k
s
(
2
T
h
ere
is
reaction
a
g
ainst
external
aut
h
ority
and
( )

et h ics i s based on int u ition and m odi cations of it

T h is leads to t h e belief i n a lex na tu r a e T h e defect
of int u itioni s m is its arbitrary and individ u alist
c haracter
U
tilitarianism
appears
ta
k
in
g
as
t
h
e
m
oral
end
3)
(
h appiness a as individual pleas u re
h
as
so
c
ial
( )
( )
well bein g and pro g ress
U
tilitarianism
is
mo
ied
and
s
u
pple
m
ented
by
d
(4 )
t h e theory of evolution
T
h
e
evolutionist
View
which
g
ives
an
account
(5 )
o f the facts b u t does not do j ustice to
t h e m eanin g
the
o
ug
ht
receives
a
m
etap
h
ysical
i
nterpretation
in
(
e vol u tionary idealis m
.

I f t h e et h ical end be de ned as s elf realisation we

have to as k what is m eant by self ? It is not the

self a s somethin g merely in d ividual and
particular
e x clusive ( if that were possible) of the rest of t h e
u niverse and of other selve s
-

C f C onssio Fidei,
.

ETH I CS

I I7

The investigation of the possi b ility of knowle d ge

She w s that th e condition of kno wl e dge (w hich is not
mere in d ivi d ual feelin S b ut has o bj e ctive vali d ity ) is
that s e nsations and fe en s are hel d in a s ynthesis by a
self w hich cannot be itsel a mere series o f fe elings ( M ill

a d mits this) a sel f moreover wh ich becaus e a w are of

time an d chang e must in some sense b e eternal

Yet such a s el f cannot b e known as particular things or

kin d s o f thi ngs ar e kno w n It is not there to b e

an o bj ect of k no wle dg e I t is thus som e thing never
realis e d in experience : and yet it is the nec e ssary
con d ition of e xperience Here w e have th e source of

the contrast b e tw ee n ought an d is

The ext e rnal

asp e ct has only is

In the internal ( psychi c al) we
com e upon that which is not there and yet must b e
I t makes nature possible as an obj ect o f kno wle dge
an d ye t is more than mere nature as a seri e s of eve nts
In this seeming contra d iction we have the e xplanation
o f that rising a b ove mere nature which is the charac
ter istic of morality an d also of art an d of science
Again th e s lf which is to be realis e d is a social sel f,
The realisation o
soci e ty ( ethical institutions ) F or practical e thics it
I
C
ood
S
2
SQI Q QI IQ Q gg E
J
L g
$ 3
commu nity
Here w e have the l i nk b etween pOllt S
an d ethics

M,

R EL I GI ON ,

I R T,

ETC

But th e signi cance of the self is not exhausted

in the n ever complete d struggle after an ethical i d eal
a goo d that re ce d es w ith every attainment of a step
highe r
C f M l Ph il phy p 7
C f C nf i Fid i p
P
pp
d
M
l
h
h
8
i
l
55
py
95
,

or a

6
9 ,

99

ess o

oso

99

1
3

8 s99

an

or a

oso

0,

C O GI T A TI O

M E TA P H Y S I CA

The e ff ort to grasp the en d the w hole truth as

somethin g attaine d to feel the eternal ( since we cannot

completely k now it ) i n the temporal is one aspect at
least of religion
To de ne religion we must not ta k e
e c centric specimens ; nor Shoul d w e beg in wit h the
very lo w est types We must ta k e t h e highest type
extrava
g
ant
known
j
ud
g
ed
hi
g
hest
b
y
not = m o st
(
)
(
referen c e to intellectual and so c ial charac teristics)

Reli g ion is
morality tin g ed with e m otion an
emotion that transcends mere str u ggle and contradiction
Reli g ion to beg in wit h is the e ffort to conciliate

powers of nat u re often con c eive d as m alig nant to

propitiate gods or daemons T h e element of ritual
is thus prominent i n it It is not a mere indiv idu a l
e ffort That is mag ic T h e conciliation of h i gh er
powers wit h respect to tribal interests is reli g ion whic h
is not a mere individual m atter ( certainly not i n t h e
early stag es of reli g ion)
W h en c ombined with practi c al r eection o n condu c t
and d eliberate e ffort to attain social g ood reli g ion
i s ethi c al not merely ritual When combined wit h
deeper reection and e ffort to satisfy intellectual c r av
in g s also we have do c tri ne ( theolo gy) And out of
this mytholo gy c omes philosop h y Th e i m ag ination is
always see k in g to translate conc e ptions into pictures of
,

g
fro m t h ic s Et h ic s i pra c t ic ally a ff c t d
b y r l ig io u s b l i fs b u t t h so c ial val u f r l ig io u s b l i fs mu st b
j udg d fro m th sta nd po in t f
th ic s b as d
so c iolo g y in
l P h il phy pp 3
d p nd n t f r l ig io
Cf M
99

n
x
p
I
sa
C f Ja m s V i ti
R
l
i
E
i
n
n
i
f
g
q
p
c o n d it io n s h av t h is a d va n ta g t h at t h y isolat sp c ial fa c tors f th
m n tal l if nd na b l u s to i sp c t t h m u nm as k d b y t h ir m or
u s u al s u rro u n d in gs
T h y play th part i m tal a nato m y w h ic h

s c alp l nd th m ic ros c op play i th a nato m y f th b o d y

th

A lso p 3 9
I sa id
t h at w l ar n m ost a b o u t a t h ing wh n
w v i w it u n d r a m ic ros c op
in it m ost x a gg rat d
as it w r

for m
T h is i q u it a fals a n alo g y T h m ic ros c op g iv s yo u
g r at r d ta il ; bu t yo u s h o u l d n t c h oos a b n or m al sp c im ns f
in v st ig at io
typ
if yo u w a n t to st ud y t h
1

R e l i io n is d iffe r e n t
e

e a

e,

n,

2 2

en

e e, o r

10

on

er e ce,

ou s

oso

es

or a

ar e

an

e o

e.

or

REL I G I O N A N D A RT

1 1

ev e nts in particular plac e s at particular times ; an d

it is oft e n o nly in such pictur e s that concepts are
rst thought out ( e g th e id e as of incarnat ion re sur
re ctio n
M e anings must b e e xpr e sse d in concret e
form We may w ell d istrust th e gr eat thoughts that
can nev e r ge t themselves utt e r e d at all or only in ve ry
ugly an d confus e d forms But th e r e is a d i ff e re nce
b e tw ee n th e d e man d that c e rta in all eg e d e ve nts b e
acce pt e d as th e essence o f a spiritual m eaning (w hich

history to d octrin e )
is inverti ng the r e lation of
an d the r e cognition that m eanings r e quir e sym b olic an d
gurative expr e ssion in or d e r that they may b e grasp e d
by the or d inary min d Mor e can b e sai d philosophically
fo r an or nat e ritual sym b olising i d e as r egar d e d as valid
no w than for a cree d containing ass ertions a b out matte rs
of historical fact in the past T h e smell of incense if
th e inc e ns e is goo d will d o less harm to th e min d than a
g e nuine b elief in stori e s like that o f th e Ga d arene s w i n e
Art may s e em immoral b e cause it r ecog nises an d
reverences the b eauty of the h e althy human form
w hich the asc e tic an d the puritan have burie d under
ugly clothes an d stunted b y un w hole some surround
ings : it may b e immoral if it e ncourages a sel sh
in d ivi d ualism w hich negl e cts social d uty or cultivates
the a b normal w heth e r un d e r the sanct ion of religion
or of w il d protest against Mrs G run d y
R eligion puts the in d ivi d ual into relation to the
cosmos not m e rely to human society In d ivi d ualism
in religion ignores all socie ty The h e rm it with d raw s

from it : the soul saving e vangelical n egl e cts it his

characteristic b e ing other

w orl d lin e ss
Un e qual stages o f d evelopm e nt ar e th e caus e of the
con icts b et we en th e rel igion of ritual an d e thical
r el igio n ( c f th e conict b et we en H e b re w priests an d
prophets) ; b e t w een religio ns of small e r groups an d
w id e r ; b etwe en tra d itional o b s e rvance an d mythological
b elief on the one S ide a nd r e ective sci e nti c thinkin g
,

CO GI T A T I O M ET A P H Y S I C A

I20

or p h ilosophy on t h e other Yet in its idea l philosop h y

i s the clear thin k ing of what is felt in relig ion
.

8
.

Art in its h igh est form is t h e e ff ort to expres s t h e

self ( ideal ) i n concrete form to fas h ion better t h an
nat u re Fine art is emotion or t h o ug ht su ff used with
e m otion expressed so as to produce in t h e spe c tator
or hearer a disinterested pleasure ( elation )
T h ere may com e conict between art and reli g ion

between art and morali ty art a nd philosop h y ag ain

be c a u se of unequal development In the ideal all

m igh t be di fferent ways of self realisation

1

H I S TOR Y
2

H istory is man s self realisation in time T h e im

perfections and contradi c tions and c onicts require a
fait h in ultimate rationality to g ive t h e m a meanin g

Prog ress co m es throu g h c onict and struggle as in

t h e history of p h ilosophy In so m e periods of history
carefully studied we ca n verify t h is h ypot h esis (e g t h e
contribution of t h e stru ggles of t h e 1 7 t h c ent u ry to
o u r m odern political existence )
History is not a mere chro nicle of events ; b u t in
?
volves an attempt to read m ea nings H en c e it is no t

1 I t m ay h av
b gu n in u p r u o u s play in s x u al l c t io n
in r it u al O b s rva n c s
in a c o m b inat io n f t h s
A t mu t b j udg d fro m th po i t f v i w f th
p c tator
E g T h c o n trov rsy as to wh t h r h istory s h o u l d b in t rpr t d

n it m at r ial ist ic S id
i
i
c
o
o
m
c
b
as
s
d
ally
b
ot
h
asp
c
ts
n
i
;
)
(

n c ssary
H istory i a s r i s f v n ts to b
x pla i d
s c i nt ic ally l ik t h p h no mna f nat u r ( f sp c ially g olo g y ) ;

bu t it h as also it m a ning to b r a d ( im p rf c tly) in th l igh t

f a c o n c pt io n f nd s
p
u
rpos
s
d
u
c
at
o
h
u
m
a
i
n
f
h
t
n
g
(

ra c
d ial c t ic pro c ss

ar e

e,

or

se e

s e

e e

or

e e

or

e e

ne

GOD FREE DO M
,

I M M OR TA L I T Y

12 1

a mere collection of materials for the sociologist to

gen e ralise about T h e genuine historian will never
consent to han d ove r mat e rial to be tte d into the
rea dy ma d e pig e on hol e s of the scienti c sociologist
T h e in d ivi d ual ( person e vent nation e tc ) has a value
an d inte rest for th e historian There is a spiritual
w orl d mani fe ste d in th e w orl d of spac e an d tim e

Seen on its
inner Si d e we see a m e aning in the
in d ivi d ual for complete consciousn e ss w hich is ne ce s
sar ll
ignored
if
h
e mere
time
an
d
space
series
is
t
y
conside r e d
.

0
3

The questions of Go d F r e e W ill an d I mmortality

may b e consi d ere d in th e light of th e d istinction b e
t ween th e psychical ( inner) an d material ( oute r) aspect

Go d is no t a B e ing among oth e r b eings to b e

d iscovered like a heavenly bo d y in the Sky b ut th e
meaning of the w hole The question of the e xiste nc e
o f God
is an un important question : th e important
question is w hat we m ean b y G o d
F ree Will is no t capric e interrupting the causal
sequence w hich science stu d ies b ut Simply th e fact
that there is this inn e r aspect M a n is not merely
a part of natur e : a man s li fe is not merely a seri e s of
events nor properly un d erstoo d as such alone He
has also his en d s purpos e s fo r w hich he is hel d r e
sponsible H e is an e f cient an d nal caus e not
merely a mat e rial an d formal
Man is fr ee j ust b ecaus e h e is capable of b eing
d etermin e d by id eas or thoughts an d b y e xte rnal
stimuli as h nown A man is h el d to b e re sponsi b l e fo r
acts (lia b l e to p u nishm e nt or b lame) j ust in those
cases an d in those cases only in w hich he w as capa hle
of kno wing ( thinking of) w hat he was d oing or of
,

C onfessio Fidei, init

C on ssio Fidei,
2 38
.

M or al P h ilosophy,

3 04

C O GI TA T I O M ETA P H Y S I CA

I 2 2

putt i ng himself into or keeping him self in such a

position as to have or retain this c apacity T h us the
element of thou g ht ( ho w ever that is to b e explained )
is the condition of that free d om w h ic h is presupposed
in all m oral ( responsible) action
In so far as h is conduct is determine d by t h e thin k in g
of such ends as reason pronounces to be truly desirable

m an is free in t h e hig her sense the sen s e in whi c h

freedo m is not the presupposition but t h e end of moral
a c tion

And the self h as a meanin g include d h o wever in

t h e meanin g which is G od : and so we c o m e to a
position li k e that of L otze
,

R E L I GI ON

TH E CH R I S TI AN

Principal F airbairn (P h ilosop hy of th e Ch r istia n

R eligion p 1 9 8) says t h at
Wit h out his myt h olo gy
Homer w oul d h ave made no appeal to the imagination

?
of all (D o w e care for his mytholo g y
D id Plato ?
?
Is it not t h e purely human interest that affe c ts us
Hector and Andromache U lysses longin g for Ithaca
N au sicaea ; the recognition b y the old nurse

I Esch ylu s would have g iven u s no trag edy

myt
h
(
ology plu s ree c tion is needed for trage dy) Plato

no philosophy ( see Eu thyph r o R ep u hlic a nd L a ws

M yt h olo gy
for Plato s opinion s about myt h olo gy
is t h e philosop h y of childhoo d ; an d c h ildis h t h in g s

m ust be put aside )

D ante no D iv ine Com edy
T h J w is h r l ig io n w as a r l ig io n f th
art h ly c o nt inu a nc
nd prosp r ity
f th
ra c nd at io n ; y t it l d to th v is io n
f a k in g d o m f G o d n t f t h is w orl d at all
T h pass io n f
th
ot h r w orl d f m d ia val as c t ic l d to th g ro w t h f art
f l ar ing
Th
p u r ita b c a m t h fo u nd r f pro g r ss iv nd
c o mm r c ial c o mm o nw alt h s C alvin rst a m o ng t h olo g ia ns r c o g
i d t h at u s u ry w as n t w ro ng
.

n se

or

C H RI S TI A N RE L I G I O N

1 2

h
i
s
true
b
ut
D
ante
rea
d
s
a
goo
d
d
e
al
into
myth
;
(

ology) Milton no P a r a dise L ost or Rega ined ( Satan

b eing th e most i nt e r e sting character in th e former

an d th e th e ology o f th e latte r b eing heretical ) w ith

out th e motiv e an d th e mat e rial w hich r eligion

suppli e d
You must take account of the e vil of
religion as well as of the goo d to estimat e fairly I t
will not d o to take some w e ak an d aggressive
form of philosophy some d ogmatic atheism or slip
sho d agnosticism an d th e n point to the most thought
ful of th e ologians Philosophy is not religion b ut
as the critic of th e ology it may a ff e ct it for goo d
It is of no u se d iscussing social progress as if human
b eings w oul d eve r d o w ithout r eligion of some sort ;
is o f no u se speaking as if any religion w as
but
it
ifin every re sp e ct goo d and b en e cial T h e carefu l
philosopher cannot consi d er all religions equally false :
an d the pru d e nt magistrat e cannot consi d e r them all
equally useful
,

P H I L O S O P HY
Philosoph y grows

dp veo s O

(p

c ch

h
a or os
d
p
p
:

'

AN D

R EL I G I O N
out o f

p
s r ut
711 69 E
u

mythology

'

"

Then philosophy comes to b e antagonistic to

religion ( X enophan e s Heraclitus Plato
The rst
stage of re e ctive criticism always s e em s to suggest
antagonism
philosophy of art of th e state ( Soph ists )
Y
et
r
h
o f morals
e l igion cannot b e ignore d
e nce
)
G ibb on Ch II init w ors h ip t
f th or d i ary
P ro f ssor A St wart in M ind J u ly 9
sp
a
k
s

What i t hat T h ra bb l t h at m assa c r d

Ch r ist ia c o c pts t
H ypat ia w r Ch r ist ia s th sava g h r m its f th T h b a id w r
Ch r ist ia s T orq u m a d a w a Ch r ist ia T h I r is h P r s byt r ia
w o u l d u d o u b t d ly c o s id r h im s l f a Ch r ist ia n f th p u r st
f g ra c
ort h o d o x y wh n h pr a ch d th d o c tri
d
t
f
w or k s
d
d d u p w it h M y fr i d s b tt r mu rd r yo u r m ot h r

t h a b wit h o u t Ch r ist B t O r ig n d Sy i w r Ch rist ia s

d I pr s um t h at th
W
i
i
A
rt
c
l
s
d
st
m
st
r
C
o
ss
o
n
f
i
n
39
o ta i Ch r ist ia n t h ology
2

n e

e c

an

e e

ne

an

an

en

02

an
c

en

as

e c

e e

on

an

no

n es u s
e

e e
e

1 2

C O GI TA T I O

M ET A P H Y S I C A

S
Philosophy
tries
to
provide
a
reli
g
ion
toicis
m
(
3
an d Neo Platonis m ) and ceases to be pure p h ilosop h y
a
l
a
d
e
i
Philosop
h
y
becomes
i
l
c
n

4
D efence of a creed ag ainst philosophy requires the
from the p h ilosop h ers Th e
u se of weapons ta k en
C hristian t h eologians of the early cent u ries employed
the philosophi c al conceptions and met h ods of Neo
Platonism in order to refute the Neo Platonists
Th us we have a p h ilosophy wit h i n t h e C hristian
reli g ion T h is is tr u e also of Judais m M o h ammed
P
i
s no lon g er
h
ilosophy
anism and ot h er reli g ions
[
regarded as antag onistic to reli g ion or as Simply
i d entical wit h it ; b u t is conceived as the g round
of reli g ion its inner meanin g ]
Ja m es says t h at p h ilosop h y is secondary to relig ion
Feelin g s are rst t h e intellectual interpretation can
only c o m e la ter True ; but is t h e rst in tim e th e
c riterion
prior
I
s not t h at prim ary w h ich is lo ica ll
y
[
g
t h e g ro u nd or m eanin g rather t h an t h e temporal
antecedent
P h ilosophy h e says is an intellect u al
interpretatio n and w e nee d not expect t h at every
one will ac c ept it B u t w h at criterion h ave we apar t
fro m reason
.

2
3

There are those ( Hatch et c Ritsc h l) w h o t h in k

t h at it would h ave been a g ain to Ch ristianity if it
h ad not been affected and infected by Gree k m eta
p h ysi c s and that it wo u ld be a gain to Christianity
now to clear out of it its p h ilosophical do c trines and
leave before t h e eyes of the faithful the S imple and
subli m e g ure of the real h istorical Jes u s Christ
B u t h ow are you to be s u re yo u have g ot the
?
real h istorical gure
This requires h istorical and
critical investi gation You escape from metap h ysic s
to nd yourself in t h e atmosp h ere of t h e law c ourt
w
h
ere
evi
d
ence
has
to
be
tested
and
of
t
h
e
scienti

c
(
)
,

C H RI S TI AN RE L I G I O N

1 2

stu de nt of d ocum e nts If yo u negle ct these scienti c

you l e ave the interpretation to su bj e c tive
e nquiries
capric e
T h e ( b ake r th e U n itarian the sentimental
inh e ritor o f ela b orate eccl e siastical tra d itions the d evout
Anglican or t h e R oman C atholic traine d in the J e suit
cult o f the Sacre d H eart w ill e ach b eli ev e in a some
w hat di ffe re nt J e sus C hrist T h e Quake r w ill b e
certain that J e sus con d e mne d war though h e spoke
no wor d 0 f con d e mnatio n to the R oman centur ion ;
Tolstoi w ill go further and see that precepts a b out
turning th e ch ee k to th e smiter co nd e m n law courts
an d polic e as much as armies an d navies The
Unitarian w ill w ith j usti cation lay stress on the
rst three gosp els a s earl ie r evi d ence tha n t h e fourth
b ut w hat is h e to make of th e still e arlier e vi d ence
o f th e Paulin e Epistle s where th e r e is almost nothing
about the h istorical J e sus an d a goo d d e al of meta
?
physics
Those w hos e religious e motions have b een
d ev elope d in the Sha d ow o f ol d an d stately shrin e s
in th e softene d light of painte d w in d o w s an d ami d
the solemn melo d ies o f sacre d music w ill nd no
satisfaction for their hearts in se e king to loo k at the
isolate d gure of the gre ate st of Hebr e w prophe ts
they see th e ir Lor d an d Mast e r as the art and the
d evotion of ages has se en him surroun d e d b y his
Apostl e s an d founding the C hurch in w hich he still
dwells The living reality of the C hurch gives them
Su ppos
yo u g t id f th a cc r tio ns f Gr k m tap hys ic s
ro u nd th pr im it iv Ch rist ia n b l i f
yo u t all th m or pla inly
b ro ugh t fa c to fa c w it h th h istor ic al d if cu lty a b o u t all g d
fa c ts ( th tr u t h f t h R s u rr c t io
C n w l im it o u rs lv
to what P a u l h l d a b o u t t h s ?
Su ppos yo u say
A ft r all th m a in t h i g i th t a ch ing of
J s u s th m li t T h th q u st io ar is s c ou l d t h is m oral ity
i
T
as
olsto i) b c o m pat ib l wit h th x ist c f hum a n
( g
so c i ty ? Do s it c orr spo d to o u r judgm nts f r igh t d wro g ?
I t i a o b l prot st i d d
H b r w prop h ts) ; b u t i it
th
m or ? I it a r u l to g u id u s xc pt as q u al i d b y G r k
t h ic s ?
.

en

ee

no

ar e

n,

or a

es

e e

ee

en e

an

ee

1 2

C O GI T A T I O

M E TA P H Y S I C A

an assuran c e of the reality of the C hristian tradition

which the searcher of historical docum ents may fail

to nd Of t h e or d inary u nthin k i ng evangelical

Protestants not m uch nee d be said T h e B ible in
whatever version th e y have rec e ived it is to th e m
what the C hur c h is to the C atholi c ; but it is th e
B ible not professedly g uaranteed by t h e C hurch
tho
u g h w h ether they k now it or not that is t h e only
(
medium throug h w h ic h t h ey h ave received it) T h e
spirit of God witnesses in their h earts to t h e trut h
of it ; but if we as k how far this witness of the spirit
ag re e s in di fferent m inds we Shall nd that it is u n
a ck nowled g ed ecclesiastical tradition that has g iven
t h e d octrines and proofs for them are after w ards
sou gh t in scripture read uncritically consulted as
an ora c le an d studied on bended k nee Evangelical
reli g ion is a frag ment of t h e Cat h oli c fait h ta k en
out of its traditional settin g ; h en c e the startlin g
crudeness of t h e ideas of j u sti cation and atone
m ent w h en separated from t h e p h ilosophical doctrines
of the Trinity and t h e Incarnation T h ese c rude
doctrines are c ertainly e f c acio u s in a ffectin g t h e
i m ag ination
T h e deat h on t h e cross and t h e foun
tain lled wit h blood appeal to t h e fevered mind of
t h e tor m ented so u l w ith hardly less m aterialistic in
tensity t h an t h e gh astly bleedin g h eart in the senti
mental idol w h ich Jesuit pie ty has set up be h ind
its altar s
If we are to explain t h e victory of the C h ri s tian
C h urc h over t h e ancient civilization e xc ept by sup
posin g a widespread d egeneration in t h e intellect of
t h e Roman Empire it must be by reco g nisin g that the
Ch ristian t heolo g ians had reached a better philosop h y
t h an t h eir pag an antagonists The C h u rch prevailed
not by isolatin g itself from the surroun d in g world of
belief and practi c e ; but because it absorbed in itself
ele m ents from the rit u al of Gree k and Oriental mys
,

CH RI S T I A N RE L I G I ON

1 2

tra d itions of th e J e w ish synagogue w hich

ena bl e a d isp e rs e d peopl e to fee l th e ms elves o ne family
th e R oman m e tho d s o f organisat ion fo r purpos e s o f
gove rnm e nt an d also th e m e taphysics of Plato th e

take a way any o ne of

S toics an d th e N eo Platonists
th e se e l e m e nts an d th e C hristian C hurch w hich b e came
th e r e ligion of th e R oman w orl d w oul d not have b ee n
w hat it was I f Julian sai d Vicisti Ga lile e ( w hich is
ve ry d ou b t ful ) h e ha d not sai d th e w hol e truth ; for
w hat de feate d him w as not m e rely the S impl e faith o f
sh e rm e n of G al il ee b ut a ph ilosophy b e tt e r
th e
thought out than t h e th eosophical rhapso d i e s in w hich
h e foun d a r e fug e fo r h is soul ; an d w hat gav e its
greate st stre ngth to th e C hrist ian C hurch in its contest
w ith pagan r eligio n s a nd w ith G r ee k philosophy was
that there w as no such a b solut e gap b e tw ee n th e C hris
tia nity profe ss e d b y th e u ne d ucate d conv e rt from th e
worship o f some local go d an d the e d ucate d convert
from the schools o f Alexan d ria ( or Athens )
te r ie s, th e

33

To the ave rage C hrist ian th e d octrin e of the Trinit y

m ay have often b e en Simply a mag ic formula us e d in
b aptism ; an d the i d ea o f the incarnation Simply the
be lief that a virgin contrary to or d inary human ex
e
bor
a
But
no
instruct
e r ie nc e
so n
e d C hristian
p
coul d b e left without som e opportunity of k no w ing
th e
metaphysical phraseology connecte d w ith thes e
beliefs The philosophical conc e ption of th e Trinity
an d the Incarnation was not an esot e ric d octrine to w hich
only an inner circl e w as a d mitte d Within the C hris
tian C hurch in the fourth c e ntury as no w th e re w er e
all typ e s o f mental an d moral attitu d e ranging from th e
cru d est mate rialism upwards ; b ut th e re w as no ab so
lute gap such as exist e d to t h e weakn e ss o f th e Gr aeco
R oman w orl d b e t ween the many an d the ph ilosoph e rs

The d iff ere nc e b e tw ee n th e ortho d ox C hristia n

,

C O GI TA T I O M E TA P H Y S I C A

I2 8

philosophy and that of ( most ?) Neo Platonism w as

in the view ta k en of m a tter M atter to Ch ristian
ascetics was evil ; but Gnosticism came to be se t asi d e
as heresy and tho ug h m onasticism was a concession
to this t h e o f cial creed of th e C hurch k ept u p a
di fferent idea
In t h e Trinity the so n and Holy Spirit are co equal
This is ag ainst the idea of e manation T h e
co eternal
I n the incarnate S o n
S o n is v ery God of very God
there is no loss of equality i n his eternal aspect He
remains God w h ile yet bei ng man Q u d man h e is
inferior but the two nat u res are united in one Here
thou gh often in mytholo g ical settin g we h ave a real
Platonism directly i n the Platonic line
a dvance on
S o the stren g t h of t h e C h ristian reli g ion is that in
spite of recurrin g extravag ances it has not proved
inco m patible w ith temporal w e ll bein g and prog ress
Perhaps t h is is partly due to its Je w ish inh e ritance The
Jewish relig ion is the reli g ion of a people who do no t
despise th is world w h o believe in rearin g families
and m a k in g their way i n th e world an d who re gard
su ch success as a proof and a res u lt of obedience to
the sane and sanitary law of M oses The C h ristians
unfortu nately were too easily conte m ptuous of t h e
was h in g of b ands they turne d R o m an bat h s into
C h u rches and ad m ired people w h o never too k o ff
t h eir clothes ; b u t s till thou g h the counsels of per

fe ctio n m i gh t require a brea k wit h t h e

world
t hose w h o lived and wor k ed in t h e world as tent
m a k ers as soldiers as men of letters as lawyers and
g overnors were not c u t o ff from the C h u rc h and in
the ran k of her saints t h ere are many more types t h an
the fervid and fanatical recluse or the self tormentin g
candidate for martyrdo m
T h e gap bet ween sacre d
and secular was constantly bein g set u p b u t a s con
stantl
it
was
b
ro
k
en
down
I
n
rude
a
g
es
t
h
e
bis
h
op
y
h ad to do the wor k of t h e eart h ly r u ler t h e mon k
-

C H RI S TI A N ETH I C S

1 2

an d friar th e w ork of schoolmast e r an d scholar ; and

th e temporal am b ition of th e Pop e an d the spiritual

i
claims of Emp e ror an d ano nte d king along with all

h
f
e
they cause d m e ant a d e nial that G o d w ho
t e stri
b ecam e esh an d dw elt among u s coul d have ma d e
any hone st w ork th e w orl d nee d e d common an d uncl e an
Not e ho w th e asc e tic or d e rs tak e up l e arning an d art
.

CH RI S TI A N E TH I CS
34

hav e learnt ( exc e pt a few fanatics ) that prece pts

such a s turning th e ch ee k to th e smit e r giving in d is
criminate alms e tc must b e int e rpret e d so as not to
b e incompati b l e w ith an or d e rly coh e r e nt an d pro
e ty
W
r e ssiv e
e hav e
no w l e d g e
soci
l
that
k
e ar n t
g
sci e nce must b e a dd e d to faith ( is in fact in v olv e d
i n a thoroughgoing faith in the rationality i e D ivine
gove rnm e nt of th e worl d ) : h e nc e we must not tak e
pre cepts necessarily as the C hurch has inte rpre t e d
th e m I f C hristians are not to b e for b i dd e n to tak e
arms at th e comman d o f the magistrat e to tak e oaths
in accepting civic o f ce or g iving w itn ess in th e law
courts to app e al to human law fo r th e r e d r e ss of th e ir
wrongs ; may not C hristians still claim to r e tain the
nam e ( if th ey choos e) w hil e prepar e d to r evise som e
of th e teachings o f th e C hurch a b out th e law o f
marriage an d d ivorce an d th e r elation o f th e s exes

g e n e rally to b ase s exual morality on sc ie nti c con

si d e rat ion of in d ivi d ual h ealth rath e r than on asc e tic
abhorr e nc e of natural instincts an d proc e ss es an d
abov e all on sci e nti c consi d e ration of th e w ell
b e ing an d progre ss o f th e rac e rath e r than on ab stract
i d e als o f marr iage as a sacrament ? Human b eings
are animals in a stat e of d om e stication Th e re fore it
l P hil phy pp 3 3 99
Cf M
e

or a

oso

C O GI T A T I O M E T A P H Y S I C A

I 30

is only right to con sider the lessons to be de rived

from the b ree d ing of horses and dogs as Plato d id
inste ad of trusting to mere natural and sexual sele c

tion on the one han d or to re li g ious taboos on t h e

other
If C hristianity m e ans that although we may per h aps
be perm itted to dou b t that an ass spo k e with human
S peech and that a b i g sh swallowed a minor prophet
or even t h at devils w e nt into a herd of pig s we must
nevert h eless fe rvently believe that a unique case of
partheno g enesis occurred amon g the mammalia ; if it
means that thoug h a Ch ristian may be a soldier or
a millionaire or a c omm issioner of oaths or e v en an

actor or a ballet danc e r yet a C hristian may not marry

a deceased wife s sister when t h e law of h is country
allo w s h im an d that a C h ristian may rig h tly beg et
c h il d ren certain to inherit disease or ma d ness and m ust
be tie d for life to a drun k ard or an imbecil e or a
criminal and may not further th
llb e I n of his
c o u ntr
o
a
more
su
i
ta
y
if th e r2w of the lan d allows t h en there are m any
sober minded and t h oughtful persons who will feel
B u t if
compelled to diso w n the Ch ristian nam e
the Ch ristian name h as survive d the supposed im
pieties of Galileo C opernicus D ar w in an d has ceased
to feel alarm at the acceptanc e of s c ienti c truth may
it not also survive what are call e d attac k s on the
sanctity of marriag e and chan ge its id e as of purity
to somethi ng mor e in accordance w ith h e althy human
lives than thes e ascetic and irrational t e achin g s which
permit and eve n e ncourage so much that is inj urious
to the survival of th e ttest an d forbid what mig ht
secure an increase in human happiness and welfare
T h e tru e ch e ck on s e l shn e ss Should be not simply
that which ru ns contrary to instincts and impulses b ut
the consi d eration of the future of the rac e E g
?
s h o u l d the fam ily be mono g amo u s
In what cases
,

CHRI S T I AN ETH I C S

shoul d d ivorce b e allo w e d ? Th e se Shoul d all b e

d iscuss e d from th e poi nt of vi e w o f th e ch ildr en and
of th e e f ci e nt w ork o f th e parents T h is is to carry
We m ust
out th e spir it o f th e Te n C omman d m e nts
not assum e that C hristian e th ics ( th e e th ics o f th e
progr e ss ive race s) w ill crystalli ze e xactly at t h e stag e
w h ich w oul d sat is fy th e consc ie nce of th e I r ish C atholic
or e xactly at th e stag e w h ich w ould satisfy th e s elf
conscious Am e r ican w oman w ho w oul d proh ib it w hisky
an d to b acco an d esta blish a matriarchate of neurotic
ice d w at e r i d lers
.

TH E

U
E
I
O
T
N
S
Q

OF EVI L

35

Go d has b e e n spoke n o f as a king as a l e a d e r of

armi e s king of k ings th e lor d o f hosts ; h e has
b ee n p ictur e d as th e j u dg e o f all the earth ; h e h as
b ee n d escri b e d as an ar ti ce r shaping th e h e av e ns an d
the earth w ith h is han d s an d moul d ing man out of
t h e d ust of the e arth ; h e has appear e d to awe struck
mortals as ri d ing on th e w hirlwin d w i el d ing t h e l ight
n ing an d sp e aking in the thun d e r ; in th e po e try o f a
pastoral rac e h e has b ee n gure d more peacefu lly as a
sh e ph e r d caring fo r his ock ; h e has b e e n look e d
on w ith r e ve re nce and lov e as the father o f go d s an d
m en
May we not using still another imag e d rawn
from our human experi e nce r e al is e an d sha d o w forth
th e natur e of th e a b solute an d p e r fect b y thinking
o f h im as a schoolmast e r gu id ing the e d ucation of t h e
?
human rac e
A fath e r or a teach e r w ho ha d warm
kin d ly fe el ings b ut d i d not think much ab out th e b e st
i nt e re sts o f h is chil d ren might try to mak e e ve ryth ing

f
o
r
smooth
th e m tell ing th em at onc e th e solut ions of
all his qu e stions d ictat ing the ve ry w or d s o f true
h
t
n
C
o
mm
a
d
m
t
st
F
a
c
tory
Ac
t
n
4
,

C O GI TA T I O

2
3

M E TA P H Y S I C A

k nowle d ge and g uiding th e faltering pens of t h e little

writers A wiser teacher leaves his pupils to ma k e a
great many blunders w h ich h e hnows 9uite w ell th ey
w ill m a h e ; b e cause he knows t h at h e will t h us make
them sounder scholars in the en d C an we say he wills
the errors and the faults and the nau gh tiness of his

?
pupils
Yes as means to their education He is

responsible for the possibility of t h eir errors not t h e

actuality F or he w ishes to ma k e m en and women of
chara c ter not bla m eless automata
.

THE

02
7

OF B EL I EVI N G

"

6
3
h appiness

Professor James accentuates the

of
believers If we read t h e lives of t h e saints we nd
much self tormentin g amon g many of them The
happiest life is probably that of th e man of g oo d h ealt h
with a congenial occupation not too exhaustin g and
a con g enial home circle especially with a g ood liver and
di ge stive syste m B u t h is h appiness won t prove t h e
trut h of h is reli g ion and irrelig ion He can t be a
ve r y fanatic reli g ionist of any k ind nor a fanatical
opponent of the relig ion of th e people round H e
probably accepts t h e relig ion h e was brou gh t up in and
has never h ad any d oubts ; and a h appy tem pera m ent
will blind h im to t h e less pl e asin g features of it e g
h e may be an e van g elical Protestant but h e won t thin k
of h is g randfather as roastin g in hell for ever t h oug h
his g randfather never w ent to church or chapel : he
may be a R oman C atholic b ut he will e xtend the
doctrine of invincibl e i g norance to some dear Protestant
fri e nds who have had ample opportuniti e s of learnin g
the true faith If people vividly realised the m isery
of this life and the m isery they profess to beli e ve in
6
C f C n i Fid i p
4
.

ss o

T H E JOY

OF

B E L I EV I NG

33

anoth e r life th e y coul d never sm il e again Of cours e

it is j oyful to b eli e ve that things ar e going w ell
with us an d pray e r an d w orsh ip ar e a gre at outl e t
for e motion But w hat d o e s th e j oy pr ove ? That
certain b elie fs an d certain practices pro d uc e happiness
in c ertain persons T h e moral w orth of th e s e must
b e te st e d b y th e ir e ffe ct on social w ell b eing
Here
is w h e re the supe riority of som e religions over others
can b e se e n
.

THE RELATION OF L OGIC TO

1
P SYCHOLOGY
I

is ea s y eno u g h to mar k in g eneral ter m s t h e dis

tinction between lo g ic and psy ch olog y ; but in the
treatment of many log ical q u estions even by our
most careful writers there seem s to me frequently
some want of clearness i n t h e detailed appli c ation of
this distin c tion And in c onsequence of this want of
c learness m any log ical q uestions seem to be rendered
more obscure and doubtful t h an need be I n any case
an attempt to see how the ac cepted distinction wor k s
out in several of t h e proble m s of lo g ic may serve to
test t h e acc u ra c y of this distinction and unless I am
too san gu ine may even t h row some li gh t on t h ese
problems the m selves
Every psyc h olo g ist and every logI cI an would ag ree
t h at w h ereas logic even in its wi d est sense h as to do
only wit h k nowledge and not with feelin g and will
psyc h ology has to do with all m ental p h enomena So
far as this g oes however lo g i c mi g ht be Si m ply a
bran c h of psy c holo gy and many psycholo g ists t h o ugh
professedly recog nising some further distinction b e
tween log ic and psyc h olo g y are in t h e h abit of
in c l u din g a great many lo g ical q u estions i n their
treat m ent of the psy ch olo gy of co g nition Al m ost all
R pr in t d fro m th Phil ph i l R iew Vol V p 5 85
nd
V l VI p 1
IT

oso

ca

ev

AN D

L OG I C

P S Y CHOLO G Y

35

ho weve r r e cognise a d istinction b et w een th e properly

psychological an d the prop e rly logical aspects of the
pro b l e m of kno wl e d ge This d istinction may b e con
v e nie ntl marke d b y saying that psychology has to do
y

among oth e r th ingsw ith kno w ing w hil e logic has

to d o w ith kno wle d g e

In oth e r w ord s psychology
h a s to d o with me ntal proc e ss e s a s events ; logic
has to d o w ith th e vali d ity of th e se m e ntal process e s

Psychology is th e refore call e d a d e scriptive sci e nce ;

it d e als w ith facts w ith w hat actually happens in the

min d Logic on th e oth e r han d is a regulat iv e

sc ienc e ; it d e als w ith w hat ought to b e w ith r u l e s for
th e right performance of the m e ntal process e s that lea d
to cog nition A nd on this account as is oft e n pointed
out log ic is relate d to th e psychology of cognition in
a w ay analogous to the r elation o f e thics to th e psycho
logy o f fe el ing an d volition an d to the r elation of
a e sthetics to th e psychology o f a c e rtain group of the
e mot i ons
So far we s ee m to b e on r m groun d
No sooner
ho w eve r d o w e begin to apply these g e n e rally accepte d
d ist inctions than d i f culties suggest thems elv e s They
may Sho w themselve s even in conn e ct ion w ith the
d e nition giv e n of logic in an e le mentary text b ook
Thus Jevons m e ntions th e common d e nition of logic

as
t h e sci e nc e o f th e la w s o f thought
and goes on

to explain law of thought as meaning a certtain

uniformity or agr ee m e nt w hich exists an d must e x ist in
,

m ay s m to m a k n im porta t d iffr c if t sa id t h at

Ev ry s c i n c i or
psy ch olog y i d s c ript iv
d x pla atory
pro f ss s to b xpla atory ; d x pla at io i s im ply a m or
a d va c d k i d f d s c r ipt io d s cr ipt io th at b r i g s part ic u lar
ph o m a i to r lat io wit h a w id r ra g f ph o m a A t th
sa m t im i proportio
psy c h ology pro f ss s to g o b yo d m r
d s c r ipt io n f part icu lar m tal pro c ss s
d a im s at a m or
d
m or c o m pl t g rasp f all t h at b ars o u r m ntal l if it b c o m s
m or d m or d if cu lt to xc l ud lo g ic al q u stio ns fro m psy c h olo g y
T t h is I s h all h av to r f r lat r
1

It

ee

e,

n e

en

en

e,

e an

an

an

en

e e

on

s,

en

en
e

e e

an

on

n e o

n as

e e

18

e en e

e,

an

LOGI C

6
3

A ND

P S YC H OL O GY

the modes in which all persons thin k an d reason so long

a s th ey do not m a h e wh a t w e ca ll m ista kes or f a ll into sel
f

No w this looks lik e an

contr a diction a nd fa lla cy

acceptance of the Vie w that lo g ic is a re g ulative

science whose la w s are rules or

precepts

B u t Jevons continues
the law s of thou gh t are
natural laws with which we have no power to inter
fere and w hich are of course not to be in any way
confused with th e articial laws of a c ountry which

are invented by men and can be altered by t h em

l
E
em enta r
Now
if
by
laws
essons in L o ic p
L
y
(
g

of thou g ht we m e an simply general statem ents of

w h at actually h app e ns in our thin k in g or statements
of w h at u n d er certain conditions will happen a s a matter

of fa c t laws of t h oug h t are merely the concern of

t h e psyc h olo g ist B u t t h e psycholog ist is not restricte d
to those u ni form ities w h ic h exist in our thin k in g w h e n
we do not ma k e mista k es In see k in g to ascertain the

laws of asso c iation of i d eas which are psycholog ical

la w s of thou gh t t h e psy ch olo g ist m ay nd the
falla c ies into which t h e averag e h u man mind is prone
to fall an even more instructive stu dy than t h e rig idly
c orrect intellectual processes of the so u ndest s c ientic

thin k er
Laws of t h oug ht fo r the psyc h olog ist are

certainly natural laws in the s e nse of t h e other

laws of nature t h ey are statements of w h at happens
;
or at l e ast of wh at u nder certain conditions woul d
h appen A statem e nt of t h e fallacies into w h ich the
intellectus sih i p er m issu s ten d s to fall wo u l d be a state
ment of laws of though t in this psycholog ical sense

Bu t
laws of thou g ht in the log ician s sense tell us
h ow we o u gh t to reason an d thus may not s eem pro

perly comparable with the laws of nat u re

We all
seem to be able to violate the log i c al laws of thoug ht ;
we do so every time we commit a log ical fallacy N o w
we cannot in any strict u se of lan guag e be sai d to
violate a law of nature thou g h th e p h rase is used
,

A ND

L OG I C

P S Y CHO L O G Y

37

ofte n enough What is meant is that we violat e som e

practical pr e c e pt o f pru d e nc e b as e d upon a knowl e dg e
of a law of nature T h e man who thro w s himself from
th e top o f a high cl iff d oes not violat e h e illustrat e s
th e la w of grav itat ion ; h e may b e violat ing th e la w s
o f pru d e nc e or o f morality
An d so the man w ho
comm its a fallacy illustrat e s psychological b ut violat e s

logical law s A r e we then to compare the law s o f

tho u ght in th e ir logical s e nse with max ims o f pru

d e nc e or pr ece pts of morality or e ve n with the

arti cial la w s o f a country ? A r e th e law s of log ic

simply prece pts of int elle ctual pru d ence w hich ar e or
?
Shoul d b e b ase d on a stu d y of psychological process e s
Warnings against inaccuracy in obs e rvation aga inst
hasty gen e ral isation against th e t e n d e ncy to ov e rlook
n egative instances if th e s e w arnings are call e d log ical
la w s ar e such only in t his s e ns e
But this is a kin d
o f logical d octrin e w hich some o f the strict e r logicians
have consi d e r e d an e xcre sc e nc e rather than an e ss e ntial

part of th e sci e nce An d in any case the term law s

of thought has not b een appl ie d to d escri b e such

maxims for th e avoi d anc e o f fallacies as we nd in
b ut has
th e rst b ook of Bacon s N ov u m Orga nu m
always d e note d specially the axioms of formal logic
the principles o f i d e ntity contra d iction an d e xclu d e d
mi dd le ; an d to th e se th e logicians who tak e a w i d er
Vie w o f their science woul d g e nerally a dd th e principl e
o f su f cient reason
un
d
No
w
e r some name or oth e r
)
(
can th ese fun d amental axioms b e consi d ere d practical
?
e
e
pr c pts b as e d on psycholog ical law s I f so w hat ar e
?
e
th se fun d amental psychological law s
If th e y are not
d istinguishab l e from the logical axioms an d th e se last
ar e th e refore laws of nature ho w are th e fallaci e s which
?
n
co sist in their violation possi b le
The d istinction

betw e en nature or things an d our thin ki ng ab out

things will har d ly help us h e re for these ax ioms of
logic are at once statem e nts about thin gs an d a b out the
.

L O G I C AN D P S YC H OL O GY

8
3

nec e ssities of o u r thought Here then we a r e face to

face w ith a diic u lty which is j ust o ne aspect of t h e

?
problem
H o w is kno w ledge possible
wit h its

?
companion pro b lem
How is error possi b le

T h e formal log icians w ho have chiey favo u red

the de nition of lo g ic as the science o f th e laws o f

thoug h t may s e em in limitin g t h e problem of logic

to c onsistency to have separated log ic fro m e piste
B u t here w e se e that a consideration of the
m o lo gy
laws of t h ought t h em selves brin g s before u s some at
l e ast of the fundamental questions about k nowledge
In teac h ing log i c to st u d e nts wh o are only beg innin g
t h e study of philosophy or w h o are unable or ca nnot
be induced to st u dy ultimate p h ilosophical questions it
may b e advantag eou s to put aside the problem s of
e pistemolo g y
F or bi b liog raphical purposes also it is
conv e ni e nt to mar k a distin c tion bet w een w or k s whic h
deal mainly with the g eneral question of t h e nature an d
limits of hu m an k nowled g e and those which are mainly
or exclusively oc c upied with a detailed examination of
the form s of j udgment and inference with a view to
testin g their vali d ity B u t it do e s not seem to m e
possible to dra w any really scienti c line between lo g i c

and epistemolog y T h e attempt to cu t o lo g i c fro m

the problem of the vali dity of knowled g e can only lead

to t h at narrow and formal treatment w h i c h h as

brough t lo g ic into bad reput e wit h men of science
an d philosop h ers alike and which has made it an
easy prey to t h e sport of th e exuberant mat h ematician
If we see k to limit the province of log i c by de nin g it

the science of in ferenc e we ca nnot avoid the

as
question about the relation between our self consistent
reasonin g s on the one S ide and facts on t h e oth e r
An attac k on the syllo g ism or a defence of it m u st
d eal wit h the qu e stion whether it a str ingit r es and that
is surely a question of epistemolo g y Ag ain even if
we limit lo g ic to inferen c e we m ust dra g in by a side
.

L O G I C A ND P S YC HO L O G Y

39

subs e rvi e nt

d oor thos e process e s

to i nfe re nc e w hich
To
we hav e j ust kick e d out at th e fro nt e n trance
what scienc e d o e s it b elong to consi d er conce pts

ju dgme nts d e nitions d ivisions not th e m e ntal pro

c ess e s as such of thinking j u d ging d e ning class ifying
b ut th e pro d ucts o f these proce ss e s in their poss ibl e
re lations to th e r e al worl d to w hich they profe ss to
?
r e fe r
An d ho w can w e d e al w ith the vali d ity o f
g e ne ral co ncepts with th e d istinction b etwe e n the
w ith th e d i ffe r e nce b e t w ee n
e ssential an d acci d e ntal
real kin d s an d arti cial classes w ithout b e ing com

e ory
th
elle d to fac e th e v e ry pro b l e ms w ith w hich a
p

?
profess e s to d e al
Nay ho w can we
o f kno w l e d g e
d iscuss th e m e aning of af rmatio n an d negation w ith
out cons ide ring th e relation o f thought to reality ?
Tra d itionally such topics as I have j ust named b elong
to th e province o f log ic As a m att e r of historical
propriety the scie nc e of logic might b e exp e cte d to
d e not e thos e su bj e cts w hich ar e tre ate d in Aristotle s
To s e parate
Orga non an d sp e cially in the A na lytics
log ic from epist e mology is to ignor e th e most im
portant of Aristotl e s logical w ritings the P oster ior
A na lytics ; an d the ha b it o f ignoring this w ork is
d ou b tl e ss respons ib le for a goo d d e al of that co ntempt
for th e Aristotelian logic w hich som e logicians se e m
st ill to imagin e to b e th e b eginni ng of w is d om Not
mer ely ho w ever as a matte r of historical s e ntim e nt an d
conv e ni e nce b ut on th e groun d of philosophical accu
racy we must inclu d e th e quest ion a b out th e val id ity
of knowle dge in logic Only for provisional pe d agogic
r e asons can we a ffor d to l e ave it out I Shall assum e

then that our gen e ral logic if taken s e riously must

carry us up into transcen d ental logic ; an d I have

j ust b e e n show ing how J e vons in h is rst e lem e n

tary lesson raises ( un w ittingly perhaps ) th e fun d a

m e ntal question about kno wl e dg e an d error
In M ill s L ogic w e have perhaps th e most stri k ing
.

L O G I C AN D P S YC H OL O GY

o
4

instances o f a c o ni sio n bet ween logic and psycholo g y

or rather of a tendency to merge log ic in psycholo gy
a tendency whic h gra d ually becomes explicit an d

ackno w le dged
I n h is Introduction
M
ill
7)
speaks in d eed as if his lo g ic were indepen d e nt o f

metap h ysics ; and by m etaphysics it is clear from

th e context that he understands principally psy c hology
the analysis of mental processes B u t by this in
depen d ence o f lo gic h e only means t h at lo g ic bein g
c hiey practical i n its aims need not c arry the analysi s
of m ental processes very far
The e x tension of lo g ic

as a scien c e he says is determ ined by its ne c essities

as an art
That the analysis of mental processes
w h ich need not be carried very far in lo g ic is never
th ele ss psy c holo g ical analysis comes out clearly in th e
co u rse of t h e treatise T hu s in the c h apter on The

Functio ns and L ogi c al Value of t h e Syllog ism h e

spea k s of t h ose a ga inst w h om h e arg ues as representin g
the syllog ism as the c orr e ct analysis of what t h e min d
actually perform s in discoverin g and provin g t h e large r
h alf of the trut h s whether of science or o f daily life

w h ic h we believe ( B oo k I I c h III 1 p 2 0 9 8th

L arg er half it may be remarked in passin g
i s a p h rase w h ic h may seem ominously to foreshado w
M ill s scepticis m about t h e c ertainty of mat h ematical
trut h s F art h er o n in t h e sam e chapter 8 p 2 3 5 )

he spea k s distinctly of the psyc h olog ical process

false psycholo gy ta k ing for grante d that the

psyc h olog ical analysis of itself decides the lo g ical ques
tion It is in strict accordance wit h t h i s that M ill in
treatin g the w h ole problem of necessary truth s deals
with it solely as one of psyc h ology He rej e c ts the
in c onceivability of the opposite as a test of truth
on t h e g ro u nd that as a matter of fact many per

sons h ave been incapable i e p sych ologica lly incap

able o f conceivin g or believin g what has afterwards

turned out to be tr u e Now if inconceivability be
,

AND

LOGI C

P S Y C H OLO G Y

taken in a pur ely psychological sens e it is impossi bl e

to d e fe n d th e ultimat e postulat e as an infalli b l e test
of truth T h e ps ychological q u e st ion a b out b eli e f has
in d e e d a v e ry important conn exion w ith th e logical
t e st of truth ; b u t unl e ss th e log ical qu e stion is dis
Mill s position is
tingu ish ab le from t h e psychological
assaila b l e only b y sho w ing that it is compl e t ely sc e ptical
an d d e structiv e o f oth e r parts of h is logical th e ory
such as h is a d mission o f th e vali d ity of the proof per
impossihle
A S a log ical principl e th e inconc e iva b il ity
o f th e opposit e is nothi ng but th e principl e s of Id e ntity
C ontra d ict ion an d Exclu d e d Mi ddl e tak e n tog e th e r ;
an d it is b est to take th e m toge th e r for in th e ir s epa
ration th ey ar e only part ial an d o ne Si d e d expressions
o f th e b asis on w hich all our kno w l e d g e rests
I am
most c e rtai nly not pr epar e d to de fe n d th e princ ipl e
o f th e inconc e iva b ility of th e opposite as th e ultimat e
t e st o f truth on any interpr e tat ion w hich w oul d mak e
of it a s e parat e an d d istinct principl e from that w hich
is un iv e rsally a d m itt e d as th e b asis of formal logic

an d w h ich is ev e ry w h e r e
th e log ic of mer e co n sist e ncy
taken for grant e d in math ematical proo fs I f A is B
it is imposs ib l e that in precis ely th e same se nse o f th e
t e rms an d th e sam e r elations o f tim e place e tc A can
also b e Not B a nd conv e rsely if A cannot b e Not B
it must b e B This is th e pri nciple of C ontra d iction
com b in e d w ith th e principl e o f Exclu d e d Mi ddle an d
this is also e xpresse d in its most a b stract form the
princ ipl e of th e inconceiva b ility o f th e opposit e as a
log ical pri ncipl e
I n th e application of th e principl e t w o cons id erations
a r e of primary importanc e
an d if t hey are su f ci e ntly
k e pt in Vi e w a gre at many of th e o bj e ctions commonly
ma d e to th e principl e fall to th e groun d I n the rst

place it Shoul d b e stat e d in a hypoth e tical form

If

A is B
That is to say the principl e cannot b y itself
furnish us w ith any positive kno wl e d g e w hatever
,

AND

LOGIC

P S YC H O L O GY

m ust start with some assertion an d this assertion

may b e itself a mere assumption w hich may turn out
to be q uit e untenabl e
But i n th e testin g of the
truth o f this assumption the principle of contradiction
r e nders indispensabl e service W hen we t e st an hypo
thesis by comparing it with facts we m ust assum e the
validity of the logical processes b y which w e d e duce
from our hypothesis th e consequences whic h would
follow if its truth were provisionally a dmitted
And
th e validity of lo g ical processes involves the validity
of t h e principle of contradiction Even when a merely
psycholog ical interpretation is g iven to t h e prin c iple of
t h e in c onceivability of the opposite its validity as a
log ical principle is tacitly assumed
We k now for
instance that a sincere and undoubtin g Catholic or
C alvinist or M o h ammedan cannot as a matter of fact
consciously and k no w in gly accept propositions as true
which are inconsistent with the fundam e ntal articles of
the creed w hich has com e to b e a real part of h is mind
H e will as a matter of psycholo g ical necessity rej ect
such proposition s althou g h they may be a c c e pte d as
certainly tru e by persons wh o have be e n di ff e rently
brou g ht up or w ho do not hold their professed reli
i
o u s beliefs w ith the sa m e thorou g h g oin g earnestness
g
An d it must be added thou g h t h is
o f conviction
is not always so clearly re co g nized he ough t as a
matter of logical necessity to r ej ect such propositions
To profe ss to beli e ve propositions which ar e strictly
inconsist e nt with o ne another is a proof that there

is a want of thorou g hness somewher e a want of

cl e arness in thinkin g or a want of sinceri ty or bot h
Of course there ar e various w e ll k no w n devices for

g ettin g over the dif c u lty notably the d istinction b e

twe e n t w o ( o r more) kinds of truth
There are
undoubtedly real an d important di ff e renc e s between

what is sci e nti cally true on the o ne h and ( and

that means of course tr u e ac c ordin g to the p h rase
e

L OG I C A N D P S YC H O L O G Y

43

ology and subj e ct to the limitations and conventions

of this or that particular sci e nc e) an d on th e oth e r

h and w hat is morally true or a e sth e tically true

in th e sense of being more satisfactory to th e moral
or a e sth e tic e motions But th e r e is h e re an ambiguity

in the w ord true

The artist in colour or in w or d s
may produc e a higher artistic e ff e ct b y de v ia tin from
th e e xact proportions o f natur e and w e may ca l such

d e viation a pr e fe r e nc e of artistic ov e r sci e nti c truth

An analogous distinction may reasonably b e admitt e d
in matters of religion that is to say r e ligious e motion
lik e aesth e tic may struggl e to nd e p r e ssion for its e lf
in utt e ranc e s w hich tak e n a s judgments and literally
int erpre t e d ar e not acc e pt e d by th e int e ll e ct But it
is only w ith th e truth or fals e hood o f ju d gments con
str u e d strictly
that logic can conc e rn itsel f ; and no

distinctions b e t w e en th e truth of poetry and th e

truth of fact e ntitl e u s to sa that in pr e cisely th e
y

same sense of the t e rms the t w o propositions th e

w orld wa s made in six days and the w orld w as

not mad e in six days can both b e tru e I n ordinar y

phraseology for our practical convenienc e we still u se
r e C opernican astronomy ;
but
w
e
do
not
seriously
p
assert that th e su n go e s round the earth and that
the su n does not go round th e e arth in pre cis e ly the
sam e sense of th e w ords When ther e fore any o ne
holding a system of beliefs nds that a strict appli
cation of the lo g ical cons e qu e nces of that system
oblig e s him to contradict a proposition w hich , apar t
fr om that syst e m s ee ms to him su f ci e ntly proved
he ought logically eith e r to deny that proposition or
to be pre pared to revis e his syst e m of b e li e fs W hat
any o ne fac e to face w ith such a contradiction w ill
actually do depends on th e kind of person h e is
Most peopl e s system of b e liefs is not v e ry much of a
system : th e y can ac c ommodat e in their minds a num
ber of in c onsistent beliefs by h olding many of the m
,

L O G I C AN D P S YC H OLO GY

44

v e ry languidly by not thin king m uch about them, and

b y k eepin g them for use on d i ff erent occasions j ust
as S u nday cloth e s and ordinary apparel can be stowed
away in separate draw e rs There are a number of
interestin g psychological problems as to the nature an d
deg rees of b elief But w ith these log ic as such h as

nothin g to do for logic Shoul d be made of stern e r

B eliefs whic h are still dimly outlined in a

stu ff
realm of dreams and h azy twiligh t are not yet subj ect
matter for log ic They m ust be brou gh t up into th e

full light of clear and distinct thin k in g before t h ey

can be log i c ally analyzed and compared and tested
B u t this is as muc h as to say that t h e prin c iple of
C ontradiction must be ta k en in a perfectly strict
sense ; and this is t h e se c o nd consideration to be
attended to in applyin g it The principle of Excl u ded
M id d le applies to log i c al contradictories only and not
to contraries I t is only in the case of contradictory
opposition that we can infer fro m the falsehood of a
proposition to the trut h of its opposite A and Not A

divide the universe o r th e universe of discourse

b e tween them but Not A must not be turned wit h out

further proof into some positive B or C nor m ust A
alter its meanin g in t h e very least These limitations
to the applicability of the principles of C ontradiction
and Exclude d M iddle are g enerally admitte d in words ;
but I do not thin k they are s u f ciently re cognized i n
th e discussion about the inconceivability of the opposite

as t h e test of trut h I n other words inconceivability

is treated as a matter of psycholo g y an d t h e purely

log ical character of the ultimate postulate and its

identity w ith the axioms of formal log ic are ove rloo k ed
Let m e ta k e the familiar exampl e by w hich M ill seem s
so easily and plausi b ly to prove the untrust w orthin e ss
of the alle g e d t e st of truth
The antipodes were
rej ecte d as inconceivable by the ancients we k now t h at
they e x ist Now many persons may have rej ected the
,

LO G I C AN D P S Y CHOLO GY

45

notion of antipo d es simply because it w as unfam iliar to

them or because it was rej ect e d b y others on w h ose
But those who rej ecte d the
authority they relie d
notion thoughtfully did so in the b elief that gravita
tion was a force acting in the d irection of an a b solute
d o w n an d they wer e quite right to r ej e ct the alleg e d
existe nce of the antipode s
th eir system of helief a h ou t
r a v ita tion w a s cor r ect
They
cou
l
d
not
cons
i
stently
g
think o f human b e in S constitute d as we are walking
on the other side 0 th e e arth an d not falling d o w n
C an we consiste ntly think such an i d ea
What we can
picture or imag e is irrel e vant to the question C an we
think it i e think it out ? No more than we can
consist e ntly think of human beings at the antipo d es
falling o ff woul d
falling o ff now that w e know that

m e an to th e m falling up which is a self contra d ictory

no don }
This example brings out v e ry clearly th e risks which
m ay att e nd the application of an infallibl e principle to
concre t e problems I t can only b e sa fely appl ied
w here we are certain that th e re is no am b igu it i n
the te rms an d when we are d istinctly awar e o the
con d itions under which we are making our assertions
W e are very apt to take that w hich is true ( or false)
or
false
secu ndu m 9 u id as if it w ere tru e
simp liciter ;
(
)
in other w or d s we ar e apt to make stat e ments roughly

an d vagu ely without clearly an d d istinctly realiz ing

all that we are really m e aning b y the terms we u se
The infall ib le logical principle is always infallible ;
th e re is no d oubt as to it wh e n it sp e aks ex ca th edr a
But we are apt to apply it without du e attention to
t h e uctuating meaning o f or d inary wor d s an d the
v ague outline of m ost o f our conceptions
I t is not a
t est w hich is vali d in formal logic an d in mathematics
,

m ay b allow d to r f r to wh at I hav alr a dy sa id n t h is

m att r i
art icl
Wh at i R al ity ? i V ol I f th Ph il
h
i
l
R
i
M
w
r
p
u
b
l
s
h
d
n
n
H
d
i
i
n
D
w
i
l
p
y
g
(
1

so

ca

n an

ev e

e e

e on

ar

e e

6
4

L O G I C AN D P S YC H O LO GY

not elsew h ere for every a s sertion about an yt h in g

i m plies its validity T h e di fferen c e is only t h at in
abstract matters w h ere the conditions are fully stated
and eas ily k ept in mind the prin c iple can be applie d
with a certain ty to w h i c h we can only approximate in
the case of m ore complex and con c rete s u bj ects
It may be h ere obj ected t h at t h e principle of
in c onceivability of t h e opposite so interpreted is a
principle of consistency only and not of trut h ; trut h
it may be said is the agreement of th o ug ht wit h t h in g s
B u t w h at do we mean by
of theory wit h facts
fa c ts
Ever yt h in g t h at in ordinary lan g uage or

in ordinary scienti c lan gu ag e i s c alled a fact is

if we are to u se words with p h ilosop h ical prec ision

a t h eory
Even t h e simplest perceptive j ud g ment
it
is
h
ot
it
hurts
involves
some
element
of
e
)
( g
interpretation In be c omin g aware of a sensation as

h ot or painfu l we h ave applied t h o ug ht to w h at

is g iven in sense N othin g is m ere da tu m m ere fa c t

if
fa
c
t
is
to
be
opposed
to
t
h
eory
except
I
(
( )
th e u ninterpreted sensation (and even i n callin g it
a se nsation we are ma k in g it so m ethin g m ore de nite
and individ u al t h an a careful psyc h olog y warrants) and
e lf
2
t
h
e
u
lti
m
ate
fa
c
t
of
conscio
u
sness
its
The
( )
u ninterpreted sensation m oreover is really an abstra e
tion fro m w h at we actually k no w and therefore is
not in any full sense of t h e term an e x istin g reality
C onsciousness itself on t h e ot h er h and cannot

very well be opposed to

t h ou gh t
unless we

restri c t the term thou gh t to t h e operation of t h e

dis c ursive u nderstandin g
B eyond
these ulti m ate

fact s t h e da ta of outer and inner sense all so

called facts are theories t h oug hts abo u t these da ta
T hu s t h e u e stio n of trut h c annot be separated
from t h at of consistency T h e only di s tinction we
c an draw if we are spea k in g acc u rately is that m ere

consistency means c onsisten c y wit h in any syste m

a nd

AND

LOG I C

P S YC H OLO G Y

47

of thought or b elief however narrow however inco n

a ta of sense
r u o u s with other
systems
or
with
the
d
g

or consciousn e ss ; wher eas truth means ultimately

consiste ncy within a complete an d perfect system of
kno wl e dge which embraces the w hole unive rse S uch
truth is of course to us an ideal m e rely ; an d we ar e
in the ha b it of d ignifying w ith the name of truth any
thi ng that is cons istent w ith whatever system o f b eliefs
is the b e st an d most coherent that we have ye t b een
a bl e to reach Truth is consistency on a large scale
wher e the universe of d iscourse inclu des potentially
or analogically at least a refer e nce to th e ult imate da ta
of se ns e an d conscio u sn e ss I insert the quali cation

potentially or analogically because otherwise w e might

se e m o bl ig e d to d eny th e truth o f a b stract mathematical
propositions We can v e rify such propositions as
=
n
by
touchi
g

n
g
e
rs
or
counting
heart
b
eats
4
b ut we cannot d ra w a har d an d fast line b etw een such
propositions an d thos e in which an appeal to pe rception
,

is i m possibl e

is quite as true but is not

J2
equally w ell adapte d for the metho d s of the Kin der
garten
A d ifferent kin d of obj ection to the character h e re
assign e d to the principle of C ontra d iction might se em
to be suggested by the philosophical doctrine that truth
is to be foun d in the unity o f contra d ictions Such an
o bj e ction w oul d however rest solely on an ambiguity
in language The unity of contra d ictions d oes not
mean a unity of logical contra d ictories as explain e d
above A s M r M Taggar t has very clearly put it
in his Stu dies in th e H egelia n Dia lectic : So far is the
d i alectic from d enying the law of contra d iction that it
is specially b ased on it The contradictions are the
The d ialectic
cause of the d ialectic proce ss ( p
movement of thought is in fact j ust the process I have
b een des c ri b ing b y which system s of belief are teste d
.

LO G I C

8
4

AND

P S YC H OLO GY

and corrected C ontradi c tions in t h e strict lo g ical

sense c an never be reconciled One or ot h er m ust
be true B u t t h e tr u e proposition m ay be so very
abstract t h at it g ives us very little to s atisfy our desire
for positive k nowled ge On t h e ot h er hand when
we are dealin g with contr a r ies w h ic h are w h at people
g enerally m ean w h en t h ey spea k of opposites or
contradictories t h e principle of c ontradi c tion forbids us
a cc eptin g bot h as tru e ; but bot h may be false and
if nevertheless bot h h ave some pla u s ibili ty or reason
ableness we are driven lo g ically to loo k for some
deeper and fuller trut h whi ch lies beyond and of
which t h ey m ay be partial and inadequate e x pressions
fal s e be c a u se one
sided and incomplete T h e laws of
formal log ic if c arefully interpreted are by no m ean s
u seless even in m etap h ysics To ta k e an example :
t h at Time i s nite and t h at It is in nite are often
spo ken of as contradictory j ud gm ent s T h ey are not ;
and they are no t even contrary j ud gm ents t h o ugh

t h ey h ave c ontrary ( or if in nite m eans m erely

not nite
c ontradictory) predicates
Ti m e is

nite
and Time is not nite are contrary pro
positions ( A and E ) w h ic h m ay both be false

Time is in eve r y respect nite ( or in nite) and

Ti m e i s in some respects not nite or in nite
(
)
are contradictories ( A and O) one or other of w h ic h
m u st be tr u e The application of t h e principle of
contra diction i n all its sharpness sets us free from t h e
incompleteness of t h e oppositions in w h ic h the
inacc u rac y of ordinary lan g uage leaves u s entan gle d
How muc h popular arg umentation turns on t h e
assu m ption that between Freedom and Ne c essity
between L aw and L iberty between Aut h ority an d
R eason between t h e Ideal and t h e Real t h ere is
an absol u te antithesis !
The wonder w h ic h m a k es scien c e and p h ilosophy
beg in and advance is j u st the feelin g of a contra
.

LOG I C AN D P S YC H OLO GY

49

d iction ; it is the logical law of thought making us

uncomfortab l e b y setting up a sta ndar d of rigi d co
h er e nc e ove r and against the scrappy incongruous
ill tting bits of belief we have got hol d o f The
progre ss of the scienc e s is o ften spo k en of as if it
consisted in a continuous accum ulation of facts ; but
if facts are merely accumulate d that is not yet scienc e
but only materials for science to w ork upon When
an allege d ne w fact is pres e nte d to us we inevita bly
i e b y p sy ch ologica l necessity t e st it b y our existing
syst e m o f beliefs ; and as alrea d y sai d we are logica lly
boun d to d o so If the all ege d fact turns out to b e
really a fact an d d oes not cohere with our existing
syste m of b eliefs that system ought to b e modi e d
so as to b e come coherent w ith it
In this process of
mo d i cation it may happ e n that many suppose d facts
will have to d isappear The progress of science is
the continually more an d more complete a dj ustment
of our system or rath e r syste ms o f b elief ; they are
ma d e more coherent in themse lve s an d with one another
an d so enable us to t isolated facts into th e ir places
No w such a progress may be more correctly represente d
as a dialectic movement of thought than as a con
The i d eal of a com
tinu o u s aggregatio n o f facts
l
harmonious
whole
of
knowle
d
ge
is
al
w
ays
e tel
p
y
before us however unconsciously leading us to de
stroy an d rej ect inco m plete an d incoherent systems
or in the more a d vance d stage s of the process to
t them into their places as partial and yet comple
m e ntary fragments of the truth Such scienti c r e
volutions as the substitution of the C opern i can for
th e Ptolemaic astrono m y of the Ne w tonian for the
ol d er account of gravitation of th e und u latory for
the corpuscular theory of light of the Lamarck ian
theory of species for the tra d itional theory and o f
Darw inian fo r the Lamarckian expla nation of
th e
b iolog ical evolution cannot b e described correctly as
,

,
.

L O G I C AN D P S YC H O L O GY

I 50

additions to our stoc k of fa c ts ; they are the displa c e

m ent of less adequate by m ore adequate t h eories

This
diale c tic c haracter of intellect ual prog ress
be c omes sti ll m ore conspicuous in t h e case of meta

p h ysi c al syste m s T h e substitution o f new c ateg ories

for old in t h e sciences in politics in art in religion
in any depart m ent of h u m an life leads to a r eadj ust
m ent of t h e m etap h ysi c al system in w h ic h the old
categories had been h eld to g et h er in w h at see m ed

a co h erent system What a new fac t or a ne w

law is for eac h of t h e s pecial sciences that a new

cate g ory is for m e tap h ysics
In t h e m at h ematical scienc e s we h ave indeed an
e x ample of w h at seem s a steady and c ontin u o u s ad
van c e ; but it is an advan c e S imply by t h e application

of t h e C artesian m eth od of cle ar and distinct t h in k

in g i e by t h e continual application of t h e log ical

laws of t h o ug ht to t h e da ta of space and n um ber
And even in the prog ress of m at h e m atics there h ave
been periods of revolution li k e t h at in w h ic h D escartes
was a leader w h en if old categ ories h ave not been
rej e c ted t h ey have been absorbe d in wider conceptions
There h ave indeed i n recent times been suggestions
w h ic h if true h ave been t h oug ht fatal to t h e supposed
absol u te truth of m at h e m atics I refer of c o u rse to t h e
non Eu c lidean systems of geometry ( on w h ic h there has
been an interestin g disc u ssion lately in t h e P h ilosop h ica l
Review ) ; and perhaps to some persons even hereti c al
syste m s of arit h metic m ay see m c onceivable su ch as
wo u l d h ave to prevail in Joh n S tuart M ill s planet
w h ere
Now
so far as I am able to under
5
stand a m atter i n w h ic h I h ave no special k nowled g e
s u c h hypot h eses as t h ose of sp h erical spa c e of space
of m ore t h an three di m en sions et c are altog et h er

Sc h ill r s art ic l s
Vol V N
6 M
n
N n Euc l id a n

G o m try nd N o 8 P ro f ssor H y l p art ic l n T h Fo u rt h

D im ns io n f Spa c
.

e.

so

e o

LOG I C AN D P S YC H OLO GY

I51

meaningless except on the previous assumption of our

tri d imensional space i e of our actual Space which
for conveni e nce of thinking we analyze into three
di m ensions n d ing that we require at least three
d e te rminatio ns to x the position of any point but
that three are quite su f c ient If it is sai d that in
spherical space parallel straight lines m ee t that can
only mean that on th e surface of a glo b e lines wh ich
a r a llel
d
o
u
l
h
e
t
c
e
a
on a
at
ction o
h
i
u
w
r
e
s
s
p
p q/
f
rf
must con v erge ; or else it is nonsense I f it has any
meaning it assumes the truth of Eucli d ean geom e try
S imilarly if any one likes to amuse himsel f by talking
of 2 and 2 making 5 he can only mean e ith e r to
use the symbol 5 w here we now u se 4 or els e he
means that w hen
t wo poun d s w e ight of a c e rtain
kin d o f su b stance are plac e d alongsi d e of other two
poun d s of th e same su b stance the resulting heap is

e
e
foun d to w igh v pounds a statem e nt which if
true woul d reveal som e hith e rto unsuspected physical
or chemical change b ut w hich is meaningless e xc e pt
on th e assumption of th e a b solute truth o f ou r arith
metic ; fo r the asse rtion of the mysterio u s appe arance
of the extra poun d implies that
an d that
=
1

n
1
We
w
here
expecte
d
d
w
e
+
+
4
4
4
5
Eve n supposing the cont e ntion of the neo geometers

to be a d mitte d I mean of course their metaphysical

cont e ntion with w hich alone I am concerne d the

truth of geometry w oul d still b e absolute within the
conditions as to the nature of space taken for grante d
in any parti c ular syste m of geometry The d ispute
is as to w h e ther Eucli d ean geometry is only a system
parallel to other possible systems or whether it
occupies a position of pri m acy b e ing presuppose d
in all of th e m Within the limits o f any fantastic

meta e o m e r or
the log ical
t y
m e tar ith m e tic
laws 0 thought woul d have to hol d good or there
wo uld b e no system
,

2
5

AND

LOGIC

P S YC H OL O GY

Th e m ain purpose of the foregoing discussion h as

been to Show the connection o r I s h ould rather say

t h e identi ty b e tween t h e ultimate test of trut h in

every department of k nowled g e v iz co h erence within

a system and t h ose laws of t h o ugh t w h ic h are

th e basis of formal lo g i c in its narrowest interpretation
L eavin g t h ese m ore general problem s w h ic h would
us u ally be classed as episte m olo g ical I proceed to
deal wit h some of t h e spe c i al proble m s w h ic h are
u s u ally dis c usse d under t h e h ead of log i c
,

II

Recent log icians h ave protested ag ainst t h e old

tradition of be ginnin g wit h an account of term s or
concepts and have insisted t h at t h e j ud gm ent is t h e
pri m ary act of t h ou gh t B u t in t h e reasons g iven for
ta k in g j ud gm ent rst I do not t h in k a s u f cient dis
tin c tion is g enerally m ade betwee n t h e log ical and t h e

psy c holo g ical aspects of t h e q u estion

That t h e
senten c e pre c edes t h e word in t h e h istorical e vo lu
tion of lan g uag e seem s proved fro m an examination
of the beg in nin g s of lan g uag e a m on g pri m itive races
and amon g ch ildren
This i s a fact of undoubted
psycholo g ical interest b u t I do not t h in k it h as a ny
dire c t bearin g on t h e lo g ical q u estion of whet h er t h e
j udg ment or t h e c oncept is prior ; for let it be s aid
once for all pr ior ity in tim e is ir r elev a nt in logic T h e
only priority t h at c oncerns u s is log i c al priority T h at
is logically prior which i s lo g ically presupposed in
s o m et h in g else ; in ot h er words t h e lo g ically prior is
th at on w h ose tr u th or on w h ose e x istence so m et h in g
else is depen d ent b u t not v ice ver sa Whic h of t h e m
c omes rst into any individ u al s mind or into t h e
avera g e h u m an m ind is a m atter whi ch is of itself of
no log i c al mo m ent B u t wit h o u t any irrelevant ant h ro
or
psyc
h
olo
g
y
it
can
be
Sh
own
on
purely
l
o
o
p
gy
C f Su lly St di f Childh d p 1 7 1
,

es o

oo

LO G I C AN D P S Y C H OLO GY

I 53

logical grounds that the j u d gment is in a c e rtain

sense prior to the concept ; the logical charact e r of
conc e pts cannot b e kno w n unless th e y b e consid e re d
as terms in an actual or possi b le j u dgm e nt The
stu de nt o f elementary logic is aske d ( e g b y Jevons )
to describe the logical character of such terms as

metropolis
b ook
li b rary
prime ministe r
etc I t is a puzzling qu e stion to set to b eginners w ho
ar e always apt to think that every question must have
one an d only one corr e ct answ er The sam e te rm
i a w hat looks the same w h e n state d in isolation may
b e singular or g e neral colle ctive or d istri b utive accor d

ing to th e cont ext in which it com e s

The L i b rary

is in this stre e t
This boo k is not in the L i b rary

It is not in any library

Her e w hat we call the

same term li b rary is sing ular collective g e neral

in succession ; an d in the last e xample is eith e r ge neral
or collective accor d ing as we ar e thinking of the

any
or the in
Aristotle s d e nition of t h e term nay th e very wor d

term
sugg ests that th e term is the element of a

h
di
lg
proposition :
d hi
s
i wp

P
A
r
I
The
t
is
n
e rm
t
er m inu s = lim it en d
(
(
)
that into which the proposition is b roken up w he n we

analyze it
The two Sides o f a Sh e et of pap e r have
no existence apart from the Shee t of paper ; b ut they
may certainly b e considere d s e parately from it an d
fro m one another I S not a sim ilar abstract proc e dure
permissible in logic Aristotle has b e en un d uly b lame d
fo r a d opting in the De interpr eta tione th e conc e pt as his
starting point and buil d ing up the j u dgment out of
concepts B u t we may reasona bly suppose that taking
for grante d the de nition of the Ana lytics ( whi c h was
an earlier w or k ) he consi d e red himself at liberty as
in the science s to Show h o w to construct a whole in
thought out of elements that have only b een arrive d
at by a proce ss of a b straction It Shoul d be o b serve d
,

'

Ka

or

ta

i er a c

or a a t
'

L O G I C A N D P S YC H OL O GY

54

further that in t h e passag e in the D e I nterp r eta tione

his object is to Show that the isolated concept is neit h er
true nor false that only t h e j u dgment is the real u nit
of tho ug ht T h e very passage in w h ic h he is supposed
to lapse into an erroneous view of t h e term is one
in w h ic h h e is practically assertin g the lo g ical priority
of t h e j u dg ment B u t here as elsewhere the disciples
have Shown a pec u liar fa c ility for overloo k in g t h e more
important aspect of the master s teac h in g and h is
rep u tation h as su ff ered in c onseq uence
In regard to t h e e x tension and intension of ter m s
and their relation to one anot h er it is all i m portant
to distin u ish the lo g i c al fro m t h e psyc h olog ical
aspe c ts 0 t h e q u estion I n considerin g t h e theory
t h at t h e extension and intension of ter m s vary in
v e r se l
we
m
ust
rst
of
all
absol
u
tely
rej
ect
t
h
e
y
notion t h at there can be anything of the nature of
a mat h ematical ratio between t h ese log ical aspe c ts

T h is inverse ratio is only one a m on g many e x

amples of t h e fatal and del u sive fascination w h ic h
the exactitude of mat h ematic s exercises over t h e
students of other subj e c ts W h en we nd a log ician
or a psy ch olog ist or an economist usin g mathematical
formulae w e ou gh t to be m ore t h an usually on our
g u ard M athematical for mu lae in su c h matters are
more insidio u s t h an m etaphors T h e extension of a
term is at least con c eivably or potentially c apable of
stri c t quantitative measurement T h e number of in
dividu als or the n u mber of species to w h i ch a ter m
is appli c able is a quanti ty in t h e m athe m atical sense
B u t t h e intension of a term t h e nu m ber of attributes
it inClu des is not in this exact sense a quantity at
all How many w or ds w e ta k e to e x press what we
m ean by a term m ay in any particular case be esti
m ated q u antitatively ; b u t how m any t h ey are will
depend upo n w h at parti c ular words are u sed and
upon w h at lan g uag e a person happens to be u sin g
,

LOG I C

A ND

P S Y C H O L OG Y

55

Where one person or one language us e s one w or d

to e xpress an attri b ute anoth e r person or another
language may require two or three Extension an d
int e nsion are not therefore strictly comme nsura ble
quantities b et w ee n which w e can d iscover an exact
mathematical ratio
Neve rtheless it is possibl e to
compare them together ; an d so far as I can see
th e re is a very goo d sense in w hich it can b e h el d
that as a matter of logic they ten d to vary inve rsely
i e the large r extension as a rul e go e s along with
th e small e r inte nsion an d v ice v er sa
I t see ms to me p e rfe ctly irr el e vant to o bj ect to
this that while a person may w ith incr e asing know
l e d ge o f a su bj ect come to kno w more in d ivi d ual
Specim e ns or more species of a genus his conception
of the genus may an d Shoul d simultaneously incre as e
in richn e ss of content a nd depth of m eaning This
is an important psychological fact an d as such shoul d
nd recognition in any psychological account o f the

gro w th o f kno wle dg e A complete

theory of

know le dg e may very w ell b e expect e d to overlap

this portion of genetic psychology
But logic has

nothing directly at least nothing primarily to d o

with the varying degree s of knowl e dge o f d iff erent
in d ivi d uals or w ith the d i fferent stages in the history

of an indivi d ual min d F or logic ext e nsion ought

to mean the total applicabilit y of th e conc e pt and
int e nsion the total content or meaning of the
concept if its cont e nt were compl e t ely kno w n That
is to say here as in other cases logic has to d o
not w ith what may happen to b e in this or that
person s mind nor even with w hat as a matter of
fact is in the min d o f t h e average person but with
an i d eal standar d o f kno wle d ge to w hich any actual
human t h ought can at b est only approximate It is
meaningless to attempt to compare such varying an d
conti ngent matte rs as the num ber of in d ivi d ual roses
,

LOGI C

6
5

AND

P S YC H OL O GY

or eve n the n um ber of species and varieties of rose

t h at any particular person h appens to k no w of at
any m o m ent with the fu lness of the description
w h ich he co u ld g ive at the same mo m ent of the
genus Rosa
To u se an d e x tend the c onveni e nt

1
terminology of D r Keynes
subj ective intension

and su bJe ctiv e extension are q u antitie s too u ctu

atin g a nd indeter m inate to ad m it of c o m parison ;

w h ereas obj ective intension and obj e c tive exten

sion do con c eivably a t least ad m it of co m parison

F or t h e purpose of ill u stration and exposition we

m ust be content to ta k e c onventional intension

and c ompare it wit h t h e actu ally k nown applicabilit y

of t h e ter m
Conventional i nten sion D r Keynes
u ses for
t h ose attributes w h i ch con s tit u te t h e

meanin g of a name ; h e does not say to w h om

I suppose we m u st u nderstand
to t h e averag e

well infor m ed per s on of our acq u ai ntan c e

T h is u se

of
conventional i ntension
as a substit u te for
obj e c tive intension w h ic h i n m ost c ases c an not be
completely k nown and of t h e e x tension known to
th e avera g e person w h o is well i nfor m ed on t h e sub

e ct for the c o m plete

obj
e
c
tive
extension
is
per
j
fe ctly le g itimate and is only one e x ample of t h at
u se
of convention w h i ch is ne c essary i n every
science
B eca u se lo g ic mu st a cc ept c onventions it
does not follo w t h at it mu s t c onne itself to a
m anipulation of arbitrary symbols and leave alone
t h ose fu nda m ental problem s of k nowled g e w h ic h we
h ave already seen arise even o u t of s uch s eemin gly
abstra c t form ulae as the principle of c ontradi c tion
I t is only t h e a c t u ally k nown t h at we are able to
analyze but we can ta k e t h e best available k nowled g e
,

'

pp
c I
sf

s bj t v

2
T
h
Far Inal Logic, 3 d c d ,
u
2 5
e n me
e c i e a nd
,
4

e
i e ex tension, wh i h
e
he e
e ,
ee m s to m e t o e
n
d i in c i n m e u e u l and im
h n h
wh ich D
Ke n e d w s e wee n denotation and extension o n
e 31
g

o bj c t v
a st t o
y s ra

or
bt

r s ugg st s
porta t t a

t at
pa

x pr ss
r
.

AND

LO G I C

P S Y C H OL O GY

57

typi cal of w hat knowle d ge m ust be an d so se ek

to d iscove r the general laws to which thinking must
conform in or d er to b e kno wle dge In dealing then
w ith this question of extension and intension our
b e st proce d ure is to take some well mapped out
province of k no wled ge where there is a precise ter
m ino lo gy an d a clearly arrange d system of classi cation
In such a su bj ect as b otany or zo ology it is o b vious that
the wider class needs a brie fer scie nti c d e scription than
the narro w er class the intension of w hich inclu d es all
that can b e sai d a b out the higher w ith th e a dd ition
own di er entia e That this is so seems to
o f its
j usti fy u s in regar d ing the inverse variation as true
generally o f ext e nsion an d intension I f w e loo k on
th e w hole univers e as a classi e d syste m o f b e ings

w ith th e su mm u m genus of b e ing at the one en d

of th e scale an d th e various in d ivi d ual existences at
the other th e n we nd our law con rm e d ; fo r mere
b eing is the e mptiest of meaning an d th e in d ivi d ual
b eing is the fulle st The singular term has thus an
in nite intension and is th e re for e incapabl e of com

l
d
e
nition
The
question
which
ill
raise
d
M
e te
p
about th e connotation of proper names se e ms to me
to turn entire ly on wh e ther w e mean b y the proper
name something d iff erent from the singular term I f
w e d o then it may b e true to say that th e proper
name is d e notative b ut not connotative But such a
d istinction b e twe e n proper names an d Si ngular term s
see ms to m e entirely extra logical It is a matter of

grammatical or rhetorical import w heth e r I say this

person or call him John Smith

L ogic is only con
cern e d w ith proper nam e s as appropriate d to in d ivi d ual
b e ings an d can recogni z e no d istinction b etwe e n them
an d Singular terms I f the question of extension an d
i nte nsion b e cleare d of irrelevant psychology and irre
levant grammar an d o f inapplicable math e matical pre
c isio n it d o e s not seem to present much d i f culty
as

L O G I C AN D P S YC H OL O GY

8
5

T h e proble m of lo gi c is analysis i n order to discover

the conditions of validity As the log ical theory of
term s t h erefore sho u ld be base d on a study of
concepts whose applicability and meanin g are well
1
understood so S h ould t h e 10 ical theory of j ud g ments
be based on an analysis 0 h i g hly develope d types
of j ud g ment I n the light of s u c h an analysis it
is t h en pro table to loo k bac k on t h e m ore r u dim e n
tary types in order to u nderstand t h eir log ical si g
I n the analysis of a comple x type it m ust
ni c ance
not be assumed that one and only o ne for m of
analysis is leg itimate Log ical analysi s bein g analysis
made w ith the Vie w of testin g vali d ity that form
of analysis is to be preferred whic h is m ost c onvenient
for th at p u rpose
Now the form of analysis w h ic h
i s m ost convenient i n order to ma k e clear t h e m u t u al
implication of proposition s and t h e validi ty or in
validity o f t h e inferences of w h ic h j ud gm ents constitute
t h e ele m ents is not necessarily that for m which
corresponds m ost closely to what is a c tually in t h e
mind of any particular individ u al or of t h e avera g e
person w h en u tterin g t h e proposition T h is last is
a psyc h olo g i c al proble m and S hould not be c onfused
wit h t h e lo g ical A co m plete t h eory of k nowled g e
may indeed be expe c ted to contain a g eneti c account
of t h e evol u tion of t h e di ff erent spe c ies of j udgment
and to classify t h ese species accor d ing to an evolution
ary or g enealo gical prin c iple as is d one so admirably
by M r B osanquet in h is L ogic ; b u t for log ic t h e
primary b u siness is I t h in k to give an analysis appli c

I t w o u l d b c o nv n i n t if w c o u l d r str ic t th t r m propos i

t io n to m a n a j u d gm n t so x pr ss d as to b r i g t it lo g ic al

ch ara c t r
W c o u l d t h n d ist ingu is h ( ) th ent n ( inc l ud ing th
s n t nc ) wh ic h i m at r ial f g ra m m at ic al nalys is ;
n u n c iat iv
n t b
i
n
h
h
w
h
i
ch
m
ay
x
pr
ss
d
w
or
d
s
at
all
t
t
m
n
d
( )
j g
n t in for m
wh ich u nd rl i s xpr ss io s t h at
n u n c iat iv ;
nd
= th
n
h
j
ud
m
t
so
for
mu
lat
d
as
b
r
i
g
t
i
t
i
n
t
n
t
i
t
)
g
(
p p
lo g ic al ch ara c t r
.

r o os

ar e

e s

ou

e ce

or

or

ou

LO G I C AN D P S Y CHOLO G Y

59

ab l e potentially to eve ry form of j u dgment and such

analysis must b e b as e d on th e characteristics o f thos e
j u d gments w here the logical aspects ar e most pro
minent to consciousness an d can th e r e fore b e mos t
clearly apprehen d e d
It is un d ou b te d ly very im
portant to r e cognize that in every j u d m e nt as
actually ma d e by any one there is a re erence to
reality in g e neral or to some portion of reality as

the ultimate su bj e ct of d iscourse

This accou nt
of j u d gm e nt is con rme d in an interesting way by
the fact that in the most ru d imentary o f all type s

of j u d gment the impersonal p e rc e ptive j u dgment ( e g

I t is hot
It hurts e tc there is no d eter
;
)

minate su bj ect b ut only th e in d eterm inate it

reality in gen e ral
B u t this recognition of th e
re fer e nc e to reality as ultimate su bj ect of discourse
d oes not falsify nor exclu d e th e tra d itional analysis
of eve ry j u dgment into su bj e ct an d predicate a n
analysis w hich is o f cours e b ase d on a stu d y o f

those kin d s of j u dgm e nts in which th e su bj ect

is some clearly de termine d portion of the real worl d
F urthermore th e r e cognition that ev e ry term as
actually use d in a j u d gment must have b oth a mean
ing an d some obj e ctive referenc e ho wever Slight
an d in d irect allo ws us to analyze every j udgment
accor d ing to e ither extension or inte nsion or to tre at
th e su bj ect as primarily e xtensive ( quantitative ) an d
th e pre d icate as primarily intensive ( qualitative )
The
last o f th e se mo d es of analysis may b e preferre d
b e cause it correspon d s best to the or d inary form o f
lang u ag e an d to w hat is most usually in our min d s
w h e n w e say something ( pre d icate a characteristic i e
a quality) of som e thing ( i e of all or som e part of
a thing or class o f things) But the interpretation
of b oth subject and pre d icate in terms of extension
has th e convenience that it exhi b its most clearly the
possi b ilities of transition from one proposition d irectly
,

'

L O G I C AN D P S YC H OL O GY

6o

to another and t h e implications of c o m binations of

proposition s T h e continuity w h ich is the essence of
all inference c an be m ost easily e xh ibited by inter

t
h
e
m
iddle
ter
m
in
m
ediate
inferen
c
e
r e tin
g
p
extensively T h e e x tensive interpretation of proposi
tions does of course ma k e possible t h e treatment
of j u d g ments as eq uations and so seems to t h reaten
B u t t h e lo g ical
lo g i c with absorption i n alg ebra
obj e c tion to t h e q u anti cation of t h e predicate whic h
is pres u pposed in t h e equational t h eory is not t h at
such equational j ud gm ent s ( all m e n = so m e animal s
etc ) are not very often in o u r m inds ; t h is would
be a p u rely psy c holo g ical arg ument Th e real log ical
obj ection is t h at a proposition with a denitely
q u antied predi c ate is always a complex verbal for m
w h i c h expresses two j ud g m ents and not one T hu s
All eq u ilateral trian les are all equian g ular trian g les
wraps up into one g
o r m u la
two propositions w h i c h
require sepa rate g eo m etri c al proof ( Eu clid I 5
Now the busine s s of lo g ic is to analyze comple x mental
processes into S in gle j udg ments and therefore t h ese
c omplex eq u ational sentences do not represent t h e
e lements wit h w h ic h w e h ave to deal
The c h ief defect s of t h e traditional formal log ic
seem to me to lie partly in its too e x cl u sive pre
dilection for t h e extensive interpretation of t h e
ud
gm
ent
but
still
more
in
t
h
e
absence
of
di
s
tinction
j
between t h e Sin g ular an d t h e u nivers al proposition
and above all in t h e absence of distinction between
the mere collective j ud g ment and the true u niversal
V ery di ff erent types of j u dg ment are all classed

tog ether as A and E propositions

All t h e boo k s

on t h is s h elf are bo u n d in calf is a j ud gm ent of

a di fferent type from The an gles of a trian gle are

1
to g et h er equal to t w o ri g ht an gles
T h e i g norin g of
th is distin c tion is the chief thin g w h ic h has exposed
A r istotl d r w t h d ist in c t io n v y c l arly
An l P t I 4
,

er

os

LO G I C A ND P S Y C H OLO GY

6I

the Aristot elian logic to attac k in mo d ern times

Mill s thesis that th e Ar istotelian syllogism is b y its
very profe ssion a p etitio p r incip ii rests upon a narro w
class int rpretation of the ictu
d
m de om ni et de nu llo
e
that is most c e rtainly not j usti e d b y Aristotl e s own
languag e wh ich simply e xpre sses th e principle of

continuity ( w hat may b e pre d icate d of th e pr e d icate

may b e pre d icate d of th e su bj e ct
an d o n th e
assumption that every univ e rsal proposition is Simply

a coll e ctiv e j u d gm e nt
No w certainly if All M is

P m e rely m e a ns A is P
B is P
C is P

an d D is P an d if w e th e n go on to say
B

is one o f this group ( M ) th e refor e it is P we have

mad e no ad vanc e b ut as M ill poi nts out ar e Simply
r e a d ing o ff our m e moran d a W h ere ho w eve r th e
t w o premis e s are b oth singulars or w here ( if anyw her e )
one is a tru e universal ( i e ne cessary) Mill s argu
ments are inapplica b l e
That e xc e llent tale of
Thackeray s a b out the too co n d e ntial a bb ( it is
quote d b y Mr Bosanqu e t in his Essentia ls of L ogic
pp 1 4 0 I 4 1 ) se e ms to m e alone su f c ie n t to r efute

Mill s critic ism of th e syllog ism

An ol d a bb
talking among a party o f int imate frien d s happ e ne d
to say A priest has strang e e xp e riences ; why la d ie s
my rst pe nit e nt w as a mur d ere r
Upon this the
principal no bl eman of th e neigh b ourhoo d e nters th e
room
Ah A b b e here you are ; d o you know
ladi e s I w as th e A bb s rst pen it e nt an d I pr o m ise
you my con fe ssion astonishe d him
T h e company
having the two pr e mises giv e n them from d i ff e rent
quart ers (and of cours e th e y might have b een giv e n
at any interval of time an d through m any di ffe re nt
chann els ) are at once a b le to form a conclusion

which is c e rtainly new to them

Th e r e is n o
suspicion of p etitio pr incipii here T h e syllogism ( A
A y s con clu sio arises only from the com b ination
)
.

lo

'

Categ , 3
.

6 1

L O G I C AN D P S YC H OL O GY

62

of

premises ; but the combination of t h e premises

is the conclusion
M ill expressly denies the existence of any tru e u ni
versal ; all j u d gments professin g to be nec e ssary are
according to h im Simply incomplete collective j u d g
ments wh ich w e assert as if they were co m plete The
only necessity he allows is a psyc h olog ical necessitya
t e ndency in our mi nds to expect a repetition of Similar
experiences M ill s arg ument h a s undoubtedly been
made easier for h im by the absence of any distinction in
the traditional lo g ic bet w een the true u niversal and t h e
m ere colle c tive j ud g m e nt ; but th e main determinant
of h is whole treatment of the subj ect of inference has
been h is assumption t h at he is dealin g with a psyc h o
lo g i c al problem and that t h ere is no log ical problem

distinct t h erefrom The very question whet h er the

syllo g istic process is or is not a process of i nference

shows that h e thin k s of the syllog ism as th e consciously
reco g nize d and form ulated inference We n e e d only
translate M ill s qu e stion into Aristotelian Gree k to see
its irrel e vance as applied to Aristotle s own analysis of

i nfe rence
to Aristotle simply means
Syllo g ism
inference i e out of a combination of da ta arrivin g

at somethin g new in the only sense of course in

w h ich we can ever k now anyt h in g new
for we can
never learn anyt h in g absolutely d is c ontinuou s with o u r
existin g k nowled g e Still less coul d we be said to
infer w h at has no c onnection with anythin g else
B u t how far we are conscious of the form of o u r infer
en c e is a m atter for psyc h olo g y : whether we for m ulate
it in wor d s is a matter of g rammar or rhetoric
Lo g ical analysis applies equally to fu lly conscious and
h alf conscious infe rences to fully form u lated and h alf
form ulated inferen c es ; thoug h of co u rse as already
sai d our k nowle dg e of th e log ical forms of i nferences
is best arrived at by a stu d y of the most fully c onscio u s
and c learly e xpressed specimens we can obtain
th e

LO G I C AN D P S Y C H OLO GY

63

Mill hol d s that all infe re nc e is ultimat ely from par

N o w if it were true that as a
tic u lar to particular
matte r of psychology we ha d rst one particular case in
our min d s an d th e n pass e d at once to th e thought o f
anoth e r particular case this w oul d not prove that as a
matter o f logic in fe re nce w as poss ible from part icular
to particular M ill sp e aks of th e villag e matron r e
commen d ing h e r n e igh b our to try th e me d icin e that
cure d h er o w n ch il d w ithout utt e ring any formal
unive rsal proposit ion or w ithout consciously fo r m u
lating any universal j u d gment But if S h e is aske d
why sh e must enunciate the maj or pre mis e of her
argum e nt Sh e must e ith e r commit h e rsel f to the
state m e nt that th e d rug is a panac e a or She must
expressly r e cogniz e th e similarity of th e t w o cas e s
B u t to recogn iz e Similarity is as a matt e r of logic to

arriv e at a mid d l e te rm d istri b ute d un d istri b ute d

or approximat ely d istri b ute d : All such ( or som e s u ch
or most such ) cases are cure d b y this r e me d y This is

such a cas e
Mill himself uses th e wor d s on th e
recoll e ction and authority of what S h e accounts the

Similar cas e of her Lucy

Mr Hobhouse in his chivalrous att e mpt to defe n d
Mill against th e e rce onslaught of M r Bra d l ey lays
str ess on this statement of Mill s ; an d h e s e e ms eve n
incl ine d to follo w Mill in making lik e n e ss an ultimate
category though he a d mits that w here there is like ness
there is gener a lly i d enti ty in d i ffe rence As an argu
ment that th e re is not al w ays such i d entity Mr
Ho b house asks : What is the i d e ntity an d w hat is the
d i ff er e nc e b etwe en b lue an d green
This question
d oes not se e m very d i f cult to a nswer : blu e ( in th e
wi d est application of the nam e) is the i d entity which
L gi Bk
ch
h
I
p
8
1
6
t
3 (
Th y f K n wl dg p
8
Th y f Kn wl dg B k
ch
I
p
(
I hid p
ot
9
.

c,

eor

eor

10

e,

e,

1 1

LO G I C AN D P S YC H OL O GY

I 64

links together the most purple of blues and t h e m ost

y e llowish of g reens when we see them in t h e spectrum

R esemblance and I d en
M r H o b h o u se s chapter on
tity see m s to m e to o ffer one of the m any cases in
which a m ore precise d isti nction between psychology

and lo g i c is needed
L ikeness he says does not

i n th e least bit c e ase to be real because it is analyzed

That may be ; but it is wit h t h e analysis that logic h as
to do M r H ob h ouse seem s to t h in k bot h li k eness

and identity g iven

to immediate apprehension
W h ether that is so or not is a question for psycholo gy
L og i c ally identity is t h e prior because there can be
f
f
in
thou
gh
t
identity
without
di
eren
ce
t
h
ough
it
is
a
(
)

mere abstra c tion whereas we c annot t h in k li k eness

wit h out implyin g bot h identity and d i ff eren c e
M ill s treatment of li k eness as an ulti m ate categ ory
rests u pon t h e psy ch olo g i c al ato m ism which form s t h e
basis of h is w h ole t h eory of k nowled ge M r Hob
house is indig nant at M r B ra d ley s supposin g t h at
w h en M ill tal k s of inference fro m particular to par

partic ular imag es

It is q uite true
ticu lar h e m eans
that M ill d oes not m ention t h em in t h e passag e whi ch
M r Hob h o u se notes from t h e L ogic ; but we k now

s u f ciently well rom other sources notably from h is

a
n
a
o
a
l
t
o
n
t h at M ill a c cepts that theory
Ex m i tion f H m i
of k nowledg e w h ic h was most clearly ( and wit h fullest
c onsciousness of its issues ) expounded by H u m e
M ill s w h ole arg u m ent in t h e L ogic about the nat u re
of m at h e m ati c al j u d gm ents wo u ld b e wit h o u t m eanin g

u nless we suppose that by particulars h e m eans

partic
u
lar
i
m
a
g
es
of
parti
cu
lar
sense
i
m
pres
u ltim a tel
y
Si ons
On c e admit that as a m atter of lo g i c li k eness may
be analysed into identity i n dier e nce t h en if it is
admitted that inference is only j u stied by similarity
it is admitted t h at inferen c e implies identity and there
fore t h at we cannot log i cally pas s fro m partic ular to
,

LO G I C A ND P S YCH OLO GY

65

particular except through a universal We may not

think of form ulating the unive rsal principl e the maj or
pr e mis e of our in ference till we ar e m e t b y th e ques
tion wh y ; an d in proportion as we are untrained in
a b stract thinking or in the hab it of scienti c expression
we may nd it d i f cult to d o so ; b ut the vali d ity of
our infe rence n eve rthele ss depen d s on the truth of
the unive rsal principle w hether it b e consciously appr e
hen de d or not
No w if it b e onc e a d mitte d that logically no transi
tion from particular to particular is possi ble exc e pt
through a unive rsal this sugg e sts that perhaps the
psychological theory which h ol d s that such transition
tak e s place as a matt e r of fact may also need revision
I t w oul d imply a b reak in th e continuity o f our m e ntal

li fe a br eak which we shoul d not scienti cally be

prepare d to accept without very d istinct proo f if no

trace of the i d entity ( the universal e l e ment ) which
com e s out cl e arly in the high e r an d mor e fully con
scious stage of logical inference could b e foun d in th e
lo w e r an d less e xplicit stag e s o f association an d perce p
tion An d mod e rn psychology though it starte d from
the empirical stan d po int of Hume s ee ms to b e coming

to r e cogniz e that in Mr Bra dl ey s phras e Associa

tion marries only unive rsals

I t may b e consi d e re d misle a d ing or inconvenient
as a matter of d escriptive psychology to speak o f
p e rc e ption as being an unconscious or su b conscious
infe r e nce ; but it is important as a matte r of logic to
recogniz e that the vali d ity of p e rceptive ju d gments can
b e sho w n to d epen d on th e same principl e s as those
w hich d ete rmine the vali d ity of conscious logical pro
c e sses I f fo r instance looking at a d istant mountain

Si d e I say I see snow this perc e ptive j u dgm e nt

i
i
w
h
ch
I
m
ght
quit
e
as
w
ll
have
expresse
d
in
h
e
e
t
(
T h is p h ras i a c c pt d b y M
S to u t i h i A n lyti P y h l gy
V ol II p 5 S th w h ol passa g pp 4 5 q
.

ee

e,

s c o o

LOGIC

66

AND

P S YC H OL O GY

inferential form T h at m ust be snow ) is an inference

of a probable k ind It may be analyze d as an Aris

S now is w hite glistening et c

to telian enthymeme :
e rience lyin g latent in th e
a
premise
due
to
past
exp
(
mind ) T h is presentation is white g listening etc

Therefore this is snow

T h is is an enthym e me in

the second gu r e an enthyme m e of the weakest k ind

B u t as the poi nts of identity becom e m ore numerous
t h e m iddle term approximates to distribution and so
t h e maj or pre m ise approaches the stag e at whic h it

admit s of Simple conversion

All that has t h is par

And t h en t h e
ticu lar combination of m ar k s is snow
inference passes into t h e rst g ure
Nothin g it m ay be remar k ed in passin g shows more
forcibly the deg radation to whic h Aristotle s lo g ic h as
been subjected than t h e perversion of the m eanin g of

ent h y m em e in t h e traditional for m al log i c

To
de ne an ent h ymem e as a syllo g ism wit h a s u ppressed
premise or conclusion an d sole m nly to distin g uish
ent h ymemes of the rst second or third order a c cord
in g as one or other of t h e t h ree propositions is su p
pressed all t h i s is i n log ic as absolutely irrelevant
and unscienti c as if in zo olo g y we were to recognize
a distinct species of quadruped w h en one or m ore
of t h e leg s is not seen and then subdivide the species
accordin g as a fore leg or a hind le g a left leg or a
righ t leg were at the mo m ent out of si gh t H o w l
choose to express my arg ument is a matter of r h etori c
I f I wis h to produce convi c tion it may be expedient
to conceal m y wea k est premise or to leave my hearers
to ma k e for themselves a con c lusion which I only
su gg est B u t such tric k s of th e platform fu r nis h no
special and pe c uliar types of i nferen c e for the science

of log ic
Aristotle s ent h ymeme fro m si g ns ( or
T h r lat io n f p r c pt io n to c o n c io u s in f r nc i a d m ira b ly
tr t d b y H Offding in h i O tlin f P y h l gy C f sp c ially
p 13

ea e

es

e e

s c oo

s
.

LO G I C A N D P S Y C H OLO G Y

I 67

symptoms ) is on th e oth e r han d a r e ally important

contri b utio n to th e logic of pro b a b l e ( as d istinct from

d e monstrative ) infe re nc e far more important than

his in d uctive syllog ism from all th e particulars

The d iag nosis o f the phys ician (Aristotle s o w n illus
t r a tio ns a r e m e d ical ) t h e circ u mstantial e vi d ence of
t h e law courts an d as we hav e j ust s e e n our or d inary
recognitions in p e rception ar e a f rmativ e syllogisms
in th e second gur e w hich gain in pro b a b ility as they
approach th e stag e at w hich th e maj or premis e can
b e convert e d an d th e syllogism b e com e s o f th e rst
gur e
Ev e n in th e rst gur e such enthymem es
in Aristotl e s view fall Short o f the scie nti c syllogism
b e caus e our mi ddl e term is a Sign or a com b ination
o f signs an d not a caus e or groun d
I n the scien
ti c
syllogism th e r a tio cognoscendi is th e r a tio essendi
Mill s in d uctive metho d s ar e a valuabl e co ntri b ution
to th e logical stu dy o f the manner in w hich in or d inary
life an d in th e sc ie nc e s we t e st th e guesses that we
make a b out th e caus e s of ev e nts ; but none of th e m

are in d uct ive in th e s e ns e of b eing arguments w hich

d o not proce e d log ically from unive rsal to particular

Th e
metho d o f resi d u e s is professe dly a d e d uctive
m e tho d an d involves th e assumption of an axiom the
truth o f w hich is most e as ily re cogni z e d in its purely
math e matical form T h e oth e r m e tho d s are d e d uctive
appl ications of th e principle of causation as Mill him
self ackno wl e dg e s though h e atte mpts to d erive th e
b eli e f in unive rsal causation an d in th e uni formity of
nature from our expe ri e nc e o f particular cases of causa
tion an d of particular uniformities of s e qu e nc e an
argument w hich turns on the sam e con fus ion o f psy
c h o lo
with
logic
as
that
on
w
h
i
ch
his
attack
on
the
gy
syllogism d e pen d s A s a matter of m e nt al d evelop
m e nt we un d e rstan d particular cases b e for e we un d e r
stan d the principle involv e d in them ; b ut th e universal
principle though it may b e appreh e n d e d an d form ulate d
,

AND

LOGIC

68

P S YC H OLO GY

later is lo g ic ally prior Our conv iction of t h e universal

may co m e later b u t the tr u th of t h e particular instance
is depen d ent on the truth of the universal principle
The q uestion of the logical presupposition s of infer
too larg e for treat
e nces about causation is however
m e nt towards t h e en d of a lon g discussion
I can
only very briey indi c ate what seem to me t h e m ain
points for consideration ( 1 ) I n the sciences and in
ordinary life w e ma k e abstractions accordin g to our

c onvenie nce We isolate c ertain p h eno m ena as ca u ses

for spe c ial c onsideration ta k in g for g ranted t h e other
elements in t h e total reality I n h is exposition of the
inductive m ethods M ill is obliged to desert h is attempt
at a philosop h ical conception of cause as t h e su m total
of c onditions and to adopt t h e popular u se of the
term ( 2 ) A lo g i c al analysis of w h at causation implies
c ompels u s to g o beyond t h e arti cial distinction of
antecedent and consequent and to reg ard t h e assign
ment of causes as only one parti cu lar aspe c t of that
ttin g of particulars into their place i n a system

w h ich constit u tes e x planation

T
h
is
u
nderlyin
g
(3 )
assumption of system is identical with t h e pri nciple of
contradiction ( or i nconceivability of the opposit e) In

passin g fro m formal lo g ic to the lo g ic of probable

matter i n passin g from math emati c s to the sciences
of observation an d experi m ent w e do not com e across
a new se t of a p r ior i principles disconnected wit h our
previo u s canons of infere nc e Our thin k in g is d e ter
mined by t h e same principle of totality or co h erent
system ( or h owever we d escribe it) t h rou gh out t h ou gh
i n passin g from the m ore abstra c t to th e more concrete
sp h ere we pass to a re g ion in w h ich our c ertain
k nowledg e is more limited j ust be c ause it is l e ss abstract
The S p h ere of t h e contingent is S imply t h e sp h ere wh e re
it is more di f cult for us in intricate material to see the
necessity : and t h e principle of su f cient reason is
identical wit h t h e prin c iple of contradiction
.

LO G I C AN D P S YC H OLOGY

69

A d ue consi d eration of the d i fferenc e b e tween the

logical qu e stion of vali d ity an d the psychological
qu e stion o f th e te mporal e volution o f knowl e dge
s ee ms to me to vin d icate the syllogistic analysis o f
Aristotle from another charge of incompleten e ss w hich
is ma d e even b y those who recognize the n ecessity
o f a univers al e l e ment in our transit ion from particular

to particular Such infer ences as A > B ; B > C ;

are suppose d to b e incapable of re d uction

A> C
to syllogistic form But t h e psychological fact that
it is e asier to se e th e principl e e g of a for tior i in
a concre te or in a b ri e f s ym b olic form than w h e n
fully e xpre sse d in abstract la nguage is no proof that
the in fe renc e is logically possi bl e exc e pt in virtu e of
ab stract g en e ral principle The
t h e truth of the
gen e ral principle here an d in all S imilar cases ( most
A ar e B ; most A are C ; A is to the north o f B
B is to th e east o f C e tc ) is a principl e of quantity
or a nec e ssity of spatial relations ; an d it is to con
fuse log ic w ith math e mat ics if we se t up axioms of
quantity an d axioms a b out space as if they w ere
parallel to the dictu m de om ni et de nu llo Every
scienc e has its o w n axioms w hich may b e ar b itrary
conve ntions or d erive d from other scienc e s or capa bl e
o f proof
ossih ile
b
y
inco
n
ceiva
b
il
ty
er
i
i
m
o
f
h
e
t
p
p
(
opposite ) ; b ut th e axioms of quantity or space are
no more th e mselves principles of logic than ar e the
Acts o f Parliament w hich form th e maj or pre mises
of j u d ic ial and a d ministrative in fere nces
F inally to guar d against misun d e rstan d i ng it may

b e w e ll to point out that the

Intuition ist w ho
app eals to th e evi d enc e of consciousness or the con
sensus h u m a ni
ener is in support of his imme d iat e or
g
nec e ssary truths falls into pr e cisely th e same confusion
o f psychology
or
anthropology
w
ith
logic
as
his
(
)

Se nsational ist
opponent A pr ior i principles if we

call them so ar e not known prior to experie nce ;

,

L O G I C AN D P S YC H O LO GY

o
7

i m m e d iate

they are not

in the s e nse of bein g g ot
strai g ht a w ay without any trouble by anybo d y and
everybody They are a p r ior i only in th e s e nse of
not b eing d e pendent upon experience for their vali d ity ;

they are immediate only i n the sense of not b eing

d e d ucible throug h a m i d dl e t e rm fro m ot h e r logi

cally prior principles

They cannot b e
prov e d

except by a transcendental proof i e per imp ossihile

by Showin g that the denial of them ma k es k nowl e d g e
impossible and involves u s in contradiction Nothin g
has more h indered the understandin g and acceptance
of t h e idealist theory of k no wled g e than the per
sistent error of treatin g t h e lo g ical ar gu ment for th e
validity and necessity of the laws of thoug h t as if
it we re an appeal to the averag e indivi d ual s in c apacity
to analyz e some of t h e fa c ts of his consciousn e ss
I n the attempt to deal with my problem I have
been obli g ed to S ketc h i n brief outline a g ood many
parts of lo g ic I f I h ave not alto ge ther failed to
ma k e m y points clear I thin k I h ave done some
t h in g i ncide ntally towards vindicating the essential
val u e of t h e Aristotelian logical analysis I have also

tried to S how t h at
formal log ic is not so barren
of p h ilosop h i c al interest as is often supposed but
if studied seriously leads us inevitably into problems
of e pistemolo g y and metaphysics B u t we are left
wit h this seemin gly paradoxical conclusion that
althoug h psyc h olo gy o ug ht to be k ept out of log ic
it cannot be k ept out of a compl e te epist e molog y
to whic h lo g ic leads up ; an d on t h e other h an d
logic o ugh t not to b e k ept o ut of psyc h ology This
conclusion is paradoxical only if we have been ma k ing
t h e false assumption that lo g ic and psycholog y are
parallel sciences or that lo g ic is Simply a branch or
application of psyc h olog y Psyc h olog y is or pro
fesses to be one of the spe c ial sciences li k e p h ysiolog y ;
and yet as th e scienc e of the k nowin g mind it o c cupies
,

LOG I C A ND P S YC H OLO GY
uniqu e

I71

a
c e ntral position So far as psycholo gy
is a spec ial scienc e logic is r elate d to it as it is to a ny
oth e r of th e Special sci e nc e s But it is di ffi cult fo r
psychology to b e com e one of the sp e cial sci e nc e s of
nature or to remain m e r e ly one o f th e m ; logic an d
episte mology claim part of its province for th e ir

o w n an d seek to turn it into a philosophy as

d istinct from a special science of min d

.

TH E RELATIO N OF M E TAPH YS I C S TO
1
EPI ST EM OLO GY
H ow does t h e problem of t h e ulti m ate nature of
Re ality stan d related to t h e problem of t h e possibility
of knowle dg e ? I n attemptin g to deal wit h t h is
question it se e ms m ost c onvenient to refer directly
to t h e opinions on th e subj ect which have been advocated
by Profe ssor A ndrew Seth in t h e P h ilosop h ica l Rev iew
especially in his articles i n N o 2 and No 5 In the rst
of t h ese articles M r Set h h as arg ue d for the separation
of psyc h olo g y e pi stemolo g y an d m etaphys i cs from
one anot h er W i t h w hat he sa ys about psycholo gy
I am in c lined on t h e w h ole to ag ree tho ug h with
some qualications T h e question of the separatio n
e fer to
of psycholo g y from e piste m o lo
I
Sh
ould
pr
(

in
more
g
eneral
terms
lo
g
ic
and
from
sa
1
)
y
metaphysics is to a g reat extent a question of conv e nience
of terminolog y B u t it is also a question w h ich depen d s
upon the possibility of the e xistence of psyc h olo gy as a
particular science of nature This possibility m i ght
indeed seem to be proved by th e exi stence of psy ch
olo g ists w h o a d opt that View of their science The
question h owever m ay still be raise d h ow far t h ese
psyc h olog ists are consistent with the m selves I f how
ever psycholo g y ca n b e treat e d as a special scien c e li k e
the other sciences of nature it can be kept free of meta
physics in the sam e sense and in t h e same sense only
1
R pr i t d fro m t h P h il ph i l R i w Vol III p 1 4
,

n e

oso

ca

ev e

M E T A P H Y S I C S 53 E P I S TE M OLO GY

73

w hich th ey can b e kept fr e e of metaphysics We

kno w that e ven the math e matician still mor e th e
physicist or th e b iologist is apt to tr espass b eyon d
t h e limits of his special sci e nce an d to put for war d the
abstractions or th e conventional conc e pts of w hich in
h is sp e cial sci e nc e he has rightly ma d e u se as if they
were a b solute realitie s truths a b out th e unive rse as a
w hol e tr u ths a b out the ultimate nature of th ings It
is o b viously still har d er for the psychologist d eal ing as
h e d o e s with a more compl e x mate ri al an d w ith a
mate rial in w hich th e idola for i an d idola th ea tr i are
mor e diicu lt to e scape to avoi d such tr e spassing on
m e taphysics An d it may b e argu e d that psychology
apart from m e taphysics or at l e ast apart from e piste m
ology is too apt to mean an uncritical u se of fun d amental
co ncept ions a nd a tacit an d ther e fore mischi e vous
assumpt ion o f some gen e ral philosophical th e ory ; that
psychology apart from a critical theory of knowle dge
is too o fte n only a com b ination o f haphazar d obs e rvation
an d b ad m e taphysics h elp e d out b y a little s e cond han d
physiology But a b ette r i d eal is possi b le an d is
certainly present to the m in d s of many psychologists
at th e pre sent d ay A full recognition of the necessary
abstractn e ss of the psychologist s point of vie w an d
a careful el imination of metaphysical assertions whether
af rmative or negative j ustify the claim to tr e at
psychology as a natural scienc e or at least as what
wishes to be a natural scienc e
I f howeve r psychology b e treate d in this way as
a sp e cial science l ike physiology or chemistry it can
no long e r put for ward th e claim to be th e foun d ation
of philosophy or even of any of the special philosophic al
sciences such as logic ethics aesthetics All the Special
sciences form part of th e material for philosop h y
That is one reason why philosophy is never complete
b ut has to have its problems wor k e d out afresh b y
every generation an d in a sense by every in d ividual

in

74

M E T A P H Y S I C S 52 EP I S T E M O LO GY

who ta k es it seriously All ch an ges in scienti c

conceptions j u st as all changes in religio u s i d eas
in economical social and political conditions bring
new problems to lig ht an d co m pel us to face ol d
proble m s i n new ways Psycholo g y from t h e nature
of its subj ect matter h as a closer conne c tion wit h many
p h ilosophical problems t h an some of t h e ot h er s c iences
B u t philosophy cannot be based on psycholo gy ( as a
science excludin g epistemolo g y and metap h ysics) in
any sense i n whic h it is not also based on so c iolo gy
and h istory t h e sciences w h i c h deal wit h t h e h u man

m ind writ larg e

Admittin g then a possible separation of psycholog y
from epistemology and fro m metap h ysics we h ave
to a sk whether t h ese can be separated from one another
M r Set h adm its t h at metaphysi c s s h ould be based

on epistemolog y : at least h e says that Epistemolog y

clears t h e way for m etap h ysical construction or
1
B u t h e treats epistemolo g y as if
h ypot h esis
it were a s c ience clearly separable from metaphysics
so m u c h so that h e t h in k s it possible for u s to be

realists
in our epistemology while we are
T h ere is an intelli g ible
idealists in our metaphysics
sense in w h i ch it can be said t h at mere subj ective

idealism t h e assertion t h at we never can k now any

t h in g beyond t h e states o f cons c iousness wh ic h are

the hypostatised abstractions wit h which t h e psyc h olog ist

may profess to wor k is in c on sistent with idealis m

in the sense in w h ic h that means a belief in t h e ulti m ate
rationality of the universe B u t M r Set h sets up
reals i n epistemolog y the suppose d absolutely

existin g
thin g s
of ordinary picture thin k ing in
order to k no ck them down in m etap h ysics by regarding
t h e m only as m oments in the bein g of an intelli gently

directed L ife
I t w ould seem easier at least and
m ore obviously lo g ical to ba s e su ch a metap h ysi c a l
2
1 P h il
l
1
V
I
p
8
w
l
R
i
hi
3
4
p
p
.

oso

ca

ev e

M ET A P H Y S I C S {9

E P I S TE M OLOG Y

75

th e ory on an e piste mology w hich d e ni e d th e possibility

of know ing anything that e xist e d in d e pen d e ntly of
all thought an d to b ase a d e nial o f such a m e taphysical
th e ory on an e piste mology w hich ma d e the fact of
kno wl e d ge r equ ir e th e e xistenc e of a plurality of

a b solutely exist ing reals

I f m e taphysics b e strictly limit e d to speculativ e
metaphysics th e att empt to fram e an all em b racing
hypothesis a b out th e ultimat e nature of th e univers e
of course distinguish that part of
a s a w hol e we can
philosophy ( w h e the r possi bl e or not ) from an inquiry
into the con d it ions o f kno wle d ge ; b ut w e cannot
safely s e parat e such sp e culat ions from th e pr eliminary
inqu iry If our e piste mology give s us no groun d for
any b eli ef in any u nity of th e cosmos w hateve r or in
any rationality in th e proc e ss o f it th e atte mpt to
expla in it as a w hole is con d emn e d at th e outs e t T h e
att e mpt to construct a sp e culative metaphysics ho w eve r
tentat iv e an d hypoth e tical is only d e fe nsi bl e if we fe el
som e justi cation fo r b eli eving that there is a cosmos
to b e explaine d an d that it must b e to som e e xt e nt
int e lligi bl e by us That is to say in our epist e mology
we ar e alre a d y if we a r e taking it seriously on
m e taphysical groun d Know ledg e profess e s to b e
kno wl e dg e of r e ality an d thus if we raise the qu e st ion
Ho w is kno w l e d g e possi b l e or even h e sc e ptical
?
t

qu e stion
I s kno wle dge possi b l e at all ? we are

z so fa cto d ealing with the qu e stion

W
hat
is
r
ality
e
p
t h e only reality w e ev e r can know or intellig e ntly

?
We may in d e e d re s e rv e the question
talk ab out

?
W hat is the full m e aning o f reali ty
an d we shall
d o w ell not to profess to give any but a provisional

e
i
ans w r to t such provisional ans we r constituting o u r

speculative m e taphysics or
philosophy
in the
narro w er an d sp e c ial s e ns e
Th e plain man c e rtainly b elieves that when he claims
to kno w anything h e kno ws w hat is real ; b ut I d o
,

M E T A P H Y S I C S 69 EP I S T E M OLO GY

6
7

not think he really b e lieves this r e al worl d t h at he

k nows to be somethin g outside his consciousness how
eve r ready h e may b e to ass e nt to th e dualistic realis m of
so calle d common s e nse philosophy whic h our realists
in epistemology and our realists w ho try to do wit h
out epistemolo g y alike tend to re h abilitate M r S e th

urg es that kno wled ge if it is not an illusion altog et h er

is a k nowled g e of realities w hi ch are trans subj ective or
extra c onscious ; i e which e x ist beyond and i nde
pendently o f the consciousness of the i ndividual k now

ing the m
That all k nowledg e is trans subj ective
in t h e sense of havin g an obj ective referen c e is u n
doubtedly true Even my k nowled g e of m y o wn
m ental states i s trans subj ective in t h e sense t h at there
is a d istinctio n between the k nowing subj ect and the
o bj ect k nown as t h ere m ust be in all kno w led g e S uch
k nowledg e m ay also be c alled obj ective i n the further
sense that even m y own mental states thoug h kno w n
directly to myself alone are events i n the real universe
and are capable of becomin g mediately an obj ect of
k nowledge to ot h er per s ons t h an myself if I spea k
trut h fully about t h em B u t I am u nable to se e ho w a

k nowled g e of my own mental states and such k no w

led g e both the plain m an and the psycholo g ist profess

e
to hav can be described as a k no wled g e of realities
whic h e x ist beyond t h e consciousness of t h e individual

k no win them
Nor can I see h ow even my k now
led g e o the e x ternal world or of the mental states of
other persons c an be a k no wledge of t h at whi ch is b eyond

my c onsciousness in any accurate sense of t h ese words

The plain man certainly believe s that h e k nows w h at is
external to himself but such a belief is entirely
misrepresented by the epistemolog ical realist who
declares t h at the plain man believes that h e k nows what
is external to or b eyond h is consciousness When t h e
plain man t al k s of what is external to hi m self h e means
1 P h il
h
i
l
R
vi w V l I p 5 5
e
p
,

oso

ca

E P I S TE M O L O G Y

M ETA P H Y S I C S {9

77

w hat is external to his h ody an d that is exactly w hy he

n d s a th e ory of matt e r such a s that of B e rk el e y so

ri d iculous H e re fute s B e rk e ley b y kicking a ston e

l ik e D r Johnson or b y sugge st ing that an i d ealist
shoul d Sit d o w n on a gors e b ush I f th e plain man b e
ma d e to think a littl e ab out th e question h e w ill a d mit
that th e outsi d e of h is bo d y at least is part of the ex
te rnal w orl d b ut h e pro b ab ly co n tin u e s to sp e ak of his
d ig e stive apparatus as i n si d e h im I f th e plain m an
th inks a b ou t his soul or h is min d h e pro b ab ly pictur e s
it as a th ing occupying spac e ho w e v e r tiny insi d e his

b o dy a b ox w ith in a b ox : h e may locat e it in his

bosom or in h is h e a d accor d ing to th e physiology o f h is
p e r io d an d to the degre e in w hich phys iological notio n s
have p e n e trat e d into ord inary sp e e ch I t is only in
virtu e of this cru de p icture think ing that the plain man
is ind uc e d to say that h e kno w s anyth ing e xt e rnal to his
min d or consciousn e ss No vali d argum e nt in b e hal f
of t h e th e ory o f e pist e molog ical r e al ism can b e d raw n

from w hat Mr S e th calls th e

primary ins ti nctive
an d irre sisti bl e b el ie f o f all manki nd nay of t h e w hol e

animal cr e ation
F or th e e piste molog ical th e ories
o f oth e r a nimals I can not profe ss to sp e ak co n d ently

b u t I fe el c e rta in that th e
cru d e or naive or

uncritical r e alism of th e pla in man is nothing more

than h is b el ie f that th e r eal w orl d is the w orl d o f his
s e nsations an d o f th e m e ntal constructs b y w hich he
has ( w ithout b e ing a ware of the proc e ss save very
d imly ) got into the ha b it of inte rpr e ting them to
h ims elf : that is to say th e r eal w orl d o f th e plain
man s b el ie f consists in s e nsations p lus imag e s an d i de as
sugg e st e d b y them an d is a r e al worl d against which
i d e al ism n d s nothing to say
C ru de realism
suppli e s no argum e nt for th e plausi b ility of episte
m o lo gical realism unless a d vantage b e taken of the

ambig u ity in th e w or d e xt e rnal

it p 5 6
l
,

oc. c

8
7

M E T A P H Y S I C S 52

E P I S T E M OLO GY

But ho w one may w ell as k on e s s el f is it possible

that a philosophical think e r like Professor S e th can
have com e to maintain such a propositio n as that
?
k no wle d ge is of that w hich is external to consciousness
Sympathy w ith R e i d is an ina d equate e xplanation
M y sug g estion is that Professor Seth has not really
escaped from a confusion b e t w een psychology and
epist e mology ; or to put it rather mor e accurately hi s
theory of k no w ledg e d epen d s upon a juxtaposition i n
the same s e ntence of th e a b stractions of the psych ologist
an d the abstractions of ordinary lan g uag e an d of the
sp e cial sciences I m ust explain this i n g r e ater detail

T h e w orl d of consciousness on the o ne hand w e a r e

tol d and the ( so far hypothetical ) w orld of re al th ing s
on the ot h er ar e two m utually exclusive sph e r e s No
member of the re al Sphere can intrude itself into th e
conscious sphere nor can consciousn e ss go out into th e
real sphere and as it w e re lay hold w ith hands upon a

real o bj ect
This passag e suggests some of the same
di f culti e s to w hich I have already referr e d If th e
w orld of my consciousness exclu d es the real world are
?
I s it a
m y inte rnal my mental e xperiences not real
delusion on my part that at this mom e nt I am thinkin g
of an article of Professor Se th s ? On the other h an d
the moment I have put down these w or d s on paper
are the visible written words e xclude d fro m the world
of my consciousness ? A g ain in which sph e re is
?
my body
I do not see how I can d e scribe various
bo d ily sensations of which I am very distinctly con
scious as outside the world of my consciousness I f
anythin g I k now or thin k of is excluded from my
consciousness because I k no w it t h e sphere of my
consciousn e ss m ust b e completely empty
I f th e
S phere of my consciousness is not empty I c annot
se e on w h at principle anythin g that I k now is ex c l ud ed
fro m it
l
it p 5 5

oc

M ETA P H Y S I C S {9

E P I S TE M O L O G Y

79

T her e is o ne s e nse only in w h ich I can se e an

intell igi b l e m ea ning in Sp e aking o f t h e worl d of my
consc iousn e ss as a sph e r e that exclu d es th e real w orl d :
a nd that is, if b y t h e w orl d of my consciousn e ss b e
m eant c e rta inly not w hat actually e xists in my
consciousn e ss b ut th e a b straction w ith w h ich th e
psycholog ist pro fe sses to d e al , th e stream of m e ntal
content
f
e v e nts r e a r ded a a r t fr om th eir
But
i
this
p
g
is th e m e a ning of th e w orl d of my co nsciousness in
Mr Se th s s e nte nc e , that part of th e proposition
.

b elongs to psychology an d not to e piste mology I n

e pist e mology
th e w orl d o f my co nsciousn e ss ought
sur ely to m e an th e w orl d of my consciousn e ss as that
actually e x ists i e a s e ri e s of image s id e as e tc w ith
th e ir co nt e nt i e w ith th e ir o bj e ct iv e re fe r e nc e Eve n
if we took the w orl d o f my consciousn e ss to m e an the
a b stract ion de alt w ith b y th e psychologist th e d i f culty
w oul d not b e e ntir ely r e move d ; for as alr ea d y sa id
th e s e ries o f my m e ntal stat e s is suppos e d to b e a s e ri e s
of eve nts w hich form part of th e r e al w orl d although
only o ne aspect o f th e r eally e xist ing fact is consi d e r e d
b y t h e psychologist as such
But th e d i f culty in Pro fe ssor Se th s proposition
d o e s not e nd here What d o e s h e m ean b y th e re al

w orl d
far hypoth e t ical e ve n wh ich exclu d e s
th e sph e r e of consciousn e ss an d is exclu d e d from it ?
Th e r e is c ertainly a r eal w orl d w hich d oes not enter
into my conscious ne ss ; but w hat is th e r e al w orl d
which d o e s not e nt e r into any consciousness if it b e
not that a b straction of real th in S o bj e cts tak e n apart
fro m their exist e nce as o bj e cts fo r any su bj ect which
or d inary la nguag e an d the various sp e cial sci e nces nd
it conve n ient to assume ? But episte mology as a
philosophical sci e nce is surely b oun d to correct the
conve n ient ab stractions of the ab stract un d e rstan d ing
an d to attempt to d eal w ith th e wh ole truth
At no point says Professor Seth in another
.

M E T A P H Y S I C S {9 EP I S T E M OLO GY

8o

can

passag e
the real w orl d as it w e re force an
entrance into t h e close d sph e re of the i d e al ; nor does
that sph ere open at any point to rece ive i n to itself the
smallest atom of the r e al w orld 9u h r ea l though it has

room within itself idea lly fo r the whol e universe of God

The as it were an d these metaphors of spheres

intr u din g them selves etc and such like perhaps u n

avoidabl e spatial g ures leave one in some doubt how
far the expressions are meant to be ta k en literally I
do not se e ho w t h ere can b e any such thing as kno wled g e
at all unless the world of my consciousness is not a
close d sp h ere and unless th e real world 9u h r ea l does
intru d e itself into that sph e re When I k now anythin g
the sphere of my consciousness does lay hol d with its
hands ( the metaphor is not mine) upon a real obj ect :
otherwise I d o not kno w that thing b ut am under an
illusion that I do so If the sp h ere of my consciousness
insists on k eepin g its hands i n its poc k ets an d its m outh
Shut it w ill inevitably nd its inside empty That we
never hnow the real w orld 9nd r ea l is an odd formula
for w hat c alls itself ep istem ologica l realism If 9nd

r ea l
m eans 9u d th ing in itself the statement is in d eed
an identical proposition : we cannot know what we
cannot know B ut if our k nowle d ge is of idea s of
th in g s and never of real th ings the log ical conclusion
is t h e scepti c al c onclusion of H ume and certainly not
any doctrine that c an claim k inship with the beliefs of
the ordinary man To sum up the two closed S pheres
in t h e only sense in which they have any meanin g that
I can u nderstand seem to m e two opposite abstractions
On the one Side there are the states of consciousness
m inus t h e content of these states on the other obj e cts
of possible k nowledg e ( unless I am to say of impossible

k nowledge if things in themselves be m eant ) m inus

the subj ect which ma k es them obj e c ts of possible
k nowled g e T h at these two abstrac tions excl ude one
1 l
it p 5 1 6
1

oc

M ETA P H Y S I C S 69

E P I S TE M O L OG Y

81

anoth er m ay r e a d ily b e a d m itte d ( apart from th e

d i f culty that in psychology the state s o f consciousn e ss
m inu s th e ir cont e nt a r e j ust th e o bj e cts of possi b l e
kno wl e dg e w hich the psycholog ist as such tre ats in
a b straction from th e con d itions un d e r w hich th ey ar e
o bjects ) But th e stat e m e nt s ee ms to m e irrel evant in

e pist e mology
a sci e nc e w hich profe ss e s to d e al w ith the
con d itions of kno wl e dge
Epist e mology is nothing b ut a part o f logic I t is
only b e caus e o f the w re tch e d ly lim it e d s e ns e in w hich

t h e t e rm
log ic has com e to b e us e d that th e re is
any e xcuse fo r a s eparate te rm fo r th e philosophical
inv e stigation o f th e co nd it ions of kno wl e dg e I f logic
b e suppos e d to d e al w ith cons ist e ncy only th e qu e stion
of truth ( i e th e q u e sti o n ho w kno wle dg e is possi b l e )
a qu e stion wh ich Aristotle c e rtainly d ealt w ith in his

a
t
c
A n ly i s s e e ms to r e quir e a s e parat e sc ie nc e to d e al
w ith it But this d istinctio n b e t wee n consist e ncy an d
truth cannot b e maintain e d as an a b solute d ist inction
Ho w e g can we u se the argum e nt p er imp ossihile w hich
w e d o u se e ve n in the most a b stract math e mat ics an d in
th e most pur e ly formal logic unl e ss w e hol d that the
?
inconc e iva b ility of the opposite is th e t e st of tr u th
To sp eak o f truth or kno wl e dge as b eing th e corre
s o nde nce of thought to things is to fall b ack upon a
p
m e taphor an d to a d opt from popular languag e a th e ory
o f kno w l e d g e w hich only stat e s the pro b l e m it pro fe sses
to solve The d istinction b e tw e e n my thought an d
reality is a p erfe ctly vali d a nd a V e ry important
d ist inction ; b ut it a ff ords no groun d s for th e op inion
that r e ality in its ultimat e natur e can b e som e thing
quite oth e r than thought R eality is o bj e ctivity i e

e
e
i
coher nc n thought fo r mysel f and w h e n eve r I can
apply this te st alsocoh e r e nc e of my thought with that
o f oth e rs ?
S o far as our feelings are concern e d we ar e
S
artic l Wh t i lity ? i th P h il phi l R i w V ol I
N
i
n
i
r
pr
t
d
D win nd H g l
3
,

ee

s r ea

ar

oso

e e

ca

ev e

82

M E T A P H Y S I C S {9 EP I S T E M OL O GY

closed

each of u s Shut up in
spheres ; b ut it is for
that very reason that m e re fe e ling s do not constitute
k no wle d ge ( thou g h th e r e may b e kno w ledge of th e m )
I have therefore ta k en it for granted that in a dis
c u ssio n about ep istem olo y the world of consciousn e ss
g
referred to was the w orl d of thou g ht or of feelings only
It i s only
a s interpret e d an d transmuted by thin k in g
the r a tio of our feelin g s to one another that admits of
comparison with w h at oth e rs e xperience I can never
k now for instance that what I call a red colour g ives
you the sam e feeling that it gives me ; but I am satis ed
if I nd that I distin g uish red from green and ot h er
colours i n the sam e sort of way i n w h ich yo u and ot h er
persons d o ( not bei n g th e colour blind m inorityw hose
j ud g ment I d o not acc e pt simply b e cause their j u dg
m ents of i dentity and di ff eren c e do not t in with
those of the maj ority of human bein g s nor ev en w ith

o
a
o
h
o f relationships
h
o
e
o
e
t
er
Identity
of
ratios
s
n
n
t
f
)
i s all I c an k now w hen I say that sensations or feeli ng s
2
B
u
s
are the same to me and to you
t a w e kno w
f
f
e
and
6
are
di
er
nt
numbers
It
i
and
yet
and
2
s
3
4 3
because of t h e obj ectivity of the primary as contrasted
wit h t h e subj ectivity of the s e condary qualities of matter
that scienti c men tend to reg ard t h e real world behind
sensible phenomena as consisting o f what possesses t h e
primary qualities only and to endeavour constantly to
translate t h e c h aos of subj ective fee lin g s into the term s
of number and m easure i e to turn the o tdinar y man s
real world that h e sees tou c hes smells into a w orld of
thoug ht
relations After all however this real worl d
of scienti c thou g h t is a world of imagined pheno m ena
u r e s vibrations etc which we S ho u ld see and feel
g
had
k
eener
eyes
and
a
k
eener
sense
of
touch
In
e
w
if
either aspect the real world of science is a worl d that
implies t h e presence to it of a conscio u s subj ect to
ma k e it possible M ost scientists are fond of assertin g
t h e relativi ty of k nowled g e witho u t per h aps ta k in g t h e
.

M ETA P H Y S I C S 69

E P I S TE M O L OG Y

83

notion quit e s e riously : th e more philosoph ical sc ie ntists

a d mit that th e ir atoms m ol e cular move m e nts e tc ar e
o nly w orki ng hypoth e s e s i e m e ntal co nstructs
T h e o bj e ctivity o f kno wl e dg e impl ie s at l e ast som e
degr ee of sim ilar ity b e tw e e n t h e m e ntal structure of
st ill mor e o b viously d o e s the
diEe r e nt human b e ings
possi b il ity of commun icat ing kno wl e dg e imply such
s imilarity An e piste mology w h ich d o e s not w ish to
for e d oom its e l f to com pl e t e sc e ptic ism must tak e for

grant e d that r e al ity is in som e s e ns e that it c an b e

kno w n to som e e xte nt a nd that w hat is k no w n can
b e communicat e dto s o m e e xt e nt
Oth e r w is e we may
as w ell acc e pt th e para d ox e s of G org ias as th e su m
total of human w is d om But th e re can not b e similar ity
w ithout i d e nt ity M e re Similarity is a contra d ictory
co nc e ption Th u s w e ar e logica lly d riv e n to the
conclusion that if kno wl e d g e is poss ible an d if kno w
l e d g e is commun ica bl e th e re must b e som e i d e ntity
u nd er lying the d i ff e r e nc e s o f i nd ivi d ual huma n m in d s
T h e qu e stion a b out the mi n d s of lo w e r animals or of
an
oth
e r possi b l e int ell ig e nc e s ne e d caus e no trou b l e
y
I f an d so far a s we can communicat e our thoughts
a nd fe e lings to d ogs an d cats
angels an d d evils so far
is th e r e i d entity un d e rlying th e d iffe r e nce s b e t w e e n us
an d th e m To argu e that such i d e ntity is m e re ly

logical an d not r e al is only to e va d e th e qu e stion

an d im pl icitly to d e ny t h e possi b ility of k no wl e dge b y r e
ass e rt ing an impassab l e gap b e t we en thought a nd real ity
W h e ther we ar e to say that reality is thought or n o t
is a goo d d e al a que stion of languag e I f t h e t e rm

thought b e e xpr e ssly limite d to d iscursive thought

w h ich is n e c e ssarily a b stract an d w hich n e cessarily
accentuat e s th e d istinctio n b e t w een subj e ct an d pre d i
cate we cannot w ithout quali cation id e ntify re ality
with thought in that s e ns e T h e pre d icate o f the

O
th
id t ity b t w
so u ls f M Bra dl y s App n
nd R / t
pp
347 3 5 3
s
.

ee I

en

ee n

ear a ce

84

M E TA P H Y S I C S {9 E P I S T E M O L O GY

j u dgm e nt is b y its v e ry nature a pr e d icat e of reality

an d so distinguished from it B ut this is only o ne
aspect of th e j udgment If th e di ff er e nce or distinc
tion w e re th e sole aspect o f j udgment j u d gm e nt
would b e impossible Ju dg ment is d istin c tion ; b u t it
i s disti nction w ithin a unity di ff e rence i n i dentity I f
the pre d icat e is not pre dicat e d of t h e subj ect as a part
of it ( or in th e negative j ud g ment denied of the su b
it
has
been
su
gg
ested
it
may
possibly
e c t to w h ic h
j
belon g) there is no predication at all A th e ory which
asserts d i ff e re nce w it h out identi ty and a t h eory which
asserts identity wit h out di ff er e nce both ma k e predica
tion impossi b le and lan d us in the old series of
Soph istic di ffi culties the outcom e of H e r acle ite a nism
and of Eleaticism ali k e when t h ese had given birth to
popular p h ilosophy Now if this identity of the real
an d t h at which w e t h in k of it is not to be called an

identity in thou g ht we mu st simply invent som e

other term
Thou g ht se e ms to m e a g ood term for
the purpose : it is a possible equivalent o f V 79 or o n s
a s well
as of S f 0
M r B ra d ley pre fers the term

Experienc e as a name for the Absolute b ecause

of this dualism inherent in though t an d as an asser
tion of the all inclusiveness of the Absolute
Fe e lin g

and will h e says

must also be transmuted in t h is
whole into which th oug ht h as entered Su ch a w hole
state woul d possess in a superior form t h at immediacy
w h ic h we nd ( m ore or less ) in feeling ; and in this

w h ole all divisions would be healed u p

It is true
the term t h ou g ht is inadequate ; but it seems to m e
the least obj ectionable of availa b l e term s for t h ese

re a s ons : ( 1 ) Experience is apt to suggest m ultipli

city and a ti m e process rat h er than t h e u nity of im me

2 )
diate appreh e n sion
F
eelin
g
does
express
(
im media c y and absence of d i ff erenc e b u t on its
lowest level whereas we wis h to express a u nity in
1 A
i
n
t
p
I
n
d
R
l
7
pp
y
,

O1

u i/

1a

ea r a ce a

ea

o c
-

M ETA P H Y S I C S 69

E P I S TE M O L OG Y

85

w hich d i ff e r e nc e s ar e inclu d e d and r e concile d rath e r

than a u n ity w hich h a s not ye t d iffe re ntiat e d its elf

Will
be caus e it is too lo w d o w n in th e scale
( 3)
unl e ss it b e tak e n in a quite arti c ial sens e impli e s
motive s w hich it is a b sur d to imagin e as acting on
th e A b solut e w hich if a b solut e can have no w ants
or cravings (4 ) A S I hav e tr ie d to Sho w Thought

eve n in the s e ns e of rational an d d iscursive thought

impl ies a unity ami d d i ffe re nce an d th e r e fore may b e
tly us e d to e xpre ss an imm e d iacy of appr e h e nsion o f
w hich we can only have faint an d Slight exp e ri e nce th e
im me d iacy of feeling com b ine d w ith th e cl e arn e ss an d
fuln e ss o f thought Mr Bra dl e y hims el f says W h e n
thought b eg ins to b e more than rational it c e as e s to b e

m e re think ing a s e nte nc e wh ich s e e ms to ad mit a

possi b l e d istinction b etwee n thought in th e high e r

sens e an d m e r e thinki ng in w hich the d ualism is not
transc e n d e d
I t matt e rs littl e w hat pr e cise t e rm we a d opt provi d ed
it b e onc e cl e arly r e cogniz e d that R e al ity or th e
A b solut e or w hat e ver we call it cannot b e som e thing
quite ali e n to and inacc e ssi b le b y our conscious ex
an
d
that
though
inclu
d
ing
d
i
it
e r ie nc e
f
f
e r e nces
p

i
f
cannot tsel b e a plurality Tr u th if ther e is any

meaning in th e term must ulti m at ely b e o ne an d

in d ivisi b le ho w e v e r much w e may b e in t h e ha b it of

speaking o f d i ffer e nt k in d s of truths b ecause we

hav e to cont e nt ours e lve s with v e ry partial an d o ne
si d e d sta t e ments to which w e give the nam e that
,

ta k it f g ra n t d t h at
A bsol u t mu st at l ast b x pr ss d
in t r m s f th high t l m n ts f o u r x p r i c
t h o ugh t h s t r m s
m ay d c orr c t io n d q u al i c at io n wh n tra ns f rr d fro m t h ir
in r f r n c to hum a n b i g s

Bra d l y s p h ras a b o u t n
M
u
f b loo d l ss
n art h ly b all t

h
c at g or i s
at
t
n
d
f
h
i
L
h
as
b
a
f
avo
u
r
i
t
w
apo
i
n
n
g )
(

in th
h a nd s f R al ist assa ila n ts f Id al is m I tr st t h at

hi
x pos r f a pl u ral ity f r als ( in h i App n nd
R lity pp
i
w
ll
q
u
ally
appr
c
at
d
b
i
3
4
4 )
1

or

es

ea

e e

e,

ee

en

e e

0 1

u e

e n

e e

an

e e e

u se

nee

th e

ea r a

ce

M E T A P H Y S I C S 9 E P I S TE M O L O GY

86

prop e rly b elongs only to the fulness of perfe ct k now

ledg e i n which every part or aspect of reality is seen
at o nce i n relation to the w hole in which t h e re can be
no appearance of a g ap b etw een thoug ht cut o ff from
reality and reality cut o ff from thou g ht ? Such perfect
k nowled g e is to us only an ideal ; but it must be
recognized as conditionin g all sound logical t h eories
h owever m u ch we provisionally adopt the metaphors
e t m ixed
metaphors
that
soon
of
ordinary
spe
e ch
(
g
)
about a parallelis m between thought an d t h ings a b o u t
t h ou g ht mirrorin g existence e tc

To put these results together a logic that ta k es

itself seriously and d eals therefore with the problem
of epistemology leave s u s with at least t h e followin g
principles as a startin g point for m etaphysical specula
t i on
I Th e re can be no k nowledge except for a conscious
subj ect which can hold together the di ffere nt s e nsa
tions imag es ideas etc in a unity and so ma k e a
cosmos an orderly and intelli g ible system out of the

primitive blur of feelin g ( I have said h ar d ly any

thin g o n this point i n t h e present article because it
is generally conceded as a trut h at least for e piste m o
,

>

1 8Y~

II Subj e c t and object are d i st i ng u i s h ed i n k now

led g e : in k nowled g e w e h ave g ot beyond the primitive

blur in w h ich they are not yet di fferentiated B u t

the distinction cannot be a n absolute one ; else our
.

P ro f
Watso in h i art ic l in th P h il phi l R i w
V l II N 5 h as d alt so fu lly n d c l arly w it h th t h olo g ic al
d if cu lt i s t wh ich Ep ist m olo g ic al R al is m l a d t h at I f l it
n th
w o u l d b s u p r u o u s to say m or
s u bj c t A n ill u strat io n

f a v ry c o m m o n w ay f p a k i g a b o u t
tr u t h I m ay r f r
to th S u day v ing pray r f n ld Sc ot chm a n in wh ic h h

sa id M y th t th t h is d ay spo k n so f as a g r a b l to

T h y M in d nd Will t if t h r w r c rta in tr u t h
t h at th A l m ig h ty did t a cc pt nd m ig h t n t l ik to h av
m t io d in p u b l ic
1

n,

e o

en

ru

no

en

ne

e e

as

ee

s a

e e

e c

s,

s e

ev e

ca

oso

ar

e e

ee

M ETA P H Y S I C S {9

E P I S TE M OLO G Y

87

v ery th e ory of kno w le dg e mak e s kno wl e d g e impossi b l e

T h e disti nction is a d istinc tion w ithin th e u n ity of

kno wl e dge ( or of thought or of e xp e ri e nc e

w hatev e r t e rm we choos e to ad opt) This is a

log ical conclusion simply from taki ng the conc e ption
o f d iffe r e nce or d istinction an d th e conc e ption o f kno w
l e dg e quite s e riously T h e r elucta nc e w h ich p e ople
g e n e rally fe el to war d s acc e pting s u ch a conclus io n

s eems to aris e from th e t e n d e ncy to translate su bj e ct

an d o bj ect stra ight a way into the ( suppos e d) d e n it e
in d ivi d ual soul an d th e ( suppos e d ) r e al w orl d o f
or d inary thought w hich is so larg ely impr egnat e d w ith
t h e tra d it ional d ualist ic philosophy
I f we start w ith
th e ass e rtio n o f an a b solut e d iff e r e nc e b e t w e e n t h e soul
a s thinki ng su b stanc e an d matt e r as the oppos it e kin d
of su b stanc e no w on d e r if we nd a d i f culty in
e xpla in ing th e poss ib ility o f kno w l e d g e
But d o we
?
logica lly n e e d to start w ith any such assumption
A
v ery Sl ight amount o f car e ful thinki ng sho w s us that

soul an d th e thing a r e al ik e m e ntal con

th e
str u c t s in fer e nc e s not prim it ive d ata o f consciousness
I II We r e we to stop h er e an d atte mpt at onc e
to pass to sp e culative m e taphys ics w e m ight fairly

solipsism ; b ut as I have
e nough b e charg e d w ith
pointe d out kno wl ed g e in th e s e nse in w hich we
human b e ings cla im to poss e ss kno wl e dge impli e s
R eality
th e pre senc e of oth e r s e lv e s than our o w n
m e a ns o bj e cti v ity i e vali d ity an d coh e r e n c e for oth e r
s elve s as w ell a s fo r s elf T h e e xiste nc e o f oth e r
s elve s than our o w n is an in fe re nce though an in
fe r e nc e sp ee d ily arrive d at ; b ut th e i de nt ity of our
o w n s elf through various exp e riences is
lik e w ise an
in fe rence Since kno wle dg e can b e the sam e fo r
d i ffe re nt selve s an d Since w e can communicat e our
kno wl e d g e to th e m an d they to u s there mu st b e
an i d e nt ity un d erlying all th e d i ffe rence s of d i ffe rent
selves
.

M E T A P HY S I C S {9

88

E P I S T E M OL O GY

IV

C on siste ncy cannot b e ultimately distinguish e d

from truth The ideal of k no w l e d ge is th e im po ssi
b ility of thin k ing a contra diction
or to put it
positively the necessity of seein g every part i n r e
lation to th e w hole Th is id e al of k no wle dg e i s
presupposed in every actual ste p w e take in acquiring
knowle dg e ; in learnin g we g ra d ually ll up this form
of an or d erly system a unity of the manifold which
is implicit in our thou g ht from the rst
Th e se four positions seem to m e some at least
of the conclusions of an epistemolog y whic h starts
only with t h e assumption t h at k nowle d ge is possibl e
They are the basis o n which w e m ust construct our
speculati v e metaphysics If then we hold that th e
tru e st th in g we can say about the universe as a w hol e
is t h at it is the manifestation of the One in the M any

we are not hypostatizing log ical abstractions b ut

Simply puttin g th ese r e sults together and sum ming
them up in a general formula On the oth e r han d
to adopt a system of monadism or pluralism is to
hypostatize th e a b stractions not of log ic but of popular

pictur e th in k ing to treat th e things or souls

which are the m ental constructs of ordinary thoug h t
as if th e y were independent r e al existenc e s If they

are not in d ependent but included in the unity of

one syste m then the syst e m is not pluralism but

a recognition in a round a b out w ay of the One

in the M any as the A b solute

Th e r e sults of epistemology only set the problem
for sp e culative metaphysics in a d e nit e form The
problems even when thus d etermine d are so num e r
o u s and admit of so many various answers that the
metap h ysician has no reason to complain t h at the
epist e mologist is interfering unduly with h is province
G ranted that the ultimate nature of reality must be
expressed by such a formula as the One in t h e M any
we have still to ask H ow th e One manifests itself
.

E P I S TE M O L O G Y

M ETA PH Y S I C S {9

89

in multiplicity an d d i ffe r e nc
To ask W hy
is
in vain if b y th e qu e st ion we ar e atte mpti ng to ge t

b ehin d th e A b solute to nd out its m otive s so

to sp eak as if it w e re a nit e p e rson G rante d that
o u r o w n consciousn e ss of ours e lv e s as su bj e cts giv e s
us our b e st clu e to un d e rstan d ing th e natur e o f th e
unity o f the cosmos we have st ill to e n d e avour to

r e al iz e what is involve d in a self which is not

in tim e b ut e te rnal
Mr Bra d l e y in d e e d se e ms
to r ej e ct th e noti o n of a tim el e ss s elf b e cause it is

A tim e less s e l f act ing

a psychological monst e r

in a particular w ay h e says from its g e n e ral t im e

l e ss natur e is to m e a psycholog ical monste r

Now
I quit e agr ee that th e no tion o f a t im el e ss s el f is
a b sur d in th e sp e cial sc ie nc e of psychology w h ich

d eals only w ith ev e nts in tim e ; b ut th e tim el e ss

s el f is n o t a psychological b ut a m e taphysical con

cept T h e not ion of a t im el ess s el f acting in a

particular way is also a b sur d if it b e tak e n to m e an

acting at particular tim e s an d from particular

motiv e s or w ithout any motive s at all j ust a s in

th eology con fu sion re sults if we put th e m e taphysical
conception of G o d as e ternal an d unchange abl e along
si d e o f th e pictur e th inking o f popular r el igious b eli e f
so that t h e Unchang e a b l e is spok e n o f as r e p e nting
I think it un fortu nat e that T H G re e n s ee m e d
e tc
to counte nanc e this confusion o f ide as b y his phrase
a tim e l e ss act
I t se e ms imposs ibl e to k ee p th e
notion of t im e out o f th e i d e a of an act : it is d i f cult
enough to k e ep it out o f the i d e a of a sel f e v e n
though th e logical argum e nt for the exist e nce of a
tim eless s el f is th e poss ib ility o f b e ing aw ar e of succe s
sion in time I t must b e clearly realize d that in

transferring any term such as s el f or thought

to the ultimat e unity of the cosmos we must g et
App
n
nd R lity pp
I3
4
?
e

ear a ce a

P r olegomena

to

ea

Ethics,

1 02

1 1

M E T A P HY S I C S {9 E P I S T E M OL O GY

0
9

ri d of th e notions of particularity of d i ff e re nce of

change w hich belon g to such t e rms in th e ir psycho
logical u se On the oth e r han d it m ust be e qually
b orne i n m ind that this ultimate reality is a reality
which appears w hich manifests itself in many s elv e s
in the multiplicity o f particular thin g s in the cha ng e
an d proc e ss of th e world of time : and perhaps th e
most urgent of pro b lem s in any philosophical system
is to attemp t to show how the One the Eternal the
Real manife sts itself in the manifol d appearances o f

time the probl e m t h at is to say of the Philosophy

of Nature and the Philosophy of History T h e
mysticism whic h simply turns away from t h e mani fold
empties th e O ne o f any meanin g it can have for u s
On the other han d the attempt to construct an

evolutional philosophy by assuming the absolute

reali ty of tim e an d change and multiplicity is eq ually
suici d al These concepts ar e meaning less exce pt for
and relatively to an et e rnal One A S in the lo g ical
question of the j ud g ment so h e re eit h er Eleaticis m
or H e r acle ite a nism ta ken by itself lea d s only to
n e science or scepticism The mysti c al solution is not
popular at present ; b u t to many people t h e word

e volution
is the k ey to all m ysteries t h ough
evolution may mean to them not h in g more t h an a

vag ue belief that t h e u niverse is toddlin g alon g

somehow ; and when th e y come to say more about

it they deny t h e ex ist e nce of any Universe and let
everything run along in an absolute ux Evolution
belon g s only to the w orl d of appearance ; but that

does not m ean t h at it is a n illusion

Illusions a r e
detected by a want of coherence in o u r practi c al
experience : t h e world of appearance is the reality i n
wh ic h t h e plain man believes And t h e idealist b e
liev e s in it too for to h im thou gh it is not i n itself
the absolute reality it is t h e only manifestation of
t h at absolu te reality w h i ch the h um a n m ind can
,

M ET A P H Y S I C S 9

E P I S TE M OLO GY

poss ib ly kno w A nd it is a strang e o bj e ction to

mak e that a ph ilosophy is tr e ating th e w orl d in

spac e an d tim e as an ill u sion b e caus e that ph ilo

sophy r egards th is w orl d no t in d e e d as th e ab so l

r
b
ut
as
som
u te l
e al
e thing mor e w orth stu d y tha n
y

if it w e re
as th e r ev e lat ion of Supr e m e R e ason of
what ol d th e ologi e s have d e scri b e d as that C o
eternal
R eason o f G o d w ho cr e ate s nature an d b e comes in
carnat e in man
.

C S Sch ill r i th Phil phi l R i w Vol II

p 5 89 all g s t hat u po H g l ia pri c ipl s if t h D ity x ist

t r ally th t im pro c ss mu st b ill u sory altog t h r
1

Mr

e e n

oso

ev e

ca

THE ONE AN D THE M AN Y

]l

this paper it is not my purpose to g ive a new

i nterpretation of Plato s P a r m enides b u t to do wh at is

perhaps more a u dacious to deal wit h t h e question

itself w h ich that great dialogue h as treated in its m ost
Whet h e r o u r ultimate t h eory of t h e
a bstract form

U niverse must be
M onism
or
Pluralism or
whether any reconciliation is possibl e bet ween these

opposite syste m s t h is is the question on which we

are always ultimately driv e n bac k whatever be the
special philosophical problem t h at we may have se t out
to investig ate The log i c al c ontroversy about the
nature of universal concepts t h e cosmological contro
between
the
thorou
g
h
g
oin
g
evolutionist
an
d
the
v er s
y

special c reationist ( or h is more modern counterpart

t h e partial evolutionist) the controversy about free will
w hether in its t h eolog ical or in its psyc h olog ical aspe c ts
q uestions about t h e nature of God and the nature
of the human soul nay even o litical contr ove rsies
re lation b e t w een indiVi I ial lib r ty and state
IN

,
,

w h er the m u lticiplicity of t h e world that c onfronts

us is appearanc e or reality and w h et h er in any sense t h e
One can be M any and the M any One The discus
sions of Plato s P a r m enides and Sop h istes m ay seem at
rst sight barren of interest to t h e m odern reader who
R a d b for th A r istot l ia n So c i ty
R pr in t d fro m M ind
V l VII p 4 4 9
,

N S
.

O NE AN D T HE M A NY

TH E

93

is k ee nly conc e rn e d a b out the free d om of the w i ll or

a b out the signi cance an d rights of the individual
person But it was the pe c uliar a d vantage of Greek
philosophy to b e abl e to carry up controversies at once
to the nal court of appeal i e to purely metaphysical
d iscussion in an atmosph e r e largely free from the b ias

larg ely
o f theological ethical an d political partisanship
free b ut not entirely for th e re can b e little d ou b t that
it w as through the application of Ionic an d Italic
philosophi e s to the criticism of popular religion an d
trad itional maxims a b out con d uct that e piste mological

an d logical qu e stions cam e into promin e nce

How

can w e kno w anything ? sugg e sts itself more e asily

w hen th e d iscussion affects opinion about th e go d s
or a b out right an d w rong than wh e n it d eals with the
more purely theor e tical quest ions a b out the constitution
of the physical universe Still the G reek philosophers
ha d only customary b elief an d not formulate d d ogmatic
s ystems o f th e ology to cont e n d against or explain
John Stuart Mill has tol d us in h is A u tohiogr aphy ho w
his d e sire to d e fen d empiricism an d to provi d e it with
an a d e quate syste m o f logic w as b oun d up with h is

active co m b atancy on b e half o f philosophical ra d ical

The zeal for indivi d ual li b erty in thought an d

ism
in action was the main motive which induce d him to
attack that th e ory of kno wle dge w hich he regarde d
as the support of cons er vative prej udice in religion
e thics an d politics ; an d it is quite true
that th e r e
action afte r th e F rench R evolution against e ight e enth
c e ntury fr e e tho u ght was o ne of th e chi e f sourc e s of
the int erest in i d ealist m e taphysics in its earlier stages
But it is b est if the logi cal qu e stion can b e discusse d
w ithout any imme d iate cons id eration of its bearing on
popular b eliefs or pr ej udi c es
.

Pp

2 2

2 2

6,

75

AN D

TH E ON E

94

TH E M AN Y

T H E LO G I C A L P R O B LE M
Jo h n Stuart M ill s is the most thoroug h g oin g
attempt to build u p a theory of inferen c e and of
sc i ent i c k no wledg e upon the basis of an u ltimate

pluralis m the ultimate many w h ose existence is

most certain an d real bein for hi m sensations

M ill s en d eavour to g et ri d o f identity comes o u t most

clearly in his acceptance of li k eness and unlike

ness
as ultimate categ ories incapable of furt h er
analysis ( L ogic B oo k
ch
Accordin g to
M ill t h ere is no universal except t h e collective uni
versal The universal j udgm e nt is always and can only
be a su m mation of parti c ular instances and its tr u th is
dependent upon the truth of the particulars On thi s
turns M ill s whole theory of inference In t h eir ulti

mate reality all events are as H u m e said

loose and

separate
The unity w e attribute to anythi ng or to
any person the ne c essity we nd in the causal nexus
th e u niformity we presuppose in nature are mere su b
e c tiv e i nferences of ours due to asso c iation and liable
j
to error for in the last resort they are dependent merely
upon an indu ctio p er simp licem enu m er a tionem Henc e
there is strictly spea k in g no certainty at all i n our
k nowled g e Even the truths of mathematics ar e
g eneralisations from experience and our experience
mi ght q uite well be such that 2 and 2 ma d e 5
Now is such a log ical theory capable of bein g
?
wor k ed out consistently
That M ill himself wor k e d
it out c onsisten tly even his g reatest a d mirers will h ardly
admit A c hampion of extreme nominalism in his
theory of de nition h e fou n d him s e lf nevertheless

obli g ed to argue for t h e existence of re al k inds ;

and as M r Herbert Spencer has ac u tely pointed out
w h ile impug nin g t h e prin c iple of t h e in c onceivability o f
t h e opposite as the test of trut h he admits the validity
P in pl f P y h l gy II 4
I

ci

es o

s c oo

2 2

TH E LOG I C A L PRO B L E M

95

of the r edu ctio a d a hsu r du m which rests on that very

principle T h e psychical atomism of Mill is no w dis
car d e d e ve n b y those wh o profess th e mselves e m pir i
c ists But I d o not kno w w hether those w ho i ns i st
that consciousness is a continu um an d not a collection
or serie s of d iscr e te feelings al w ays fully r e cogni z e th e
logical implications of th e ir psychological theory Prof
William Jam e s w hose P sych ology h as d on e so much to
break d own th e tra d itio nal d octrin e of the Engl ish
emp irical school might hav e b ee n pr e par e d one w oul d
suppos e to a d mit th e d octrin e of i d e ntity ami d d ive r
S it
i
e ntly
as
fun
d
amental
But
rec
pu
b
lishe
d
h
s
y
volum e of Essays Th e Will to B elieve etc contains

a d efe nc e o f pluralism w h ich though not e xpressly

appli e d to logic w oul d ce rtainly have b een helpful to
S
i
M
ll
in
h
i
s
en
d
e
avour
to
eliminat
e
n
e
cessity
from
J
thought Prof Jam e s s ra d ical e mpiricism h as b e e n
haile d b y Mr F C S Schill e r ( in M ind N S Vo l VI

No 2 4 ) as a d e claration of th e in d e p e n d e nce of the

concrete w hole of man w ith all his passions an d
emotions un expurgat e d direct e d against the cramping
rule s an d regulat ions b y w hich the Brahmins of the
aca d emic cast e ar e tempte d to imp e de the fre e ex pan

sion of human life The gre at lesson it illustrat e s

according to Mr Schiller is that there are not r e ally

any e ternal an d non human truths to prohibit u s from
a d opting the b elie fs w e n e e d to live b y nor any in
fall ibl e a p rior i te st of truth to screen u s from the

cons e q uenc e s of our choic e

A d e claration of inde
e nde nc e
f
rom
t
h
e multiplication table ought to
b
e
p
popular among school b oys an d ther e are many persons
eve ryw here Short of cash ( an d not merely th e Silver
Party in America ) who have a strong will to b elieve
that something less than 2 an d 2 ought to make 4
Pro f Jame ss o w n claims on b ehalf of his d octrine
seem to me much more mo d est than those of h is
enthusiastic reviewer ; but h e d oes argue that the
,

T H E ON E A N D

6
9

T H E M AN Y

U niverse m ay not ultimately be one coherent system

1
but may contain real contin g ent elements and such a
pluralist system ( or want of system ) Prof James
thinks commends itself better than monis m to the
de m ands of o ur m oral nature
Now as to the demand s of o u r moral nat u re I S h all
h ave somet h in g to say presently T h e rst m atter to
be considered is not w h ether a real u lti m ate inco h e
rence a real contin g ency can b e proved or disproved
but w h et h er it has any intelli gible m eaning T h at the
world of o u r e x perience the world as it appears to u s
is fu ll of the u ne x pected t h e in c on g ru o u s the u ncer
tain needs no sayin g I f we were dependent u pon
experience alone in the sense of t h e m ere s uc cession of
sensation s should we ever h ave arrived at any belief
in any unifor m ity of nature ? Pl u ralism says Prof
James is t h e p r im a fa cie appearance of t h e world

It is so to a dult u nr eectiv e common sense

H ume
drew t h e perfe c tly so u nd c onclusion fro m t h orou gh

g oin g empiricis m na m ely that all certainty is an

illusion I c annot see t h at experience ( i e sensation
or feelin g experien c e) alone g ives us even the identity
of t h e self or t h e continuity of time and space ( t h e
t h ree continu a that Pro f Ja m es admits ) Exp erience
alo ne g ives merely an u ndi fferentiated mass of feelin g
I
u
se
t
h
e
word
h
ere
in
t
h
e
sense
of
older
E
n
g
lish
(
psych olog ists) out of w h i ch we speculatively and hypo
t h etically constr uc t for o u r practical convenience a

multiplicity of de nite t h i ng s e x istin g alon g side of

and after one another T h e u nity an d individuality
of ea ch of t h ese is a u nity of theory and not of br u te

fact ; and t h eir arrang e m ent in any one system or set

of syste m s is also a matter of t h eoreti c al construction
Of co u rse the g reater part of the theoreti c al syste m a
tizatio n of o u r ac tu al experience h a s been done for u s
by o u r prede c e ss ors and is si m ply ta ken over by u s in
2
Th e W
ill t B li e t
p 94
I hid p v iii
,

e ev

e c

LOG I C A L PRO B L E M

TH E

97

the language we learn as part of our social inh e ritance

But this d oes not affect the truth of th e statement that
all that is given u s as mer e fact in our own in d ivi d ual
experience is uninterpr e te d sensation or fe e li ng And
a s Plato saw
th e uninterprete d sensation or feeling
long ago is not an d cannot be kno w n or intelligi bly
spoken a b out The only test there fore that we can
have of reality other than this app e al to uninterpr e te d

feeling an app e al w hich can o b tain no intelligi ble

d ecision is th e test of coherence in thoug ht So that

any o ne w ho thro w s d oubt entir e d ou b t as Mill d o e s

or partial d oubt as Pro f James d oes upon th e w orth

of th is t e st of coher e nce thro w s d ou b t upon our
h nowing any r e ality at all
F or the real which is felt
is a s merely felt not kno w n
A m u ltiplici ty of sensations was accepte d b y Hume
an d Mill as the d atum of exp e ri e nce I t h as b e en
rej e ct e d by later psychologists T h e isolate d pure

sensation is an a b straction of reective analysis

a

psychological myth as Mr War d calls it A multi

l
i
c it
of
things
interact
i
ng
is
not
a
d
atum
or
p
y
primitive fact of experience b ut an h pothesis a rough
y

an d r e ad y m e tho d ological d evice

to systematize
our thinkin g which does w ell e nough for the ord inary
practical business of life b ut wh ich has to b e dis
carde d b y advancing scienti c thought in favour of
some hypothesis of one un d erlying su b stance or force
manife sting its elf in many ways If a presupposition
of the unity an d cohere nce of th e cosmos is necessary
fo r th e w orking of th e sciences an d if the sci e nces
manage to wor k an d enable u s to anticipate experience
an d to control nature b e tter than we can without
their ai d this presupposition is not to b e d ispose d

of b y b e ing calle d merely

metho d ological
On
the other han d a suppositio n like that of o bj ective
chance or real conti ngency which will not work
and which woul d prevent u s carryin g on scientic
.

TH E

8
9

ON E A N D

T H E M AN Y

investig ation m ay be safely put asi d e It w ill not

do to su gg est that c h an c e in science g enerally is

parallel to fri c tion in mec h ani c s We do ta k e account
of friction in all practical appli c ations of m ec h anical
theory ; and similarly we ta k e ac c ount of our li k eli

hood to err or to be i g norant ; w e admit c h an c e

as a na m e for o u r i g noran c e but we do not s u ppose
anythin g u n c a u sed or h appenin g absolutely at h ap
hazard T h e parallel o f fri c tion will not s u pport the
obj e c tivity of ch an c e
Knowled g e is only possible on t h e assumption of
th e absol u te validi ty of t h e principle of contradiction
or to put it more widely of t h e principle of coherence
in thin k in g : t h e incoherent cannot be tr u e the true
m u s t be c oherent t h ou gh the seemin gly c oherent is
no t necessarily true u nless we s u ppose all experience
exhausted T h is principle in the form of the principle
of c ontradi c tion or the inconceivability of the oppo
site is often treated as if it were inappli c able outside
of formal lo g ic t h e lo g ic of mere c onsistency B u t
this arises fro m a narro w interpre tation of th e prin c iple
which m a k es it a m ere neg ative co u nterpart of the
principle of abstra c t identity an d from the traditional

separation of these formal laws of t h o ugh t from

t h e principles of m aterial trut h t h e Pr inciples of

Su f c ient Rea s on of U niversal C a u sation and Uni

formity of N at u re o r h owever we choose to des c ribe

t h em N ot h in g can be dedu c ed fro m t h e principle
of contradi c tion absolutely a p r ior i i e wit h o u t any
reference w h atever to experience I n arit h meti c we
m ust g et our imag ination of u nits fro m w h at we see

or touc h as a m atter of fact fro m our nger s o r

from sensations of the heart beati ng etc I n g eometry
we m ust h ave o u r int u ition of visible or tan g ible
gu res fro m whic h by abstra c tion we g et the s u rface
the line and t h e point In t h e principle of s u f cient
reason t h e referen c e to t h e matter of e x perien c e is
,

LOG I C A L PRO B L E M

TH E

99

o b vious But b oth principles or sets of principles

are the sam e principle of coherence an d they di ffer
simply
in d egree of ab stractness Truth the only
intelligible truth must b e one an d in d ivisi b le : and
the same principl e w hich d etermines the vali d ity of
mathematical r e asoning d etermines the vali d ity of
r easoning about th e most complex of natural pheno
m e na or a b out human affairs W e can o b tain greater
c e rtainty in the more a b stract than in the mor e con
cret e sphere not b ecause th e properties of triangles
are r egulat e d b y x e d or d er an d th e a ff airs o f men
giv e n ove r to hazard b ut simply b ecause w e can
stat e clearly to ours elves an d oth e rs all the con d itions
un d er which w e mak e our assertions ab out the ab stract
relations of Spac e w her eas we are constantly o b lige d
to mak e rough gen e ral statem e nts ab out th e concrete
an d complex ph e nom e na of human socie ty without
fully stating or realizing the con d itions an d limita
tions n ecessary to make our statements accurate
Eve ry single event or thing in the universe w e are
compell e d logically to b elieve is ultimat ely related
to eve ry oth e r an d d e t e rmin e d b y th e w hole to w hich
it b elongs an d apart from which we cannot consistently
think it : so that ev e ry statem e nt w hatever a b out
an
concrete
event
or
thing
must
b
e inaccurat e b e cause
y
incomplet e The only perfe ctly true stat e m e nts are
statements a b out a b stract m att e rs w h e re the nature
of the a b straction is clearly state d or un d erstoo d Our
or d inary ju d gments of perc e ption if tak e n as e xpress

ing facts are all more or less illusions conv e nient

illusions as a rule for the ord inary b usiness of life
I se e gr ee n grass in the sunsh ine though an

artist will tell me that I d on t se e green at all

I

hear the postman s knock ;

I hear the C olleg e

b ell ringing
I see a cubical b ox lying some d istance
see
o ff an d
that it is of the same size as the one

b esi d e me
In all such cases it requires an e ffort
,

TH E

2 00

TH E M AN Y

O NE AN D

of psy c holog ical analysis to disc over t h e halfpenny

worth of fact a m id t h e intolerable deal of inferen c e
with w h ic h we wash it down So too we continue
to tal k of s u nrise a nd sunset of t h e body inuencing
the mind and t h e m i nd t h e body of idea s comin g
s u ddenly into the mi nd of acts done wit h out a m otive
of chance and a c cident alt h ou gh o u r physical or
psycholog ical t h eories may c ontra d ict t h e s e convenient
illusions of u nr e ectiv e t h ou gh t A universe w h ich
is one syste m b u t a system w h ose innite com
l
we
never
g
rasp
and
to
whi
ch
we
strive
to
ex it
p
y
approxi m ate t h ro ugh vario u s k inds and de g rees of

abstraction su ch a one in t h e m any is t h e pre

s u ppo s ition o f all s c ien c e and a c omplete c ompre
h e nsio n of it is t h e u nattainable ideal of a synt h etic
p h ilosop h y
T h e two e x treme types of p h ilosop h y are t h ose
represented i n t h e Gree k world by t h e Eleatics and
t h e Heracleitean s ( I say e x pressly t h e Heracleitean s
not H er acle itu s for H er acleitu s h im self seem s to
h ave g rasped t h ou gh not in any purely lo g ical or
ontolog i c al for m t h e idea of a unity amid t h e mani
fold w h ile h is paradoxi cal followers w h om Plato
ridicules bein g out and out pluralists m ade all asser
tion impossible ) In m odern times we nd t h e same
antit h esis between Spinoza ( so lon g as h e ad h eres
strictly to h iS OZ lJ deter m ina tio est nega tio) and H ume

wit h h is world w h ere all events are

loose and

separate
I n ot h er systems t h e same two tenden c ies
may be tra c ed e g if we contrast m edi ae val Realists
and No m inalist s or modern Idealists and Empiri c ists ;
b u t in none does it c ome out wit h su ch Sh arpness
T h e re c on c iliation is h owever g enerally s o m e more
or less u nsati s fa c tory co m promise w h i c h alternately
allow s t h e balan c e to in c line to t h e S i d e of unity or
to t h at of diversity ( e g in E m pedocles and Anax
ag oras amon g t h e ancients ; in Kant and L otze a m on g
.

'

LOG I C A L PRO B LE M

TH E

2 01

the mo d erns) Only Plato in his later d ialog u e s?

and Aristotle not quite consistently among the
ancients ; in mo d ern times only L ei b ni z occas ionally
an d Hegel have really grapple d with the pro b lem of
the complete and systematic reconciliation o f the One
an d th e Many Plato s rst attempt to escape from
t h e sceptical conseq u ences of the H e racl e itean plural
ism wa s appar e ntly to ta ke refuge like many
poetical an d mystical philosophers in all ag e s in a

d ualism which cut o ff R eality fr om Appearance a

dualism which make s the w orl d o f app e aranc e an

illusion I n the intellig ib l e w orl d there w e re i d eas

each o ne an d separate : in the s e nsi b l e worl d d ive r
e r the inu e nce apparently of a profoun d e r
sit
Un
d
y
stu d y o f Eleatic thought an d possi bly shake n from
his con denc e i n his earli e r solution b y th e criticisms
his b rilliant young pupil Aristotl e ? Plato came
of
.

h r ass um

I
e e
menides, Soph istes
Repu hlic
L

th e

tr u t h

t h ory wh ich p u ts
lat r t h a n th Ph d P h

of

th e

d P hilehus
e
w i ( Th e Or igin

an

th e

P ar

a edr u s

an

a e o,

89 7 )
L gi
u tosla s k
nd G wth f P l t
m s to m to h av t h oro ugh ly sta bl is h d th v i w wh ich P ro f
L w is C a m p b ll h a d m a i ta i d
d la b orat ly s u pport d i h i
d it io f th S phi t nd P liti
86 7
I t i P arm nid s h im s l f wh o i m a d to c r it ic i
th
arl i r

t h ory f P lato ; d th d is cu ss io i c arr i d

wit h th yo u ng
A ristot l wh o w a ft r war d s
t h irty T h is s ugg sts
f th
n all u s io
to Plato s yo u g p u p il I f w
s u ppos th c r it ic is m s
f th
P m nid to b partly A r istotl s w
d th
v i ws
A r istotl c r it ic i s i th M t phy i to b t h os f i 3 283

\
f
f
h
ot
h
r
p
u
p
ls
P
lato
wh
o
h
a
d
a
dh
r
d
S
i
f
8
i
b
(
4 )
p
to th arl i r d o c tri s f t h ir m ast rth d if cu lty f x pla i i g
A r istotl s c r it ic is m s f th t h ory of id as s m s to m g r atly
d im i is h d B t th q u st io n ca ot b d is c u ss d h r Lu to
l w k i ( Th O igin nd G wth qf P l t
ar
gu
s
t
h
at
L gi p 4
)
v if w adm it th poss ib il ity f
all u s io to A ristotl i th
A i
r stot l s of P m A r istotl was too yo u g to h av m a d
o bj c t io s wh ich m o d i d th c o u rs f P lato s t h o ug h t Su r ly
a Gr k yo u t h f igh t
or t w ty m igh t w ll h av ra is d
m tap h ys ic al d if cu lt i s sp c ially wh t h at yo u t h was A r istotl
B r k l y at tw ty was c r it ic i i g Lo c k in h i co m m o npla c
b oo k [Cf R it ch i Pl t c h
d
.

se e
e

an

ar

es

/ oe

ne

en

e e

ar

a os

ee

z n

e s

a o,

e e

c,

an

01

en

en

e e

en

0 1;

n n

an

ee n

7 1 1/

ee

nn

e e

ro

an

s cs

e ca n

e a

on

ze

ze

one

as

c,

ca s,

an

ne

s es a

e es

a os

ro

TH E

2 02

TH E M AN Y

O NE AN D

to see that dualis m p u ts o ff di f culties an d does not

solve t h em and that to e x plain the world of appear
ance it is ne c essary to re c og nize that in t h e intel
lig ible world itself t h ere m ust be diversity as well
as u nity
I n t h e sa m e way Ch ristian t h eolo g y
whi c h is j u st Platonism applied to the inter pr e
came to
tatio n of t h e beliefs of t h e rst C h ristians
reco g nize that t h e relation of Go d to the world and
to man cannot be thou g ht out unless in the D ivine
nature itself t h ere is diversity and not merely abstract
u nity
Th e doctrine of t h e Trinity is often represented by
oppone nts and by anti rationalist believers as if it
were a m ere mag i c al violation of arithmeti c w h ereas
it is a re c o g nition in a t h eolo g ical for m t h at t h e
abstract c ate g ory of q u antity is inappli c able to w h at
is most real t h e S piritual principle whic h g overns the
universe Ari stotle w h en h e is expressly en g ag e d in
criticisin g Plato see m s to disparag e unity ; b ut it is

v
only to exce s sive uni c ation ( 6 M
t
h
at
)

h e obj ects to an abstract u nity w hic h e xc ludes di ff er

ence
His idealis m is m ore fearles s t h an Plato s
earlier p h ilosophy : for h e does not see k to escape
from t h e manifol d details of the w orld of appearan c e
but to nd rationality ( 6 d 7 ) in w h at Plato h ad
t h rust aside as irrational S till it m ust be admitted
that even Aristotl e see m s to fall bac k upon a notion
whic h loo k s very li k e t h at of obj e c tive contin g ency
or chance t h o ug h he describes
and 7 6 ir n r o v
1
not as positive agents but m erely as
So
s
h
p
t h at h e m u s t have held a t h eory of the imperfe c tion s
in t h e u niverse m ore comparable to that of S pinoza
than to t h at of Prof Ja m es w h o plead s for t h e

re c og nition of real evil and

real contin g ency
apparently in t h e very sa m e sense as that i n w h i ch
Cf M
St w art s r m ar k s n m ix ) n d O i j
in N t
n th
N i m h n Ethi
V l I pp
6
0
59
,

ay

iu
e oz

ai

'

OTe

co

ac ea

o ec

cs,

ai r

ua r o v

o es

L OG I C A L PRO B L E M

TH E

2 03

he wishes to maintain
real G od and
real

moral life
In the special province of logic two extreme types of
thought have b e e n represente d among us though not
w ith the same r el e ntl e ss au d acity as among th e G reeks
T h e Pure F ormal L ogic of Hamilton acc e ntuat e s the
principl e o f I d e ntity in such a w ay as to re d uce logic
to a manipulation o f a b stract quantiti e s M ill on
the other han d resolves i nfe renc e into a mere u nex
plain e d transition from one particular to another
Hamilton an d Mill d i d not go to th e e xtrem e s o f
M egari c ( or later El e atic ) an d Heracl e itean ( or C yr e
naic) S ophists w ho from th e opposite poi nts of vie w
of Id e ntity an d D i ffer e nce r e spectively agre e d in
making pre d ication impossi b le But Hamilton s quanti
c atio n o f the pre d icat e t e n d s to a b olish th e d istin c tion
b e t w een su bj e ct an d pre d icate w hich s ee ms e ssential
in every real j u d gm e nt
an d Mill s refusal to see any

thing ne w in the conclusion of a syllogism unl e ss

the conclusion b e absolutely d isconn e cte d w ith the pr e
mises mak e s infe renc e impossi ble
I n logic as commonly un d e rstoo d we are only
b rought into the pres e nce of th e pro b lem of the One
an d the Many ; b ut th e probl e m is certainly there
1

u rg d t h at v A r istotl d o s t s ucc d i g t
t i g id f a du al is m s uch as h h im s l f d s fa u lt w it h i P lato s
t h ory f id as ( as h u d rsta d s t h at t h ory) ; b u t it m ay st ill
b m a i ta i d t h at b ot h P lato ( i h i lat r d ialo gu s )
d A r istotl
d t h M a y in
h av
d avo u r d to
i t h M a ny
O
th
it h r th
O
i st a d
f a d opt i g
s id d t h ory f
th
A b stra c t M o is m l ik th El at ic s ( nd th Sto ic s a ft rwar d s) or

c o t t i g t h m s lv s w it h th ro ugh d r a d y pl ural is m of

pop u lar b l i f Wh n P lato i S po k n f as a du al ist it s h o u l

d

b r m m b r d t h at wh at h c alls
m att r or h u l im it d

th
ot
h
r
i d s c r ib d b y h im i m or m tap h ys ic al la gu a g as

I t i th
w h ic h i th
gat iv l m t nd t
t b i g
a s co d pos it iv l m t alo gs id f th id al l m nt T h
la gu a g i wh ich th Tim d s c r ib s th m a k i g f th p h ys ic al

u niv rs i myt h ical nd mu st t b ta k n l it rally

1

m ay

It

be
e

en

se e

e e

e e

no

e ne

an

aeu s

en

e n

e e

an

an

o ne

an

no

ne

e e

ee

no

ne

ne ,

n en

en

en

no

2 6

TH E M AN Y

ON E A N D

TH E

confrontin g us in every one of th e custo mary divisions

of lo gi c ( 1 ) What is the g eneral concept ? If it is
said to be an abstraction fro m partic u lars w h at is
?
m eant by this
I s there nothin g g eneral except t h e

?
name
If so h ow can we distin gu ish real k inds
?
9
d
M
E
v
whic
h
even
ill
reco
g
nizes
fro
m
If
n
i
)
(
g enerality is only a g enerality in our thou gh t how can
we distin g uish tru th from false h ood in the case of any
g eneral proposition
If w e are thin k in g rightly when
we t h in k somet h in g com m o n to di ff erent thin g s m ust
th ere not h e something common to t h em identical am id
the diTr e nce
Eit h e r we m u st g ive up t h e possibility
of any scienti c propositio n or we m ust ad m it some
amount of trut h in Platonic Idealis m and M edi aeval
Realis m ( I t is c urious how t h ose w h o spea k most
abo u t t h e laws of nature often t h row most s c orn upon
And so we arrive at t h e old pro

?
blem : How can t h e many parta k e in t h e One
?
How can t h e One be m anifested i n t h e M any
2
T
h
e
j
u
d
ments
w
h
i
ch
w
e
re
ally t h in k and utter
( )

ro m
arti cial dried speci m ens in text
as distinct

boo k s c annot be either purely analytic or p u rely

synt h eti c Th ey cannot b e eit h er of t h e type A i s

A ( A remainin g absolutely self identi c al in s u bj ect

and predicate ) nor of t h e type A is B ( A an d B

bein g absol u tely di fferent)? Even in the n e g ative
j ud g ment as really though t and uttered there must be
s ome g round or basis of identity
N o one t h in k s it
.

ta

/
s

h as b e e n s uggest e d
j u dgm e n t

A ( A lph a) is N ( A leph )
i e
m
fo r th e
Ne i n i
ib
ie

to

as

me

m ost

th e

appropr at sy b ol
g at o m pl s a poss l a fr m at io n Ar istotl r c o g ni d
B u t Prof Ja m s x a gg rat s t h is in to fals ity wh n h m a k s n
a b ol u t d ist in c t io n b t w n th i m ti j u d gm n t as o bj c t iv
as m r ly s u bj c t iv ( Th Will t B li pp 90
nd th
n gat iv
u tt r d j u t as
A n gat iv j ud g m n t i as r ally t h o ug h t
m u ch a j ud g m n t a b o u t r al ity as n a f r m at iv
An d n a fr m at iv
j ud gm n t r ally t h o u g h t u tt r d i j u t as much r lat iv to
so m poss ib l n g at io n as a n gat iv j ud g m n t i r lat iv t a p
2

as

ee

as

s,

ve

or

e e
e

e e

e eve,

or

ze

e e

os

TH E

LOG I C A L PRO B L E M

2 05

w or th w hile to ju dg e that An elephant is not an

All r e al j udgm e nts

illicit process o f the maj or
involve an i d entity in d i fference a d i ff erence in
i d entity Ju dgm e nts d i ff e r in d egree of d evelopment
as Mr Bosanqu e t has fully shown : an d th e most

m
highly d e velope d type of j u dg ent the d isj unctive
in its log ical i d e al of an exhaustive enumeration of
mutually e xclusive alte rnatives makes th e i dentity an d
the d i ff e re nce w ithin that id e ntity apparent in its
very form
w
hol
e controv e rsy a b out infe rence turns on
T
h
e
(3 )
the sam e question : C an we pass from particular to
partic u lar except through a universal i d entical ami d the

?
d i ffe r e nce of th e s e particulars
We have not got

in fe r e nce as Mr Bosanquet says ? unl e ss the con

i s necessary from th e pr e mises and ( ii )
elusion

goes b eyon d t h e pr e mise s

This is the parad ox

of in fer e nc e
Th e r e must b e something ne w an d
yet th e r e must not b e anything new I t is th e ol d
puzzle a b out the impossi b ility of l earning rais e d by
t h e G r e ek Sophists : an d it is only capabl e of solution
if we are allo w e d to make the d istinct ion b e t w e en w hat

is implicit an d w hat is explicit a d istinction w hich

Mill p u ts asi d e as a mer e salvo

an d to recognize
that i de ntity an d d i ffe r e nce ar e not mutually exclusive
a conclusion w hich cost Plato a great d ialectic al struggle
an d which to mo d ern common sens e still s eems absur d
.

s l a r m at o
hr
u t God
o h a mm d i
prop h t
r
h av a g at v judgm t d r t d a g a inst
pa g a s wh o ass rt
x st c
ot h r g o d s
a r m at iv
d r c t d a ga st t h os wh o d y t hat o h a mm d a tr u prop h t
c la u s s
o ly p u t to c r d s wh so m o d y i
d y g t h m A ll g u
a r m at o
g at o
gat io n
m o k g arr a g m a s t hat
r u l pro h t g s m o k g d o s
h ol d t h r ju st as
gat v s
pr va il ing
h a t P ro Ja m s mu st t h k t h at
g l s h ot c says so m
t h g a o u t o j c t v x st
wh l
rm a ot d o s n t !
p
oo k II h ap

ib e f
T e e is n o Go d b
an d M
i n
,

h is
ne
en
i ec e
He e we
e
ie
e
th e
n
e
an d a n
f
e
th e e i e n e o f
ie e
is
e
e
in
M
en
e
A
ir m ative
en
e
n
in
ee
eb
ar e
e n in
i n o f ne
e
f
i n is n e
e n ine

S
in c
i e
e
ib i in
in
e n
th e

~
no t
i e th e
e e ;
N ich tr aucher
ne
e
n
ie
bi :
f
e
in
th e En i
in
n n
ic e
i e th e Ge
b
b e i e e i enc e
e
1
2
Essentials of Logic,
c
1 37
Logic, B
,
.

TH E

2 06

T H E M AN Y

O NE A N D

The
m
ore
concrete
problems
of
logic
such
as
(4 )
the investig ation of the methods of proof in t h e
sciences of observation and experiment m a k e it clear
as has been alrea d y said that all science all t h at can

be calle d real k no w ledg e all t h at can be called ex

peri e nce in t h e sense in wh ic h experience supplies the

materials for science presupposes a coherent universe
The philosop h ical doubter li k e H um e or M r Art h ur
B alfour professes to be able to thin k a u niverse in

w hic h every event is loose and separate in which

there is a hap h azard multiplicity of u nordered su c

cession
H ume log ically remains a compl e te sceptic
and h olds that he has Shown the impossibility of meta
physics ; but M r B alfour thin k s suc h a universe may
satisfy t h e m odest claims of philosop h y though h e sees
c l e arly enoug h t h at such a universe could never be
interpreted by scien c e T h e possibility of even a fe w

absolutely isolated detac h e d phenomena or events

would upset the presuppositions wit h whic h science
wor k s T h e a c cidental or contin g ent for science can
only mean the as yet unexplaine d never the uncause d
or really spontaneous S cience demands a One in th e
M any i n a m u c h fuller sense than t h e co existence of
unrelated events in one Time and in one Space and
n ess
even
in
one
Cons
c
ious
And
surely
p
h
ilosophy
(
)

whic h attempts however vainly to obtain compl e te

unication should not be satis ed wit h a lo w er stan

dard of coherence a l e ss organized syste m t h an satis es
t h e variou s particular sciences I t cannot settl e d o w n
contente d w ith an acceptance of mere plurality or
m u ltiplicity The philosop h er cannot as s u c h ma k e
a system of L ouis S tevenson s delig htfu l ch ild s verses
T h w orl d i so fu ll f a n um b r f t h i gs
I m s u r w s h o u l d all b as h appy as k i g
,

B elief,

n s

C f Th e Fou nda tions

54

h
E
8
t
d
,
[
.

TH E M ET A PH Y S I C AL PRO B L E M

2 07

II
T H E M ETA P H Y S I CAL P RO B L EM
Thus m etaphysics receives from logic the pro b lem
of th e relation b e tw e en th e O ne an d th e Many That
in som e sense th e One must b e in the Many is all that
the sci e nce of logic r equire s Ho w
I n w hat s e ns e
That is the problem w hich m e taphysics must att empt
to solve an d is al ways attempti ng to solve w h e th e r a
solution b e possibl e or not Popular thinking or w ant
of thinking is conte nt to l e av e such pro b l e ms alon e
or to acc e pt any partial an d hapha zar d solution of
th em : an d a certain kind o f popular philosophy has
in all ages since th e tim e o f th e Gr ee k Sophists b e e n

rea dy in its fear o f l e tting philosophy go too far to

l e n d support to the int ell e ctual in d ol e nce o f th e

vulgar
Pro f Jam e s s Essays in Popular Ph ilo

sophy as h e purposely calls th e m ar e the latest

important e xampl e of b rilliant cl ev e rness hol d ing a
b ri e f fo r laz in e ss an d stupi d ity So far as I can make
out the main th e s e s in Pro f Jam e s s quali e d d e fenc e
of th e pluralism of ord inary b eli e f are these : ( 1 ) that
monism r e solves real facts into illusions ( 2 ) that
philosophy is b oun d to satisfy oth e r d e mands o f our
nature than those o f reason an d ( 3 ) that in or d e r to
explain that fr e e w ill which is presuppos e d in our moral
j u dgments w e must posit a r e al o bj e ctiv e conti ngency
in th e univ e rse
I f I have d on e any inj ustic e to Pro f
Jam e s in formulating th e se theses in a few word s
I must apologise an d excuse mys elf b y expla ining that
I am not asking fo r any formal con d e mnation of his
b ook on th e groun d of its containing philosophical
her e sy but that I am S i mply using it as a sugge stive
expr ession o f a d iscontent w ith id e alist philosophies
that is wi d ely felt ; an d o f this d iscont e nt th e s e three
th e ses seem to m e a su f ci ently precise statem e nt
A S to th e opinion that monism re solves real fact s
into illusions the criticism is un d ou b te d ly appli c a b le
.

2 08

TH E

TH E M A NY

O NE AN D

to strict monism li k e that of the Eleatics to the pre

dominant tendency o f Spinoza s thou gh t and to syste m s
like those of Oriental pantheis m or t h eir m odern
imitations i n Sc h open h a u er and others systems w h i ch
treat t h e world of appearance in S pa c e and ti m e as
a world of illusion that we mu st leave behind us in
order to dis c over tr u th B u t t h e criticis m seems to
me inapplicable to t h e later form of Plato s idealis m
and inapplicable to t h e ideali s m of Aristotle w h ich
refuses to ma k e any absol u te g ap (p
n g) between
t h e One and the M any and least of all applicable to
t h e p h ilosop h y of Heg el w h ose w h ole e ffort i s to
brea k down t h e barrier whic h Kant h ad set u p between
t h e un k nowable world of unintelli g ible intelligihilia and
th e phenomenal world of our experience and to reg ard
this world of phe nomena in space and time as t h e re ve
lation and the only revelation we can h ave of t h e
ulti m ate reality of t h ings ( t h e Idea ) To call t h e
pheno m enal w orld a world of appearance is not merely
to tran slate Gree k i nto Latin but it i s to e x pre ss more

clearly than t h e word phenomenal can no w do in

En glis h t h at the world of o u r experience w h ilst not
si m ply as it presents itself to our senses completely
is nevert h eless
t rue because fu ll of self c ontradiction
real and true in proportion as we c o m e to see it as

t h e m anifestation of an intelli g ible world

Illus ions
are sensations wron gly interpreted facts w h i c h have
been so placed by u s in our sy s tem of belief t h at t h ey
do not t in wit h t h e rest of w h at we a c cept T h e
world of appearan c e is not as s u c h ill u sory ; for we
b elieve t h at it admits potenti ally of a c o h erent and
Prof Ja m es referrin g to
intelli g ible interpretation

t h e idea an idea not of philosop h er s only b u t of m any

ort h odo x t h eolog ians also that t h e creative mind m ust

be ti m eless g oes on to treat t h is as eq u ivalent to the

N ow
time is an ill u sory appearan c e
a ssertion that
t
p 1 81 not
Th e W
ill t B lie
,

'

zo

ve,

e c

e.

TH E M ETA P H Y S I C A L PRO B LE M

2 09

Sinc e our min d s are not the creative min d b ut can o nly
kno w things un d er the con d it ion of time where is the
illusion e sp ecially if we hnaw that time is a n e c e ssary
?
con d ition of the appearanc e of things to us
I kno w
that I cannot see all th e Si de s o f a b uil d ing at onc e ;
I am not su bj ect to any illus ion ther e b y for I re cognize
t h e limitations of my kno w l e d ge
I sho u l d in d ee d b e
su bj e ct to an illusion if I j u dge d from my own ex per i
enc e that th e front and the b ack o f the house coul d
not poss ibly coexist in tim e or that th ey coul d not b e
se en at onc e b y som e one w ho was a b l e to look d o w n
through th e roof As alre a d y pointe d out an e le ment
of illusion e nt e rs into most o f our or d inary j u dgm e nts
of perc e ption ; b ut it is an ele m e nt o f illusion which
in practice w e d isr egar d b ecaus e it is harml e ss an d
eve n convenient We get ri d of these illusions b y
psychological analysis i e by su b stit u ting scienti c r e
ex io n fo r or d inary u nr eec tiv e thought

T h e contrast b e t w een
illusion an d reality is

o f a d i ffe rent kin d from that

b etw een app earance

a nd
reality
T h e p e rson w ho has an illusion b e
liev e s in it so long a s he has the illusion
He d oes
not kno w it to be an illusion W hen he d o e s h e
ceas e s to e xp e ri e nce the illusion as an illusion But
he wh o is aw are of an app earance continu e s to ex per i
e nc e the app e arance eve n w hen h e kno w s it to b e m e re
appearanc e an d can get b ehind it to something more
real H e w ho k no w s ph e nom e na to b e mere pheno
mena kno w s them to b e a partial and imp e rfect inter
r e ta tio n o f r e ality
If
a
chil
d
in
a
moving
train
thinks
p
the sc e nery is actually r u shing past him an d that the
carriage in w hich he Sits is at r e st he has an i llusion :
h e has misplace d a real b it of experience
When he
comes to kno w that the moving tr ee s an d houses are

merely appe arance he has got hol d of a b it of

r eality through th e appearance
T h e feel ing of con
v ictio n however strong i s no proof of reality ; bu t its
,

TH E

2 10

TH E M AN Y

O NE AN D

h aving

presen c e or absence is what d i fferentiates

an

from bein g aware of appearance

Prof
illusion
James in h is P rinciples of P sych ology arg u es for the
e m otional c haracter of the h elief in realitysoundly

enough so far as belief is c oncerned

One of t h e

c h arm s of dr u n k en ness h e says u nq u estionably lies

in t h e deepenin g of the sense of reality and truth

w h ich is gained therein

And the Will to B elieve
it mi gh t be added m ay resort to various form s of
intoxication ot h er t h an alcoholic B u t let me appeal
from Prof James psycholog ically appreciatin g drun k en

ness to Prof James thin k in g soberly

The g reatest

2
proo f h e says
t h at a m an is su i comp os is his ability
to s u spend belief in presence of an e m otionally e x citing
idea To g ive t h is power is t h e h i gh est res u lt of

education
Appearance ( the world of p h enomena) is t h e real

as c onfusedly a nd partially understood It is e m

i
r ical reality
i
it
s
obj
e
c
tive
in
t
h
e
sense
of
:
p
existin g for t h e g eneral mind T h e real is the apparent
co m pletely u nderstood and seen in t h e ligh t of th e
w h ole Appearan c e i s t h e appearance of reality I f

we k now only p h enomena we must thereby k no w

somet h in g of that of whi ch they are p h eno m ena
C o m plete c o m pre h ension indeed remai ns an ideal for

k nowled g e the ideal of totality : and so w e m ust dis

This
is
tin u ish between di fferent g rades of reality
g
constantly ignored by criti c s of Idealism
Th u s
M r B alfour spea k s of the Absolute if it is not a

m e re
barren abstraction
h oldi ng in suspension
wit h out preference and wit h o u t repulsion every e le

ment ali k e of t h e k nowable world

An d similarly

L o tz e s
M r F C S Sc h iller in an arti c le entitle d

says t h at if God be identi ed with t h e

M onis m
I hid p 3 8
V l II p
84
8
th Ed p
Th F nd ti n f B lif p 1 4 6
[
i
n
P h il ph i l R iew V l V p
Th
i
tal
i
c
s
m
4
.

ou

oso

ca

e e

o s o

ev

ar e

T H E M E TA P H Y S I C A L

PRO B L E M

2 1 1

Absolute then all the phas e s of existence are a like

characte ristic of the All G od is evil as well as goo d
or b ette r still non moral an d indi ff ere nt manifesting

hims elf in all things a lihe

No w while a thorough going id ealism must protest
against th e ar b itrary prefer e nc e s of hasty an d im m ature
thought as Parmeni de s protests against the hesitation
of Socrates to recogniz e i d eas o f mu d an d d irt it
follo w s that if the intelligi b le worl d b e th e truth of
th e phenomenal w e must d istin g uish w ithin th e w orl d
of app e arance b etween thos e aspects of things w hich
have more r e ality an d those w hich have less r e ality in
th e m W here th e re is more contra d iction an d inco
h e r e nce ther e must b e l e ss reality than where we nd
rationality an d organic system Even Spinoza w ho
ten d s to d eny any reality to the mani fol d an d d iverse
n e verth e less recognizes d egrees in the exte nt to w hich
things ha ve real ity
Heg el has d istinguish e d v e ry
explicitly b etw een the m e re existenc e or m e re app e ar
ance o f things an d that r e ality w hich he i d enti e s w ith
the rational
M etaphysics cannot rest cont e nt w ith
d iscove ring th e contra d ictions in the worl d of appear
ance as it presents its elf to u s in our or d inary
exp e rienc e or even as it is partially rearrange d an d
translated into int elligi b le term s b y th e science s there
remains the positive an d constructive task at least as
an i d eal of a systematic e xposition of th e worl d of
app e arance as the manifestation of the Absolute R eality
No w this was w hat H egel atte mpte d ; an d it is just
o ne of his greatest claims to our admirat ion
that he
d id take th e whole task of philosophy as seriously as
Plato an d Aristotle ha d taken it His unfortunate
error lay in putting d o w n w hat coul d only b e provi
sio nal an d hypoth e tical interpretations as if they wer e
to b e taken as nal I f we are to think the universe
we must en d eavour to comprehend the meaning of
C f Ethi
I
prop 9
,

ca ,

TH E

2 12

M AN Y

TH E

O NE AN D

nature and still more the meanin g of human h istory

and the wor k s of the h uman S pirit in w h ic h the mani
fe statio n of t h e ultimately real becomes more intellig ible
to us T h at h uman h istory is a small t h in g in t h e
whole u niverse and t h at human h istory is very im
perfectly k no w n to us are u ndoubted di f c ulties whi c h
H eg el did not recog nize explicitly enou gh ; but t h ey
are no e x c u se for a philosopher declinin g t h e tas k of
tryin g to understand the u niverse so far as h e can b y
loo k in g at t h ose t h in g s w h ich spea k to u s most c learly
M r B alfour h as only renewed L o tz e s ge neral obj ection
to Heg el s philosophy of history w h en he spea k s ( with

special referen c e to I Esth e tic s) of so m et h in g rat h er

forc e d and arbitrary in t h e attempts t h at h ave been
m ade to exhibit the arti s tic fancies of an insig ni cant
fraction of the hu man race d u ri ng a very brief period
of its h istory as essential and important elem ents i n t h e

development an d manifestation of the I d ea

Yet
w h en M r B alfo u r is him self dealin g wit h the p r ecisely
sim ilar and m uch m ore plausible obj ection to t h e
Christian idea of t h e Incarnation he ri g htly prote s ts
ag ainst t h e exaltation of quantitative mag nitude into a
criterion of spiritual si g ni cance
We m u st distin g uish between di ff erent g rades of
reality and we are j usti ed in i nterpretin g t h e u niverse
in term s of t h e h i gh est and clearest that we k now
T h e inorg anic seems to u s easier to u nderstand than
t h e organic the org ani c than t h e self conscious only
be c a u se we care to k now less and expe c t to k now less
about t h e inorg anic t h an a b o u t the org anic abo u t t h e
m erely or gani c t h an abo u t t h e self cons c io u s Our
.

ot
p
ot
Boo
h VIII
sp t
t s
a m ss o
C op r a s c ov r s t y p rs a t h m s lv s
t at
sp r t al v lop m t
t r b sol u t
co
to
s or s
t rra a
2
h
E
pp
d
8
t
Th F nd ti n f B elif pp 3 4 4 5
3 34
[

E
d
n
t
h
C
e
8
l
i
1
f
B
e
Th e Fou nda tions o
;
f
,
f
5
5
[
e

In
i e of hi
k
c
2 1 7
L ze , M etaphysics,
,
e
e
e
e
e
ed
e ie
d
h
u
d
e n ic n d i
i
n o f th e
i
]
[
n ne d
of
e was
h th e
de e
en
h ei A
i iu

ne n
th e h
e
o f th e M e d i e
1

ou

o s o

PRO B L E M

T H E M E TA P HY S I C A L

2 1

d emands fo r explanation become more exigent an d

more d i fficult to satisfy the mor e w e approach th e
complex facts of our own p e rsonality I n geometry
we only care to kno w a b out th e triangl e ( th is triangle is
m e rely a sym b ol an d a v e ry roughly d raw n sym b ol
w ill s e rv e our purpos e) I n b iology it is the speci e s
we d escri b e an d stu d y ; th e in d ivi d ual is only a sp e ci
men though a fairly goo d specimen is necessary An d
similarly in sociology so far as sociology e xists as a
scienc e But in stu d ying human b e ings in h istory we
have an int e re st in th e in d ivi d ual an d we cannot r e st
satis e d with general causes an d vagu e explanations
This is a d mirab ly b rought out b y Prof James in his

of
h
e
G
r
an
d
I
mportance
e ssa s on
e at
T
M
en
y

In d ivi d uals
I n this also I think is to b e foun d the
e l e m e nt of truth un d erlying the v e ry am b iguo u s stat e
m e nt that philosophy must satisfy other d e mands than
thos e o f reason Philosophy must certainly satis fy
other d eman d s than those of th e a b stract un d erstan d ing K
w h i ch w orks in the special science s No great man

i
n
I
I
a
no d V du l
a b e completely ex
plaine d by b e ing analyze d into general ten d encies
No scienti c e xplanation of any kin d kno w n to u s

no victorious an d aggressive sci e nce of sociology is

likely to d ispens e us from th e nee d of r e co gniz in t h e
factor w hich th e t e mperament an d character o f in

u
l
div id a s nay the particular acts of in d ivi d uals or the

particular acci d ents that happen to in d ivi d uals

contri b ute to the shaping of human a ffa irs ( I u se the

te rm acci d ent for conve nience j ust as b iologists

sp eak of acci d ental variations meaning those of

which w e d o not ye t know the cause ) T h e reason is
that we ar e int e r e sted in human b ein gs an d hum an
e vents in a far high e r degree than that in w hich we are
intereste d in the sec ular movements of the stars or in
the succession of organic types S uppose that we wishe d
to kno w not merely wh y plants l ike ferns or conifer e
.

2 1

TH E

T H E M AN Y

O NE AN D

are more an c ient than owering plants or to k now

rou g hly h ow many c ent u ries have elaps e d Since t h e
last glacial period in Nort h ern E u rope ; suppose t h at
we w i shed to k now why this parti cu lar fossil sh and
no ot h er ca m e to be embedded i n t h is partic u lar pla c e
where we nd it or w h y t h is particular g ranite boulder
i s lyin g precisely i n t h is spot s u ppose our c uriosity
extended S O far are w e li k ely to g et any c ertai n and
precise ans w ers fro m s c ience
B u t our curiosity wit h
respe c t to hum an bein g s and h istori c al events is of t h is
very m in u te k ind an d t h erefore w e m ust be prepared
to nd a larg e unexplained residu u m after our best
e fforts h ave been made at c omprehendin g anythin g in
re g ard to hum an h istory We are dissatis e d wit h t h e
general explanations t h at do perfe c tly well w h en applied
to the g reat p h enomena of nature We a sk for some
t h in g fuller and m ore c oncrete And t h o u gh as a
matter of fact we do k no w m uc h m ore abo u t t h e
cons c ious and deliberate acts of many h uman bein g s
e l Pepys
e
Cicero
an
d
S
amu
wh
o
h
ave
left
us
som
e
( g
)
record of their eetin g feelin g s and opinions t h an we
k now or want to k now abo u t the behaviour of any
i ndividual ichth yosaurus or mam m ot h o u r interest
ma k es us more e x acti n g an d less content wit h t h e
abstra c t formul a of scienti c description T h e u n
e x plained ele m ent in h uman t h in g s concerns us m ore
deeply and t h ou gh it is really smaller i n proportion
o n any fair comparison t h an i n natural pheno m ena it
yet bul k s m ore larg ely i n o u r dis c ontent and m a k es us
feel t h e inadeq u acy of all atte m pts to t h in k t h e u ni
verse as a w h ole espe c ially in those aspects of i t w h ich
a ff ect us most and which see m to promise if we could
only get at the h eart of them m ost insi gh t into t h e
m eanin g of thin g s B u t it is one t h in g to ad m it all
this : it is anot h er thin g to di s parag e rational explana
tion and to demand so m et h in g else fro m p h ilosop h y ;
it is another thin g to se t u p t h e a s yet unexplai ned
,

)k

PRO B LE M

T H E M E TA P HY S I C A L

2 1

as if it we re an eleme nt a b solut ely outsi d e the compre

h e nsio n o f even the most perfect inte llig e nce co nce iv
a b le To d o this is to turn our ignorance an d
impati e nce into a measure of the universe o f w hat is
an d w hat is not in a far w il d e r fashion than can be
charg e d against the b ol d est i d ealist construction
The b usiness of philosophy must b e to think the

worl d to carry on that w ork of making things in

telligib le w hic h is b egun b y the scie nc e s
I t is rel e vant
to o bj ect to a philosophical system that it ignores
some se t of facts ( if th e y are r e ally facts) an d d oes not
explain th e m i e d o e s not t th e m in w ith other
facts an d Sho w their relation to the whole It is
possi bl e an d not d i f cult to Sho w that every philo
sophical syste m is m a d e uat e b ecaus e no philosopher
has explain e d e
in
because all in
varying d egrees
f 11 into confusion o f
thought But it is irrelevant to ask from philosophy
%
the sat isfaction of oth e r than intellectual d e man d s
Philosophy is not a goo d d inner nor is it ne music
nor is it no w a d ays the ecstasy of passionate love or
of religious emotion T h e consolations of philosophy
must remain some w hat grey an d grim That human

e
natur has oth e r than intell e ctual n e e d s in fact that
most human b eings have ve ry limite d and easily satis e d
int ellectual n e e d s is one of those facts w hich philo
~
sophy must take acco u nt of p e rhaps somewhat sad ly
But philosophy w oul d only b e ma d e absur d if it we re
to profe ss to satisfy other than intell e ctual d e man d s

The att e mpt to b ring it do w n to the leve l of the

vulgar b y throwing in concessions to popular senti

m e nt m ay make th e name o f philosophy popular b ut
at th e e xpens e of its credit for honesty A pu b lic
w hich is satis ed w ith the political philosophy of th e
D e claration of I n d ep e n d ence w ill dou b tless b e please d
with the assertion o f the li b erty of the indivi d ual to
believe what he wants to b elieve It is w hat people
o

2 1

TH E

A ND

O NE

TH E M A N Y

generally d o and t h ere is no ne c essity to provide t h e m

fl with a philosop h ical for m ula to cover the nakedness of
their hap h azard thin k ing A man may not li k e m ath e
B u t do not let us
m atics : he may prefer ro u lette
su ggest to h i m t h at h e s h oul d pretend w h ile he travels
to hell v id M onte Carlo t h at g amblin g is a superior
k in d of mat h e m atics Anot h er person may disli ke
m etaphysics espe c ially Heg elian metap h ysi c s and m ay
prefer the m ost emotional and irrational reli g ion he
can nd B u t w h ile h e travels to heaven under what
ever irrationalist a u thority he elects to follow w e nee d
not tell h im that h e is a profo u nd p h ilosop h er all t h e
tim e T h e trut h of a s c ienti c proposition or of a
p h ilosophical t h eory is not refuted by any one actin g as
if it were not tr u e The strai gh t line is the S h ortest
distance between two points ; and yet a m an may g o
a lon g way round on t h e c h ance of meeting h is Sweet
h eart or in order to c all at h is favo u rite pu b lic h o u se
And t h e old di f culty al w ays recurs Whose nature
i s to be sati s ed ? L ive in t h e sensation of t h e
m o m ent if yo u can and do not thin k abo u t t h e next
B u t if you on c e be g in thin k in g an d c onstru c t some
r u diments of a system you have appealed to reason
and by reason you m ust be j ud g ed So lon g as yo u
blindly submit as m ost h u m an bein g s do to t h e
authority or tra dition under whose in fluence you
have g rown u p you can escape t h e arbitration of
b u t if you on c e beg in to wei gh one a u t h ority
th o ug ht
a g ainst another whatever may be the psycholo g ical
explanation of th e choice you nally ma k e your c om
parison of c ompetin g authorities mu st be m ade i n
term s of reason
An appe al to any other u lti m ate aut h ority than t h at
of rea s on is an appeal w h ich ma k es discussion im
possible and absurd Plato ta k in g P r o tago r as s H om o
m ensu r a to m ean a de c laration of t h e ri g hts of every
in divid u al hum an bein g s feelin g s as k s why Protag oras
,

TH E M E TA P HYS I C A L PRO B L E M

2 1

shoul d expect us to give more w eight to h is own

opinion than to th e opinions of a pig or a b a b oon
or a ta d pol e An d if th e app e al to re ason is to b e
suspect can Prof James claim any more valu e for
his opinions than for those of the Am e rican Eagle
?
if
th
or
of
the
Pop
e or t h e S ultan
e r e b e such a bir d
(
)
I f the answe r b e that practic e is the real te st of th e
value of op inions w e may a d mit that w ith regar d
to opinions in so far as they affe ct practice on t h e
ve r y groun d that the tru e is the cohere nt But w hat is
our t e st of the relative value of d i fferent kin d s o f
?
I f th e qu e stion
life e xcept an app e al to reason
w er e put to the vote a very small minori ty w oul d vote
for the pursuit o f philosophical thinking eve n o f the
lively typ e practise d b y Pro f James in compar ison
w ith the pleasures of b e tting at horse races or looking
on at foot b all match e s I n philosophy th e re can b e
no app e al e xcept to re ason A ph ilosophical theory
is b oun d to tak e account of the w hole nature of
man along with other things in the u nivers e w hich
se e m to pay very l ittle r egar d to any man s pr ivate
likings but the ultimat e app e al must b e to clear
an d d istinct thinking That system w hich can give
t h e most coh e r e nt accou n t of th e s e e mingly chaotic
w orl d of our exp e ri ence m ust be pr e fe rr e d ho we ver
unpleasing the r e sult may b e to th e fe elings an d w ish e s
of this or that person A syste m of philoso phy must
e xplain th e fact of w i d e sprea d b e liefs as
to religion
an d morality : it d oes not follo w that it must con rm
them all in their original form any more than that

it must uphol d the b elie fs of unsci e nti c common

sens e a b out the physical w orl d

I t is too much
to exp e ct phi losophy to con rm b eliefs w hich are

often m utually self co ntra d ictory

The h eart it
has b e e n sai d
has reasons that the reason knows

not o f
Tru e
says M F ouill e
but whose
l

Thea et

6 1,

2 1

M AN Y

TH E

TH E O NE AN D

heart ? I S it the heart of the cannibal savage or t h e

h e art of the civilize d man the h e art of the M usulman
?
or that of the Christian
E veryt h in g depends on
the i ntel ligence that is in the heart w h et h er it be
i n the reective stage or i n t h e stag e of in h erited
traditional belief The s u pposed conict between
intelle ct and feelin g i s i n reality a coni c t between
one form of intellect and anot h er between reective
1
and u nr ee ctiv e though t
,

T H E T H E O L O G I CA L A N D E T H I CA L P R O B LE M
I n modern times dissatisfaction wit h M onism or
w ith any reconciliation of M onis m and Pluralis m w h ic h
does not nally g ive t h e primacy to t h e M any i s
connected not w it h di f culties i n the explanation of
th e p h ysical u niverse t h ere M onism is easily triump h

ant b u t with di f c u lties about personality A real

personal God a real hu man so u l t h at c annot

peris h or beco m e absorbed i n anyt h ing ot h er than

its isolated self

real absol u te free will in h owever
restricted a domai n t h ese moral ideas are supposed
to be irreconcilable with any u lti m ately monistic syste m
and to compel u s to adopt an u ltimate Pluralis m
T h e picture t h in k in g of ordinary unp h ilosop h i c al
thou gh t m ost certainly assu m es a system w h ic h is
pluralisti c and c an only be described corre c tly as
one of Polyt h eism God bein g t h ou gh t of as one
g reat and powerful spirit amon g other independent
Spirits w h o may indeed be h is o ffsprin g but who
are g overned by h i m only as h u man b ein g s are
g overned by a m onarc h and w h o can and do disobey
and who may even plan to det h rone h i m and se t up
?
a rep u bli c an form of g overn m ent
Now if a p h il
III

p 1
Ja m s as s ugg st d n v n m or prosa ic po s ib il ity
u v rs ay a c t u ally b a sort f jo int sto ck so c i ty in
s ar rs av b ot h l im it d l ia b il it i s nd l im it d po w rs

Le M ou vement I dealiste,
2
h
f
e

th e
ni e e m
wh ich th e h e h e
'

P ro
T h at

is

TH E TH E OLO G I CA L PRO B L E M

2 1

osoph y is b oun d to j ustify in its lite ral form this

Vor stellu ng of popular religion then certa inly pluralistic
metaph ysics must correspon d to polytheistic theology
But th e rst re quireme n t in a serious philosophy is that

of self co nsistency ; an d no picture or myth of this

kin d w hatever moral or Spiritual truth it may contain
can be mad e self consist e nt I f God is not the A b so
lute Be ing if he is not the omnipotent b ut can b e
b
ep l p p s
r ts eith er h e an d the
g
d n g i g ji
oth e r Sp i r i ts ar e relativ ely in d e pen d e nt b eings w ithin
o ne system of things w hich is th e tru e A b solute B eing
or th e r e is no syste m o f things at all an d the unive rse

is really that r e alm of chanc e in w hich

t h e mat e rialist
is ofte n sai d to b el ieve T h e G reeks a d vance d from
the con fus e d polytheism of primitive b elief to the con

c e tio n o f
o ne God gre atest among go d s an d m e n
p
an d from that th e transition wa s easy either to th e
F ate of th e d ramatic po e ts or to th e One of Eleatic
philosophy An ultimate pluralism may b e picture d
b ut cannot b e s e riously thought out Either F ate or
an O bj ective C hance ( w hich is th e same thing as blind
F ate un d er anoth e r name) must control the relations

b e tw een th e many b e ings e nvisag e d as a b solute s

That th e many Shoul d b e r e ally an d ultimately a b solute
is so far as I can se e unthinka b l e a contra d iction
Each one is posite d as a b solute an d in de pen d e nt An d
e t each one is not a b solute b ecaus e there ar e others
y
so
that each is limite d b y the co existence of others
alongsi d e of it ; for if not there coul d b e no int e r
action among the many To say that th e many
f c o u rs a s im pl
ot io ( Th Will tB li t
nd c o c iva b l

=
Th
Th
p
ni
d C o m pa y Ltd
G d
g
g st io n i t i t d d to b profa b u t to b n a cc o mm o d at io
to pop u larr l ig io u s b l i f T m it s m s a d ti d h d m f

pl u ral ist p h ilosop h y or t h olo gy I t i to pass i to a d iff r n t

i t ll c t u al at m osp h r to t u r to th w or d s f S t Augu st in
d St
A n pot ins
m
n
i
m
Pau l
n
m in t
m
is i
e
p
9
9

s no

n e

e a

ve r se

n en

no

omnia,

in 9u o omnia

esse

n e,

e sse

eve, e c

r e uc

oa

a su r

e,

e e

e an

su

e a

ee

e e

an

n e

uo o

a,

er

ue

TH E

2 2 0

TH E M AN Y

O NE AN D

existences ar e real and that the relation b et w een t h em

i s only a relation and th e refore ideal would be to

fall a victi m to a verb al d i st i nct i on T h e m an y can be
expressed by nouns t h eir unity or their interaction can

b e expressed by an adj ective or a verb : relat ion is an

a b stract term and thin g is a concrete B u t if t h e

vario u s thin g s belon g to one system of thin g s t h at
system of t h ing s is t h e ulti m ate reality If t h ey do not
belon g to one system w e are left w it h so m et h in g
unthin k able The isolated in dependent individual is
unthin k able if t h ere be any others isolated and in

dependent outside o f it
Isolated is meanin gless
u nless there are ot h ers from w h i ch a thin g is isolat e d
T
h
ere
can
be
no
re
al and ab so lu te ndiv idu al except the

}
L
w h ole universe A S we h ave alrea d y seen h owever
t h is one universe mu st be thou gh t of not as an abstract
identity but as containin g a multiplicity wit h i n it as
manifestin g itself as a m any
Prof Jam e s does not spea k of absol u tely inde endent

bein g s b u t of a pl u rality of semi independent orces

T h e world is only in part disorderly and g iven over to
a real obj e c tive c hance The doctrine m ay seem less
h arsh ; but is obj ective chance ma d e any m ore thin k

able by the plea t h at ir is only a little one

The
mystery is rather i n c reased than diminished by the
concession that a g reat part of the universe is one
coherent system That only a part and a small part of
t h e universe is k no w n by us fro m experience to b e
co h erent m u st of c o u rse be admitted ; b u t t h e whole
procedure of t h e s c iences by w h i ch that part h as come
to be k nown assu m es that all is coherent How is t h e
transition made from the necessary to t h e contin g ent
I S it gradu al or is it abrupt ? To c ontin g ency as a
name for our i g norance it is easy enough to g ive a n
intellig ible meanin g ; and in t h at s e nse the a cc idental or
t h e contin g ent m ay safely be tal k ed about It is t h at
,

Th e

Will t

B elieve,

etc

75

T H E TH E OLO G I C A L PRO B L E M

2 2 1

w hich we know incompl e tely ; an d th e re are no things

an d very fe w asp e cts of things that w e kno w com
l
e te l
f
i
But
Pro
James
ins
sts
on
the
r
e ality
of
p
y

chance as som e thi ng o bj e ctive in r er u m na tu r a

I

fancy he says that squ e ez ing the thistle b ol d ly will

ro b it o f its sting
He seems to me to have got
hol d of th e w rong plant for his au d acious e xp e rim e nt

is th e ans w er of th e thistle
N em o m e imp u ne la cessit
an d of log ic F or chanc e cannot b e consistently
thought out as any partial contra d iction of necessity
W ith or d inary unloa de d d ice th ere is a chance of my
thro w ing d ou b l e Six e s b ut th e r e is no chance of my
thro w ing d ou b l e sev e ns This only m e ans that I kno w
the num b e r s ev e n cannot app e ar w h e re it d oes not
e xist w hil e I d o not kno w w h ich o f t h e various possi b l e
com b inations will occur on any gi v e n occasion Pro f

Jam e s insists that possib ility must b e r e al

This
eith er means that
th e possi b le is the actual in w hich
th e re is no longer any plac e for uncertainty
c as e
su bj e ctive or o bj e ctive or ( an d this of cours e is w hat
Prof James inte n d s ) it m e ans that o ne alternative may
h app e n a s w ell as th e other w hich means that some
t hi ng may take plac e w ithout a cause a supposition
that w ould make all scienc e impossi b le an d w h ich
moreov e r is not s er iously th inkab l e for it w oul d mean
t h e thinking of a particular e vent in a b solute isolation
from all oth e rs
Sem i i n d epen d e nt is i n d e e d a phrase that might
rop
e rly b e applie d to the parts of an organism ; b ut
p
th ey ar e c e rtainly not intelligibl e nor capa ble of exist
ing except in relation to th e w hole
An d in the
o rganism
the more d i ff e rentiate d an d in d ivi d ualized
parts ar e to b e foun d in the higher organisms where
th e d e p e n d e nce on th e whole is greater t h an it is in

the lo wer forms o f l ife I S not t h e in d epen d ence

or
semi in d ependence of pluralist theory si m ply a
,

Mid p
,

53

T HE O NE AN D T HE M AN Y

2 2 2

mista k en interpretation of t h e individual whic h co

exists wit h other i ndividuals w h ose very di fferentiation
as an individ u al implies m ore co m ple x dependen c es
upon t h e w h ole to whic h it belon g s ? Independence
of ot h er parts or g roups of parts i s g ained only by
g reater dependen c e u pon t h e w h ole
T h at t h ere is so m e s u percial pla u sibility in holdin g
that certain reg ion s or aspe c ts of t h e u nivers e are
contin g ent m ay h owever be ad m itted T hu s t h e
n u mbers of t h e petals or s tam ina of ower s w h ic h are
de nite i n t h e c ase of s m all n u mbers ( t h ree in t h e
m onocotyledon s fo u r or ve in t h e di c otyledons)
g enerally become indenite and irregu lar when we
g et to n um bers beyond ve and S ix It is as if plants
were li k e savag es w h o lost c o u nt beyond s m all g ures
N at u re s w e a k ness ( as He gel wo u ld h ave put it ) seems
here to prod u ce a real c ontin g ency B u t I do not
t h in k t h e scientic biolog ist will so readily ad m it t h at

t h e ac c idental t h ou gh as yet u ne x plained is ab so

lu tely inexpli c able
Natural sele c tion m ay acco u nt for
t h e i naccura c y of nature w h en it deals with large n um
bers Wit h small n u m b ers any deviation m a k es a
g reater relative di ff erence in t h e s y mm etry and appear
ance of t h e ower and so would a ffe c t t h e fa c ility wit h
w h i ch inse c ts reco g nize it B u t t h e di ff eren c e e g
between ten and e leven petals is one t h at does not
a ffect t h e g eneral loo k of a ower and so not h in g i s
g ained by ri g id observan c e of n um ber
Nat u ral
selection not operatin g number is deter m ined by
ot h er cau se s T h at m ay or m ay not be t h e ex pla
nation I only m ean to Sh ow t h at be c a u se somethin g
loo/es a s if it were a case of absol u te contin g ency we
are not entitled to say t h at t h ere may be no e x plana
?
tion for any intelli gence w h atever
wh o la id
much tr ss n th d iff r nc b t w n
L ib n i
did n t as rt ny a b sol u t
n c ssary
nd c o n t ing n t tr u t h

c o n t ing nc y
d iff r nc b t w n n c ary nd c o nt ing nt
Th
,

e e

so

z,

e e

us,

ee

e ess

e e

se

ee

T HE E T H I C A L PRO B L E M

2 2

The question of t h e Will is pe rhaps to us the m ost

prominent form of th e q u estion about the One an d the
Many The metaphysical G re e k intelle ct when it came
to be d irected into theological channels fought out th e
question of th e One an d the Many as a qu e stion about
the Trinity an d th e Incarnation ( How th e O ne can b e a i(
plurality how the One the a b solutely re al can appear K
in spac e and time ) The practical West e rn mind
traine d in the conception of R oman la w fought out
t h e sam e probl e m b ut only in its e thical aspectas
the pro b lem of fre e w ill an d responsi b ility : Ho w can
the O ne D ivin e Will b e r e concil e d w ith a plurality o f
ang elic an d human w ills w hich n ev e rtheless must in
?
som e w ay b e su b ord inat e to it
F rom Lati n
theology we have inherite d th e question of the will
chi e f an d typical philosophical d i f culty I
as our
cannot d iscuss the question here I shall only point

out ( I ) that fate in the Oriental sense an d nece s

y
e
m
r
e
h
e
or
d
et
rminis
not
same
a
t
t
h
i
T
IT
n
I
sit
t
y
g

contradictory Pro f James speaks as if fa ta l

decrees we re a part of th e d octrine of necessity

Whatever you do such

N o w the fatalist says :

such things w ill happ e n

The d et e rminist says
your character is o f such an d such a k in d and
cir
l
you w ill
c u m stance s of such and such a k in d occur

T h e fatalist s proposi
act in such and such a way
tion is always absolutely cat egorical : it denies any
hypothesis The d e terminist s proposition is al w ays 7
h ypothetical : and th e hypothesis is o ne which in th e
case of a human bein g can never be certainly k no wn
to b e true Those who thin k psychological d eter
tr u t h s i th sa m t hat b t w n c o mm ns u ra bl d in m m
a bl num b rs
C o nt ing nt tr u th s r q u ir n innit a nalys is
wh ich o ly G d n a cc o m pl is h Ac c or d ing ly it i b y h im alo

t h at t h tru t h s k ow n p i i nd w it h c rta inty D S i nti

li
C l l P h il ph i ( Er dm a nn p 83
Uni
C f M a in
A n i nt L w p 3 5 3
9
Th W
ill t B li
p 8
t
s)
,

1
.

e as

ese

ver sa

ca

a cu o

e,

e
,

ar e

seu

e an

ee

c e

e eve,

oso

e c. ,

r or

ne

c e

co

se

e nsu r

co

n2
.

Om u

a
,

o u

2 2

T H E M AN Y

ON E A N D

TH E

inconsistent with that freedom which morality

presupposes argue exactly as if we w ere to hold the
rst la w of motion a dan g ero u s doctrine be c ause if it
were true we should be afraid to g et up and wal k
(lest we Shoul d never stop If the idea of t h e v is
iner tia is sound we h ad best nev e r begin to read Prof
James s boo k beca u se once beg innin g we shall neve r
be able to stop readin g it The psycholog ist li k e any
other scienti c person is obli ged to deal with abstra e
H is propositions if carefully stated
tions
m ust
always li k e all carefully stated scienti c propositions
take the h y pothetical form
Possibilities that fail to

g et realized are for d e terminism pure ill u sions says

Pro f James
No ; they are only abstractions They
are what would have happened had certain conditions
been di fferent T h e con c r e te reality is w h at d oes h appen
2
With
re
g
ard
to
the
theolo
g
ical
as distinct fro m
( )
the psycholo g ical aspect of the q u estion of t h e will
a di f c ulty arises in every attempt to thin k of man
as endo w e d i n any respect wit h an absolu free will

independent of t h e Eternal Decrees of G

I f we
picture God ma k in g man wit h free wi ll and t h en loo k
i n g on to see what happens i g norant of t h e result
there is c onceivably a more po w erfu l and more pres c ient
bein g who k nows w h at will happen as the result of t h e
rst God s action
This latter bein g is t h erefore God
If t h is latter does not in every respect k now or deter
m
ine
what
will
happen
he
is
not
yet
God
and
so
on
[
till we admit an all k nowin g and all powerful Go d
m inism

I Ens

r ea lissim u m

T h at t h ere are di f culties i n this way of thi n k ing of

a n A bsolute bein g and the relation of s u ch a b ein g to
t h e particular thin gs in the u niverse is true eno u gh
But is any less p h ilosop h ical system of t h eology free
?
fro m di f c ulties
Only so lon g as we avoid thi n k in g
t h em out
t
p 151
Th W
ill t B elie
.

ve,

e c

TH E E TH I C A L PRO B LE M

2 2

I nference s a p oster ior i as is recogniz e d b oth by Kant

an d b y S M ill in h is essay on Theism can only

make pro ba b l e th e existence of an Int elligence of gre at
b ut not of a b solute power But than such a b eing

a gre at e r can alw ays b e conceive d ; an d G o d fo r

philosophy cannot m e an less than id 9u o nih il m en
us
co ita ri
W
h
can
b
e
c
otest
all e d
e th e r the Absolute
p
g
goo d in our sense of th e wor d which al ways implies
comparison w ith a stan d ar d has b een dou b te d not
only b y philosophers b ut by some philosophical theo
lo gian s also
But th e A b solute must contain and
surpass all that we kno w of as the highest goo d nes s
an d the h ighest w is d om among mankin d ( A S Plato
6 3 9 8 is higher than right
expre ss e s it the 286
e o u sne ss
The
pro
b
l
e m of e v il seems in d ee d to be
)
Simpli e d if we suppose a d evil or a po w er of d arkness
struggling w ith the Lord of light ; b ut it is the method
of popular mythology to stav e o ff d i f culti e s b y in
c reasing the num b er o f things t o b e explained
So
far as w e ar e j usti ed in calling an yth ing morally e vil
w e must b e prepare d to Show that it is some element
of weakne ss a nd lngoh ergp ce which ten d s to pass out
o f exist e nce b e caus e it is not rational
But we call
many things evil S imply because they are inconveni e nt
to ourselves : and yet some things very inconvenient to
ourselves we d iscover to b e inevitable an d unalterab le
fo r u S e ven b y omnipotence e g the inco m m e nsu r a
b ility o f the d iam e ter an d the circumfer e nc e o f the
circl e or th e impossi b ility of packing sphere s as com
actl
as
equal
cu
b
We
all
crave
happiness
an
d
es
p
y
continuous happiness ; b ut there may b e a b stract
poss ib iliti e s w hich in Lei b niz s phrase are not com

e
se t up our longings
ossibl
What
right
have
we
to
p
as a measure of th e universe ? Least of all are those
e ntitl e d to d o so who have b e g un b y disparaging the
c e rtainty of cl e ar an d d istinct thinking No theory
may be attainable by us which is satisfactory to all o u r
,

01

11

2 2

TH E

TH E M AN Y

O NE AN D

wishes ; but we gai n nothi ng by adoptin g t h eories t h at

will not satisfy our intelle c t for t h ese will always pro
vo k e do u bt I rrationalism is at all ti m es t h e parent
of scepticism
Whether t h e balance of pain or of pleas u re pr e
ponderates i n hu man life is an insoluble que s tion
be c a u s e pain and pleasure are not absolute q u antities
c apable of statistical meas u rement b u t relative to t h e
j u d gm ent of partic ular individ u als i n particular m oods
W h en people b eg in to reect on t h is m atter t h ey
g enerally adopt pessi m istic conclusions for r eex io n
abo u t pleasure k ills happine s s B u t t h at pessimism
g en u ine and earnest pessi m ism c an never be t h e livin g
c reed of any larg e portion of t h e hu man race is s ecured
by natural sele c tion Sincere and convinced pessi m ists
would k ill t h em selves or cease to c ontinue t h eir
a c cursed ra c e Nat u re h as ta k en care t h at t h ose shall
prevail who are not indeed passively contented opti
mists b u t w h o at the same tim e h ave su f cient interes t
in t h e str uggle of life to k eep toilin g on wor k in g o u t
some p u rpose w h ich even in t h e c learest consciou s ne s s
i s only faintly re c og nized
I t i s perfe c tly true as writers li k e Prof Ja m es and
M r Art hu r B alfour are fond of re m indi ng us t h at
m an k ind do not live by clear and distinct t h in k in g b u t
by fait h Bu t it is the business of p h ilosophy to dis
c over w h at that fait h i s and not to a c cept th e plain
m an s ac c ount of t h e m atter wi th out criticism ; for t h e
plain m an s answer is not really the answer of t h e
u nsop h isticated con s ciousness w h ic h is bli nd and d um b
but the answer w h ich has been p u t into hi s m o u t h by
t h ose w h o have broug h t h i m u p Now t h e faith b y

w h ic h we live and wor k an d o cc asionally t h in k w h at

ever ot h er fait h (A hergla u he) we may superadd is

faith in th e tr atio nality] of t h e u niverse And t h is faith
m eans ( I ) t h at th e world is an intelli g ible system one
and c oherent h owever little we m ay have di s c overed
,

E T H I C A L PRO B L E M

TH E

2 2

about it an d ( 2 ) that there is some meaning or purpose

in it all that it is not a w orl d w holly or partially left
over to chance or caprice The rationali ty of the
universe inclu des the pres upposition not merely that
events are linke d together as m aterial an d e f cient
causes b ut that they can be un d erstoo d ( i d eally or
potentially ) in the light of th e formal an d nal cau se
be
The sciences of nature have to m
former mode of explanatio n though their aim al ways
is to reach formal causes ( the laws of nature ) B u t
l
h
i
o so h
which
ta
k
es
ac
c
ount
of
human
life
also
p
y
see k s fi
ir an explanation in te rms o f nal cause an d
even th e scie nces of organic nature as Kant sho w e d
have to use that conce ption at least as a methodologi c al
d evice
I n a d vocating th e existence of an o bj ective chance

Prof James says that our responsibility en d s with

the performance of [our] duty and th e bur d en of t h e

rest we may lay on higher powers

But can we d o
that unless we b elieve that the whole inclu d ing
ourselves is a rational system ? I f w e b elieve in a
real obj e c tive continge ncy we are b elieving that there
is a portion over which th e higher po w ers have no
control an d if we were really to believe that any
demon or human scoun d rel coul d actually an d nally
hin d er the purpo s e of God Should we not have less
heart for the ght unless indee d we ha d s u ch an

inordinate conceit of ourselves as none of the

worl d s b est heroes have ever had so as to fancy that
we coul d d o God s wor k independently of G od s w ill ?
It may s ee m perhaps as if it m a d e no practical
d i fference to us w hether what we nd evil results from
a rival po wer thwarting the benevolent ruler or goo d
principle in the un iverse or from th e necessary
limitation o f the temporal an d spatial realization of
the Eternal Id ea ; but it makes a great d i fference fo r
Th W
pp 1 7 4 7 5
ill t B eli e t
,

ev

e c

I
,

2 2

TH E

TH E M AN Y

O NE AN D

clearness of thin k in g and even for pra c tice it is surely

better to feel that all is c o m prehended in a (rational )
syste m th an t h at t h e fears of o u r discontent and
despair are warranted by c arefu l t h eory also For if
we believe t h at th e h i gh es t bein g is not t h e Absolute
how do we k now that h e m ay not be defeated after
?
all
It m ay per h aps be answered t h at o u r p h ilosophical
fait h is not in an act u ally existin g rational syste m of

thin g s experien c e prevents u S believin g in t h at but

in an end a
nal g oal of ill towards w h i ch
evolution m oves ; t h at t h e c on c eption of evolution
invol ves t h e con c eption of t h e Ab s ol u te as B e c omin g
not as B ein g The universe it m ay be s aid c onsists
of a m u ltiplicity of independent bein g s w h o g rad u ally
come to settle down into stable eq u ilibriu matoms
or m onads m a k in g a s it were a perm anent so c ial
c ontract wit h one anot h er T h e world t h en would be
t h e be s t of all po s sible worlds in the sense t h at it is
t h e arran ge m ent best tted to survive Such a view
undoubtedly ag rees wit h m uc h t h at is commonly said
about evolution B u t it raises all th e old puzzles t h at

Z eno fo u nd in the
many or beco m in g when
treated as absolute c ateg ories T h us it m a k es ti m e an
absolute and bri n g s in t h e di f c u lties about a real
beg innin g and e nd of ti m e Pro c e s s and c h an g e
cannot be t h o ug ht out unless i n referen c e to a

per m anent and u n ch an g in g substance

It is only

t h e per m anent t h at can c h an g e

as Kant said
H er acle itu s h im self t h e p h ilosopher of t h e u n i versal

ux h ad his r e ever livin g t h in k in g as t h e one

prin c iple pervadin g all thin g s : and it was only his
sop h isti c al s uc cessors w h o tried to wor k wit h t h e
c oncept of absolute c han g e and w h o fo u nd t h e m selves
log ically c ompelled to g ive up s ayin g anyt h ing at all

Our pop u lar Sop h ist s of t h e present day tal k of

Evol u tion evolvin g and of t h e

develop m ental
,

TH E

E T H I C AL PRO B L E M

2 2

process as if it were an a b solute But it is only the

carelessness of popular language an d the use of abstract
nouns as subj ec ts which allow such phrases to pass
current Evolution is the appearance or manifestation
(
to us of a timeless reality which inclu d es an d trans 3
c e nds chan e
g
P layw r igh t m ay s h o w
O
I so m fift h a c t w h at t h is w il d d ra m a m a s
Eve n the image or pictu re in these lines of Tennyson s
helps to lea d one into a more philosophical conception
o f the
worl d than th e b elief in Evolut ion as the
a b solute The Playw right may Sho w us his meaning
only at th e en d of a long proc ess b ut if he is a perfe ct
play wright his thpu gh t though only b it by b it r e
veale d to us perva d es the whol e of his work
.

ur

e n

CO NFESSIO F I D E I
(
1

885 )

NA T U R E
P R O B LE M O F

TH E

or

GO D

AN D T

S C E P T I C I SM

HE

all di s p u ted q u estions t h e m ost pr o tle ss i s t h e

?
q u es tion
Whet h er t h ere is a God
The only

question wort h dis cu ssin g i s W h at God is ?

If

by God be m ean t a g i gantic h u m an bein g th o ugh t

of a s an absol u te m onarch livin g somew h ere u p
in t h e s ky and g overnin g t h e u niverse ac c ordin g to
a c apricious and c h an g eable will it is a pio u s d u ty
to deny suc h a God however m uch h e m ay be con
c ealed u nder venerable c reed s an d c lot h ed in co nse
c rated as so c iations If su ch be God t h e pio u s man
if h e h ave any intelli g en c e and ed u cation mu st needs
be an ath eist Any con c eption of God w h ic h appr o x i
m ates to s uch an i m ag ination mu st j u st in s o far
provo k e and require indi g nant disbelief Lapla c e

S wept t h e h eavens wit h h is teles c ope and said T h ere

is no God and h e was q u ite ri gh t I f we nd not

God in o u r own hum an souls we nd h im now h ere
and if we are h onest we s h all say so

subj ective delu s io n ?

I S t h en the idea of God a

K nowledg e Nature M orality t h ese are o u r facts

T h ere i s an ordered syste m of nat u re w h ic h we can
study and understand There i s a rowin g order of
that hum an s ociety for whose wel are we can ta k e
tho u g h t and in w h ose life we live
OF

S CE P T I C I S M

D escartes tr ie d to get a fresh start fo r human

thou g ht in th e re volt fr o m th e oppression of a u thority
b y en d eavouring to doubt everyth ing One thing

remaine d w h ich he coul d not d oubt the existence of

the self w hich d ou b ted On this foun d ation he b u ilt
a system in which he too rea d ily rea d mitte d m uch of
th e d ogmatism
he ha d b egun b y rejecting Th e
system we may l e ave ; it has only an historical interest
The foun d ation remains
Kant sought a refuge from scepticism b y shifting
th e pro b lem of philosophy
I nste a d o f attempting to
d e c i d e dogmatically wh e ther G o d is wh e ther th e w ill
is free w hether th e soul is immortal he aske d the
preliminary questions : Ho w is k no wle dg e possible ?
?
Ho w is morality possi b l e
I n some sense or other
we d o k now we d o attain truth a b out so m e matters ;
we d o act an d j u d g e our con d uct ( an d most certainly
that o f others) accor d ing to a stan d ar d of right and
w rong W e set up i de als ( ho wever w e get them )
w hich we hol d ough t to be attaine d or at least to
b e aim e d at He w ho d enies this is so complete a
scepti c that it b eco m es impossi b le to argue with him
If there is no truth it is useless to ask wheth e r any
statement is tru e or not C omplete scepticism destroys
itself He wh o den ies that there is any d istinction
b e twe e n right an d wron g cannot even j oin a gan g
o f thieves
He w ill go solitary till he n d s his way
to the ma d house or th e gallo w s
.

ESS EN T IA L CO N D ITI O N S O F K N OW LE D GE
Assuming then that kno w le d ge exists as fact let
us ask w hat are the e ssential con d itions without which
it coul d not exist ? All kno w le d ge implies a conscious
self kno w ing The Simpl e st act of k nowl e d ge is j udg
ment Ju d gm e nt implies comparison C omparison
implies that the d i ffere nt ( sensations things
can b e hel d together in a unity Without a unity
2

C O N FE S S I O F I D E I

of t h oug ht t h ere c o uld be no j ud g ment of di ff erence

M or e di fference is a self destructive conception Thus
if we g rant t h at as a matter of history all k nowle d ge
grows up fro m sensatio n w h i ch as a p h ysical fact
p h ysiolo gy can st u dy it is still necessary that a t h in k
in g ( i e a j u d gin g a c o m parin g ) self s h o uld be present
to sensat i on

W h en it is as k ed How can m ind k now matter ?

How can one m ind co m municate with anot h er ?
we s h ould see w h e th er these question s are not dif
c u lties j ust be c a u se t h ey involve assu m ptions we have
no ri gh t to ma k e W h y ass u me m ind and matter
as separate substances over ag ainst one anot h er ( C arte

sia nism
W
h
y
assume
minds
as
separate
?
su b
)
stances distin c t fro m one anot h er ? That in some sense
t h ey are distinct i s tr u e enou gh b u t t h eir absolute
f
f
di
erence
and
separation
is
an
u
nproved
t
h
eory
at
(
t h e o u tset even if it should in the end tur n out to
be t h e ri gh t one Let us at least try t h e rival t h eory
t h at mind and matter are not s eparate merely but
in some sense one ; t h at m inds are in som e sense
?
not separate b u t one B u t is it a m ere t h eory
So
far as m ind = self
so
far we must assume
m ind in every act of k nowled ge Knowle dge is j ust
t h is perpetu al unity of t h e di fferent : t h e unity is a

fa c t the absolute di fferen c e is the ass u mption B u t

again k nowled g e if it is really suc h if it is scienti c
k nowledg e and not mere opinion ( Plato s distin c tion )

nor mere individual feelin g m ust be o bj ective i e

valid for all mind s (e g m y feelin g war m or cold is
only m y feelin g ; that the ther m om eter is 5 0 is true
for all ) Obj ectivi ty or reality is not w h at is inde
pen dent o f m ind ; b u t w h at is valid for all m inds
To ass u m e s eparate m inds and t h en a c onne x ion
between t h em as if they were rst separate and t h en
u nited is a t h eory at t h e o u tset u nproved Whereas
a unity ( of so m e sort ) between all m ind s is a ne c e s sary
,

a.

UN I FOR M I TY

TH E

OF

N AT U RE

33

presupposition of there being any o bj e ctive k no wle d ge

any science
If the antithesis b et w e e n sel f ( min d)
and nature b e mad e absolute there can b e no kno w
ledge at all ; if the separateness o f in divi d ual s elves
b e made a b solute there can be no common or uni
v e r sall
vali
d
kno
w
le
d
ge
y
,

S C I EN C E A N D T H E
NAT U R E

U N I F O R M IT Y O F
.

Sci e nce

is th e interpr e tation of nature ( Bacon )

S ince nature is as a fact interprete d it must b e
interpre ta b le i e intelligi ble W hen we try to mak e
out a har d s e ntenc e say in a foreign language we
a ssu m e that it h a s a meaning
only
the
or
d
inary
school
(
b oy d o e sn t an d so he d oesn t succe e d in making it
out ) I f nally w e nd that no meaning can b e
ma d e out then we conclu d e that the text has su ffe re d
corrupt ion at the han d s of transcri b ers or print e rs
i e that we have not b e fore us what th e author w rote
Of cours e th e re may be d eli b e rat e m yst icatio n an d
som e gross carel e ssness I n the latte r cas e the author
d i d not write what he thought : in the form e r he
put together words ar b itrarily But th e se are the ve ry
last explanations of d i f culties w e Shoul d resort to
We d o not hegin by thinking even of the possi b ility
of th em The conception of th e book the sentenc e
the word as a whole is implie d in our looking at
the l e tters The interpretability of nature is a pr e

supposition o f all science nay of all or d inary kno w

le dge o f which w hat we specially call science is only
a more systematic form We Shoul d neve r ge t b eyon d
isolate d sensations w ithout the link of ca usa tion
Every event m ust have a cause and in the con
c e tio n of cause it is implie d
e
that
given
the
sam
p
cause the same e ff ect will follow else we have no t

got at a cause
Thus Causation implies U nifo r
T h is i a d v lop m nt f Ka nt
.

e e

C ONFE S S I O F I D E I

34

m ity of N atu re This principle cannot be got at

fro m ind u ction b ecau se it i s i nvolved in pre s u ppo s ed
lin every inference abo u t nat u re nay in th e m ost
pri m itive loo k in g for a c a u s e B u t ( 1 ) t h e principle
operates wit h o u t bein g for mu lated or c on s cio u sly ap
prehended T h e for mula h ere a s elsew h ere c an o nly
co m e after t h e u se of it : ( 2 ) I t is only t h e for m of

the u niformity of nat u re w h ic h is pre s u pposed

in any possible k no w led g e of nature
The parti cu lar
h ind of u nifor m ity w h ic h is believed in t h e parti c ular
k ind of causes w h ic h are believed in depend on t h e
stag e of a c t u al k nowled g e of nat u re w h ic h m en h ave
reac h ed
The prin c iple of u nifor m ity of nat u re in t h e sense
of t h e pre s u pposition t h at nat u re i s an intelli g ible
system i s j u st one a s pect of the c ons c io u sness of self
Identity of self c onscio u sness and identity of t h e cosmo s
?
are only two aspe c t s of t h e same self or soul
There
wo u ld be no cosmo s or ordered syste m of nature
e x cept for a self c ons c io u sness T h e intellig ible im
plies t h e intelli g ent Nature ( as a syste m ) i m plies
m ind M atter as t h e absolute antit h esis of m ind we
never can k now anyt h in g of B y its very nature it
cannot be k nown It is Ari stotle s 6M
or Plato s
N o n bein g
.

O
F
T
H
E
S
E
I
D
E
A
S
I
N
T
E
R
M
S
4
OF TH EOLOG Y
Tran slate t h is into t h e customary lan g uag e of t h eo
lo g y God the C reator and ever present Ru ler of
t h e u niver s e h as m ade m an i n h is own i m ag e i e o u r
so ul s We only live and m ove and h ave our bein g
in God
We g rad u ally learn h is t h o ugh ts
He
g rad u ally reveals h i m self to us T h ese are di fferent
w ays of s tatin g t h e sa m e t h in g B u t we mu st notice
that t h is transcendental log ic g ives u s no ri gh t to
1
p 73 t
C f C gitati M t phy i
.

S TAT E M E N T

e a

s ca,

e c

TH E

CO N C E P T I O N OF

AN

I DE A L

35

assume w ithout further proof t h e or d inary Vor stellung

of a personal G o d and separate human personalities
W e are yet a long way from personality The ippant
d efende r of th e faith goes too fast when he j umps
from the Kantian arg ument to this popular vi ew
w hich is perhaps neither intelligi b le in itself nor in
accord ance with the deeper relig ious c onsciousness of
mankin d
.

K N O W LE D GE O F

I
M
P
ER
F
EC TI O N I M P L I E S
5
A N I D EAL

it w ill b e sai d there is surely a vast d iffer

Bu t
enc e b etween our k no wle dge and what is to b e kno w n :
b e t w e en our nit e min d s an d the in nite mind of

Go d
Our min d s ust because we k no w them nite
cannot be merely fi
nite That which is altogether
limite d cannot know itself as limit e d W e ar e nite
an d in nite in one We are far from completely co m
prehen d ing what yet w e know lies b efore us to b e
compreh e n d e d Our kno wl e dge is imp e rfect an d we
know that it is imperfect i e we have a standar d or
idea l of perfection b y which we j u d ge our progress in
attainin g truth The sel f consciousness which we nd
to be presuppose d in all kno wle dge we ye t cannot
fully kno w We cannot so to speak get be hin d it
I t is there w e kno w it must b e there an d yet it is
not there The cosmos we presuppose we ye t only
gra d u ally come to kno w ( T h e Universal S elf d oes
not reach full consciousness in us ) It is an d it as
e t is not :
of
ou h t to b e
it
Truth
is
the
i
d
eal
y
g
science Again to translate into theological language
man s end w hat h e h a s to do is to know G o d
G o d only gra d ually reveals himself to man Go d
only gra d ually comes to himself in man The process
is continuous an d incomplete
H e re we have the conception of an i d eal of an
ought which is essential to the b eginning and r o
p
.

OU R

C O NFE S S I O F I D E I

6
3

g ress o f k nowle dg e essential also to t h e beg innin g and

progress of morality ? All theories of ethics whic h

leave out t h e conception of o ugh t leave o u t the

es s ential ele m ent of m orality Of course h ere ag a i n i t

is only t h e form of d u ty
ou gh t ) whic h is a p r ior i
w h ic h is presupposed in m orality : th e partic u lar con
tent t h e partic u lar k inds o f a c tions w h ich are reg arded
a s duties depend on t h e stag e of a c tual m oral develop
ment w h ic h m en have reached
D u ty is a pr ior i :
duties depend on experience God reveals h is moral
law g rad u ally to man

The a m bi gu ity i n t h e word law h as led to con

fusion here Laws of nat u re are u niformities w h ic h
are followe d L a w s of m orals are also u nifor m ities
w h ic h are to he followed A law of nature cannot be
bro k en : e lse it is not a law of nature A so
calle d
violation of a law of h ealt h is an illustration of it
Laws in t h e mo r al ( or political ) sense can be bro k en
They say w h at ou gh t to be done or avoided and this

o ugh t
i m plies that t h ey are not as a matter of fa c t

invariably fullled
Ou g ht i m plies freedo m to do
or not to do A law of nature is formulated strictly

in a h ypothetical j ud g ment
I f a stone be thrown

u p in the air it falls down ag ain

A law of morals
is a Cate g ori c al I m perative as Kant called it
Do

c a n only beco m e
t h is
T
h
e
Cate
g
orical
Imperative
(
identied wit h a hypothetical j u d gm ent if we ta k e
account of t h e w h ole of humanity of the
I n an ideal state of society la w s of m orals would be

state m ents of fact ; but then by saying ideal we

h ave only s h ifte d the co nc eption of ough t and not

g ot rid of it
.

o w l d g i n t a pass iv c o nd it io n it im pl i s ffortth
str v g to atta in n id al to r al i in t h o ugh t wh at w h lie e ( p
s u ppos to xist as fa c t) C o nd uc t i th ffort t r al i as fa c t
w h at x ists in
as id al
Kn
i in
1

'

ze

us

ze

re

T H E EN D

OF

CO N D U C T

37

O F CO N D U C T
Let u S try to d ete rmi n e the en d o f con d uct
I t is a te rri ble irony to say happiness is the
I t is a hopel e ss pursuit I f
e nd we ought to pursue
happiness is the e nd w e may well despair an d make
p e ss imism our cree d We may b e sur e we shall not
attain it The ethical e nd must b e me th i n that we
6

T H E EN D

"

can 611 171 36 attaine d b y not b eing d irectly

pursue d This Sho w s it is not the e nd I f not the
en d for ones elf ca n one make the happ iness of others

on e s e nd an d w hy Shoul d o ne ?
Yet happiness is

w hat all d o pursue

I s it there fore the en d all ough t to
pursu e ? Th e r e is a physical striving fo r pres e rvation
Any success in
a n d cont inuance of li fe in all animals
this striving is call e d happin e ss But is this th e i deal
w hich d ete rmines con d uct ? Happiness is ofte n b est
attaine d b y those who forget that an i d eal is to b e
attain e d
T h e e nd is the Self w hich has to b e r e al is e d ( i e
"

Rh

h appi nCSS

in d ividual

Thus the end must

family,

be

an en d not for

clan or tri b e then the c i ty or nat i on nall

humanity R eligion has gon e through th e se stages
r st family religion then national rel ig ions nally w orl d
r eligions This is the e d ucation of the human race
G o d thus appears not only as the C r e ator of the
universe an d the Maker of man b ut as th e Id e al
H app i ss or c o n t n t m t i rat h r a m a ns to th g oo d l if t h a n

th
H app i ss i n t
C
l
or
d
d f it
d b u t a m a ns
i
f
f
(
L t
d E y ( Ev rsl y Ed it io ) V ol II p I
I h a lo g
t h o ugh t t hat ( I d id t k ow C l iffor d h a d sa id it)t h o ugh p r h aps
much f th b st wor k in th w orl d c o m s fro m ( or at l ast with )
u h appin ss ; b c a u s mu c h h app in ss c o m s fro m ignora c nd
ind ol c
f u n h app in ss t h at pro duc s
t h o ugh t h r i a d g r
d spa ir ing apat h y d h i d rs wor k alto g t h r ( L tt r
,

ne

en

ssa s

en

ve

ee

n e a

e e

an

e n e,

an

ne

ec u r es a n

en

e ,

22

0 s

C O NF E S S I O F I D E I

8
3

Good to be striven for and as such reveals hi m self

in h um anity
Thi s i s espe c ially t h e C h ristian d oc
trine
F
R
E
E
W
I
LL
7
?
I s t h e will free
Not in t h e sen s e t h at eac h
individual hum an bein g is an isolated creation T h e
freedo m w h i ch is i m plied in m orality is not t h e m ere
neg ative or log ical freedom of eith er ar but t h e
capacity w h ich the individual self h as of realizin g t h e
universal self T h is is t h e Au gu stinian or even t h e
Calvinist do c trine of Grace O u r will to do w h at is
ri g ht is God s will wor k in g in u s Of o urselves ( i e
a s m ere individuals) we can do not h in g
?

W h ere I (Eg o ) will

Wh if iS iEa f by will
in t h e fu llest sense will is necessarily ee will ( self
deter m ination a u tono m y of reason ) ; b u t many acts
are done vol u ntarily ( 3 0 9 ) in the s ame sense as

e
by ani m als i not u nder external compulsion wit
tin g ly ( C f L aurie s
wh i ch are not t h e
o u tco m e of t h e Ego (will) and t h erefore are not free
8
I M M O R TA L I T Y
I s t h e individual so u l immortal ? Not in t h e sense
t h at eac h individual i s a ne c essarily e x istin g ato m
T h e life of t h e individual is only in t h e u niversal
soul And s u rely t h is is t h e m ost Ch ristian doctrine
not an i ndivid u al i m mortality irrespective of t h e will
of God b u t individ u al life dependent on h is will
h
i
s
will
of
c
our
s
e
not
bein
g
any
arbitrary
caprice
(
but realization of t h e Good ) T h e i ndivid u al life
m ay contin u e if that i s be s t or be m er g ed in the
?
u niversal if t h at is best
Wo u ld th ose w h o m we con s ider m o s t deservin g o f
1 M
b y Sc ot u s N v nti p 1 8 9 C f
t Vet t
N
t phy i
pp 1 8 1 6 6 9
Eth i
,

'

'

15

117 6

e a

ca ,

s ca
,

h all

ova e
s

c u s,

and

b u t lov t h
e

us a ,

God ch oose

ee

b tt r a ft r
e

d eat h

B Bro wning
.

GOD FR EE DO M
,

I M M ORTA L I T Y

39

im m ortal life th em selves d esire to continue always

as individuals since that woul d always imply
im
er
p

fectio n

"

are apt to forget th e solida r ity of human

b eings I as a person here an d no w h ave in m e
great part of th e lives of many p e rsons We cannot
abstractly separate the man and his acts an d h is acts
live on in othe rs H e apart from his particular acts
is th e in nite power of realization in the Universal
S el f ( i e the w ill of G o d )
,

GO D

F REE DOM IM M O R TA L IT Y O JE CT I O N S
B

All th e se three great questions the nature o f

G od the free d om of the w ill the immortality of th e
sould e pen d ultimately if we put it as a matter o f
logic on the relation of the universal to the parti
D i fferent thinkers seem to start from opposite
cu la r
sides Some lle d w ith a sens e of th e universal s e em
to i g nore the reality of the particular altog e the r :
others in the particular forge t the universal
Th e re
see m to b e these two opposite ten d e ncies in human
nature Oriental mysticism an d Weste rn in d ividual
ism Spino za an d Lei b ni z may b e taken as types
Any such position as that we have take n is certain
to b e m e t b y two opposite form s of obj ection T h e
ortho d ox person o f whatev e r spe cies of Ortho d oxy

will say : Thes e are m e re logical formulae instea d

of a reality We must hav e a real Go d to b eli e v e
in an d further he must b e a personal G o d whom

You
we can love an d wh o can love an d help us
transcen d ental panthe ism in
ar e giving us a vague

stea d o f th e ol d cre eds which have helpe d our

misery an d save d u s from Sin

On th e other han d
,

Wh at d o p opl m a b y a

p rso nal G d ? T h y m a n
a G o d wh o n b in u n c d by t h ir ntr at i s i a G o d w h o
i n t th a b sol u t pr inc ipl
f th u niv rs
a
1

ca

e n

C ON F E S S I O F I D E I

6
4

the scienti c person ( i e he w ho has occ u pied h imself

mainly with t h e a d vancement of our k nowle d ge of

nature ) will say : T h ese questions about God and

the soul and free will are m atters we c an k now
not h in g abo u t Leave them alone and let men
occupy them s elves wit h w h at t h ey can k no w and can

B u t the di f culty is t h at men cannot leave

do
t h ese thin g s alone
If we say we have i g nored
m etaphysics it will alway s t u rn out t h at we have
adopted som e uncons c io u sly assumed u nproved meta

physics T h us the ordinary Positivis m assumes t h e

in d ividual thin g as a g i ven absol u te The ordinary

understandin g ac c epts an unproved R ealism whi c h
soon beg ins to contradict itself and can be very
easily turned over into an e x tre m e subj ective idealis m
or an absol u te scepticis m
As to the ot h er se t of obj ections I n every syste m
a formula m ay be a c cepte d by t h e i ntellect if it is
not Si m ply accepted by t h e m emory and yet m ay
not be applied and lived in in such a way as to

beco m e a reality as a part of the life and character

T h e profoundest p h ilosophical system is equally ex
posed to th e ris k of u nintelli g ent repetition with t h e
shallowest c atchwords of the itinerant revivalist : and
only life itself and its experience and its e fforts c an
ma k e t h e g randest doctrines real
?
What is m eant by Personality
Have t h ose who
are constantly usin g t h e term ever considered really
w h at it i nvolves
A S anim als as material we hum an
bein g s are distinct from one another T h at doe s not
c onstitute our personality I n that sense we cannot
h
at
God
is
a
person
distinct
fro
m
us
as
persons
:
sa
t
y
for t h en by puttin g h im alon g side of u s and o u r
alon g side o f h im we m a k e h i m no lon g er
selve s
God A S spiritual beings are we in t h is way distinct
from one anot h er ? What is t h e life of each of us
apart fro m t h e in u en c e of others and t h e relation s
.

P ER S ON AL I T Y

in which it stan d s to th e lives of others ? The per

so n can only
exist in a d evelope d political society
which giv e s him rights an d d uties Can we in this
s ens e
pr e supposition of any thought an d morality an d
cannot Th ere for e b e explaine d in te rms d erive d fro m
th e se exc e pt m e taphysically D oes not th e d octrin e
of th e Trinity as against the a b stract Th e ism of the
?
Jew s rej ect th e concept ion of pepioig aliwas ina d eq uate
T h e d octrine o f the Trini ty may b e thought of as a
]
mer e magic puzzl e to charm on e sel f out of h ell
w ith b ut it may b e an d has been the gre ate st o f all

e
e
h
e
formulae e ve r us d in th e atte mpt to grasp t r la i
tion b etwee n the uni v ersal an d th e particular
I f G o d b e tho u ght o f only as th e C reator only
as the sourc e of all things there can b e no religion
e xcept a r e ligion o f w on d er
But G o d is also the
So n h e reveals h ims elf in man and man requires
our love an d service Lastly through all the e fforts
of man moves th e Spirit of G o d b ringing man b ack
to him or w hat is th e same thing man ife sting Go d
in man
An d this is an e ternal proc e ss Go d for
eve r is in hims elf th e sa m e : fo r e ver he goes out
of hims elf to b e com e oth er : for e ve r h e r e turns to
hims el f
This is nonsense it will b e sai d
It
r epre s e nts the sincerest thought of the sinc e rest m e n
have ever live donly torn apart from their
that
lives w hich ma d e it real an d true We cannot get
ri d of mysticism b ecaus e the phrases that d o w ell
in space an d time ar e ina d equate w ith the
e nough
things of eternity
Th e re the contra d ictions must
meet an d b e reconcil e d : the o ne is many ; th e uni
versal particular

Plato sai d that Time w as the moving imag e of

e ternity
Th a t the eternal is we must b elieve : w hen
we b eg in to speak a b out it we Slip into the imagery
o f time
,

C ONFE S S I O F I D E I

F RE E W I LL A N D P RE D ES T I N ATI O N
It has often been pointed out that t h ose w ho have
denied most stren u ously t h e freedom of the will have
been p e rsons of the very nest and stron g est chara c ter
This is true not m erely of i ndivi d uals but of races
nations and p h ilosoph i c and reli g ious sects e g th e
Stoics E pi c ureans Jansenists
M e n are often bett e r

than their creeds

There is more i n it than that

T h is m i g ht apply thou g h not so much as people

t h in k to individuals but w ill not apply to whole
bodies of men So far the vig our of the S toic and
of t h e Calvinist is t h e vi g our t h at com e s from bein g in
O pposition T h e Roman E m peror h as no power over
t h e wise man w h ose life is g uided by D ivin e Provi
dence alone T h e Roman C hurc h cannot s h ut th e
g ates of h eaven in t h e face of him who is t h e elect of
God nor save h er reprobate favourites from the j ust
j aws of h ell ( When predestination beco m es a tra
ditio nal do gm a of t h ose w h o are no lon g er in opposition
it paralyzes excellence or it is quietly allowe d to drop
o u t of Si gh t The decorous Evan gelical preac h er has
no consistent basis for the doctrines he so ardently
proclaim s If ele c tion ( and its corollary reprobation )
are put aside wh y is t h e sinner entir ely dependent on
?
t h e g race of God for his salvation
Has not his
?
salvation become his own a ffair
That h e does half
and t h en God does t h e other half may b e a convenient
practi c al es c ape out of the d i f culty but w on t satisfy
any one w h o w ants to thin k o u t the problem ) B u t
t h e moral stre ngth of the doctrine of predestination is
not merely of t h is ne gative sort It is t h e fe elin g that
this is not my poor human w ill but t h e will of th e
Almig hty in me that supplies the stren g t h and r m ness
which enabled the Puritan to triumph over Ch urc h and
Kin g It i s an histori c al argum e nt : it is t h e decision

of c o m mon sense ag ainst the libertarian d octrine

10

FRE E

WI LL

PRE DE S T I NAT I O N

43

R eal e ff ective w ill is in its natu r e unive rsal w i ll My

k nowledge is the universal min d kno w i ng itself in
m e : my conduct is the universal w ill realizing itself

in me The strong e st in d ivi d ual if indivi d uality b e

not m e re w eak re b ell iousnessis the most S wayg d by
t h e universal r e ason ?
Y e t how is one to keep on e sel f from d rifting from
?
Th e
the fatalist i d e a that we are parts of nature
spirit has to ght w ith nature an d ov e rcome This
is the other element W e a r e not fr ee agai n st the
universal w ill ( the Stoic s N a tu r e) W e ought to
seek fr ee d om from the d ominion of nature F ree d om ;
is not a fact nor d oe s it pr e c e d e morality : it is the !
i d eal th e striving for w hich is in one of its aspects?

morality So is it w ith political fre e dom so far as

polit ical free d om is a positive goo d I t must not b e
th e m e re a b stract unco ntroll e d ness b ut m ust have a
cont e nt or lling o f actual goo d ness C an spirit only
real ize its fre e d om through struggl e ? i e is e vil
necessary ? I f spirit is to b e a lw ays fre e must there
a lwa s b e e vil
b
artyr
d
om
cannot
prove
the
istori
M
y
cal character o f alleg e d facts nor th e intellectual value
of de nitions although th e mar tyr may have b eli e ve d
thos e facts or hel d thos e d e nitions They have
a ffecte d his character and his life only because of some
spiritual truth connected with th e m in his min d A man
may b elieve that it is his b e lief that som e thing happene d
or w ill happen that a ff ects his w hole life and con d uct
an d yet h e may not un d e rstan d the g rounds of his own
faith
.

Ch r st a s
st
n t a ga
o

aur

a b o u t P ro m t h u s
P ro m t h u s in

Cf S L
ie

i i n Go d is with
in
h im
C f C ogitatio M etaphysica ,
.

35

M etaphysica ,
h is

str uggl

an d

79

Th e

s u ff r ing
e

gE
-

R E A SO N O R W I LL
Reason or w ill we m ay name t h e u lti m ate universal
force power manifesting itself everyw h ere ; but it
ma k es a di fferen c e which ele m ent pre d ominates in our
conception
Reason su gg ests end ( g ood ) consciously to be
attained It th u s sugg ests a na l optimism a na l
reconciliation thou g h this na l stage may always re m ain
a m ere idea l Yet all t h e struggle and e ffort of life i s
loo k ed at as in a rational process From t h is point

of Vi e w will is a moment of reason

Will su gg ests rat h er m erely e ffort strivin g and may
leave out t h e sugg estion of end This life appears
as a blind unintelli g ible stru ggle purposeless The
misery is certain enou g h and we are not at a point
of view to g ive any even ideal solution of it This i s
pessimis m F rom this point of View reason is only a
moment of w i ll
Such solution as there is is only
transitory only artistic Any th eory must h owever have
recourse to reason And th u s pessimism can always
be th eor etica lly refu ted We only k now that life is
evil because we k now a g ood by the standard of w h ic h
w
e j ud g e it
That
g
oo
d
can
never
be
attained
by
the
g
m ere individual as s u c h Not h in g can satisfy o u r
cravin g s beca u se we bein g nite are in nite also A
merely nite nature could be satis ed
A p u rely
innite nature could not h ave
T h is is the

tr u t h in Am iel s sayin g Ce sont nos pl u s ha u tes

aspirations q u e no u s em pch e nt d tr e h eureu x

1 1

,
.

W A N T S O F O U R N AT U R E
A belief is not true because it is comfortable To
nouris h oneself on dear ill u sions is h opeless : to atte m pt
to no u ri s h ot h ers on the m i s cr u el D isill u s ion is
inevitable B u t does not t h e fa c t of a belief bein g
co m fortable i m ply t h at it is adapted to t h e want s of our
12

TH E

WA NTS

TH E

OF OU R

N AT U RE

45

nature ? An d if we pre suppose a rationality in th e

syste m of things must w hat is a d apte d to our natur e
b e rational ? Y e s b ut are w e so sure that we hav e
?
d iscove r e d w hat is a d apte d to our nature
Hav e we
?
d iscove re d our natur e fully
The Jew regar d e d th e
coming of a Messiah to li b erat e his lan d an d restore
the glorie s o f th e re ign of Solomon as th e ful lli ng
o f h is w ants
The C hristian ( nay even perhaps th e
great e st H e b r e w proph e ts) saw that that w as an
illusion an d w as not a d apte d to satisfy man s high e st

wants
My king d om is not of th is w orl d
Are
we sur e that a reign of S olomon in a futu r e state is
?
i
n
w hat s a d apt e d to our truest ature
The chil d h as
its w a nts its cravings its aspirations I t w ants u n
l imite d cak e an d can d y it w a nts not to go to b e d it
wants to b e gro w n up W h e n he gro w s up h e n d s
that th e s e ar e not w hat satisfy h is real nature
W e alth pow er honour ar e th e s e th e b est things for us
b e caus e th e young man d esir e s them
Yes b ut th e re

w is d om goo d ness love

a r e th e goo d s o f the soul
Can we have too much o f th e s e ? An d must th e re
not b e the opportunity o f satisfying our in nit e

craving fo r these if life is not an i ne xplicab le mystery

a cruel gam e in w hich we ar e th e helple ss piec e s
But
?
d o we kno w these goo d s of the soul rightly
,

Wh

oso

IS O LATI O N O F

TH E

I N D IV I D U A L

incr ea seth k nowledge incr ea seth

sorr ow

Increasing kno wl e dg e brings w ith it increasing sensi

Why then
t iv e ne ss an d in most cases acut e r su ff ering
shoul d w e w ish to initiate the happy or at l east the
d ull into the great myst e ry o f sorro w which com e s to
those wh o think
W hy shoul d any one wish to teach
the simple Tyrolese p e asant or the South Sea savage
th e sad learning of the civiliz e d man ?
F irst b e cause
the child cannot al ways remain a chil d Even those
.

C O NFE S S I O F I D E I

6
4

who loo k bac k lon g in gly on the days w h en there was

not h in g to do but play may remember how t h ey used
to lon g to be g rown up They are now less h appy but
they cannot ret u rn and the wisest w ould not if t h ey
co u ld ( cf Aristotle) To know is by itself a duty a
ne c essity even wit h loss of animal c ontentment
Secondly the c h ief s o u rce of m isery to persons of
education co m es from t h e fri g htful loneliness in w h i ch
they nd themselves T h e best consolation of life is
th e sy m pathy of those w h ose sympat h y is worth havin g :
and t h e m ore a person is educated t h e fewer are t h ose
to who m he can turn wit h any h ope of bein g under
stood T h e illiterate boor can easily nd h is li k e to
s ettle do w n amon g and t h is k eeps h im co ntented ?
T h e poet or philosop h er i s in t h e wilderness alone If
t h e general level of education and of intelli g ence amon g
m en and women were raised it would be more easy
to nd co m panions w h o c o u ld understand sympathize
and help W h at a bond it is between m en to have h ad

a university ed u cation even s uc h a wretc h e d thin g as

t h at us u ally comes to Suppose all men and women had
h ad a real university education A g reat source of n u
h appiness would h ave disappeared from t h e world T h e
leaders of m an k ind t h e prop h ets of t h e ra c e w ill always
be alone on the mo u ntain tops ; but there is a general
level of c u lture to w h i c h it sho u ld be t h e endeavo u r of
political and e ducational reformers t h at all sho u ld h ave
t h e opportunity of attainin g This is t h e tr u e

Th e ort h odo x religionist often says : I n dels are

un h appy : loo k how mu ch h appier we believers are

I n h i s argu ment from h appiness to ri gh teo u sness h e
B u t w h at
s ee m s to h ave forg otten t h e boo k of Job
.

T h is i th r aso n wh y m ig rat io n i di t t l to th m ost

m is ra b l ; t h y w is h to r m a in a m o ng t h os t h y k no w nd u nd r
sta n d ; nd wh y wh n t h y d m ig rat t h y n r is to a c rta in
x t n t so much m or as ily t f th ld l w l v l
1

e e

ou

C f C ogitatio M etaphysica,
.

s as e

6
3

e o

ca

e,

I S OL ATI O N OF TH E I N D I V I D U A L
he

47

is true e nough I t is the want of fellowship

th e ff
ir ced silence the want of communion of spirit
w ith spirit th e d i f culty of d oing goo d to those wh o
d iff er ab out d ogmas that e xpla ins the unhappi ness
of th e heretic a nd unbeliever an d explains also the risk
of moral d e clin e to w hich they are e xpose d This last
risk is du e Specially to th e fact that most wom e n ar e
rigi d ly ortho d ox an d th e ir husb an d s an d b roth e rs w hose
intell e cts hav e b een b etter tra ine d los e all th e moral
goo d that might com e from their sympathy Every
soul gain e d from the ne t of the pr iests is the possi
b ility of a n e w fri e n d
I n the m e antim e we must w ork
in b itt e rness and solitu d e
till the time of this tyranny

b e ove rpast
T h e d e vil w as w ise to tak e C hr ist into
t h e w il d e r ne ss to t e mpt him
Lonel iness l eave s the
w e ak ne ss of the h e art e xpos e d an d lon eliness ami d th e
multitu d e o f those w ho d o not un d erstan d is the w orst
lonelin e ss o f all Th e ir pre s e nc e is a mock e ry b ecause
it sugg e sts th e sem b lanc e of companionship
I t is not that there are few w ho agr e e with one s
opinions th a t one can en d ure ; b ut that there are few
to w hom one ca n dare or care to e xpress the m This
perpet u al repression mak e s the soul eat itsel f : it is apt
to sour the milk o f human kin d n e ss
I t is a gre at gain that thos e of d iffer e nt religions an d
sects can assoc iat e w ithout b urning or d amning one
another ; b ut th ey have to avoi d d oubt ful su bj ects
so much that conv e rsation is con ne d to trivialities
This d amag e s t h e moral b re o f the intellect
sa

PER S O N ALIT Y
I the co ncret e living person am a complex ( ho w
of th e Ego w hich is th e pre supposition o f all kno w in g
a nd b eing an d c e rtain feelings i d e as m e mories aspira
tions e tc w hich are the pro d uct of a long chain of
antece d e nt fe el ings etc in many persons an d w hich
Some of w hich w ill continue to operate on su c cee d ing
1

C ONFE S S I O F I D E I

8
4

persons T h e E g o is eternal timeless T h ese fe elin g s

and ideas have their inde nite past and their in
de nite future in time B u t all those con c rete selves
changin g constantly yet so vividly conscious of
su ff erin g and sometimes of pleas u re ; are t h ey only the
transitory union of the one ( Eg o ) and the many ( feel

ings etc ) T h e I of to d ay is di fferent from the

I of twenty years a g o in t h e g reater part of its
actual content and yet it is t h e same because of
m emory Yet a g reat part of what I remember in my
life is no m ore r ea l to m e than thin g s that h ave been
told me and w h i ch mi gh t h ave happened in the lives of
others as well It is t h e past a s remembered at the
moment and as aecting my present mind an d charac ter
that alone concerns me The C ount Albert ( in Con
su elo re c ollected t h e life of Z is k a as if it h ad been his
)
own and reco g nized t h e e ffe cts of Z isk a s d e eds on hi s
own character and environment Would t h er e have
?
been anyt h in g m ore if h e had actually be e n Z is k a
I S not the E g o apart from actual content an a b str ac
tion B u t t h e content is impossible as c h aracter etc
0
E
m ust manifest
with o u
,

W h e er or h
far t h ese individualities are permanent
to answer that we s h ould need to be above the Eg o
We are al w a ys d riven bac k on t h at It m ust be for t h e
best but what is the b est
God only k nows as
Socrates says in the Ap ology
-

Wh at i th v id nc f
s l f id t ity ? W h av n d ir c t
d p rma
k nowl dg
t ) as O bj c t T h s l f w
f th Eg ( n
k o w ( th m ) im p r f c tly i a r i s f t h o ug h ts f l i g s vol it io ns
f
P ra c t ic ally w
b k pt to a p r m a n t s lf b y t h pr ss u r
t
i sa n ) fro m g tt i g
so c i ty ro u d u s T h is h lps u s ( u l ss w
Bo d y b lo g ing s t (fa m ily ) k p u s to g t h r
f o u rs l f
t
B u t as m att r f r c t iv t ho ug h t w h av to post u lat a n f t h

m a ny Et h ic ally p rso n i n id al wh at w m a
i t n d to
b
Unity ( i th or g a n i at io n f th m a ny in to n )
n ot s
F
ro
m
ot
h
r
i h r
n id al
(
)
1

e e

ou

e e a

se

e c

ee

ar e

e o

ee

ne

n e

nen

n e

en

an

e ar e

o ur

e o

o e

or

e n

or

P ER S ON A L I T Y

49

Plants Show us in w hat d i ffe re nt w ays in d ivi d uality

m ay e xist
Why may not plant li fe (th e vin e a nd its
branches ) sym b oliz e some union of in d ivi d uals in an
in d ividuality gre ater than the ir o w n ? or as we go
higher d o e s fr eedom necessarily imply mor e compl e te
in d ivi d uality
Human be i ngs as we kno w th e m ar e such fr agm e n
tary pi e ces o f w hat we kno w m e n ough t to b e that a
I
m e re m e chanical putting toge th e r o f th e s e fr agm e nts
w oul d look l ik e a solut ion o f th e pro b lem to us
This isolation of th e in d ivi d ual is somethi ng t e rri b le
W hat heart kno w s anoth e r ? Ah w ho kno w s

his o w n ?
I S not th is isolat ion ( egoism in thought
fe eling
j ust t h e root o f all error ( Maya ) an d S in
But
.

at e st are

b st an d gr
s el sh ; b ut th e n th e selv e s
d i ff er so very much We com e to kno w that th e r e are

oth e r selves
C l iff or d ) l ike ours elves ye t
ej ects
d i ff erent a nd that we ar e in relat ion to thes e H e r e
is th e plac e for m oral ity To i d e ali z e re ality as it is
to others ( not merely to ourselv e s ) is tru e kno wl e dge :
to b ring into b eing a r eality ( to realiz e an id ea ) w hich
is aim e d at b y others as w ell as ourselves ( a co m m o n
00 d
1 3 morality
We com e to know our o wn in
d v ual ty b kno w ing that of oth e rs Sel f an d other !
s elv e s mutually int e rpret e ach other T h e o ne e ternal !
e

if is af so
f

pro b l e m for con d uct For i n di vid ual i sm

is the puzzl e of thought ( how can th e re b e mor e than
o ne sel f
an d yet w e only kno w o ne b y others) an d it
i

t e
i

'

C ONFE S S I O F I D E I

evil strife this d readful

is the ele m ent of discord
isolation of s oul All h uman civilization is the e ffort to
?
e s cape h o m this
T h e igh t of t h e hermit fro m
society is his e ffort to reunite himself to Go d L ove
in all its form s is this e ffort fruitless or not to re g ain a
unity The evil of l u st is t h at bein g a parody of love
it is sels h and isolating T h ere is a true reason why
the same word c an be g iven to the high er form of t h e
sexual instinct and to t h e feelin g of m an to God
A r o ach in from t h e Sid f
or of God to him sel
n
,

c
x
-

'

O
0

er
That is the only way we can k no w Hi m t h ou gh
m an
t h at may not ex h a u st t h e m eanin g Is this Arian
here s y ?
.

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
A
L
A
N
D
T
H
E
5
I N D I V I D U A L S ELF
T h e metap h ysician startin g from the universal
reason ( E g o ) h a s to explain how this universal co m e s
to be u nited wit h ( realize itself in ) particular h uman
animals in particular times and places The natural

ist startin g wit h th e animal i s m et wit h the fact t h at

certai n animals ex h ibit phenomena of consciousne s s
w hi ch g o beyond what can be st udied by t h e m et h ods
applicable to t h e ot h er phenomena of nature
Th e
naturalist does not really beg i n w it h t h e i ndividual
It is t h e speci es H om o t h at he st u dies If h e considers
1

TH E

s c ap fro m th t h r d l u s io s
s u al ity
C f B u ddh is m

r it u al is m i d iv idu al ity
f G od
C f Sp i o a s a cc o u n t f t h lov
N ot also th
w h ic h h as oft b po i t d t b t w th r l ig io u s d
ti
th
s x u al i st i c t
1

n ec
e

n z

en

ee

se n

o n,

een

n e

ou

e con

ee n

an

AND

UN I V E R S A L

I ND I V I DU A L

i ndi v i d uals th e y are only specim e ns t ypical specimens

at the b est Q u a scientist he cannot re ally reach th e in d i
?
vi d ual D o e s not this nee d m e taphysics
I S it not
the m e taphysician s univ e rsal that alone explains the
?
real in d ivi d ual th e sel f At l east it is only th e meta
physician w ho fairly states th e d i f culties a b out the
self
F 36
; b ut he w ho kno w s himself must
kno w G o d To att e mpt to kno w s elf ( in d ivi d ual )

w ithout G o d (universal ) is to nd th e d evil T h e

i nd ivi d ual assume d b y th e psychologist an d b y the
or d inary pol itical an d e thical th e or ies is a half w ay
a b straction of th e or d i nary un d ersta nd i ng a b astar d
pro d uct o f b a d m e taphysics an d b a d sc ience H e is
n e ith e r a m e re natural pro d uct no r an explaine d ind i
vi d ual Th is is th e unconscious an d oft e n un w itti ng
a d m ission of the truth in th e m e taphysical Vi e w The
S ophistic ( A u fk lir u ng) in d ivi d ual has an e l e m e nt of

truth a b out him w h ich is wanting to th e social

organism
th e evolution o f soci e ty
if
th
e se
e tc
(
phrases w er e taken strictly ) Soci
is m a de accor d
to
i n 1 V1 na WlllS
o c ial contract th e or i e s
,

21

a sa vr o v
.

sam e w ay
that the tre e gro w s H Sp e nc e r i n his pu zzl e as to
w hat kin d of orga nism h e must lik e n society to is
r eally face to face w ith this d i f culty ; b ut h e d oes not
se e i t
e

R E L I GI O N

?
W hat is religio n
The fe eling of d ep e n d ence
Heg el sai d that is th e r eligion o f a b east R ath e r it is
t h e fe eli ng o f union
I n or d inary kno wl e dge ( an d
or d inary science ) w e ar e limite d to particulars Wh e n
w e kno w G o d we return to t h e unity of thought and
b e ing I n or d inary actio n w e fe e l only too well how
w e ar e sun d ere d from o ne anoth e r shut up in our
6

C ONFE S S I O F I D E I

wretched selves isolated lonely : and after all these

selves are not really isolated We k no w that we are
lin k ed in a thousand w ays to others ; yet w e feel our
loneliness per h aps all the more because we are thus
made conscio u s of an i d eal of communion from which
we have fallen away Reli g ion is t h e sense of com
mu nion wit h a ll m en t h ro ugh God i e thro u g h th e

h i g hest or ideal Good The all is the distinctive

m ar k of C hristianity t h e democratic reli g ion Reli g ion
involve s t h ou g ht feeli ng con d u ct (will ) all our nature
yet we de ne it as feelin g beca u se mere tho ugh t even
abou t the matters of relig ion is not ye t reli g ion
Cond uc t unless tin g ed with t h e emotion that is r e
ligio u s is not yet relig ion
Worship ( Cultus ) i s merely an external symbol in
wh ich this fe e ling of union may b e more or less r e pr e
sented It i s with a true instinct that the Ch ristian
C hurc h has m ade its c h ief a c t of worship Comm u nion
communion with God and wit h men with t h e livin g
and with t h e dead ; with angels an d archan g els princi
i
The
ass
alitie s and po w ers
M
s the gran d est form of
p
wors h ip that has ever g ro w n up if only the idolatry and
t h e wretched materialism could be k noc k ed out of it
,

EV
O
L
U
T
I
O
N
A
RY
F
ATA
L
I
SM
7
T h e evolutionist tends to a sort of fatali sm We

must nd wh at is in nature and follow it

Nat u ra

non nisi parendo v incitu r said B acon but t h e obe d i

ence is made m ore pro m in e nt by the modern e v o lu
F in d out what the la w
tio nist than t h e conquerin g
of pro g ress is and s u bmit Don t meddl e lest you
h in der says S pencer H ow can you med dle h ow can
o
u
h
inder
y
If we approach t h e study of man from the S ide of

nature we se e in the individual only a complex

animal whose a c tion s are t h e result of inherited

instincts and t h e in u ence of h is environment ( cf
1

E V OL U T I O N AR Y FA TA L I S M

53

M au d sley )?

an d in th e nation only a social organism

w hos e life is in the sam e way con d itione d b y phe
n o m e na
natural
e vents
in
the
past
an
d
b
y
the
)
(
ph ysical e nvironment of the pr e sent But in the
in d ivi d ual th e r e is present a consciousn e ss o f s e lf ( this
alon e makes the stu d y of man possi ble) an I w hich
puts b e for e its el f e n d s to b e atta in e d an d w hich d o e s
so more an d mor e the higher t h e typ e of in d ivi d ual
w e ar e consi dering I n th e nation or if any one
o bj ects to th is as mere gurative personi cation le t
us say in its most prom inent an d typical m e n th e re
is pr e s e nt a polit ical consciousn e ss o f e n d s to b e
atta ine d : an d th is all the mor e th e h igh e r th e nation
is in th e scal e of progre ss
History is th e struggle
fo r fr ee d om from fate T his consc ious ne ss w hich make s ]
kno wl e dge possi b l e is not to b e gur e d as a m e re
pass ive r e c e iver o f impr e ssions That is a Vor stellu ng
into w hich we ar e apt to slip ( e g in t h e wor d s
impression ta h u la r a sa
b ut which implie s a
th e ory that w e have not prov e d an d that w oul d mak e
T h e co nsc iousn e ss which
kno wle dg e in explicab le
mak e s kno wle dge possi b l e alrea d y impl ie s activity
T h e re is e ffort in the framing o f conceptions
Th e
higher the a dvanc e of kno wl ed g e th e mor e e ff ort
there is to creat e ( or re crea te ) the w orl d fo r ours elves :
not m e re ly to le t a s e ries o f pictures pass b e fore our
idle eyes Thus it is not rst in th e re alm of con d uct
that we nee d to explain t h e activity o f r e ason Th e
unconscious th e b lin d is that against w hich w e have
to ght or rath e r it is that w hich we have to over ]
come to make our o w n
T h e R a d ical w ho looks for the voice of the people
to gui d e h is policy is accus e d o f a sort of fatalism also
But is the voice of the people th e same as th e process

of nature ?
No something much more foolish it
may b e sai d I n reality they are not compara b le
A rt ic l i M ind O S Vol
.

1 2

C ON FE S S I O F I D E I

54

The process of nature

w hat is ; a law of natu re
is what under certain c onditions will be The voice
of the peo ple = a want an i nspiration or demand for
w h at is not wh at ou g ht to be H istory may Sho w
that pursuit of forei g n conq u est and ne glect of trad e
lead to national bankruptcy t h at persistent refu sal of
political liberties produces discontent and e n d s in r evo lu
tion t h at a lon g enslaved people are less capable of
usin g politi c al li b erty t h an those who are accustomed
So far t h e statesman may st u dy politic s
to it etc
as a science w h ich states w h at under certai n conditions
i s or will be and mu st adapt h is pra c tical m easure s
a cc ordin gly ; b u t all this does not yet determine w h at
ou h t to be e g w het h er it is no t better to k eep a
peop le uneducated and unfree and h appy rather than
to educate t h e m liberate them and m ake t h em dis
contented T h at i mplies referenc e to what o n ht to
be ( I s the end happiness or self realization
Aga i n
S c i ence mRy SaV S ucH a E
is h appier
I SiI Ch
m ore stable more h i gh ly developed ; it dOe s not say
w h ich is h est
T h e doctrinaire political savant loo k in g on fr o m
o u tside m ust brin g a ready form ulated con c eption of
t h e end by w hich to j ud g e th e c ondition and prospects
and needs of a people The people t h emselves how
eve r supply t h e content o f their ideal and t h e wise
state s m an is he wh o nds that for whic h they are
g ropin g T h us it is hopeless to arg ue on u tilitarian
grounds a gainst a sentimental demand for nationa l
indep e ndence if the ideal of nationali ty has once really
ta ken possession of a people T h e volcano does not
aspire to an eruption : it er u pts A people doesn t
merely revolt : it aspires to revol u tion T h e tree
g rows : the nation k nows t h at it is g rowin g ; its leaders
know c learly h ow
How far can a people g ets its t h in k in g done for it
by a few ? T h e blinder th e less c onscious a people
:

S O C I ET Y A N D TH E S T A TE

55

is the mor e the policy app e ars to b e e ntirely the w ork

of the few B u t e ven th e b e n e vol e nt d espot is d epe n
d ent o n w hat th e p eopl e w ills F r e d erick the G reat

d i d mor e than Jos e ph II not mer ely b ecaus e h e w as

t h e stronger man b ut b e caus e h is people w er e mor e
w ith h im Henry VI I I was really more a tyrant than
C harles I ; but h e ha d th e p e opl e w ith h im
,

SO C I ET Y A N D

8
.

STAT E

THE

Ho w d oes Soci e ty b ecom e d iff e rentiat e d from the

S tat e ?
Soci e ty in th e m e d ia eval stat e s w as a su r
v iv al from t h e R oman Emp ir e an d from the primit iv e
Teutonic political ( soc ial) institutions an d it was th e
pro d uct o f th e C hurch w ith its i d ea of th e commun ity
of C hrist e n d om

Clergy no b] e s knights s erfs th e s e w ere society

class e s an d w ere irresp e ctive of th e sta tes Soci e ty
apart from the stat e t e n d s to cle ave into hori zontal
sections running through th e d iffe r e nt nations I t is
only pol itical reasons that link tog e th e r no ble m er
chant and peasant T h e stat e must b r i n abou t th e
,

state must
rri
th e in d i
i on or t e 00d
z
for
h
v idu als
t
e goo d of a ll in d ivi d uals ultimat e ly
)
(
thus bggom ing g h e instr ument of huma nity ?
I f b y social links ( apart from poli tical) we m ean
those of th e family the clan fri e n d ship associations
,

o c ial d iv is io s
h or i o ntal ; pol it ical d iv is io ns
v rt c al H nc th r is f th m o d r n nat io ns m a nt a S tr uggl
w it h cast wh ich r nd r d m o nar ch ic al d spot is m poss ibl nd

n c ssary
a b sol u t m o nar ch w at rst th sov r ig n
Th
ind p nd nt f ot h rs ( Em p ror Pop )
ft r war d s ( c f C lar nd o n
A

i
i
h
Eng l is h k ing
c
a
m
th
str
ugg
l
w
t
h
th
fr
n d a b sol u t
)
wn nat io n i
to d t r m in wh r (l g al ) sov r ig nty ( n it
m i mm n
in t r nal s id ) lay ( T h a c t u al sov r ig n i al ways th
bu t t h is w as d or m a n t n d u n x pr ss d at first )
1

Say
i

e,

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

e e

as

ee

e e

ar e

ar e

co

C ON FE S S I O F I D E I

6
5

for purposes of business science reli gion ? pleasure

then these lin k s have often bee n stron g est ( at least
have b ee n most c onspicuous ) w h ere the state h as
been relatively wea k fallen into decay ( as in t h e later
times of Hellenic civilization ) or not yet fully d e
in t h e mediaeval period ) When the
v e lo pe d ( as
unity an d soverei g nty of t h e state have co m e to be
stron gly asserted m any of t h ese so c ial lin k s become
more m erg ed in t h e political Thus we have national

c hu r ch es national universities instead of a Ch urch

runnin g throug h all C hristian nations i nstead of a
n um ber of universities ( founded b y Papal B ulls) w h ere
especially by the h elp ( as in t h e case of the C hu rch )
of t h e L atin ton g ue the one republic of sc h olars h ip
was more conspicuous than the diversity o f nations
Society is c os m opolitan ( in t h e sense of supranational)
only amon g t h e upper classes the nobility w h o in
many c o u ntries are cut o ff from the real politi c al life
3
of the nation and amon g t h ose of the wor k in g classes
who are disco ntented w ith the institutions of their
bul k of
sever al co u ntries TM
ce s
ditio ne d mar k edly b y natio nal df gf gn

n
co m m e r ce m
f
i
i
f
o n 2 27 16112 1
g
mere competition of individuals and the morality
suc h as it is of commercial life is supplied by
national inuen c e s (e g laws as to partners h ip ban k
,

'

'

ru

t
cy,
p

Q uestion

Will

world trade ever h elp to m a k e a

?

world state possible

to create t h e demand for it
Can we reg ard so c iety as an o r ganism indepgnde nt
m
R l ig io u s asso c iat io ns h av h o w v r g n r lly b n part f th
pol it ic al xc pt w h r th r l ig io n i s u pra nat io nal

w r d iv is io n s f th st ud nts f th U n
Th
N ti ne
N o w a d ays n En g l is h s ch olar i m or s parat d fro m a
iti
G r m a n t h a n in th M id d l Ag s C f n Engli h ch u r ch m a n t

i
i
p ra g
l ss
Th En g l is h n o b il ity b ing m or pol t c al
o m opol ita n
:

ve r s

ee

e a

e s.

e e

e e

e,

ee

ar e

e c
e

OF

D I A L E CTI C
of

th

state
e

CO N D U CT

57

Is it not in the main the survivals of

r u m e d S ti
ite s or th e a d um b ration of possible fu ture
?
stat e s
Economic relations seem to be di ffe rent
e ristically supranational
They
are
charact
gov
rn
d
by
e
e
[
law s w hich are in the main ind e p e n dent o f state
b oun d ari e s ] Are th e y th e n the Sh wn g of a w orl d
stat e ? The opposition to F ree Tra de will then b e th e
struggl e of th e separate stat e s against absorption [in a
w orl d state as th e re sult of e conomic force s]
The state seem s to be s epara b le from soci e ty b e cause
it is explicitly formulate d as a rule w h e reas society
n ee d s to b e d iscover e d an d is not al ways easy to d iscove r
T h e state may b e e xpre sse d more or l e ss in a co nstitu
tion w ritt e n or e xpoun de d b y publicists an d thus seem s
som e thing arti c ial Soci e ty is there as a fact not a
formula an d thus s ee ms natural But this [d istinction
b et w e en socie ty as natural an d the stat e as arti cial] is
an unre al a b stract ion
W

D
IA
L
E
CT
I
C
O
F
CO
N
D
U
CT
CO
N
F
L
I
CT
O
F
:
9
DU T I E S

C onict of d uties eve n conict b etwe e n a d uty

recognize d b y g e n e ral custom or authoritatively com

self realizat ion ( joie de

m ande d an d some maxim of

Sho
w
s
w
ant
of
organizat
i
on
in
ethical
system
v iv r e
)
an d points to a r e form E g th e conict b etw ee n

family an d state ( Antigone) show s a d efective

social structure ; so with class co nicts ; so with r e

l igion v
state ;
smaller state
tri
b
e
city
(

nation ) v w i de r state (e mpire fe d eral state) ; so

eve n w ith b rigandage ( survival of an older tri b al
1

w orl d Ro m a Em p ir Papa c y U S A as C olo i s

f E g la d
C a a d a Wst as C olo i s f Fra c So u t h Am ric a
R p u b l ic s
C olo i s f Spa i t
A glo Sa x o c o mmu ity G r m a n so c i ty b for th G
A
Em p ir
I tal ia so c i ty b for u it d I taly th Lat i p opl s
m
f Eu rop
Slavo nic p opl s
th
t
1

H ell e n ic
n

an

e :

e :

n e

n, e c

n e

n e :

e :

n e

as

e c.

er

C O NFE S S I O F I D E I

8
5

stag e ); wild o u tbursts of licentiousness w h ic h are so

far a protest ag ainst t h e puritan prohibition of c a k es
and ale ; and t h e rowdiness of factory h ands w h ic h
indicates a want of h ealt h y o u tlet If all the g oo d were
o n one side all t h e evil on the ot h er ( as the a s cetic or
fanatic t h in k s) life wo u ld be S i m pler Even t h e k in d s
of a c ts in c ompatible with any so c ial wellbein g or c on
tinu ance or pro g ress t h e o u tcome of h ereditary defe c ts
as
in
the
case
of
cri
m
inal
lunatics
or
of
bad
s
u
rroun
d
(
)

in g s point to s ocial reorg anization incl u din g c are for

t h e race and e x clusion)of the unt
Prof S
La u rie ( Eth ica 1 1 7 1 1 9 ) ar gu es ( I )
T h ere i s no ohliga tion to pro m ote t h e happiness
well
bein g
of s ociety (yet h e allows t h at p h ilant h ropy
is t h e spe c ial vocation of certain individ u als); ( 2 ) ( pp
1 1 8 1
h e arg ues that duties to the i mm ediate c ircle
are alwa ys to be preferred to t h ose to t h e wider Wo uld
?
not th is c ondem n so m e of t h e g reatest of m an k in d
D oes not the di fference in m en s v oca tion extend to
t h is also ? Sh ould So c rates h ave waited until h e h ad
m a de Xant h ippe quite comfortable and happy before
h e went about convincin g m en of i g norance and draw
?
in g down on h imself a prosecution for impiety Sho u ld
Jes u s h ave returned at once with h is mot h er instead
of repellin g h er rat h er coldly as h e did
Roman Cat h olic m oralists s h adow forth a tr u er
syste m wit h t h eir disti nction between di fferent de g rees
of obli gation
Professor Laurie s arg ument assum es
t h at t h e family an d ot h er social institutions t h at i mm e
diately surround a m an are u ltimate and absolutely
nal form s of th e spirit D oes not t h e s ame apply to
t h e m an wh o feels t h at h is vocation is to be a poet
?
or an arti s t
I s h e not Sinnin g ag ainst t h e H oly
,

h as d ist ing u is h e d it fro m pl eas u r e

2
W h o is m y m ot h er ? St Lu k e ii 4 8 4 9

H
e
t
h
at
M
S
att
x
0
C
t
f
34 37
47 5

m ot h e r m or e t h a n m e is not w ort h y o f m e
1

A nd h e

att h w
lov t h fat h r
St M
.

ii

or

CO N FL I CT OF D U T I E S

59

Ghost if he deni e s the call in ord er to provi d e for

the comfort of a family circle ? Of cours e it is a ques
tion of d egr e e A man may not b e justi e d in neglect
i
a
mother
still
less
a
wife
an
d
ch
i
l
d
r
for
en
h
e sake
t
(
)
g
0q art ; but he may rightly secur e less of the external
goo d s of life fo r them in ord er to secure more of the
higher goo d s for hims elf an d mankin d These con
ic ts o f duties and the terri b le sacri ces th e y involve
e
if
a
Singer
loses
her
voice
b
ecaus
h
nurses
a
e
e
S
( g
sick mother) point to the instability of the e conomic
structure of society Y e t in a socialistic state will
ther e not b e a d i f culty in d istinguishing real merit
an d promise from Sham ? Might there not b e a fear
of an artist w ith ne w and h e retical id eas r ec e i v ing no
?
support fro m the o f cial d ir e ctors of art
But w oul d
?
he b e wors e o ff than at present
He might have to
support himself by some trad e practising his art only
in his l e isur e ; but th e n his leisure w ill b e longer an d
his tra d e exe rcised un d er no degrading con d itions

The amateur might always hope through receiving

f
som e support rom th e voice of many j u dges if he
ha d r eal merit there woul d always b e som e to appr e

ciate to b e recogni z e d as an artist of the community

an d allowe d to w ork for it Besi d es ar e not art an d
imaginative literature where originality com e s in j ust
those pursuits w hich can be e xercise d along with other
pursuits ? The historian must give up his w hole d ays
for successful res e arch : the poet may Sing w hile w alk
ing home from h is w orkshop The artist may rise an
hour earlier to d raw What is wante d he re is that
ordinary d rud gery shall not occupy too long hours an d
d egra d e the mi nd An d this is exactly what the
socialist hopes to attain
Th e re must be examinations to determine capacity
for attainm e nts of some particular kin d rathe r than
to test past attainm e nts There will b e less free d om
pe rhaps in some ways in the choice of unsuitable
.

C O N FE S S I O F I D E I

6o

stu d ies and professions

exercise

b u t m or e fr e e d om in their

P O S I T I O N O F T H E SO C IA L REF O R M ER
It is abs u rd to say to t h e socialist livin g say on the
pro ts of a capitalist b u sin e ss or on t h e interest of

invested m pne y :
You are not Sincere in living in
t h is way holdin g s u ch doctrines as yo u do You

sho uld g ive it to t h e community

Yes b u t w h ere

?
is t h e com m unity
h e could answer
I a m con
v ince d of t h e h opelessness and uselessness and mischief
of your endless private charities I S hall only do harm
if I g ive all m y g oods to feed the poor When t h e

state c laim s all capital I S h all surrender mine

Of
course it wo uld be insin c erity if the said socialist were a
S toc k Exchan g e speculator and spent h is life in idle
n e ss If he is helpin g to propag ate h is ideas h e is
livin g as a g ood citizen of the co m monwealth of the
future The means o f such propag andism may be
c h osen di ff erently by di ff erent individuals A certain

amount of j esuitism may be quite allowable

B u t it is h ard very hard to live in one century wit h
t h e ideas of anot h er And in the exact deg ree of com
promise allowable t h ere will be constant d i fferen c es of
opinion and much self torment
It is h ard to interest one s self profoundly in the
carryin g o u t of refor m s which one knows m ust b e only
provisional ma k eshifts Would it not be better if
there is a future life to return to this poor world
and see h ow it is gettin g on and reap so m e of th e

i
g ood ( and evil ) of what we have done in t t h an to
b e transplanted somewhere else away from what we
have interested o u rselves in
I S it only our ideas that

n
come back live o
the foolis h ones and t h e wic k ed
ones let us hope d yin g out of t h emselves ? Woul d
not M ose s dyin g on Pis ga h have preferred to awa k e
ag ain be s ide t h e tabernacle of Go d in the promised
2 0

P O S I T I O N OF

S O C I AL

RE FOR M E R

61

lan d or to enter the courts of the temple w ith

S olomon rath e r than to liv e in a far away h e ave n w ith
?
Abraham
W h e ther w oul d the earnest w orker for
his p e ople ( the proph e t) pr e fe r th e company o f his
gran d fath e rs or his gran d chil d ren ? Sur ely th e latter
if h e has re ally faith in what h e w orks for ; h e w oul d
not w ish to b e gathere d to h is fath e rs w hat eve r the
sluggar d or th e antiquarian may choose It w oul d b e
b ette r to b ring b ack all th e gran d fath e rs to h elp th e
gra nd ch il d ren D o e s th is only m e a n that the r e former
Shoul d have reve renc e fo r h istory ?
Mau d sl ey regar d s proph e ts an d reform e rs as maniacs
What a much mor e aw ful place th e w orl d w oul d b e if
e v e ry o ne w e r e san e !
T h e Uni v e rsal R e ason w orks unconsciously an d in
some cas e s imm edia tely That is inspirat ion T h e
h ighly re e ctive an d conscious min d is l e ss capable o f
action T h e man w ho can see the many Si d e s of a
qu e st ion does l e ss tha n h e wh o is ab sor b e d in gaz ing o n
one T h e init iator must b e narrow and will app e ar
e xaggerate d to thos e w ho enj oy qui e tly th e results o f
w hat h e did T h e new reform e rs must have an oppo
site e xaggeration The a d m iration of a ster e otyp e d
r e format ion is o f all things th e most absur d I t is l ik e

a fossil change a petri e d riveran d a rive r is only

p e tri e d by b e ing froz e n an d w ill e as ily m elt
Th e re is no n e ed of constructing an arti cial con
The ten d ency to o b se rve the customary is
se r vatism
strong e nough alrea d y in human nature But th e re is
a gain in making a smooth channel fo r progre ss to
run i n
,

O F M A R T YR DOM

In w hat sense of the pr eposition of ar e the martyrs

of C hristianity the mor e numerous ? C ontrast the
martyr d om o f a C hr istian un d er the R oman Emp ire
an d that o f a philosopher or h e re tic at the han d s o f the
2 1

T H E S I G N I F I CA N C E

12 "

C ONFE S S I O F I D E I

62

C hristians
T h e C hristian ( say a Slave of a lon g
enslaved a conquered ra c e ) bro ugh t face to fa c e wit h

t h e awfu l m ajesty b u t a q u ite material u n d isgu ised

q u ite i ntellig ible maj es ty o f force and law refu ses to

b u rn incense before t h e sta tu e of the very h uman
m aster of t h e leg ions He believes t h at t h is terrestrial
power will soon pass away ; h e h as no sympathy w it h
it H e loo k s forward to a speedy overth row a terrible
retribution ( C f Tert u llian ) So far h e i s li k e a
Russian Ni h ilist M oreover he h as t h e per s onal h ope
of a h eavenly c rown H e is a Slave despised down
trodden h ere : h e will be before t h e throne of God
w it h t h e elect in h eaven T h e balan c e of pleas u re i s
clearly on th e S ide of m artyrdom The h eretic is
resi s tin g all t h e in u en c e s u nder w h ich h e h as been
bro ug ht u p T h ese are solemn appealin g not to t h e
eye but to t h e heart and the i m ag ination They are
sanctied by lon g asso c iation to h imself and those dear
to h im H e k nows t h e stren g t h of the e c clesiastic al
org anization t h at is arrayed ag ainst hi m H e is u nder
no ill u sions about its tre m endous hold on the minds of
men H e k nows that wit h h is tale nts and k nowled g e
a safe and h onourable career wo u ld be open to h i m
a m on g m en
He m igh t be a bis h op a cardinal a
pope a do c tor a saint I n the opinion of t h ose w h o
have brou gh t h i m up h e is castin g away h is hopes i n
the ne x t world H e h as perhap s no sure belief in a
fu ture re c o m pense for h imself : the tri u mp h of h is
c ause is very distant and must c ome very g radually

Yet for w h at h e believes to be tr u t h for t h at alone he

W h i ch martyrdo m testi es m ost to t h e trut h of
dies
?
t h e opinions of t h e m artyr
T h ere m ay be a g re ater
testi m ony to tr u t h in t h e m ere refusal o f an h onest and
intelli g ent m an to enter t h e c h urc h t h an in t h e ex c ited
devotee r un nin g towards t h e lion s in t h e arena
Contras t th e eloq u ent prea ch er pleadin g t h e ca u se of
a theologi c al do gm a in a grand c at h edral bea u tifu l
,

S I GN I F I C A N C E

OF M ARTYRDO M

63

su b lime hallo w e d by long assoc iations after a service

solemn an d impressive w ith thrilling music lights

e
gorg ous v e stments intoxicating inc e nse an d on th e
other Si d e the critic expoun d ing his o bj e ctions in the
b are lecture room or a dd ress ing th e listless r e a d e r
through th e d ull printe d page I n w hich case d o we
requir e to b e most on our guar d against d e c eption ?

T h e testimony o f martyrs is to
truth ; b u t not of
matt e rs o f fact T h e G iron d ists no b le st act of fa ith
was th e ir perishing in th e name of li b e rty
Y e t the y
b ear no te st imo ny to the truth of the stories a b out
Lycurgus or Numa Pompil ius w hich th ey b eli eve d
T h e y d o b ear t e stimony to t h e moral valu e of the
repu b lican i d ea
The impr e ssio ns w hich ar e roughly pu t d own as the
impr e ssions ma d e b y reli ion are r eally ve r y mixe d
Art historical assoc iation g
am il an d national sympathy
y
r e minisc e nce s of chil d hoo d the pres e nc e o f frie n d s the
re me m b rance o f the d ea d the pl easantness of a comely
ha b it all contri b ut e
Wh e n p e ople com e back to th e r eligion o f th e ir
youth this d o e s not prov e the truth of the d ogmas of
that religion b ut only the po we r of e arly associations
over s e ntim e nt I t is the fact that praye rs w e re said at
a mother s kn e e or at a fathe r s grave rath e r than the
su b stance of those prayers that d raw s b ack the rep e ntant
unbeli e ver
,

M O RA L

PHI L O SOPHY

ON TH E M E TH OD AN D S COP E O F E TH I CS

M O RA L

P H I LO SO P H Y A N D SC I EN C E
I T is c onstantly o bj ected to moral phi losophy at
t h e present day t h at it is u npro g ressive and that it
presents an u nfavourable contrast to t h e various sciences
of nature It is therefore a wi d ely sprea d an d
g enerally ac c epted opinion that moral p h ilosophy
can only advance by beco m in g scienti c by adopti ng

by g ivin g up its pretensions

t h e m ethods of science

to a special met h od of its own

T h us t h e very na m e moral philosophy tends

to fall into disfavour and discredit and to be superseded

by moral science
L et us consider rst t h e supposed contrast between
p h ilosophy and science
I S it true t h at t h e sciences of nat u re pro g ress by
?
a steady accu m ulation of facts
T h ere is no d o u bt
?
a steady accumulation of facts B u t w h at is a fact
A fact is a fossil t h eory ( e g sunrise c onsidered as a
By n x t ns io n f all t h os part w h ic h
n b
tr at d b y th
n d b y a c o m pl t
m t h o d s ava ila b l in th s c i n c s f n at u r
inf c t d w it h m tap h ys ic s n d
l im inat io n f t h o parts wh ic h

lay c la im t a sp c ial m t h o d f t h ir wn
thi
pp
S
i
n
E
n
E
d
S
n
A
t
p
h
C
L
f
f
4 9 45
[
T ylor Th e P hl m f C nd t C h
1

ro

c e ce

uc

e e

cs,

ca

ar e

se

0,

P H I LO S O P HY

A N D S C I E N CE

65

fact

implies the discar d e d theory that th e sun

goes roun d th e earth while in reality the earth goes
round th e su n) ; b u t the history o f the sciences con
sists in th e continual u ps e tting o f l e ss a d equate or
eve n e rron e ous the ori e s b y more a d equat e Even an
erroneous th e ory may have serve d a goo d purpos e
in helpi ng us to conne ct togeth e r facts oth e rw is e isolate d
an d so to get a b e tter Vie w o f th e m an d in a progre ssive
a e if it d o e s b e com e crystalli z e d in a d ogma it l e a d s
g
to its o w n ov e rthro w b y a b e tt e r th e o r y
Tak e as an illustration th e int e rpre tation o f a book
This i nterpre tation c e rtainly gro w s as tim e goes on
so that the late st commentary shoul d contain more
truth a b out th e b ook than th e e arliest ; b ut this
gro w th is not prop e rly r e pre sente d as a continuous

accumulation of facts
Ev e ry fr e sh piec e of int e r
r e ta tio n is a
th
an
d
mor
a
d
equat
th
e ory ;
e
e ories
e
p
shoul d s u pplant l e ss a d e quate A great d eal o f th e
w a ste in scholarship com e s from th e unsc ie nti c w ay
an d incon v en ie nt m e tho d s b y w hich scholars proc e e d
and from their expression in turn r e quiring int e rpret

ation Then too suppose d facts are not al ways

facts e g the r e a d i ng on w hich curre nt inte rpr e tat ions
som e
ar e b as e d may turn out to b e a w rong o ne ;
gra mmatical or historical paralle l may have to b e dis
car d e d as mistaken So too it is w ith th e d i f cult
b ook of nature ; with this important advantag e that
nature is still b eing writte n b e for e our eyes an d so
we have a p e rpetual analogy b y w hich to t e st an d ch e ck
our int e rpretation of th e ol d ?
It may b e a d mitte d at once that every b ranch o f

human knowle dg e must b e scienti c an d must

endeavour to procee d always b y scienti c metho d s
This is in fact an almost i d e ntical proposition It is
an etymological qui b ble to say that knowle dge is
scienc e T h e d ou b le nature of our languag e h as
T h is i tr u
v in s c i c s l ik g olo g y d pala o tology
,

e e

en

en e

an

M OR A L PH I L O S O PH Y

66

allowed a convenient di ff erentiation of term s by whi ch

it is as well to abide Science is syste m atic k nowle dge
Philosophy must also be systemati c ; b u t it does
not therefore follow without furt h er proof that t h e
k ind of k nowled g e and t h e k ind of syste m at whi ch
p h ilosophy aim s mu st be t h e sa m e or m u st be pursued
b y th e Sa m e m et h ods as t h ose w h ich h ave proved
s u c c essfu l in exten d in g our k no w led g e of nature
T h e met h ods applicable in t h e science of g eometry
are not appli c able in the scien c e of chemistry nor
those of c h emistry in t h at of biolo g y ; and it is an
assumption whi ch requires proof and is c ontrary to
this analog y t h at t h e methods of g eo m etry or ch e m istry
or biolo g y should be applicable i n et h ics and politi c s
Th e temptation and attempt to transfer the m et h ods
w h ich have proved su cce ssal in so m e ot h er s c ien c e s
to t h e st u dy of man as a social bein g are not new
W h en t h e Pyt h ag oreans de ned j ustice as a squ are
number t h ey were applyin g the conceptions of g eometry
to et h i c s and were doin g S O wit h the purpose of

ma k in g ideas about h u manity scienti c and liftin g

them above the level of prover b ial ph iIO SOph y

Sim ilarly Plato applied m at h e m ati c al c onceptions to
me taphysics I n the 1 7 th century the advances m ade
i n mat h ematics exer c ised a s imilar fascination over
those who applied t h emselves to the study of man k ind
suc h as H obbes to whom t h e k no w ledg e of g eometry
ca m e li k e a revelation
.

Th y d
n d v il

i n
Od )
j u st ic as dp dp d f f
i
ns )
En p
i
n th
i
t
m
at
h
m
at
c
al
s
i
n

n
(
H

n
h
w as forty y ars ld b for
loo k d
sa w
g o m try
S h
r
a
ds
Eu c l id s el m n ts in a l ib rary ly ing op n at I

propos it io n
By G o d says h t h i i im poss ib l
Th n h
th

r a d th d m o nstrat io n nd was c o nv inc d f it tr u t h

Thi mad

I t w aft r H o bb s h a d l ft O x for d
h im in lov w it h g o m try
t h at Sav il fo u nd d h i prof ssors h ips of g o m try nd astro n o m y

wh n t h y w r fo u nd d n t a f w f th g n try k pt t h ir
so ns a way fro m th U niv rs ity n t to h av t h m s m itt d w it h th b la c k
1

e ne

as

ei

as

e
e

e e

e,

r ov
ev

o vr c

o aK s

ov

A ND

P H I LO S O P HY

S C I EN C E

67

Spin o za

forc e d his metaphysical an d ethical thinking

into a geome trical moul d of de nitions axioms an d
d emonstrations w hich his warmest int elligent a d mire rs
consi d er his ch ie f d e m e rit
Th e s e w ere d elusions from w hich Aristotle was fr e e
,

E
h
1
t
(
Th e
.

analogy o f chemistry inuence d those moralists

w ho appli e d th e association of i d eas to solve all
?
d i f culti e s in psychology an d e thics
T h e great sci e nc e o f the pr e sent d ay is b iology and
the b iological watchwor d s of organism an d evolution
have b ee n applie d to solve all th e diicu lties in th e
stu d y of h u man soci e ty Society is not an arti cial
compoun d it is an organic gro w th consci e nc e is not a
su m of component parts
nor merely a chemical com
poun d o f diff er e nt e lem e nts b ut is evolve d b y the
action of th e e nvironm e nt on the in d ivi d ual Moral
law s can thus b e assimilate d to law s o f nature ; goo d
ness can b e r egar d e d as moral health Morality is a d e
d
etermine
d
as
the
u ate l
ea lth of the social organism
h
q
y
,

art ( 8 Woo d) C roo m Ro b rtso n s H hh pp 3 3 H o bb s

t
n
h
P
t
I
ch
p
ass
um
s
t
h
at
p
h
losop
h
y
mu
st
L
i
i
5
(
b g in l ik g o m try w it h d it io ns C f P t II ch
p
(
h
s k ill f m a k ing nd m a in ta ining C o mm o nw alt h s c o s ist t h
T
in c rta in r u l s as d ot h A ith m tiq
nd G o m try ; n t ( as in

T nn is P lay ) in pra c t ic o nly

c
o
n
str
u
c
ts
a
M a c k in tos h (Ethi l Di t ti n pp
6
8
59
)
5
ch m ic al t h ory f c o ns c i nc T h p h ras m ntal ch m istry ( f
H artl y ?) i u s d in W
ar d s art ic l n P y h l gy in En B it
also in M ill s Ex min ti n of H milt n Cf Sidgw ic k H i t y of

p 9 ; nd S M ill A t hi g phy p 6
I t t hu s
Eth i
app ar d t h at b ot h M a c a u lay nd m y fat h r w r wro ng ; th
in ass im ilat i g th
m t h o d f p h ilosop h is ing in pol it ic s
to th p u r ly P im t l m t h o d f ch m istry ; wh il th ot h r
t h o ugh r igh t in a d opt ing a d duc t iv m t h o d h a d m a d a wro ng
s l c t io n f n h aving ta k n th typ f d duc t io n n t th
appropriat pro c ss t h at f th d duc tiv b ra nc h s f nat u ral
p h ilosop hy b u t th inappropr iat n f p u r g o m try wh ich
n t b in g a s c i n c
f c a u sat io n at all d o s n t r q u ir

a dm it f ny s umm ing u p f ff c ts

ev a

cs,

o ne

ex

as

s or

o ra

0 :

e e

s c oo

en a

e,

2 1

u o

er

e e

ue

2 1

sser a

ca

es,

or

M OR A L PH I LO S O PH Y

68

In all this ther e is a g reat degree of truth T h e

s tudy of human c onduct and so c iety has g ained in
many ways from the application to it of t h e sam e
methods of systematic research which have been applied
to t h e facts of nature Even analo g ies and m etaphors
w h ich when p u s h ed too far are m isleading h ave been
u seful in c ounteractin g narrowness and exaggeration of
a di ff erent sort ? A S a protest ag ainst the merely
literary or rhetorical treatment of p h ilosop h ical q u estions
t h ere may even be some excuse for t h e a ffectation o f
mat h ematical or quasi mat h e m atical for mu lae w h i c h are
in favour with some writers yet these are apt to prove

as deceptive as quotation s from t h e classical poets

wit h out the merit of bein g sometim e s ornamental
B u t it must b e noticed what assumptions are made
i n suc h a scienti c treatm ent of ethics an d politics
ta
k
in
g
these
for
the
present
to
g
et
h
er
1
It
is
over
(
) ( )
loo k e d t h at t h e fact of consciousness introduces an
element wh ic h completely d i fferentiates t h e social from

the p h ysical org anism as compl e tely at lea st as th e fact

of life di fferentiates the org anic from the inorg anic
I t is assumed that consciousness is su ciently explain e d
as itself th e product of t h e u nconscious stag es of life :
it is ignor ed that consciousness is already presupposed in
all attempts to explain it into wh at is other than itself
2
It
is
i
g
nored
that
an
h
istorical
account
of
t
h
e
order
( )
in w h ich facts h ave presented themselves still leaves
u nsolved and unsettl e d th e q u estion about the value
or wort h of t h ese facts
3
Ori g in does not determine validity
The
pop u lar superstition is t h at it does ; and the same
.

Ta k as a t st wh at th m t h o d s f b iolo g y h av d o n f
p h ilolo g y I n la ngu a g w h av partly u nc o ns c io u s nd partly
n d c u to m s
c o ns c io u s g ro w t h
S it i a nalo g o u s to in st it u t io n s
q u as i m at h m at ic al for m u la f Lot z in h i L gi
Th
n in sta n c
f t h is
Fro m a l tt r
1

e,

or

ar e

ORI G I N A ND

VAL I D I TY

69

assumpt ion is o ft e n m a d e b y philosoph e rs w ho limit

the ms elv e s to the m e tho ds of the special sci e nces ( e g
We se e this in th e q uestion ofte n aske d
S p e ncer )

a b out a person not What is h e

b ut Who is his

?
fath e r
S o p e ople think that if it is shown that
man ( as an animal organism) has b e e n d evelope d out
of lo we r animal forms or all organic e xistenc e out o f
t h e i norgan ic th e d ignity an d valu e of human natur e is
th e r e b y lo we r e d Henc e th e prej u d ic e aga inst D arw in s
theory I n th e sam e w ay a sci e nc e o f r el igions which
traces all re ligions b ack ( in tim e) to the lo w forms
of an imism or fe tishism pr evailing among Australian
an d A frican savag e s is thought to d e stroy all th e
vali d ity o f th e h igh est r elig ions ; an d e ve n such a

li b eral an d unortho d ox th ink e r as Max M ull e r

w ish e d to mak e out that th e original rel ig ion o f man
kin d ( at l e ast o f th e Aryan rac e ) was a comparatively
h igh monoth e ism such as he nd s in th e I n d ian Ve d ic
hymns lo we r forms b e i ng d egrad ations o f this ( This
is j ust a survival of th e myth of the G ol d e n A ge the
G ar d en of E d en e tc e ve n in a scie nti c a nd l e arn e d
m in d) So too M acle nnan s th e ories which trac e b ack
th e institut ion o f marriag e to a v e ry b ar b arous form
o f captur ing fe mal e s of a noth e r tri b e a r e put asi d e b y

Ma in e as tru e only o f occasional d egra d ations an d ar e

regar d e d b y an ol d fri e n d of mi ne as too shocki ng to
b e mention e d in his notes to th e P olitics All this comes
No w the
from confusing or igin w ith na tu r e ( ch a r a cter )
sam e applie s in theori e s o f kno wl e dg e an d morals
T h e sci e nt i c psychologist trac e s b ack all kno wl e dg e to
e physiologist traces
h
t
rightly
or
wrongly
sensa tions
)
(
b ack th e s e s e nsations to th e ir phys ical sourc e an d so

on I t is a b sur d an d ba d m e taphysics wh e n th e se
happe ns as e vents in
scie nti c e xplanations o f what

t im e ar e m e t b y th e ories o f innat e i d eas as if b a b ies

ha d a rea dy m a d e th e ory of logic in th e ir h e a d s I t
was Kant s great service to take the philosop hical
.

'

M O R A L PH I L O S O PH Y

o
7

q u estion abo u t t h e nature of k nowledge out of this

psycholog ical controversy H e urg ed t h at the possi
b ility of k no wle dge logica lly requires t h e presence to
s ensations of a comparin g and distin g uis h i ng self
consciousn e ss And this lo g ical ne c essity re m a ins u n
a ffected by s c ienti c explanations of the history of the
g ra d ual develop m ent of consciousness in t h e individual
and of the g radual increase of intelli g en c e in the race
fact that moral
.

g ed and developed
t h eir ideas of w h at their duties are b u t t h e b ar e idea

in
of ought of an ideal of s ome S ort,
any agtjp p dir eCtedm i
It is assumed that t h e laws w it h w h ic h et h ics h a s
to deal are of the same k ind as the laws dis c overed by
the student o f nature A law of nature is a statement
of what as a fa c t is or rat h er since all science involves
abstra c tion from t h e compli c ated detail of actual
e x isten c e of w h at tends to h e i e of what under certain
con ditions would b e The necessity of nat u ral law i s

best expresse d by t h e h ypot h etical j ud g ment If A is

A moral law is com m only un d erstood to imply

B is
an e xpr e ssion of what ough t to he of an ideal and to be

properly form ulated only as a categ orical imp erative

law of n at u re c annot be bro k en it can only be
ill u strated : a precept based on a law of nat u re m ay be
A law of morals li k e a law i n t h e politi c al sense can

"

'

"

W h at
f n at u r
in to o u r
th is i a
th ic al id

parall l to
pro c d u r in th s c i nc
n ts C h r ist ia n ity h as b ro u h t
i
n
Wh
x
pla
at
l
m
t
g
g
t h ic al id al d iff r nt iat in g it fro m t h G r k t
n
qu st io n f c a u sat io n B u t h o w t h r
b
n
alt h at i a pro b l m for m tap h ys ic s T h c o nt n t
m oral j u d gm n t at ny g iv n t im i a m att r f fa c t
f th
to b d is c ov r d B u t wh at i th nat u r f th m oral j ud gm n t
n d it
as s u ch
wh at
it
s ubj c t nd pr d ic at
r lat io n
to ot h r j u dgm n ts i a qu t io n f m tap hy ic s Cf p 8
1

in
e

e,

t h ic s
o

ar e

e e

es

es

e e

e e

ou r

e e

is

or

e c

e,

ca

ee

N AT U RAL A ND M ORA L

LA

be broken The man wh o d i e s a ft e r e ating poisonous

foo d d oes not violate t h e laws o f physiology : h e ex em
i

e man who mur d e rs anoth e r violates

l
T
h
e s them
p
th e moral la w an d in a civ il iz e d community he violat e s
the la w of th e lan d also Were w e to formulate a

moral la w If you do this yo u w ill b e hang e d (or

in or d e r to o bl ite rat e th e d i ffe r e nce the
d i ff e re nc e is not r e ally remove d F or th e law is violat e d
e ven
if for any r e ason punishm e nt may not follo w

upo n its v iolation On th e oth e r han d punishm e nt

fo r v iolating the law s of natur e is a m e taphorical an d
inaccurate expre ss ion for t h e unpl easant cons e qu e nc e s
which in th e ord inary course of nature nec e ssarily ( unl e ss
count e racting caus e s inte rv e ne ) follo w upon certa in acts
I f it is said : T h e moral la w is w hat the goo d man

ought to
does then th e goo d man is th e man as h e

I f you d e ne th e goo d man as the man w ho has

be
completely a dj uste d h is characte r to th e health o f th e
social organism that may b e d e n ie d fo r th e b e st m a n
may b e much b e tt e r than th e social organism in w hich
h e n d s h imself a nd may b e th e m a n w ho a djusts
himself to an idea l social organism
80 that th e
i d e al must com e i n someho w
It thus app e ars that ethics must b e s eparate d from
th e sciences of nature if w e ar e le d ( I ) to reco ni ze
consciousn e ss as more than a m e re pro d uct 0 th e

unconscious ( 2 ) to r e cogniz e th e conc e ption of ought

as other than a particular form o f is

If thes e d iffe r
the m e thods of th e nat u ral sc ie nc e s
e nc es a r e vali d
even o f the most compl ex are not compl e t ely a d equate
We hop e to Show that these
fo r th e s tu d y of ethics
tw o points ar e re ally th e same The r e cogn it ion o f
.

sl t p h
l a l to h a g g
sl t p h
p r

0
Cf Le ie S e e n, The Science of Eth ics,
44

n in
ib e
2
1 3 7 if
Se e Le ie S e e n , Science of Ethics,
1
2
t
i
cs
S e n c e , P r inciples o
E
h
,
f
7
1

M u r d e r ers

ar e

m an

Vol I p
.

la w

H
8
f
f
,
43
o f th e
e fe t
.

pr c

M OR A L PH I L O S O PH Y

2
7

them constitutes the m etaphysic of ethics

And our
contention is t h at no m ethod of treatin g et h i c s is li k ely
to advance the study whic h does not fully reco g nize
this metaphysical basis
.

M O RA L

P H I L OS O P H Y A N D P S Y C H O L O G Y
A g eneration ag o before the inuence of t h e epoc h
ma k in g boo k of this ag e Darwin s Or igin of Sp ecies h ad

been so widely felt the question

H o w can et h ics

?
beco m e pro g ressive
would h ave been m ore g ener

ally answered in this country : by bein g based on

A nd there are very many writers and

psychology
t h in k ers w h o w ould still g ive this ans wer either alone
or combined with t h e previous one Amon g t h ose
who have not been inuenced by evolution the
sensationalist or experientialist philosop h y of En glish
S M ill and the intuitionalist
writers from L oc k e to
philosop h y of t h e so called Scottis h school ( M artineau )
ag ree i n insisti ng t h at ethics m u st be based on
B u t suc h an answer settles very little
psychology
Psych ology is a re g ion of debateable g round as m uc h as
et h ics I n fact th e disputed questions of et h ics have
g enerally been read b ac k into psy ch olog y w h ilst
professedly they were bein g solved b y an application of
psycholog ical theories W h at is the proper method for
psyc h olog y is the question that requires consideration
nay w h ether there is a science of psycholog y at all in t h e
sense i n whic h we tal k of the science say of physiolog y

a c ross bet w een

I S psycholo g y as it has been called

?
ba d metaphysics and imperfect p h ysiolo g y
It see m s
very Si m ple to say psyc h ology is the sc i en c e of
t h e fun c tions of t h e mind j ust as p h ysiolog y is t h e
science of the functions of t h e body but t h is assu m es
t h o ug h it
a parallelism bet ween mind and body w h ic h
m ay be convenient and thou gh it may be valid is a pie c e
of metap h ysics that requires vindication or at leas t
e xpre s s re c o g nition
T h is a s su m ption of
r eq u ire s
2

P H I L O S OP H Y A ND P S YC H OLO GY

73

mind as parallel to b o d y l ea d s to all sorts of

metaphors b eing tacitly adopt e d as facts T h e min d is
ma d e a su b stanc e w ith qualities an d attri b ut e s I t is
repre se nt ed as an orga nism w ith structure an d functions
Such forms o f e xpre ssion ar e legitimate e nough if it b e
constantly b orn e in min d that th ey are only m e taphors
a nd conventional terms ; an d th e y are in fact unavoi d a b le
b ut must b e use d w ith d ue caution an d c ertainly not
ma d e th e b asis of a rgu m ent Thus that our min d s ar e
in d ivi d ually d ist inct from o ne anoth e r an d ye t re sem b l e
o ne a noth e r is true
b ut it is an assumption w hich we
hav e no right to mak e w ithout proof that th is dis
tinction an d th is res e m b lanc e are of th e same kin d as
that b e t w een our b o d ie s T h e d i ffe rence b e twe en one
in d ivi d ual an imal organ ism an d a nother is o b vious
e nough
Th ey are spatially d istinct o bj e cts ; b ut th e
d i ff e r e nc e b e t w e e n o ne min d an d another cannot b e
so expr e ss e d an d it is as much an assumption to sa
y
that our min d s ar e all d i ff e r e nt from o ne a nother an d
that the metaphysician is b oun d to start w ith that an d
the n if he can to go on to prove th e ir i d entity as it is
to say that as I am only conscious o f self i d e ntity of

consciousness is what we ought to start with d i ff erence

b eing a matt e r to b e prove d a fte rwar d s if at all Again
the anatom ist may take any bo d y which is not in
compl e te d issect it an d assum e safely that he knows
a b out the human b o d y in gen e ral b ut th e psychologist
is not equally j usti e d in assuming that his analys is of
his o w n m e ntal organization will b e applica b le to the
human min d in gen e ral The d i ff e renc e b e t w e en the
mental organiz at ion of th e savage an d the civ il iz e d
man is greater than that betw een black an d w hit e skin
a nd cannot e v e n b e state d w ithout a r e ference to t h e
history of soci e ty
To look into on e s o w n min d an d o b s e rve w hat goe s
on ther e see ms a v e ry s impl e op e ration until it is trie d
b ut the mind is at onc e the su bj ect a nd th e o bj e ct o f the
.

M OR A L PH I L O S O PH Y

74

experi m ent an d t h e full success of t h e experim e nt is

defeated by the psyc h olog ical fact that the more
consciousne s s is concentrat e d on observing what is
h appenin g i n the m ind the less there will be to observe
Reection and stro ng e m otion for instance are in
consistent The m in d cannot vivisect itself If it is
replied t h at memory ma k es up for t h is defe c t it must b e
pointed o u t t h at t h e representation of a feelin g
m emory is somethin g very di ff erent from the feelin g as

felt a di fferen c e whic h the association sc h ool have

been apt to forg et Of course there is a sense i n whic h
t h e moral p h ilosop h er cannot dispense with psycholo g y
but it m u st be a psyc h ology ( 1 ) w h ic h is conscious of its
m etaphysical basis and ( 2 ) w hic h is not limited to the
observation of what g oes on in the individual mind
but is e xtende d to a study of ideas and feelin g s as
expressed in lan g uag e customs institutions etc
the
larg e letters
,

U
N
I
T
Y
O
F
S
ELF
CO
N
S
C
I
O
U
S
N
E
S
S
I
N
3
RE L A T I O N T O M O R A L P H I L OSO P H Y

In t h e doctrine or phras e t h e relativity of k now

led g e is implicitly involved a reco g nition of t h e central

point of modern m etap h ysics Whatever we thin k
away or leave out we cannot as a fact leave out t h e self
t h at t h in k s This is the per m anent value of D escartes s

formula C o g ito erg o su m and it is at the same time

the main and most important doctrine of Kant that it

is only t h e u nity of self consciousness w h ich m a k es
?
k nowledg e possible
All atte m pts to derive t h is self or
eg o or w h atever we choose to call it from series o f
s ensations associated together imply a hyster on p r oter on
It is already pre supposed in t h e possibility of sensation s
form in g a series for a self Of course all that is thus
1
Cf p
81

I s n t t h is Ka n t ia n d o c tr in s im ply th r lat iv ity of k no w

l d g ta k n s r io u sly ?
TH E

S E LFCO N S C I O U S N E S S

UN I T Y OF

75

presuppose d is only the b ar e nake d I not the concre te

person w ho h as a history in tim e an d whose history can
only b e trac e d b y a stu d y of particular facts T h e
in d ivi d ual so far from b e ing the Simpl e s t is the

extrem e o f complexity This tra nsc e nd e ntal Ego

i
e
e exist e nc e we hav e to assum e in
this
Ego
w
hos
(
or d e r to mak e expe rienc e poss ib l e ) is only th e possi b il ity
o f th e various empirical Egos a nd Sho w s its e l f as
a
part icular p e rson only in a d e nite e nvironm e nt physical
an d social T h e log ical n e c e ssity un d e r w h ich we ar e
o f ass e rting th a t th e Ego is
an d of asserting also that
S inc e tim e e xists fo r t h e Ego th e Ego cannot b e m e rely
in tim e ? d oes not allo w u s to go on as th e oppo ne nts

of the e xp e rie nc e school are too pron e to d o to

make any a pr ior i ass e rtio ns ab out the nature of the
p e rso nal ity o f man nor about th e nature o f Go d
S till l e ss from th e recog n ition of th e un ity of s el f
consciousn e ss as th e n e c e ssary presupposition of tim e
can w e j ump at onc e as som e d e fe n d e rs of th e faith
woul d w ish to d o to a d efe nce o f th e 3 9 Articles
against all here tics T h e crit ical e xaminat ion of th e
co nd itions of knowle dg e sho w s that th e re must b e
pre s e nt to e very particular e xp e rienc e a unity of s elf
consciousn e ss w h ich is not itse lf in time Y e t th e
self we k no w a b out has most certainly ha d an e xiste nce
in tim e past h a s come to b e w hat it no w is an d go e s
on chang ing : it is a s e ri e s o f part icular exp e rie nces
An d ye t this series of exp erienc e s implie s a unity
Now it is in this seeming co ntra d iction that w e nd the
secon d el e me nt in the m e taphysical basis of e thics
This com b ination o f an e ternal ( i e tim eless ) self an d
a s elf which h as a history in time of a permanent
unity w ith a changing multiplicity gives us th e v e ry
conception we are seeking as an explanation of morality
,

Will t h is

a b o u t tim h ol d ? Wh at n w kno w f ny
t h ing apart fro m t im ? T h r for th pro c ss mu st S h o w its l f as
in t im
V inf
1

Vie

e.

ra

ca

e e

M OR A L PH I L O S O P H Y

6
7

t h e conception of an ideal of an ou g ht
L og ic

tells us that t h is p e rmanent and in nite is m u st

lo
g
ically
be
:
our
own
experience
tells
us
it
i
s not
(
)
Th u s it is what ough t to he w h at must ( ethically ) be

what is striving for realization the en d or g ood to

which all e ff ort b lindl
ot
is directed
T h is proof see m s to m e irrefutable Yet doubtless
t h e d o c trine is form u lated inE ay t hat will be repellent
to many On the mere words I would wish to lay
no special stress
L et anyone start from t h e S ide of personal exam ina
tion of h is own experience and he will nd evidence

enou gh of the double nature of o u r personality the

torment of our lives and the sourc e of all that is best

and noblest in w h at man k ind is and does

I condem n

M y better self reproaches me

m yself
We seem
to mean som et h in g by t h ese expressions B u t what is
?
this better self L et us ma k e the hypothesis that it is
the principle of g ood that O perates in all and t h at th a t
is som eh ow identical with the u ltim a te principle log ic

obli g es u s to re c ognize in t h e universe

A mere

hypothesis you will say ; but a hypothesis w hic h on c e

a dmitted seem s to e x plain what other w ise is inexplicable
Now t h is h ypot h esis we have tried to sho w is no mere
h ypot h esis b u t itself a logi c al ne c essity
Everyw h ere a str uggle a strivin g a g roaning and a
travailin g W h ere is t h e se c re t of it all ? C an we
nd it i n the lowest ? L oo k at the h i g hest the str iv
ing of the m ost h i gh ly developed human bein g s
?
?
W h at are they see k in g
Why are t h ey discontented
T h ey are discontente d because of their terrible lo neli
ness U nion is w h at t h ey see k a u nion of heart and
so ul I t i s what the h i gh est have often m ost di f c ulty
in ndin g O nl in others can a m n realize h imself
Viz

W
.

1 5 13

IS

the so u rce of passionate love 0 ar ent re igio n nay

eve n of t h e m ystic ecstacy that prom pts to withdrawal
,

U N I T Y OF

S E LFCON S C I O U S NE S S

77

from the d re ary wil d e rness o f commonplace human

soc i ety
That we ar e o ne w ith th e r e ason of things mak e s
a kno wl e dge of nature possi b le : that we are o ne w ith
ou
w
b
r
l
i
t
a
e
a
an
d
soc
i
ety
poss
i
b
l
e
k g rrip
g fellg
To ll up this m e r e formal u ifjffd rlii FTR RIt ts
complex d etail that is th e e n d e avour of all sci e nc e of
all morality
I S the fact o f pain enough to explain th e pr e s e nce of

?
an i d eal ( To get ri d o f pain
Ho w
Yes as a
matter of history But logica lly th e goo d must explain
the b a d
But j ust as th e s el f w hich is log ically presuppose d
in all kno wl e dge is only t h e b ar e form of s el f an d
r e c e iv e s its actual cont e nt from e vents w hich happ e n in
time an d ar e kno wn in experience so this end or good
which is the r e ali z ation o f t h e self is as a pr ior i as th e
con d ition o f morality o nly th e b ar e form of th e goo d
an d r e c e ive s its actual conte nt from e v e nts w hich hap
e n in tim e an d ar e k n o w n in exp e ri e nc e
Thus
to
b
ase
p
ethics on m e taph ysics d o e s not e xclu d e nor d isp e nse
u s from th e trou b l e o f stu d ying t h e facts o f e xp e r ie nc e
b ut th e v e ry rev e rs e I t Show s us th e n e c e ssity of ll
ing up th e e mpty form we start w ith by looking to all
th e availabl e facts an d us ing all availa b le m e tho d s of
study w ithout b e ing th e Slave of any I t might b e
sai d then if the question b e look e d at merely as a
d e b at e b e t w een t w o opposing schools : W hy make so
?
much no ise a b out so small a matte r If th e a p r ior i
th e ory amo u nts to nothing more than a fe w init ial
phras e s an d the w hol e har d work remains to b e d one
b y th e sam e study of facts in w hich th e empir icist is
alre a d y e ngag e d w hat a d vantage is o ffe re d b y a m e ta

?
ph ysical intro d uction to ethics
Is it not b ett e r to
put th e controv ersy asi d e altogether an d to j oin han d s
with th e empiric ist w hose starting point is much
more g enerally acc e pta bl e b ecaus e more gen e rally
.

0 . 0

M OR A L PH I LO S O PH Y

8
7

u n d erstood
To thi s we answer : T h e empiricist in
disclaim in g m etap h ysi c s is really wor k in g w ith a bad
m etap h ysi c s all the more mis c hievous be c a u se its
existe nc e is no t fu lly k nown Without a ck nowledgin g
it h e has made a g reat many as s u m ptions abo u t nature
and abo u t man wh ich Vitiate t h e m etho d s h e employs ;
and the proof of t h is is t h e contradiction in w h ic h h e
is involved
T h is doctrine of t h e tr% sceg dpntal and e mpirical
l
i
i
i
i
n
or
wh
atever
we
ch
oose
to
ca
ll
f
e
i
S
t
c ti
E
o
)
Eg (
c ontai ns noth in g w h ich conicts wit h any result t h at
can be arrived at through scienti c investig ation of
nature It m ay be perfectly tr u e to say that conscio u s
ness is a re s ult of a certain con g uration of the brain or
e nt
re
g
ardin
g
con
c
io
u
sness
as
an
ev
of
certain
condi
(
)
tions of non adaptation bet w een external stim u l u s and
internal nerve a c tion ? in t h e same sense as any other
physical res u lt is supposed to be explained by statin g its

c onditions and yet w e may as philosophers ( i e in our

atte m pt to u nderstand t h e world of experien c e not
partially b u t in its totality by as k in g w h at are t h e
ne c essary conditions of any experience ) maintain t h at
con s c iousness is t h e lo g ical presupposition of its own
m aterial c ondition B u t we mu st not g o on to trans
late t h at log i c al priority into a priority in time and
spea k in that sense of cons c io u sness existin g hcfor e mat
ter or of th e one existin g h efor e the m any ; and yet we
can q u ite well u nderstand t h e inevitable tenden c y and
ind u ce m ent to spea k in t h is way We ta k e up a posi
tion o ff erin g no c h allen g e of h ostility to t h e most
materialistic s c ientist u nless he becomes dogm atic on
m etap h y s ical questions and yet enablin g u s to u nder
stan d and appreciate w h at to h im m u st appear the
fantasti c ravin g s of t h e mo s t m ysti c al t h eolog ian T h is
do u ble a dvantag e of w h at we m ay allow to be c alled t h e
n
th
P h ys ic al Co nd it io ns f C o ns c io u s
M d l y art ic l
S
V l 1
p 4 89
n s
in M ind
,

i'

e s

ee

au

se
,

e o

S E LFC O N S C I O U S NE S S

OF

UN I T Y
N eo

79

Kantian position woul d of course of itself not

r ov e th e truth of it as a th e ory
though
it
w
oul
d
an
e
b
p
a dvantag e in its fav our as a hypoth e sis But supposing
th e theory to b e an inev ita b l e logical outcome o f our
analysis of the con d itions of exp e ri e nce th is d ou ble
a d v a ntag e is surely a striking co n rmat ion of its truth
I t is n ee d less to go ov er again th e w hole w eary
controversy with egoistic he d onist unive rsalistic
h e d onist h e d onist unaffe cte d an d h e d onist affe cte d
b y e volution
L e t us only notice a fe w points
w h ich ar e specially r elevant her e ( 1 ) W hat j usti e s
t h e h e d onis t in pass ing from th e proposition
sup
(

posing w e a d mit its truth ) Every s e nti e nt be ing

d o e s as a fact pursu e its o w n pleasure

to Eve ry
man ough t to pursue h is o wn pleasur e ( an o b ligation
w hich m ight se e m sup e ruous) an d from that to
E v e ry man ought to pursu e th e pleasur e o f other
m e n or of all oth e r s e nt ie nt b e ings e ve n if inc o n

sistent
w ith h is o wn (an o b ligation which se ems
contra d ictory ) ? ( 2 ) Ho w can th e evolutionist get
from a statement of w hat a s a matter o f fact h as
com e to b e as a result of th e struggle fo r existe nce
?
to a state me nt of w hat ought to b e
C an h e pass
from existence ( life ) or continuance of li fe to goo d
?
li fe
C an h e nd any other crit e rion of exc ell e nc e
?
How can h e talk a b out an ideal or
e xc e pt success
?
critici z e w hat e xists
Again it w ill b e foun d that th e conceptions of )
organism an d evolution if transfe rre d from the r ealm t
w ithout a r eco gni
o f nature to that of human soc iety
t ion o f th e fact of s elfconscious ne ss l ea d into hop ele ss
It is true that soc ie is
c ontra d ictio ns an d confusions
not ma d e b ut gro w s b ut it is not true that it m e r ely
gro w s I t makes itsel f b e cause it implies consciousn e ss
w
an d consc i ous di r e ct i on to an e nd
Again th e w h ole long controversy a b out the free
do m of th e w ill see ms insolu b le so long as the
-

M OR A L PH I L O S O PH Y

8o

cont e ntion is b e twee n the facts of observed experience

on the one Side w h ic h al w ays imply an uninte rrupted
succession of causes and e ff ects and o n t h e ot h er Si d e
the testimony of individual consciousness t h at we are
no t mere parts of nature and the apparent req u irement
of freedom for m orality I f a reco g nition that con
scio u sne ss involves a u niversal ele m ent
w h ich is not a
part of nat u re does not solve the w hole proble m it
puts t h e di f culty in a less m isleadin g w ay
To put this matter i n a di ffe rent way :
All we are contendin g for is t h at moral p h ilosophy
m ust begin wit h an exa m ination of the conceptions
wit h w h ich it has to deal N o w m orality implies
freedom and freedom i m plies the conscious direction o f
action towards an end S o t h at the conceptions t h at we
h ave to examine to start w ith are consciousness and end
,

S
H
P
E
R
SO
N
A
L
I
T
Y
A
N
D
O
C
I
E
TY
T
E
4
H I S T O R I C A L M E T H OD
I ntuitionist moralists h ave u sually started with t h e
con c eption of P er sona lity B u t this is to assume o ne o f
t h e most complex of all psycholo g ical and ethical
c onceptions without examination The m oral person is
really a more complex conception than t h e leg al person
whic
h
latter
com
es

rst
as
a
m
atter
of
etymolo
g
y
(
)
B ot h i
a h i h l developed Soc i ety and to be a
.

of individu alitya for ds p b asis

for morals I t 18611137 1 11 SO far as w e are not m ere
indi du als that we are capable of moral action
The
f so c i ty
R at h r R igh t i
Righ t i d p nd n t n th w l far
Wh n th i t u it io nist ( P U pto n) o bj c ts
th w l far
f so c i ty
t h ic s ( id a f r ig h t nd w ro ng ) i pr im ary ; pol it ic s (inst it u t io ns ) i
s c o nd ary h f ls prop rly n o ug h t h at m oral ity i f g r at r
im porta n c t h a n inst it t io ns t h at in d iv id u al ch ara c t r i a ft r all th
ss nt ial t h ing nd t h at inst it u t io n s
o nly g oo d so f as t h y
n
c o n tr ibu t to ind iv id u al g oo d n ss ; b u t h i m isl d b y th t im
n otat io n in th
w or d s h u s s nd u ppos s t h at t h g oo d in d iv idu al

-v

'

-i f s
r u in

e o

ar

ar e

ro

ee

e co
-

T H E H I S TORI C A L M ETHO D

81

implicit contra d iction w h ich there is i n th e simpl e fact

of s elf consciousn e ss is th e sam e d i f culty a s th e
d i f culty o f e xplaining th e re lation of th e in d ivi d ual to
society Thus e thics cannot w it h out loss b e stu d i e d
apart from politics or if th e w i d e r mo d ern term b e
pre fe rre d soci o logy Plato s Socrate s go e s to th e

larg e l e tt e rs to rea d th e nature of j ustic e an d w e

w oul d d o w ell to follo w h is example Ar istotl e w hil e
d i ffe rentiating e thics from politics r egar d s it as N ;
I t is o ne o f th e a d vantag e s w h ich we o we to th e
S
inu en ce of th e conc e ption of e volution in e thics that
man as a moral b e ing is again stu d i e d in r elat ion to h is
social environment To b egin w ith th e mean ing of
p e rsonality in its e l f apart fro m all relation to soci e ty to
discuss th e d ut ie s o f a man to hims el f an d th e n to go
on to d iscuss his d ut ie s in r elation to others is a m e tho d
o f proce d ure w hich is responsi b l e for many fallac ie s
It
is much sa fer to b egin w ith th e mor e o b vious circl e of
social o b ligation an d to work in w ard s to th e rar e r
r e cognition of o b ligationsif th e re b e such
w hich ar e
pure ly p e rsonal T his has the a d vantag e of b e i ng not
The
only th e e asi e r b u t th e historical m e tho d

historical m e tho d has b e e n o f late so much spok e n

of that it is no w on d er if som e w hat of a react ion Shoul d
And th e r e ar e some w rit e rs w ho n e e d
se t in against it
to b e remi n d e d t h at b es id e s tracing the origi n an d
gro w th of institutions an d ideas it is important to ask
ourselv e s w hat is th e valu e of thes e institutions an d
th e se i d eas as they now stan d B e caus e th e institution
h as ha d its p e d igr ee trac e d b ack to a r e mot e past it
does not follow that th e instit u tion has no valu e no w
nor on the other han d that it can claim exempt ion from
-

7r o

TI

7 ucr

as n ind iv idu al m r ly w it h h i ot io ns f g oo d ss pr c d d th
so c ial inst it u t io ns
First th in d iv idu als t h n t h so c i ty c o m pos d
f th m
or th ind ividu als m igh t x ist
i tr u in t h is s ns t h at th
ot h rw is t h a n as m m b rs f t h is t h at so c i ty b u t n t s uch
in d iv idu als
w k no w t h m
a

e e

s n

as

ese

or

ne

ose

as

M ORA L PH I L O S O PH Y

82

criticis m B ecause we h ave found out ho w an idea came

to b e h eld it does not follow eit h er that that id e a is
ri g ht and usefu l or that it is wron g and harmful T h e
a d equate study of either institu tions or ideas requires
both an h istorical examination of h ow t h ey came to be
what t h ey are and of what t h eir value now is If it
was the ten d ency of the con dent and h opeful ration
a lism of t h e 1 8
th century to ne g le c t ori g ins t h er e is an
opposin g tendency now sometimes prevalent to neglect
t h e enquiry as to rationality and to despair of truth or
to acquiesce i n evils imag inin g that t h e s tudy of politi c s
and la w and morals consists only in translatin g t h e
present into term s of the past
It was t h e fallacy of the older rationalists to su p
pose that whatever purpose (g ood o r evil ) an institu
tion or custo m served now for that purpose it h ad
been deliberately instituted T h u s superstitious usag es
were supposed to h ave been invented by priests wit h
the m alicious i ntention of debasin g the intelle c t
When w e nd institutions and custom s defended
beca u se they have a venerable an d interestin g past
we sometimes Sigh for the Sharp question of the old
fashioned utilitarian : What g ood purpose do they
?
serve no w
Thus if t h e h istorical method b e re c om m ended in
ethics and politics this must not be taken a s e x cludin g
the estimation of wort h fo r h u man life
.

S
O
F
A
Y
S
T
E
M
O
F
E
T
H
I
C
S
5
L et us map out a schem e for a syste m of et h ics :
Ethics i s the s c i e nce of man as capable of realizin g
an ideal in conduct 1 The spe c ially p h ilosop h ical or
metap h ysic al part of ethics will therefore consist i n
an e x amination of the questions : ( I ) Ho w does m a n
?
come to h ave an ideal of conduct
What ma k es
?
o
d
2
the conception of go or end possible
How
(
?
is he capable of realizin g it
W h at m a k es r e edo m
.

Sc H EM E

S CHE M E

OF A

S Y S TE M OF

E TH I C S

83

possi b le ? This is moral philosophy or the meta

physic of ethics
I I The historical part w ill consist in tracing the
changes an d growth of th e i d eas o f goo d which man
kin d in d i ffe re nt ages have hel d a nd sinc e the i d e als
o f any a e are relat ive to that a e
must
inclu
d
e also
g
g
a consi d e ration of the progr e ss of mankin d in the
attainm e nt of their i d e als Y e t it is the rst o f th e se
e nquiri e s which sp e cially b elongs to ethics as an h is
t o r ical scie n ce
This is the science of e thics an
historical sci e nc e only
S ince th e d i ffe r e nt portions of the human rac e hav e
attain e d v e ry d i ff e re nt degr e es of d evelopm e nt the
stu d y of th e pres e nt con d ition an d i d e as of lo w er rac e s
will come to th e sam e th ing ( only more so) w ith th e
stu d y o f th e e arli er con d it ions an d i d eas of h igher
races Thus the comparative m e tho d com e s in to
suppl e m e nt the historical
II I T h e practical part must consi de r the various
d uties w hich lie b efor e man in th e attainm ent of h is
i d e al as it no w exists an d the various virtu e s or
goo d qualities w hich consist in the ha b itual te nd enci e s
to striv e for the ful lm e nt of th e se various d uties
Th e se d uties an d virtu e s have commo nly b e en classi
e d an d d isti nguishe d from the po int of vi ew of
psychology ; b ut it is b e tter to tak e th e various r ela
t ions e x isting in society as a starting point an d con
Si d er w ith r egar d to them w hat d uti e s they s ev e rally
give rise to This proce dure cannot b e calle d e ith e r
exclusiv ely d e d uctive or exclusively in d uctive T his
is the art of e thics

E
S
A
E
T
H
I
C
S
A
P
H
I
L
O
S
O
P
H
I
CAL
C
I
E
N
C
D
I
FFE
R
6
( )
EN C E B ETW EE N P H I L O S O P H Y A N D S C I EN C E

moral philosophy rather

T h e choice of th e nam e

than the apparently less am b itious moral science

p
n
i
m
w
i
D
C f Schu r m a
Eth i l I mp t o
3
f
.

n,

ca

or

ar

M OR A L PH I L O S O PH Y

84

implies the assertion of the claim of ethics to ran k

not only as a science but as a p h ilosophical sci e nce
Mr H
S pencer
has de ne d science as b e ing
partially uni e d kno w led ge as distinct fro m k now

led g e o f t h e lowe st k ind w hich is

u n u ni e d

k nowledge and philosop h y as completely uni fied

k nowledge (Fir st P r incip les p

So far t h is
expresses t h e distinction very well Philosophy is or
rather it a ttemp ts to he ( for it is not
but
only
c f
p
h
f
(

r
the
u
ni
cation
of
our
k
nowled
g
e
c
M
p
p )
S pencer s distinction is however open to the o bje c
tion t h at it appears to place or d inary k nowled g e
scien c e philosophy in a continuously ascendin g scale
i n respect of uni cation
N o w it is quite tr u e that
the scienti c man k no w s t h in g s i n a connected and
c o ordinated way which t h e unscienti c
man k nows
only as scattered an d unrelated facts The scienti c
man holds h is k nowled g e to g ether by a h 3 7 8 63v
Z B (Plato M eno); but this is only one aspect of
t h e case To t h e u nscienti c man the world of p h e
no m e na appears a unity of a sort j ust because h e h as
not yet reecte d on it and has ta k en all the ideas by

t h e help of which h e envisag es it

ready made
T h e scienti c thin k er has to begi n b y brea k i ng up this
m erely accepted u nity by taking it to pieces and
studyin g it in its separate parts i e h e h as to u se a
m ethod of criticism and a b straction The su n and

moon to t h e ordinary m an are well j u st t h e su n

and moon : t h eir relations to one anot h er and to the
eart h etc if k nown at all are taken for g ranted B u t
It
th e su n m ay be studied in very di ffer e nt ways
may be considere d physically as a m ass of matter
c o m in g under ( i e illustratin g) the law of g ravitation
W h at i p h ilosop h y N t a s c i nc alo ng s id f th ot h r s c i nc s
ls it wo u l d b a h a m s c i nc o ntolo gy l ik al c h m y nd astrolo g y
A pr im ros
b y th r iv r s b r im

to h im
A y llo w pr im ros w
?

a o

oo o

i/

a 7 u

66

10

e,

e o

as

AND

P H I LO S OP H Y

S C I E NC E

85

or it may b e co nsi d e re d chem ically an d its el e m e nts

studie d b y Spectrum analysis

T h e various
things
of the ord inary w orl d ar e b rok e n up for purposes of
stu d y N ew an d previously unsusp e cte d r elat ions in
d e e d d isclose thems elves But on the w hole th e dis
tinctive characte rist ic of the scienti c as compar e d w ith
th e or d inary w ay o f lookin g at nature is the t e n d e ncy
to analyz e to d iss e ct to Sp e ciali z e Of cours e we

are using
scienc e h e r e in the s e ns e in w hich
it d e note s the var ious special sciences A nci e nt or
me d iaeval sci e nc e att e mpt e d to range ove r th e w hol e
d omain of things k no wab le ( an d sometim e s over a goo d
d eal of the unkno w ab l e also) I t is the wis d om o f
the mo d e rn scie n c e s to rul e b y d ivi d ing This is
one of the r e asons o f th e appar e nt conict b e tw een
th e sci e nt i c t e mperam e nt an d t h e rel igious or artistic
temperam e nts Analysis se ems to hav e sapp e d faith
an d to hav e kille d b eauty R elig ion w hich impli e s a
th e ory o f the univ e rse as well a s a rule o f l ife cannot
give up her aspirations a ft e r unity h er lo nging fo r th e
Simplicity an d w holen e ss of a ch il d s b el ief And th e
po e t an d th e paint e r se e k to e nter also into their
h eavenly king d om b y b e coming as little chil d r en
Human beings app ear as the actors in a d rama T h e
mountains c e as e to illustrat e g e ological formation an d
b ecome transforme d to amethyst in the light of sun
W hat religion an d art d o for th e emotions an d
se t
more or less unconsciously philosophy tri e s to d o
consciously for th e intell ect T h e greate st sci e nti c
min d s have all in dee d th e philosophic impulse as w ell ?
Th ey are not content with mere special ization b ut
insist on se e ing t hings in the totality o f th e ir r elations
Eve ry o ne if o nly through th e ne e d s of practical life
r e tains much of the prim itive an d w hat we may call the
But
w
hat
philosophy
r e scie nti c spirit of uni catio n
p
th
P ti
C f Karl P arso ( Eth i f F
Th gh t) i Essay
t ti n f S i n
init a b o u t H ux l y
.

c e ce :

n
.

c o

ou

r ee

on

r os

M OR A L PH I L O S O PH Y

86

attempts to do is to recover a u nity consciously

Every one has a way of envisag ing the universe of nature
and man as a w hole to himself ; i e every one h as h is
ow n s stem o m etap hysics
Philosophy
is
the
endeavour
y
f
by criticizin g and examinin g this unconscio u s meta
physics to avoid its defects and to eliminate its errors
T h u s there need be no opposition between t h e most

gen u inely positive scienti c spirit and a ph ilo so

h
i
of
ultimate
proble
m
s
t
h
ere
may
be
cal study
:
p
b e t w een a hastily formed and h alf conscious meta
p h ysi c s and a fuller re c og nition of all t h at is implied
i n the con c eptions wh ich t h e ordinary man and t h e
scienti c specialists are ali k e compelle d to u se w it h out
complete examination Philosophy has after all a not
very ambitious but a not quite useless tas k to pe r
form in criticizin g th e terms t h at are usually ta k en
on trust in askin g for the meanin g of all th e little
words t h at the best of dictionaries leaves u nexplained
H ence it is apt to appear a dispute about w ords merely
All this ad m its of spe c ial application i n t h e case of
et h ics Just because ethics d eals wit h c onduct whic h
is everyone s concern practi c ally no one c an approac h
eth ical questions without vie w in g them in relatio n to
t h e g eneral theory of the universe or at le ast of h uman
nature And it is best that this relation of ethical to
g eneral philosop h ical ( metap h ysic al) questions Should
be expli c itly seen and attended to M etaphysics if
they are a very dan g erous sea in w h ic h many brig ht
i ntellects have su ffered Shipwre ck are best encountered
in the clearest li gh t Not h in g is g ained in t h e lon g
ru n by S hir k in g an enquiry into the meanin g of t h e

little words o ug ht and w ill

I t h as been as k ed w h y cannot ethics be as indepe n
dent o f p syc h olo g y ( and of metap h ysics ) as g eometry
T h e g eometri c ian does not nd it necessary to discuss
the que s tion of the nature of space nor t h e question of
t h e nature and ori g i n of o u r k nowled g e of S pa c e W h y
.

ETH I C S A ND M ET A P HY S I C S

87

Shoul d the sci e nti c moralist think it i ncum b e nt on

him to d iscuss the natur e o f kno wle dge g e n e rally the
?
natur e o f fe eling e motion
d e sir e will
T h e ans we r
to th is s e ems simpl e T h e assumption o f spac e b y th e
g e om e trician is an o b vious o ne an d caus e s no a m
b igu ity
W h e n he speaks o f li ne s an d tria ngl e s th e r e
is no risk of our b e ing caught u nawar e s in t h e m e sh e s
of a th e ory a b out th e a p r ior i or a p oster ior i charact e r
o f our kno w l e d g e o f Spac e
T h e fact that from c e rta in
axioms an d d e nitions b y th e h elp o f construct ions o f
imaginary p e rfection an d w ith assumptio n o f th e la w
o f contra d ict ion th e g e ometric ian can arr iv e at num b e r
l e ss re sults w h ich h e co nsi d ers of a b solute c e rtainty a nd
w hich more ov e r a d mit of important an d satisfactory

application in practical matte rs this fact is som e thing

w hich th e psycholog ist an d m e taphys ic ian must tak e
account o f an d account for if th ey can But th e
g e om e trician 9u h ge om e tricia n n e e d not trou bl e h im
sel f at all a b out t h e ph ilosophical controv e rsies that
have rage d roun d th e el d of h is sci e nce I f e th ics
w e re a d e d uctiv e scie nc e starting w ith a c ertain nu m b e r
o f d e nite moral rul e s d e riv e d from some sourc e of
e xt e rnal or int e rnal inspirat ion assum e d to b e infalli b l e

th e school
if
moral
th
of
e ology
e thics w e r e th e
(
m e n) th e n th e moralist m ight occ u py h ims elf in
d rawing th e in fere nc e s as to con d u ct w hich w o u l d
r e sult from t h e application o f th e s e r u l e s s eparat ely
an d in combination to partic u lar cases ( or rather to
particular cla sses of cases ) But th e mo d e rn sci e nti c
moral ist d oes not occupy hims elf w ith casuistry or d o e s
so only in or d e r to discove r w hat th e ultimate principl e s
a r e accor d ing to w hich con d uct is ( b y or d inary fa ir
min d e d persons ) consi d e re d r ight an d w rong W h e n
t h e moral ist ass e rts that th e moral qual ity o f an act
d ep en d s upon the int e ntion b u t not upo n th e motive
or upon b oth it b ecom e s ess e ntial to e xplain w hat h e
means b y intention an d motive ; for th e se terms ar e
,

M O R A L PH I L O S O PH Y

88

certainly not used in ordinary lan g uage in the sa m e

unam b i g uous sense as line and trian gle If h e says
we m ust j u dg e ultimate ly by reference to character it
is necessary to k now what is meant by c h aracter T h e
very assertion that th e controversy about free will
is irr e levant in t h e science of ethics implies a certain
View about t h e proper limits of t h at controversy
b e c aus e obviously morality is i n some sense dependent
on freedom and o n volition and t h ese ter m s are not
unambi g uous b u t weigh ted wit h controversies
How can we distin g uis h m a n fro m na tu r e ( and S O
sa
that
ethics
i
s
not
one
of
th
e
sciences
of
nature
y
)
?
wit h out brin g in g in metap h ysics or insist t h at man
is a part of nature without brin g in g in a di fferent
?
m etaphysics
I t is impossible for the moralist to
de ne t h e term s of h is science wit h out facin g contro
versies w h ich m ust carry him into psycholo g y and into
m etaphysics All t h e attempts to cut o ff ethics from
philosophy result in an increase instead of a diminution
of t h e confusion that surrounds it Th e ease and
S i m plicity wh ic h are thereby attained are only delusive
There is indeed a large province which as we contend
ou g ht to form a part of ethics in w h ich a g reat
amount of wor k can be and h as been d one without
m etaphysi c al di f culties needin g to be encountered at
every step Viz t h e history of moral ideas Even here
it is necessary to k now t h e metap h ysical bias of t h e
writer so that we m ay be on our guard ag ainst the
interpretations he is li k ely to put on t h e facts he
records There are e g vario u s aspects of t h e m orality
o f sava g es w h ic h wo u l d admit of a di fferent interpreta
tion accordi ng as the reporter was an intuitionist or
But this sort of a m bi g uity need not
a n e mpiricist
in practice trouble us much The intuitionist and the
individualist empiricist have been only too prone to
neglect the historical study of m orals ass u min g t h e
in d ividual man as they k now h i m i n t h emselves and
.

E TH I C S A ND M E TA PHY S I C S

89

their frien d s as th e type of mankin d gen e rally an d

regar d ing p e opl e at a very d i ffere nt stage as exceptions
an d ve ry likely e xpressly or implic itly hol d ing all

savages to b e literally d egra d e d

The prominence
of th e evolution th e ory has le d to more valua b le
results Prim itive races an d civilize d are no longer
put alongs id e o f o ne anoth e r fo r th e purpos e s o f com
pariso n an d e d ifying r e marks as to th e corrupt inuenc e s
intro d u c e d b y civili z ation or th e moral d arkn e ss o f
thos e rac e s w hich ar e not illuminate d b y th e light of
the G ospel We ar e e nab l e d to look at mankin d as
a w hol e going through d i ffe rent stag e s Eve n h e re
un d ou b t e dly a d e nite form ula ab out e volution is apt
to l ea d to a c e rtai n amount of narro w ness in statem e nt
Mr H Sp e nc e r has b ee n foun d fault w ith on this
groun d b y oth e r anthropologists an d sociologists An d
M Le tourn e au w ho is o ne of his accus e rs un d ou b t e d ly
h imself su ff ers from a b ias of his o w n v iz an irr el evant
importation of F r e nch anti cl e rical ism into the stu dy
of primitiv e id eas an d institutions
On th e w hole th e colle ctio n o f facts a b out th e moral
i d eas an d practic e s o f mankin d at d iffe rent p e rio d s so
far as it is car e fu lly an d accurat e ly d on e is not in d ee d
a part of b ut a valua bl e material fo r e th ics Th e
interpre tation o f thes e facts must b e un de rtak e n b y th e
moral ist ; an d th e possi b ility o f an int e rpr e tation w hich
shall t in w ith an d not d istort th e facts must s e rve as
an important test o f th e valu e of any e thical theory
,

,
.

M OR A L PH I L O S O P H Y

o
9

i ntellig ible to our reason than t h e evolutionist leaves it

T h e i d e alist holds that the presence of an i d eal cannot
b e merely th e result of an ethical de velopment because
it is the c on d ition of the possi b ility of suc h a develop
ment To explain t h e existence of an i d eal of con d uct
at all m u st be the attempt of t h e ethical metap h ysician ;
to trace the development of the content of that i d eal is
the w or k of the ethical historian ; to trac e its rise in the
cons c iousness of each in d ivid u al and its e ffect on his
feelin g s sentim e nts etc is the w or k of the eth ical
psycholo g ist ; to examine existing practices and institu
tions an d pr e valent opinions i n the lig h t of the ideal as
it has now come to be is th e w or k of the practical
moralist Et h ics m ust remain an imperfect science
S O far as it wants any of these bran c h es thus indicated ;
and if some of them or all Of them must necessarily
always be inco m plete it will follow that ethics m ust
always re m ain an incomplete science i e a philosophy
rather than a scien c e an aspiration to k nowle d ge
a love or desire of k nowled g e rat h er than k no wled g e as
som ethin g attained
F rom w h at h as been said about this di fferenc e
bet w een philosophy and the sciences t h e re follo w two
apparently contra d ictory results ( 1 ) that philosop h y
mu st al ways be somet h in g individual and subj ective and
that every one has to construct his philosophy afresh
and ( 2 ) that the wor k s of the g reat philosophers of the
past never lose their value or become out of date
The sciences are obj ective and the personal element
enters into t h em as little as possible The student o f

any particular branc h of science simply as such need

not c are w heth e r a sci e nti c theory was discovered t h ree
h undred years ag o or yester d ay He only as k s w hether
it is tr u e or if it is stil l only a hypothesis wh e ther it is
t h e latest and best on the subj ect He need not car e
w h et h er its aut h or was of one country or anot h er
Cf 5 p
84
.

T HE H I S T ORY

E TH I C S

OF

contri b utions to math e matics of Eucli d D escart es

L ei b niz New ton may b e un d erstoo d irrespective of any
kno wl e dge a b out th e ir d ates or nationalitie s Again it
is for th e sam e reason that scienti c t ext b ooks b e come
antiquate d The n e w er ab sorb the re sults of the
earlier The a d vance of a scienc e is a continual b uil d
ing up I t is constantly ma d e a reproach to ph ilosophy
an d som e tim e s specially to moral philosophy that in it
there is no progress I n o ne s e nse this is tru e ; b u t
it is in evita b le
Moral ph ilosophy cannot b e foun d
r ea d y to our han d in a ny text b ook E ve ryone h as to
think out his ph ilosophy o f con d uct fo r h imself if he
w ish e s to hav e a philosophy of con d uct at all B u t j ust
b e cause th e pro b l e ms hav e to b e face d ane w b y e v e ry
one the att e mpts ma d e to solve th e m b y th e gr e at
think e rs o f th e past n eve r lose th e ir value They were
facing our pro b l e ms an d ye t not our pro b l e ms : one o f
o u r r e asons for stu d ying th e m is just to se e th e d i ffe r
enc e an d to un d erstan d the form in w hich our
questions have come to us The philosophic solutions
o f o ne a e b ecom e e m b e dd e d in th e or d inary languag e
g
an d curr e nt set o f i d eas which give ris e to th e pro ble ms
of a late r time W e cannot a dd an ethical result
attain e d by Kant to an e thical re sult attain e d b y
Aristotle ; b ut w e must to un de rstan d our e thical
pro b lems consi d er t h e way in w hich th ey hav e b e e n
a ffe ct e d b y th e successive ans w ers an d mo d es o f tr eat
m e nt in d iff e rent ag e s Thus the history of ethics is
really an int egral part of e th ics its elf Properly to face
the qu e stio ns of obligation or o f fre e w ill we must
kno w ho w th ese cam e to b e e thical questions ; an d to
do this we must go b ac k not only on th e e thical ph il
o so h er s o f t h e past b ut on th e history pol itical and
p
rel ig ious of th e ir time s w hich h elpe d to rais e into pro
m ine nc e fo r th e m certain questions rather than oth e rs
Here we have th e conn e ction b e t w een the metaphysical
an d historical elem e nts of moral philosophy
Th e

E T H I C A L EN D
In t h e u ses of t h e word end we m ust distin gu is h

w
the
end
as
t
h
e
last
sta
g
e
rea
ch
ed
In
this
1
s
( p )
( )
sense deat h is t h e end of life ( 2 ) The end as t h e
c ompletion
or perfe c tin g of anythin g In this
sense t h e continuation of the species is the end of t h e
reproductive syste m in or ganic b e in gs
In
t
h
e
case
3
)

of hu man bein g s at least

en d s in this latter sense
m ay be c onscio u sly and deliberately a im ed at or in
tended i e se t before our minds as objects to h e
obtained not though t of m erely as so m ethin g wh ic h
will or m ay follo w but as so m ethin g which we c hoose
and endeavour to ma k e our own M etap h orically we
are constantly in t h e h abit of transferrin g t h is third

meanin g into the second The positive scienti c

spirit h as often to ma k e a spe c i al struggle to leave it
out B u t in ethics it is wit h the third meaning alone
that we h ave to do The et h ical end is w hat men more
or less conscio u sly aim at in their conduct T h us it
will be seen that t h e free will whic h is an indispensable
c ondition of m orality m ea ns only the capacity of settin g
befo r e u s consciou sly t h e ends to he attained i e free
will depends on ( 1 ) the fact of consciousness and ( 2 )

t h e presen c e of an ideal or oug ht to be

6

B
T
HE
( )

W I L L T o LI V E
The w h ole of or ganic nat u re everythin g that h as
life is perpetually stru ggling to pres e rve an d to further
its life Observation e xperien c e tells us t h is B u t

t h is stru ggle for existence even in its S implest stages

has a twofold aspect T h ere is t h e stru ggle for the
preservation of individual existence Pain and death
are as we say instinctively avoided And t h ere is t h e
struggle for the continuance of the life of t h e species
Now these two natural instincts or endeavours ( cona tus)
may i n m any cases conict Th e lower we g o in t h e
TH E

WI LL

TH E

TO

L I VE

93

scal e of organization the more rec kl ess se ems the waste

o f in d ivi d ual life ;
in other w or d s the less seems th e
w orth or signi canc e of the in d ivi d ual Progr e ss s e ems
to carry along w ith it th e d iminution o f wast e Instea d
of th e co nt inuance o f th e spec ie s b e ing s e cure d b y mere

pro d igality in th e pro d uction of in d iv iduals Natur e

making th e in d ivi d ual mor e compl e x makes it also
th e re b y more tt e d to maintain it s o w n life an d to
e nsur e t h e pr e s e rvation of that o f its d im in ish e d o ff
Spr i ng
W h e n we com e on the fact of consc ious ness th e n
we have th e pre servation of in d ivi d ual l ife an d the
pre s e rvation o f the li fe o f th e spe c ie s ma d e t h e o bj e cts

e ffort
Th e
w ill to live which a
o f d el ib e rat e
conj ectural m e taphysics traces b ack not only into th e
unconscious b ut e ve n into the ins e nti e nt an d i norganic
is an el e m e nt in human natur e of w hich human b e ings
are conscious B u t w ith consc iousn e ss th e r e also com e s
th e d e l ib e rat e b alanc ing o f alternative s th e rais ing o f
t h e q u e stion w h e ther or at l e ast u nd e r w hat con d itio ns
li fe is w orth livi ng T h e hen b ir d w ill face d e ath in
the e ffort to protect h e r h elpl e ss b roo d b ut so far as
we can tell She d o e s not b alanc e in h e r m in d th e
resp e ctiv e a d va ntag e s of cont inuing to live w ithout h er
you ng on e s an d risking th e loss o f h er o w n life on th e
cha nce of pre s e rving th e irs
We may put it to our
s elv e s in that way b ut we se e m safer in saying that th e
instincts o f race pre s e rvation ar e w orki ng unconsciously
But th e human b e ing is capa bl e of
in h e r actio n s
d eli b e rat e s el shn e ss or s elf sacr ice Much d ou b tless
e specially in lo w e r rac e s or less cultivat e d natures is as
instinct iv e as in th e life o f th e other a nimals ; b ut it is
possi b le to w e igh th e a d vantage s of each cours e in th e
s cal e s o f th e i nt ell ect an d to pronounce th e j u dgme nt
this is b e tter
An d it is here we can d isc e rn the
Y
b u t h o w much pro g r ss i t h r i m r vol u t io n
Cf p 3 3
,

e s,

e e

e e e

M OR A L PH I L O S O PH Y

94

distinction

between the m ere desire for life an d the

desire for g ood life for a life wort h living : the

conscious choosin g between a better and a worse An
examination of t h e facts of hu m an c onduct loo k ed at in
the same line wit h the facts of animal life generally
bri ng s u s to t h e same point to whic h a philosop h ical
criticism of t h e condition of the possibility of k no wle dg e

leads u s v iz a recog nition of the conception of an

o u gh t tp be as conditionin g cond u ct and e ffif

SOm e t h in g s are not merely de s ired but t h ey are
j udg ed to be desir a hle It will be said t h e desirable
is w h at experience has s h own to be conducive to t h e
maintenanc e of life ( of t h e individual or of t h e species
or of bot h ) ; t h e g ood lifg jsjp pgthat sort of ljfe whic h
is not inco nsistepgv
g
g

t
Y
g
g
m p jiy gg gh
W
h en ce a r v
II E to e x plain or j ustify this c onsideration
?
for t h e lives of ot h ers and on the other h and where
?

n
are we to d any limitation for it
W here do we g et
the standard by which a balance is Struc k bet ween an
eg oism w h ic h would sacri ce everyt h in g to the clin g in g
to individual life and an altruism which would sacri ce
everyth in g to t h e m ere c ontinuance of the race irre
s ec tiv e of any re g ard for t h e individuals who compose
p
?
it
T h e stri k in g of such a balanc e implies a conception

of good
better and worse a discontent wit h
what si m ply is a dissatisfaction w ith m e re existence
T h is is t h e truth of Pessi m ism When t h e will to live
be c omes cons c ious of itself it turns round ( reects) an d

sees t h at w h at is is not all very g ood but very far

fro m it is not what it ou g ht to be B u t t h is j u dg in g and
c on demnin g of w h at is implies the presence of an ideal
by reference to w h ic h alone c an the existent be j ud g ed
and c onde m ned Now that there should be an ideal
a g ood of some sort we have seen to be already i m plied
in the c onditions of k nowled g e ; so t h at t h e introduction
of this m etap h ysical conception or form c l e ars u p at
on c e the fa c ts as revealed by e x perience and e x plains
.

S E LF R E A L I Z A T I ON

95

the relative truth an d th e shortcom ings of a great

philosophical an d rel igious system A d mit the valid ity
o f this concept ion that th e r e is an id eal a goo d an d we
can interpret b y re ad i ng b ackwar d s the vagu e strivings
of all lo w er li fe as th e unconsc ious grasp ing afte r that
w hich the more fully forme d consciousness d eli b erat ely

makes an e nd fo r e ffort ( We say a dvise dly more

fully forme d b ecaus e in virtue o f our d ou b le natur e

a self w hich is an d w hich as

e t is not
w
e can kno w
y
th a t we ar e
e t only very part ially e mancipat e d from
y
th e b l in d an d insti n ctiv e impuls e s of nat u r e )
This
conc e ption o f a goo d or an id e al we have s e e n to b e
logically r equ ire d ; b ut suppos e for th e mom e nt that it
is a m e re hypoth e s is as a hypoth e sis it w ill have th e
m e rit o f cle aring up many d if culti e s an d reconciling
many oth e rw is e irr e concila b le an d ye t d e fe nsi b le i d eas
.

R EA L I Z ATI O N A N D M O RA L P R O G R ESS
a re a d sai d all that is a zor z i ve n i s the
m

S EL F
AS

m ere

con d ition o f know ing an d b e ing an d the i d eal fo r

emotion an d con d uct ; b ut to kno w this mak e s u s
non e th e b e tte r mak e s us no ne th e near e r to reali z ing
G o d in our o w n souls an d so r eally kno w ing him
nl e ss we s e e k among our
not
m
u
e rely th a t h e is
(
)
fe llo w m e n w hat 3
rev ea s im se to us i n m an b ecom e s man to save
us i e to make us like hims elf to restore us to
hims elf T his is only a n expression of the sam e
thing in th e customary language o f the C hristian
r elig ion ) No w this self is not the m e r e in d iv id ual
self The
m f gifa th e gfaticatio n

I s it x p d i t to
a m f G d at all i w or ki g
th
t h ic s ? Y to v i d ic at o u r cla im
t a p h ilosop h ic al
,

ou

en

u se

e s,

M O R A L PH I L O S O P H Y

6
9

of the wis h es and desire s of our own self in oppositio n

to and distinction from others turns the m e re natural
stru ggle for existe nce into a d eliberate war of all
against all T h e life of deliberate s elf
see k in g and

s elf gr ati catio n is only possible for so m e because

ot h ers are not as bad as t h ey Complete and u niversal
sel s h n e ss i s unthin k able We can only h ave tem
and
partial
g
limpses
of
suc
h
a
state
of
nat
u
re
o r ar
p
y
as anarc h y a vision of hell Th is is a ne g ative proof
of t h e validity of righ teousness ( as it is arg ued by
S ocrates in Plato R ep I n 3 5 1 D no society can
h old tog ether unless base d on j ustice of some sort)
Thus the gp o d to be
must be in some
se m
co m
g
The
self
o n good
f
b

iz e d must
pj
b e a se lf iii h ar iOny with other selves
T h e g rowth
of t h e c ommuni ty whic h is co nsidere d as extending
from the fam ily to t h e tribe to the nation perhaps in
the e nd to m an k ind is the h istory of moral pro g ress
If we say the en d i s self realization this seem s
to m ake t h e end entirely relative to the indivi d ual
m
v
f
i

T
h
e
g
oo
d
becomes
equivalent
to
g
( p
p )
the apparent g ood Well it is tr u e that ev e ry o ne
does pursu e as g ood w h at seems to him g ood d oe s
see k to realize the self w h ich he is to follow his nature
B u t t h is does not require us to say t h at there is no
obj ective standard no absolute end whi ch all
to follow W h at each one is is very m u ch the result
of h is surroundin g s The man is what hi s society
ma k es h im The d eliberately sel s h self see k in g man
i e t h e man whose self i ncludes as far as possible
no reference to social ends or aims is t h e enemy of
society ; and society treats h i m as su ch by puttin g
its o wn
h im to deat h when necessary
c c or i ts m em bers not merely
s ak e r o v1 des a c
for its preservation its being but in m or e advance d
A society
stages at least for its well b e ing also
may be preser ved , but in a b efter or in an inferio r
,

VAh

oJD.

czu

ro

"

M ORA L

PROGRE S S

97

condition Thus we have to b ring ethics into con

ne c tio n with politics
Moral progr e ss consists ( I ) in an enlarg e m e nt in
th e list o f virtues b ut still more
in
an
e xt e nsion
2
( )
of the range o f persons to w hom Ob l igations ar e
du e
T h e soc ial s elf b e com e s e xt e n d e d
Thus th e
gro w th o f consci e nc e is inte nsive an d exte nsive
Moral progre ss is to b e measure d b y a d vance rather
in the id eal of con d uct than in th e actual appr o x i
mation to th e id e al of th e tim e Som e a d vanc e s in
th e i d e al m ay r e n d e r th e r e ali z ation o f th a t i d e al mor e
d i f cult tha n was the approximation to a prev ious
an d lo w e r an d leSS compl ex i d eal
Moral progress is r en d ere d possi b le b y th e fact
of consciousn e ss Thos e in divi d uals w ho come to
u n d e rstan d an d r e e ct on th e soci e ty roun d th e m
se e t h e g e r m s o f an id e al b eyon d w hat oth e rs hav e
grasp ed an d from th e ir new po int of Vi e w can critici z e
th e d e fe cts o f e x isting i nstitutions an d i d e as
I t is
not o f its elf a proof that a soci e ty is d is ease d wh e n
it pro d uces many who co nd e mn it T h e analogy o f
the b o d y w h e r e d iscom fort argu e s b a d h e alth might
mislea d us unl e ss we lim it it to such d iscom fort as
make s p e opl e anxious to nd a r e m e dy T h e h e alth ie st

soci e ty as thi ngs go in an imp e rfe ct worl d w ill b e

that w hich is most capa b l e of criticiz ing ga of m ending
igsel
T h e most hop el e ss stag e is th e fo r po r that
pre c ed e s d e ath b ut w hich may b e mis tak e n fo r h ealthy
r e pos e
H e re is th e place o f the int ell e ctual Virtu es
an d d uties T h e re is e xcell e nc e not only in d o ing
R p u b l ic a fr d o m w as fo ugh t f
by th c it i s f Flor c
or B r wh o y t k pt d p d ts i su bj c t io

C o sid r h o w th r igh ts f m
to l ib rty w r pro c la im d
by m a y wh o y t k pt S lav s So m th m or d is i t r st d d
int ll t lly
i g sa w t h at slav ry w as c o d m d also (e g
C o d or c t)

d y t wom
So m
at io s h av a d opt d u iv rsal s u ffra g
l ft o u t b y m ost
.

'

e n e,

e n

ar e

en

I r see n

e ec ua

en

an

en e

e e

e,

ze n

or

ee

n e e

ne

an
.

e,

an

en

M ORA L P H I L O S O PH Y

8
9

what one o u gh t to do but in ndin g o u t what one

ought to do
Society at any stag e by cu stom or by custom
and la w ( which is custom be c ome conscious reectin g
on itself and therefore often opposin g itsel f) enforces
certain duties and uniformities of action B u t because
the end is self realization we can see how it is that
m any individuals whom we do not condemn
b ut
excuse or even praise can act i n de ance of custo m
and e ven of law in wor k ing out some aim of t h eir
own c h oosin g w h ich is not that of those around t h e m
How can we distin g uis h t h e e c centric g enius or the
heroi c innovator from the sel s h see k er of h is own
?
ends T h e person w h o pursues ends w h ic h di ffer
from thos e re g ard e d as the only proper ones by those
immediately ro u nd hi m ( family city nation c h u rch )
must be actin g as a m ember of some ( ideal) com
m unity wh ich m ay be as yet only a h eavenly city

a pattern l aid up i n h eaven

He may not in d e ed
have thou gh t of it in that way but it must be i m plicit
in his m ind A youn g man instea d of pursuin g
his father s business takes to art or literature He
is actin g for h g mg nity H e is a c itizen of {h e
r e u biic
er s
or
a
servant
in
t
h
e
temple
of
of T

f
f
p
art ; t h ou g h h e may only feel t h at h e is follo w in g
an impulse or an inspiration within h i m whic h bids
hi m leave father and mot h er to follow a master w h o
has called him This is admitted i n the case of r e

ligio u s calls ; b u t there are these

calls to other
spheres o f the service of God and man also These are
d i f c u lt to explain on the ordinary theories of morals
,

'

'

H A P P I NE SS A S EN D
Those w h o say that the end is h appiness are cruelly
if unintentionally ironical T h e wisest man of all who
ever profe s sed to m a k e h appiness t h e end not only
.

C f C onfessio Fidei,
.

H A P P I NE S S

A S EN D

99

foun d

b ut ackno wl e d ge d that happiness is nev e r attaine d

e xc e pt w hen it is not pursu e d
I f we u se happiness
as a term equival e nt to s el f r ealizatiOnTSEIfI SEIiSIRCI iO R
we m ay Sy
h appines,j ust as we might
sa
n
i
that
the
is
x
w
h
ch
w
oul
d
mor
accurat
e
d
b
e
e
e
y
Th e
i s really x, the unk nq n
The
w hole progr e ss 0 man lnl CO nS lS tS i n di scove r i ng w hat
t h e value o f x is
Every man an d age starts l ife w ith
this e quation x =
The lli ng up is his o w n
S om e times w h e n th e qu e stion is solv e d the resul t is
that x = a fraction or O or a minus quantity
I f we use happin e ss in th e s e n s e in w h ich it is
us e d in or d inary langu ag e th e e nd is not happ ine ss
Happin e ss is m ai nl y d e p e n d e nt o n th e h e althy s tat e of
t h e b o d ily s e cr e ti o n s an d is a v e ry important m eans
to th e at tainm e nt o f th e goo d life We say chil d ren
an d b rut e s ar e happ ie r than w e ar e b e caus e th e y ar e
l e ss consc ious b ecaus e they kno w less Y e t no person
as
Aristotl
w
oul
d
really
choos
e w oul d sa
e to r e main
(
y)
al w ays a ch il d playi ng w ith d olls or to b e come a sh e e p
for th e sake o f having mor e happin e ss H e w ho attains
h is en d is happy an d please d in the attai nm e nt of it ;
b ut the en d is no t th e r e for e happ in e ss I f we say th e
ultimate e nd is th e well b e ing of all m ank in d an d th e
e ll b e ing o f all that
is the W
e nd we Shoul d aim at
portion of that mankin d w hom we can practically
a ffe ct w e m ean th e sam e thing as the utilitarian w h e n
h e sp e aks of the gr e ate st happi ne ss of th e great e st
num b e r b ut it is put in a l e ss misl e a d i ng w ay
We
can claim all the a d vantag e s o f utilitaria nism
?

'

'

LIF E OF

T H E SO C IA L

O R GA N I S M

AS

EN D

fact that ev ery liv ing h eing na tu r a lly desir es to p r eser ve

e rvatio n of life
hus
all
that
t
n
d
s
to
pres
e
T
its ll
e
?
f
w ill b e goo d all that hin d e rs or inj ure s li fe will b e
,

M ill , A u tohiogr aphy

2
4

2
.

C f Con
/essio Fidei,
.

37

M OR A L PH I LO S O PH Y

6
6
3

bad ? According to this the man who lives lon gest

will be best ( Kr a nhh eit ist Sunde) M ethuselah is the
ideal man B u t of such patriarch s m ay we not say w ith
a preacher wh o possesses some humo u r
S mith)
Their lives were as pr o tle ss as they were prolon g ed
We pass t h en from in d ividual life to the life of t h e
social org anism of which the indi vidual is a m ember
I t is a d mitte d t h at no 111
.

in

havin g no w
i
nto
a
re
g
ion
of
metaphor
w
e
m
ust
w
alk
circum
O
t
g
a t community is to b e consi d ered
s e ctl
t
h
W
at
y
p
?
org an ism
The preservation of the family and its
g rowth and po w er m ay be a d verse to the preservation
of the nation T h e class or d er sect corporation may
ourish at the expense of th e larg er an d w ider an d less
clos e ly k nit com munity I s the continued existence of
the nation then to deci d e a

II e

13

"

But

prominent consideration wh en patriotism appears the

highest virtue and sa lus p op u li supr em a lex th e

populus bein g one s own nation only B u t what

?
A nd is m ere existence at any
t h e n of ot h er nations
pric e of i nj ury to ot h er nations of sacri ce of intel
lectual and artistic energy an d of what i s ordinarily
considered m oral wellbein g to be the d et e r m inant of
ri gh t an d w rong in the case of th e nation any more
I S the man j ustie d
than in the case of the in d ivi d ual
in g ivin g up thin k in g to preserve h is health in leavi ng
his d yin g relatives to d ie unten de d in bein g a can nibal
?
even with consi d erable provocation
And is a nation
?
I S the social org anism
j usti ed in doin g the sam e
analo g ous to the successful beast of prey ? Are w e
,

g oo d l if
r ally
o bj c t iv ly d s ira b l l if it
th
f vol u t io n i t h at l if w h ich i a bl
i m a in ta in d b y t h d o c tr in

to m a inta i its l f ( 8 A l x a nd r )
Cf p 3
1

T h e

e,

or

2 2

or

e,

ORGA N I S M

SOC I AL

TH E

AS

E ND

0
1
3

rank C hina higher than Ath e ns because it still ex ists

What pre eminenc e hath a man ov e r th e b easts W e ll

th e n

to

natur
w ith over pop u lation a
str u
l
e that primitiv e rac e s on a lon ely islan d ha d
g
to ace I f all m ankin d is o ne organism its mere
continuance w ill scarc ely s e rve as an e thical e nd T h e
p e ssimist may b e b e tte r justi e d in w ish ing it snu ffe d
out We m ust m ean its h ea lthy existe nc e ; b ut w hat
Ou t o f metaphor
d o we m e an
I n th e cas e of the in d iv id ual organ ism w hat ai d s l ife
to co ntinu e is ( on the w hol e) h ealthy an d v ice v er sa ;
b ut we cannot hav e such a test for th e organ ism of
We must d ist inguish b etwee n
t h e w hole o f mankin d
a b ett e r an d a w ors e irrespective o f m er e continuance
Experie nce d oes sho w us w hat ar e th e things most
w orth ch e rishing i e w hat gives most satisfactio n to
But th e m e taphor o f
t h e s elf w hich is a social s elf
t h e life of th e soc ial organism d o e s not h elp u s much
T h e practical moralist or statesman is not merely con
cer ne d to k e ep th e soc ial organ ism from d yi ng H e
may extingu ish th e small li fe fo r th e sake o f th e larg e r
He may nd out that h is patie nt has b e come o nly a
parasit e or a m icro b e or p e rhaps that th e w hole b o d y
I f we
h as turn e d its elf into a leg of som e oth e r b o d y
ext e n d e d our hypothetical imp erative so as to inclu d e
th e w hol e o f mank in d it might th en tak e th e plac e of

t h e cat egorical :
I f th e w hol e of mankin d is to
ourish ( i e not merely to l ive on as a Sp e cies of
terre strial an imal b ut to have w ell b e ing ) act in such

an d such a w ay

Would the greate st continue d ex i stence of the

w hole com b ine d w ith the greate st continue d existence
th

a nd

"

M OR A L P H I L O S O P H Y

2
6
3

of all the parts help us

That would be equivalent
to an inde nitely prolon g ed continuance on the planet
Eart h of a race of animals of the g en u s h om o w h ose
lives averag e 1 0 0 years I t h in k w e s h ould li k e to
k now a little about how their h undred years were to b e
occupied befor e we chose that en d supposin g it were
o ff ered to us or to be h ad for t h e as kin g There
would be some found to shorten t h eir lives by thin k in g
that l ife was misery A s things are no w wit h a pro
digio u s preventable waste of life g oin g on continually
t h ere is no excuse for ennu i of that particular sort B u t
there are thin g s more precious to cultivate d h uma n
bein g s than even life and the intensest misery arises
because of the loss of suc h g oods T h ey migh t no t
seem g oo d s to the primitive savag e strugglin g for life
ag ainst w ild beasts but they do to us now
Thus we are thro w n bac k ag ain on t h e unavoidabl e
recog nition that o u r j ud g ments of ri gh t and wron g are
determine d by referen c e to a standard not merely of
life but of g oo d life
?

C
F
REE
W
I
L
L
( )
The ot h er condition of morality besides the presenc e
of an ideal to be attained is the possibility of e n
de avo u r ing to attain it the condition of free will
T h e plant ( to avoid t h e di f culty about consciousness
in the lo w er animals let us tak e an illustration from
t h e v eg etable world ) g rows ourishes d ecays a c cording
to its c ircum stances of soil climate e tc Those spe c ie s
ourish best which happ e n to be throu g h any peculi
r
particularly

tte
d
to
adapt
t
h
emselves
to
thei
ar it
y
environment or to new and varied environments We
may nd it convenient to spea k of the m as adaptin g
t h e m selves to their e nvironment ; but we are awar e
t h at in doin g S O we are more or less reading what
happens to them in the li g ht of our experience of some
of the things that happen to u s We are interpreti ng
6

FREE WI L L

0
3 3

b e for e ours elves pr e v ious to

action th e e nd we w ish to attain I t is thus not m e rely
an e nd ( result ) attain ed b ut an e nd ( aim ) p r opos e d
Th is fact o f setti ng o bj ects b e for e ours elv e s constitutes
th e fa ct o f fr ee w ill
But ho w is this pos si ble
Ho w
or ho w far is th is cons istent w ith th e law o f u nive rsal
?
causation ( un iformity o f nature) etc
A r e human
actions th e r e b y ren d er e d som e th ing quit e incapab l e of
b e ing stu d ie d b y the sam e metho d s as natural e ve nts
Human actions ar e natural eve nts T h e r e is no
occasion fo r d e nying that unl e ss we w ish e xpr e ssly to

l imit the t e rm natur e so a s to mak e it m erely an

antith e sis to man an d th e n we shoul d nd ours elve s
invol v e d in much a w k w ar d ness for o b viously a great
many of th e things w h ich human b eings do ar e natural
e v e nts e xactly o f the sam e k in d w ith th e thi ngs w h ich
plants an d animals d o A man d igest ing his foo d is
a natural event of the sam e kin d as a plant b e ing
nourish e d b y air An d it is im poss ib le to d raw a har d
an d fast lin e b e t w een such natural eve nts and th e sort
of actions w hich we ascri b e to m e n ( o r to some men )
an d w h ich we cannot consi d e r a d e quately d e scri b e d as
m e r e natural eve nts F r e e d om just lik e co nsciousn e ss
an
d
j
ust
b
e caus e it is e ntir e ly th e r e sult of consc ious
(
n e ss) d o e s no t com e in ab ruptly b ut gra d ually as we
ascen d th e scale Much o f w hat we call th e u n
conscious we can only think o f as b e ing conscious ne ss

o b scur e or th e
o f som e sort an d the n a dd th e e pith e t

pre x u n
An d thus much o f w hat we consi d e r
un free act ion we think of as if it w e re free An d
much of w hat we consi d e r free we can only un d e rsta nd
aright if w e take into account the ele m e nts of u m
fre e d om that ent e r into it
T h e usual ans w e r to th e d e terminist has b e en psycho
logical T h e d efe n d ers o f fre e w ill have app eal e d to
consciousne ss of b eing free to choos e b e twe e n
ou r
alte rnative course s o f act ion ; b ut on the b as is o f
ev ents a s a ctions

se t

M OR A L PH I L O S O P H Y

0
3 4

psycholog y th e determinist h as always had the answer

ready that we can only thin k so w h en we have
insu f ciently analyzed the phenomena Our c h oice
between alternatives can always if we k now su f c ient
of th e facts be traced bac k to antecedent conditions in
our character an d circum stances It is only from limit
ing our o b servation to som e of our experience t h at
we can t h in k that in our choice between alternatives
we have c ome upon a rst cause T h ere c an be no
g enuine defen c e ( or rather explanation ) of free will
so lon g as we do not distin g uis h between t h e meanin g s
of cause between t h e sen se i n w h ich an event is the
cause of anot h er event ( t h e only sense in w h ic h the
positive scientist admits causality at all 1 and the sense
)
an
unusual
one
it
would
b
e
i
n
which
we
mig
h
t
tal
k
of
(
)
I as bein g the c ause of i e respon sible for
my
a c tion The self is cause not as one event in the
series of nat u ral events but as present to all those
events w h ich form the series of actions for whic h I
can be considered respon sible and a s constitutin g them
not merely events but a cts T h e pres e nce of conscious
ness in ot h er words t h e presentin g to o u rselves of
possible results as ends to h e attaine d is t h e fact of free
w ill in the sense in which free will is the condition
of m orality That man a c ts freely the c ause s of w h ose
acts are ideas and not mere animal impulses ( cf
?
We are free because and in so far as we
S pinoza)
th inh we are free
i e so far as we put before our
t h ough t ends to be attained and d on t S imply follow
blind
impulses I n the sense in w h ich freedom is
t h e end of conduct it is equivalent to the a c tin g
constantly in accordance w ith ratio nal ai m s aims c on
du c ive to the g eneral wellbein g
,

c a u s e is t h at
e x pla in e d w o u l d n o t
1

n
h
app
y)
Eth i
III P rop

stan tl

ca ,

p h no m no n w it h o u t
h app n w it h wh ich
e

Sch

ol ium

wh ic h
it

mu st

th e e

i
e
(
.

v n t to
do
e

be

es c o n

FREE WI LL

6
3

The or d inary d octrin e a b out free will is not only

contra d ictory b ut practically mischievous It l e ad s men
to negl e ct th e e normous Signi cance of institutions an d
t h e e ffe ct o f e d ucation an d enviro n ment on character

Even th e b est strong e st an d fr e est characters are

d epen d ent on circumstanc e s for th e opportunities an d
occasions o f action ; an d the maj ority o f mankin d are
o b viously only w hat
circumstances have ma d e the m
But th e se circumsta nc e s ar e thems elv e s w hat human
b eings have ma d e th e m ; th e re fore responsi b ility is
not e xclu d ed
R o b ert O we n s ne cessitarian ism was
only the theore t ical aspect of his e nthus iasm for social
reform The mor e consciousness is d evelop e d i e the
mor e m e n th inh a b out con d uct th e less ar e they mere ly
creatu r e s of nature ; not that th ere is ther e b y any
b reach in th e continuity of natural causation b ut that
natur e then passes into h er o w n higher form an d b e
com e s consc ious o f h erself An d j ust b e cause an d
in so far as nature passes into consc iousness o f
h e rs el f sh e se e ms to b ecom e oth e r than an d oppos e d
to herself T h e other of thought is nature an d th e
other of nature is spirit This is only a g e n e rali ze d
w ay o f putting the fact that m e n may d eli b erately aim
at s e curing som e e nd which w oul d not have b e en
attain e d w ithout th e ir d eli b e rate action Of course
if w e use nature or e volution in a w i d e sense that
deli b erate action forms part o f the process ; b ut we
cannot un d erstan d it w ithout taking rationality ( con
sc io u sness
into
acco
u
nt
)
,

o u ll
p
d s orc s
Id as t d to r al t h m s lv s
hu s
u ty
rot h r h oo d
huma ra c
m oral l b rty
d as or d als wh ch
c om m or
m or c o s c o u s
t h m t d to pro
duc t h r
r al at o
A s a m att r
h story
m h a cal a c t o
o s c o u s ort
q u st o
o t
d
l v g ort
last all th ro ugh to x pla
W m ay say t h at c o s c o s s
h gh st or m
l g or w ll
h gh st or m

e f
i
8
C f: F i e ( Science Sociale Contemp
3 4)
e
an d b
ni
T
th e
e
en
e
ize
e
e
e
i
e
i
ar e i e
n
i e
o f th e
e , an d
,
)
(
en
e
of
be
n i
as we
e
e
e an d
,
e
ei
o wn
e
iz i n
2
i n ;
ni
ec
e
of
i
w e nd ( 1 )
(
)

e n ee
w
n
D
n
c
i
:
e
t
i in e ff
e
f
f
B
u
n
i
; ( 3)
n i u ne s
e
th e
e
in ?
of
f
i e
i
th e
i e
is th e
f
of
fee in ,

or aine,

M OR A L P H I LO S O P HY

6
0
3

I n w hat sense d oes t h e economic ( material) factor in

society explain m ovements in history Are we entirely
?
at t h e m ercy of an economic pro c ess
T h e agitation
for freedom of trade etc was the movement becomin g
conscious t h e brea k up of t h e old limited production
So now the a c cum ulation of enormous capital in fewer
and fe w er h ands becomes conscious in the d octrine of
It is by this g radual ascent into conscious
socialists
ness t h at ideas come to act and to e ffect revolution
m ore wisely because less bli ndly We ar e at t h e m ercy
of m aterial con d itions u ntil we understan d t h em

W h en th eo r ips
seem to cause a
revolution t h at is only because the movem ent of facts
has been su ddenly translate d into ideas Ideas an d
leaders certainly ma k e a m ovement di fferent from w h at
it would be wit h o u t them T h ere is a di fference b e
twe en an animal eatin g so m ethin g unw h olesome and
beco m in g Si ck and so g ettin g rid of it or as li k ely as
not dyin g and a m an havin g swallo w ed poison ta k in g
an emetic and m a k ing h im self sic k and so w ell Th a t
is a revolution wit h ideas and leaders conscio u s of thei r
aim s
There is strictly no merely in d ividual responsibility
W h et h er we w ill it or no whether we d eny it or no we
are our brot h ers k eepers All respon s ibility is at once
dete ine d
individual and social I a m a soci al
t i ons to oth ers an d therefore at
once I am respo nsible for society and society for me
D oes not t h is diminish t h e sense of responsibility whic h

c ommon sense holds a man ou ght to feel ? Rather

i t i ncreases it I cannot escap e t h e responsibility of

bein g my brother s keeper

I s u ff er indeed in g rea t
m eas u re b ecause of wron g s done by others not by
.

'

for c ; b u t i it n t at l ast q u ally tr u if n t tr u r to say

t h at f l ing i o b s cu r c o n s c io u s n ss ? T h
u n c o ns c io u s i th
c o n s c io u s in it lo w r sta g s ; for c i w ill
H art m a nn n d
Sc h op nh a u r
e

ee

e,

RE S PO N S I B I L ITY

6
3

myself There fore from motive s of pity or sympathy

alone I ought to e n d e avo u r that oth ers Shoul d no t S
su ffe r by me No actions ar e m e r ely s el f regarding
i
Eve n our inmost f O u gh fS are no t sOIEly b m b wn;
e ither
in the ir origin or in their issu e C ountless
thoughts of oth e r human b e ings have gon e to d etermine
the way i n w hich our thoughts com e to us Lan
guage w hich helps thinking to aris e out of mere feel
ing is the pro d uct of in nit e thi nking an d fe eli ng o f
those who have gone b e for e u s An d our thoughts go
to form our charact e rs an d these o u r actions an d d irectly
an d in d ire ctly continu e th eir inu e nce in a c easel e ss

chain This is Karma

T h e Bu dd hist philosophy
f
has graspe d a truth w h ich t h e We sterns w ith th e ir
asse rtive in d ivi d ual ism have be e n apt to overlook
But is it a d octrine which Shoul d l ea d us to fol d our
?
han d s an d su b mit to fate The ve ry r e ve rse I f th e
evil that m e n d o lives after them th e goo d is not in
An d as w e have see n th e
ter r e d w ith their b on e s
cleare st d istinction b e t w een goo d an d evil is to b e foun d
in the fact of experience that evil al w ays in the e nd
t e n d s to d issolution an d d ecay ; it is s el f d estructiv e it
is a contra d iction a lie Thus nothi ng goo d is lost
When goo d is said to have com e out o f evil this is not
lite rally tru e G oo d com e s out o f pr evious goo d e ffort
perhaps long forgotte n an d e vil can only pro d u c e goo d
b y b e coming recog nize d as evil an d a w ake ning stronger
H e re is to b e foun d th e e xplanation
e ff ort against it

of th e h e ro an d th e solution o f th e antino m y z h is
tory is the work of great men ; great m e n ar e the
products of their time The gre at man is the man in
whom a principle b e comes conspicuously op e rat ive
through his cl earn e ss o f int ellect or stre ngth o f passion
usually through b oth But wh a t h e see s h o w h e sees
it an d the d ire ction in which he acts have b een d eter
min e d b y uncounte d e ff orts of others goo d an d e vil
Here again we are remin d e d of two points neglecte d
.

"

w m ) vm

,4 ,

M OR A L PH I L O S O PH Y

8
0
3

in m odern ethi c s z t h e
connection

intellectual y iijtueu

nd

th e
3

practical aspect of et h i c s

for a
.

FA L S E CO N C E P T I O N S O F GO D
F RE E W I L L A N D I M M O R TA L I T Y
T h e g reat ( relig iou s ) ideas of God free will and
im mortality are constantly said to lie at the basis of
m orali ty Wit h out the m it i s s upposed th at t h e c h ief
or the only rea s ons of well doin g h ave disappeared
B u t we must be very careful about w h at is u nderstood
by eac h of t h ese terms before we a s sent even to t h e
m odi ed proposition t h at a belief in them fu rt h ers the
interests of morality How often have not events

been ascribed to God a s h is j udg ments whic h

were really due to hu man error neg lig ence and c rime

W h en people
Ta ntu m r eligio potu it su a der e m a lor u m
really believed in m ira c les instead of pretendin g to do
plag ue s tric k en c ro wd s t h ron ged t h e churc hes for
so
prayer instead of cleani ng the lth from their streets
and h ouses How many ac ts of tyranny and c r u elty
h ave been end u red with patience and inicted witho u t
re m orse be c a u se done i n the name and for the s u p posed
h ono u r of God ! How often h as the re c om pense of a
fu t u re life been an excu s e for d eferrin g j usti c e in t h is
T h e k in g do m of h eaven and t h e reig n of ri gh teous
ness h ave been contentedly deferred to another world a
h appy land far very far away and t h e oppressed h ave
been told to wait patiently while t h eir oppressors could
ma k e t h eir peace with God by a deat h be d repentance
1
and a dying b eq u est for religious or c h aritable purpose s
T h e be s t spirits have often had t h eir best energ ies with
1 A H i h la n d sol d i r aft r C u llo d n b ro k in n n
n wh
ld
w
o
m
a
g
w as w av ing nd s iz d a c oat for h im s lf Sh a id
Y o u ll pay f

A t th day f j ud gm n t
Wh n
Th at w ill b la ng
it
EV I L

EFFE C T S O F

e s

or

FA L S E CO N C E PT I ON S OF GOD

0
3 9

d rawn from ai d ing their fello w men in ord er to con

template in e cstasy the bizarre sple n d ours o f the N ew
Jerusalem The prepa ration fo r d eath has consume d
the z e al that might have b e en d evote d to making life
b e tter N ay has not the future salvation an d d amnation
o f the soul b een t h e pret e xt for the torture cham b er
?
t
h
e
e
an d
stak
An d w hen people tal k w ith ling e ring
regr e t of the ol d ortho d ox hop e s of heav en th ey are
sur ely forg e tting th e ol d ortho d ox terrors o f h e ll

Wh e n Te nnyson in his palino de write s Those that

in b arbarian burials kill e d the slav e an d slew the w ife
fe lt w ithin themselves the sacre d pass ion of th e s e con d

li fe d oes the enno b l e d r e n e de really imagin e he

?
is comm e n d ing th e d octrin e o immortal ity
Sa cr ed

Yes if sa cr ed m e ans sacre

passion
The worl d
has not gaine d b y this cons e cration o f ignorance an d
wick e d n e ss

fre e w ill
d ogma has ( co nstan tly ) le d w ell
The
meaning persons to oppos e m easure s of r e form on the
t th e y w eak e ne d in d ivi d ual respons ib il ity
roun
d
tha
g
W hat is the goo d it is o ften sa id o f changing institu
tions if you d on t cha ng e men s charact ers ? Pe rfe ctly
true ; b ut to chang e institut ions is to go a long way
to w ar d s changing th e characters o f thos e b rought up
un d e r th e m I t w as a corre ct instinct w hich m a d e
R o b e rt Owen a necessitarian through z eal fo r social
r e form
All these i d eas may b e hel d in a way in w hich th ey
furth e r an d are an expre ssion of th e b e st en d e avours
for human w e ll being ; b ut it is b e tt e r to put for war d
that rst w hich is c e rtain an d let th e others com e
in aft e rw ar d s C o nsi d e r the e ffe ct on con d uct w hen
men come to grasp fully vivi dly an d constantly th e
solida r it of t h e rac e their responsi b ility for the pre sent

T h at i th w orst f th
c r d it s h ll ta k a wa ist c oat too
r l ig io u s

n
sa nc tio n f fu t u r p u nis hm nt T h g allows
d d to g v a
m or imm d iat ly op rat ing sa nc t io n in th c as f s uch p rso ns
-

ar e

e o

ee

M ORA L PH I L O S O P H Y

16

and fu ture wellbein g or the rever s e of others This

idea h as been obsc u re d by the accepted belief in a
Go d to w ho m events are ascribed independently of
our e ff ort by t h e free will dog ma and by t h e
diversion of t h ou gh t and energ y to t h e consideration
of anot h er life
,

E
T
H
I
C
S
A
N
D
R
EL
I
G
I
O
N
7
M oralist s especially in this country h ave g e nerally
insisted on k eepin g question s of et h ics q u ite distinct
from questions of religion T h is has arisen from fear
of theolo g i c al h ostility from a false reverence or from
a too though tless though often explicable disli k e
M oral p h ilosop h y h ad to declare h er independence by
standin g aloof from relig ion B u t th e ti m e for this h as
passed It is impossible to understand t h e history of
m oral ideas wit h o u t ta k in g acco u nt of t h e reli gio u s
for m s in w h ich t h ese h ave at di ff erent times found t h eir
sole t h eir m ost widely d i ff used or their h i g hest expres
sion I n the Gr aeco Roman w orld it did indeed seem
possible be c ause of th e purely external c h aracter of t h e
national reli gions to pass over reli g ion wit h the S ilence
of Aristotle t h ou gh even in his case we may doubt
whether t h is procedure h as not left h is treatment
inadequate in comparison with t h at of t h e more
reli g io u sly minded Plato or the Stoi c s
B u t t h e whole m orality and moral p h ilosop h y of t h e
Ch ristian world is u nintellig ible wit h out the study of
the fu nda m ental conceptions of t h e C hristian relig ion
Even the philo s ophers of the time from t h e Renaissance
onwards w h o are all more or less in revolt a g ain s t
ancient dog mas and most of w h o m protest in t h e name
of humanity ag ainst t h e identi cation of et h ics and
reli g ion if they ta k e muc h of t h eir terminolog y fro m
t h e pagan Gree k m oralists c annot avoid havin g their
ideas derived from and their problem s determined by
specially Ch ristian dogm as
.

ETH I C S A N D REL I GI O N

1 1

I f the metaphysical b asis of ethics b e th e existence of

a n e ternal s elf consc iousn e ss w hich pr e sents its e lf a s a
p e rmanent i d eal as a p e rmanent goal to b e attain e d as
an e nd which can only b e kno w n in r e spect of th e
quality of goo d ness in so far as it is r eali z e d we cannot
e scape if we w oul d from a recognition of this ultimate
c o n n e ctio n b e t w een e thics an d rel igio n ?
T h e goo d to w h ich all human e ff ort ought to b e
d ir e cte d is o ne aspect of G o d T h e ol d controv e rsy
w h e th e r goo d was goo d b ecause G o d w ill e d it or
w hether G o d w ille d it b ecaus e it was goo d impli e s a
fals e s e paration b etw e en G o d an d goo d ness
Each
opinion states one asp e ct of th e cas e an d states it in
such a w ay as to mak e it a fals e hoo d The form e r
opinion makes it impossi ble to say that G o d is goo d :
t h e latte r mak e s G o d no long e r t h e highest pr inciple in
th e univ e rs e b e cause h e is controll e d or r egulate d in
h is actions b y som e th ing e lse
A S a matt e r of history we fail to un d e rstan d the
great e r part of th e e thical d evelopm e nt of mankin d if
we carry a d istinction w hich has s e rve d all th e purpose
it e ver coul d s e rve b ack into p e rio d s w h e n it ha d no
r eal existe nc e fo r th e popular min d
The C hristian church has on her s id e b een sometimes
anxious to w ard o f m ere morality as far in fe rior to
religion an d has sometim e s in her practic e illustrate d
in an unfortunat e w ay h er ali e nation from w hat She
cont emn e d
W h e n thos e w hose i de als o f con d uct hav e com e
mainly from th e sources o f r e ligious b eli e f an d d iscipline
nd a conspicuous Sil e n c e on religious matters in the
w ritings of moral ists th ey ar e som e tim e s reasonab ly
Why is th e re nothing a b out r el igion
incline d to ask

?
here

t n S B r ar d T h Divinity
C f M att h w A r nol d s so
M oral ity i i d p d n t f r l ig io n in so f as w
judg a
r l ig io n to h av g oo d or b a d m oral ff c ts
-

en

n ne

e n

ar

e can

M O R A L P H I LO S O PH Y

12

RELA T I O N O F REL I G I O N TO E T H I C S
A N D M O RA L I T Y
H I S T O R I C A L O UT L I N E
1
T h ere is t h e as s ertion of t h e independen c e o f ethics
S ocrates was a c c u sed of irrelig ion
u pon reli g ion
Plato criti c izes pop u lar reli g ion
Yet h is u ltimate
et h ical idea is reli g ious ( T h e 78 7 7 y fi Go d )
Aristotle s attitude to popular religion is neutral T h e
E picureans are h ostile to reli g ion Th e S toics c onform
to reli g ion yet place t h e h igh est truth in m orality
Wit h t h e C hristian reli g ion w h i ch is an et h i c al
reli g ion t h e proble m is not so S imple
a
We
h
ave
t
h
e
or a l theolo gy of the s ch oolmen
m
( )
Et h ics is a dedu ction fro m t h e com m ands of God g iven
in t h e do c trine of the c h urch or of S cript u re This
res ults in casuistry ( t h e confessor as c onscience )
h
There
is
the
Protestant
revolt
a
g
ainst
this
main
( )
tainin g t h e independence of morality upon authority
The voice of God is not only in t h e c h ur c h and in
Sc ript u re but in the conscience of t h e individual
T h is
is t h e g er m of intuitionalist et h ics I n Kant s View
ethi c s i s treated indepen dently of relig ion partly from
reveren c e partly from contempt
c
Reli
g
ion
accept
s
t
h
is
position
a
s
serts
its
superiority
( )

to mere m orality and someti m es its independence

in practi c e
Faith not wor ts is t h e way o f salva
t i on
d
T
h
e
reli
g
ious
sanction
of
f
u
t
u
re
rewards
and
( )
p u nis h ment s ag ainst whic h Plato protested is expressly
bro ugh t into ethics by Paley T h is is t h e c o m mon way
i n w h ic h in the pop u lar mind t h e di fferen c e between
g ood and evil is envisaged This raises t h e special
q u estion of a future life in relation to m orality ( Cf
Plato Rep u hlic and B rownin g )
T
h
ere
is
t
h
e
iew
that
God
and
free
will
ar e
a
V
2
( )
i m plied i n our m etap h ysi c al basis
TH E

8
.

6a

01

cz

C H RI S T I AN I T Y

A N D M O RA L I T Y 3 1 3

In the conception of the self as a unive rs al self

is implie d th e ce ntral d octrine of the C hristian religion
?
What is meant b y C hristian ethics
W hat is the
d i ffe rentia of C hristianity
A T h e e cclesiastical Vi e w lays str e ss upon t h e i d ea
of a futur e life : an d the special virtue of chastity
poverty obe d ience All th e se imply a ha d worl d ;
you give up the hope o f reg en e rating th is w orl d
B The socialist Vie w O ffe rs an i d e al for a ll
We
m ust attempt to reali z e the ki ng d om of G o d on e arth
All men are to b e regard e d as e n d s not as m er e
m eans
h
( )

I TY
C
H
R
I
S
TIA
N
I
T
Y
A
N
D
M
O
R
A
L
9
I t is a common contention of th eological apologists
that the e xisting i d eas of m orality in the most a dvanc e d
countri e s of th e w orl d ar e d epen d ent o n th e continu e d
b e lie f in the d octrines of C hr istianity an d that though
a sha d o wy survival of resp e ct fo r C hristian moral ity
may outliv e th e b elief in C hristian d octrin es the d ay
must in evitably come w h e n d isb eli e f in d octrin e w ill
caus e th e ov e rthro w o f morality also an d w e shall
return to the con d i tion of the goo d or as th e y
commonly tell us of th e b a d h e ath e n w ors e tha n they
b ecause we have passe d from light to d arkness
This
opinion is the most e ffe ctive argum e nt that is no w
use d and causes many p e rsons to h e sitat e b e for e r e
ee d
h
h
e
ar e
a
b
in
tra
d
itional
cr
o
e c tin
e lie f
t
w
g
j
u nmove d or r e p elle d by appeals to authority or b y
argum e nts inten de d to prove the antiqu ity o f d ocu
ments an d th e r e ality o f all eg e d e xtraor d inary eve nts
So far from miracles b e ing no w availabl e as a proof of
the d eman d s of C hristian e thics on our consciences th e
appeal is rather ma d e to the d e sirabl e n e ss of C hristian
e thics in vin d ication of th e r e al ity of the miraculous
element in C hristiani ty We ar e no long e r aske d as
used to be th e case ( b y Paley) to d eny ourselves to
.

M OR A L PH I L O S O PH Y

3 4
1

the lusts of the esh because c re dible witnesses in for m

us that the dead have been raised to life ag ain but we
are asked to believe that the dead have actually and
physically been raised to life be c ause those who have
b elieved this have had the courag e to lead a life of
self denial a life w h ic h is com monly consi d ered saintly
and a d mirable T h e imitation of Christ is not com
mended to us beca u se of the raisin g of L azarus but we
are as k ed to believe in the raisin g of Lazarus because
we admire t h e i m itation of Ch rist
Now while admittin g t h e g reat force of this appeal
we m ust as k som e questions wh ic h are apt to be
overloo k ed by the apolo g ists of traditional beliefs
I
H
o
w
m
uch
of
the
morality
whi
c
h
is
c
ommonly
( )
called C hristian and wh ic h certa inly is part of the
m oral c ode that so far as we can j udg e would h ave
comm ended itself to C hrist and to the best and g reatest
amon g his professed followers was also enj oined and
practised by ot h er relig ions notably by B u dd h ism and
by some o f the Gree k philosop h ers notably the Stoics
Self denial is no pe c uliarly Ch ristian virtue ; and t h e
b rother h ood of m an k ind is no peculiarly C hristian idea
It m ay be said that Ch ristianity has supplemented
heat h en virt u es and ideas an d so m ade them b etter and
more usefu l but it cannot therefore be fairly said t h at
th ese virtues an d ideas are exclusively dependent on
Ch ristian doctrines
W
h
en
Ch
ristian
morality
is
appealed
to
t
h
ose
2
( )
who ma k e the appeal are oblig ed to confess that it h as
been an ideal only very partially realized i n t h e
C hristian churc h ; and those wh o in t h e name of
-

t h os v irt u s ( g c h ast ity) f w h ich th C h u r ch

h as
h av b n t h os w h ich h av oft n b n
m ost a g ra n tly n g l c t d w h r cc l s iast ic al r u l h as b n n
ch c k d
m
o
n ast r i s in sp c ial c o u n tr i s u ch as Spa in
h
t
E
( g
C ott r M or iso n ) I t i a r l va n t argu m n t a ga inst cc l s iast ic is m
to po int to th im p u r ity f c cl s ia t ic s it i n irr l va nt arg um nt
1

N ot e t h at j u st
m a d e m o st

ee

s a

e e

ee

e e

e e

ee

se e

CHRI S TI A N I T Y A ND M ORAL I T Y

3 5
1

their holy religion have mainta ine d the nece ssity and
rightn e ss of perpetual b arriers of class rac e an d sex
have littl e right to point to th e very incomplete
triumphs of C hristianity in lib e rati ng th e Slave destroy
ing the prej u d ice s o f b irth an d nation putting an en d
t o w ar an d el e vating the position o f w om e n
I
t
is
too
tru
e
that
i
n
many
cas
s
thos
w
ho
from
e
e
3)
int ellectual d if culti e s hav e b ee n o b lige d to re nounc e
t h e ir all egiance to rel ig ious b o d i e s have d eg e nerat e d
in moral character an d hav e at l east s e eme d to l e a d
l e ss us e ful l ive s than those w ho hav e sti e d int ellectual
d ou b ts an d hav e e ngage d in the active w ork o f d e nite
re ligious organi z ations I t is also tru e that the most
nota b l e revolt against C hristian b eli efs w hich has
taken place in t h e w orl d v iz that o f a gre at part
o f t h e F rench p e opl e in th e latt e r part of th e
1 8th
c e ntury w as accompanie d w ith w hat th e most ar d ent
a d m ire rs o f that gre at move m e nt o f li b e rat ion con d emn
as d e plora b le moral lax ity But in a ny case this moral
laxity was less d e plora b le b ecause it was in many cases
e xpr e ssly int e n d e d as a prot e st against cl e rical ism
than
the orgi e s of the papal court an d th e organi ze d hypocrisy
w hich m ay b e foun d at all tim e s amo ng ortho d ox
b el ievers Again it is assum e d b y th e oppo ne nts
revolutionary spirit that if th e e ccl e siastical
o f th e
r e straints b e thro w n o ff th e only alte rnative is a s el sh
h e d onism an d that any uns el sh system o f morality
is only a survival from th e t e achi ng of th e church
T h e b a d e ffe ct on in d ivi d uals o f s e ve ranc e from
relig ion is in great m easure d ue to th e e n force d
,

a ga i st r p u b l ic a n id al ists to po int to th im p u rity f th Fr n ch

n o nly b
R vol u t io n ists b c a u s th for m r all g t h at p u r ity
m a inta in d b y th a dh r nc to t h ir c r d th latt r x pr ssly
r j c t d th c c l s iast ic al sta d ard s f v irt u nd pro f ss d to r viv
t h os f th Gr k s nd Rom a s T h cc l s iast ic s h av b n much
l ss tr u to t h ir sta nd ar d t h a n th so s f th R vol u t io n to t h irs
T h is
f c o u rs l av s st ill u s ttl d wh ic h sta n d ar d i th h igh r
n

e e

e e

e o

ee

e e

n e

e a

e,

ee

ca

e e

ee

M O R A L PH I L O S O PH Y

6
3
1

s olitude in w h i c h t h e h eretic nds h im self It is

notorio u s t h at the solita r y Protestant a m on g Cat h olics
and t h e solitary Cat h oli c amon g Protestants to s ay
nothin g of t h e m ore agrant instance of t h e Ch ristian
in h eat h en lands is apt to fall s h ort in g reat m ea s u re
of t h e standard u p to whic h h e would have lived
a m on g h is fellow believers
T h e tenden c y to form
sects at w h ic h t h e C atholic and t h e s c eptic ali k e s c o ff
ari s es fro m a g enuine instinct I t is i m possible to
c ontin u e to live up to a new ideal wit h out attemptin g
to form a so c iety whic h shall embody it The new
se c t soon enou gh beco m es li k e old bodies and accepts
a c ommonplace c opy of t h e ideal as s u f cient fo r
ordinary purposes
Only here and t h ere can an
e x ceptional and stron g spirit g o t h rough life in solitude
with his ideal u ndi m med livin g ever in t h e presence
of t h e h eavenly vision t h at appears to others only at
rare intervals if it appears at all T h erefore t h at any
person havin g left the s h elter of an old religiou s belief
and society should fall away fro m t h e ideal of that
society does not prove h is ideal wron g for he m ay
h ave fallen away fro m it also T h is is espe c ially li k ely
to occ u r w h ere half t h e pop u lation are k ept rig idly
wit h in t h e old li m its so that t h e heretics g o out
c o m panionless li k e man before Go d made an helpmeet
for hi m
T h ose w h o appeal to Ch ristian et h ics are very
apt to ass u me a monopoly of i nterpretation T h ey
m ay ad m it the s h ortco m ings of ecclesiastical pra c tice
but they claim to h ave fairly and fully interprete d
the pre c epts of t h eir M aster B u t it is at least a possible
c ontention that the existin g ideas of m orality of w h i c h
the c h ur ch claims to be t h e sole s u f c ient defender

i
f
i
6
b
6
I
t
d

cu
lt
1
i 9 1 7
C f: A r istotl
Et/ Ni
5
9

d o w ll b ing alo n
C f Sid g w ic k M t d f Eti 6 th d it io n
t

pp 4 8
T h m oral im p u ls s f a ch in d iv idu al c o mm o ly
d ra w t h ch i f part f t h ir str ngt h fro m th sy m pat h y f ot h r

h u m a n b ing s
.

e,

0,

x.

e
.

0 a

o : o

CHRI S TI A N I T Y

AND

M ORAL I T Y 3 1 7

are only an imperfect an d impure re presentation of the

real Spirit o f C hristianity The dzjr entia of C hristianity
cannot be foun d in its claim to re st on a miraculous
revelation nor in the i d ea of an incarnatio n nor even
as is generally thought in its hop e of a resurre ction
an d an e ternal life b eyon d th e grave R e ports o f
miracl e s have a b ou n de d w h e reve r miracl e s have b ee n
b elieve d ; th e rel igions of Hin d ustan an d of H ellas
hav e in d i ffer e nt ways pre sente d th e image of a union
of Go d an d man the P e rsian r eligion contains ela b orate
Visions of a resurrection of th e d ea d an d the Egyptian
religion lle d th e min d s o f its votari e s w ith th e vivi d
b elief in anoth e r w orl d more re al than th e pre sent
The organization of the church her ritual her
mo nastic ism may nd th e ir counte rpart in th e great
Bu dd hist syst e m But th e proclamation o f a gospel
to all mankin d irr e spective of rac e class or sex an d
of a gospel w hich w as o ne not o f d espair of li fe b ut
of hop e for the outcasts an d oppre sse d of th e e arth
this is w hat is d isti nct ive of th e C hr istian faith An d
ho w far has C hristen d om b e e n tru e to this i d e al ?
T h e i d e al of those disturb e rs o f th e e sta bl ish e d or d er
of things w hom th e chi ef pri e sts an d Pharisee s
the emp e rors an d governors o f th e anci e nt w orl d
p e rsecute d s ee ms to hav e pass e d from their nominal
follow e rs to th e de mocrats an d socialists on w hom the
o f cial l e a d ers of th e church have too often pronounce d
their anath ema
S O CI ET Y A N D I T s I N STIT U TI O N S
10
E T H I C S A N D P RACTI C E
I t h as b e e n sai d that the moralist must go to the
large l tters to society an d its institutions
To
e
know what the consc ie nce is we must not b e con
tent with pon dering over our mental experie nce
in relation to con d uct b ut must look at th e moral
i d eas of th e a e as th ey ar e embg die d in laws
an d c u stoms 0 which th e in d ivi d ual co nsc1 ence 1 8 th e
.

"

x u

M OR A L P H I L O S O PH Y

d
d
u
g
g an
po

r e ection B utler s imag ery about c on

science is true w i gh j ust becaus e conscien c e is ( as
Professor B ain says ) an i m itation wit h in us of th e
g ove rn ment without u s B u t conscience is not a m e re
r

G
at least consc i ence is c apable of becoming
more t h an that i n som e persons Ho w is it that the
individual can turn round on the society that has reared
?
h im and cond e mn it
T h is is j ust be c ause m o r alI t lS
depend ent o n an id e al an g ught
a

h
t
T
co m
e
w
i
A
C
a
l
s
e
B
H
T
h
of
law
s
d
E
i
m
t
f
t
j
l
e
e
g
p
iand custom are thjeriisel s relatively realize d ideals ;
t h ere is the ideal beyond them of w hat they mi gh t be
w h at they sugg est The earlier stag es of advance may
be su ic ie ntly explained by the formulae struggle for
existence and survival of t h e ttest
the tri b e that
submits to a stri c ter discipline under one stron g man is
s u ccessful in its c ontests with t h ose which are more
loosely org anize d B u t even at this stage there c o m es

in an element i n virt u e of w h ich m an h at h pre

e m inence over th e beasts

Not merely do the m or e
stric tly org anized tribes s uc cee d and survive wh ile the
less strictly org anized dwi ndle de c ay and peris h SO
far we h ave w h at is exactly analog ous to merely animal
develop m ent ; but it is possible for some of these tribes
which are bein g h ard pressed by their neig h bours to
O bserve and ree c t and conscio u sly to im itate thei r
B
3
V
i
enemies ( vi u

w hh d
38
X p
T
h
e y may li k e Israel
a sk for a k in g to lead
c )
p
t h em into battle li k e other nations and so may them
selve s arrest the process of decay I n t h e evolution of
h u m an society conscious im itatio n has to be ta k en account
of as a factor The reection that others are in a better
c ondition in some respects suggests c riti c ism of th e
e x istin g state of a ffairs Th u s the su c cess of Sparta
s uggested to t h e Athenians t h e demerits of At h enian
institutions ; even t h o ugh we s h ould probably reg ard
.

iv

ua
,

o o
-

z
.

o uo

7 a

at

71

1/

S O C I ETY

AND

I N S TI T U T I ON S

I TS

3 9

Ath e ns as having on th e w hol e r each e d a high e r stag e

of d ev elopm e nt tha n Sparta an d most nota bly in th is
re spect that Ath e nian institutions an d customs r e n d er e d
r e e ction on th e m possi b le Just b e caus e th e c ulture d
Ath e n ian w as living a high e r k in d of life than t h e

Lace d a emonia n savag e h e wa s mor e conscious of t h e

d efe cts of th e soci e ty in w hich h e live d h e was more
a bl e to make comparisons an d to imag in e possi b iliti e s as
e t unattain e d to appr e ciate th e r e al valu e O f th e stag e
y
that ha d b e en O bta ine d an d so to r e n d e r to esta b l ish e d
law a w ill ing homag e to r e cogn iz e th e r e aso n w h ich
th e re is in so cietn s o ne WI th th e r easog gn him self
fe E fh usia stic Ath iari patr io t a dm
ir ed f
i d eals o f l ife w hich Athen ian d e mocracy sugg e ste d an d
was not m e r e ly conc e rn e d in a b lin d d e fe nc e of all
inst itutions an d customs that happ e n e d to exist T h e
fe w mom e nts of exaltat ion that com e in the live s o f
in d ivi d uals or O f commu nitie s ofte n s e rve to call up a
Vision o f a h igh e r con d ition than that wh ich is or dinar ily
reach e d Th e s e mom e nts may make th e tim e that
follo w s se e m sa dd er than it w oul d oth e rwise hav e b e en
b ut th ey put an e nd to that cont e nte d acqu ie sc e nc e
w hich is th e most fatal imp e d im e nt to progr e ss T h e
transitory an d incompl e te u nion O f H ellas against th e
P e rsian inva d e r call e d up a v is ion n eve r realiz e d b ut not
w ithout its e ffect on th e w orl d A nd so too w ith the
un ion of C hrist ian E u rop e sha d o w y as that w as aga inst
Again formulae w hich may have b e e n us e d
th e in d el
w ith sl ight appre ciation of all th ey can com e to m ean
b urn th e mselve s into the m emori e s O f m e n an d in th e
fe w min d s that think pro d uc e r e sults that may startle
those wh o have b ee n cont e nt e d to r e peat tra d itional
phras e s T h e procee d ings of m e d ia e val parliam e nts gave
th e pr e ce d e nt for a r e volution w hich e n d e d in the tr ial
an d b eh ea d ing of a king A phrase ab o u t the natu ral
rights of man w hich may b e trace d b ack to R oman
jur i sts was the formula of th e American revolution
,

p l y-

WT m WW

W W

ar

'

'

i i

i .

M O R A L PH I L O S O P H Y

2
0
3

and though it too k a lon g time and a erce civil war

co u l d not but iss u e in the abolition of t h e venerable
institution of slavery Th us instit u tions rear those w h o
shall u nder stand and alter th em i q h is I s thW Or k of
scio u g
c
hzssf an t e f e fofet er e is nothing really
analog ous to it ( or only in ger m ) in the merely ani m al
world
The criminal m ay b e re garded as a parasite ;
b u t not the patriotic rebel
T h ose w ho rebel a gainst t h e establis h ed order o f
t h in g s in any matters O f moral or so c ial usage are of
two sorts : those wh o rebel beca u se t h eir own sel s h
i m p u lses are thwarted and restrained ; and those w h o
rebel because their aspirations after a h igh er condition
for t h emselves and others nd no su icie nt satisfaction
in the society ro u nd the m Those w h o li k e to h ave an
easy g oin g life and w h o h ave adapted the m selves to
t h eir environ m ent m ay detest th e reformer as muc h as
they do the c ri m inal and m ay treat h i m in t h e sa m e
way It h appens now and then t h at society cr u ci e s
one prophet between two t h ieves ; but time brin gs
and t h e C h ildren b u ild t h e tombs of
a bout its revenges
t h e proph e ts whom their fat h ers h ave slain ; t h e outc ast
and the rebel be c omes the h ero the saint or t h e g od
It requires mu c h imagination to realize an orderl y
f erent conditions fro m t h ose
a nd reasonable life under di f
to w h ich we are accustomed Foreig ners are apt to be
re g arded wit h s u spicion a s stran g e creat u res of do u bt
ful ch aracter M any persons are q u ite unable to believe
t h at hum an life co uld g o on at all or at all well if any
serio u s alteration be made i n institu tions and c u sto m s
t h at have be c ome habit u al Yet instit u tions of g overn
m ent laws and customs a ffectin g proper ty personal
,

'

i m

w
-

w n

I s n t th a nim al wh o a d opts so m n w w ay f c at ch ing it pr y

bu il d in g it n st t a nalo g o u ? I n all t h s c as s i it n t s im ply
sport
w
i
t
o
n
t
?
i
x
t
r
al
pr
ss
u
r
i

T
h
s
h
as
i
a
n alo gu
t
i
n
n
g
(
)
th
ly sta g s f t h d v lop m n t f hum a n o c i ty b u t n t in
th
lat r
1

or

'

ear

e c

e e

S OC I E T Y A N D I T S

I N S T I T U TI O N S

1
2
3

ights the relations of the sexes have existe d an d d o

e xist in ways that woul d be regar d e d by most peopl e of
our o w n age an d country as quit e incompati ble with
any d egree of moral wellb e ing Th e re m ust b e d e nit e
institutions an d customs on such matters else ther e can
b e no morality resp e cting them
But these ar e capab l e
of e normous variation An d we have no right to
a ssume
that we have reach e d th e utmost d egre e o f
w is dom on all or any of th e se su bj ects Ye t those w ho
sugg e st th e n e e d of any alteration in our i d eas Of right
a nd w rong ar e v e ry apt to nd thems e lve s denounc e d
a s immoral
Immoral th e y may b e b ecaus e th e y may
b elong in spirit to a ru d e r stage o f society an d may b e
w ishing fo r a retrograd e move m e nt ; but th ey may b e
the forerunn e rs of a high e r stage The only t e st we

c an apply is
Which manner of organization will a ff or d
the greatest measure of in d ivi d ual w ellb e i ng (an d that
impl ie s the w ell b eing of the community ) in the full e st

sens e ?
An d w e must assume now a d ays that we are
b oun d to consi d er a ll in d ivi d uals not merely an e lect
fe w
r

COM M O N GOOD I N R E LATI O N

T O CO N D U CT
At e ve ry step in pract ic e it w oul d b e im possi b le to
de d uc e th e principl e s of our con d uct from th e general
principle of acting for the common goo d ; an d the
atte mpt to do so might produc e a mischievous sort o f
scr u pulosi ty w hich w oul d certainly impe d e many goo d
a ctions an d might possibly provi de an excus e for some
b a d ones The average man w ill al ways and all men
must usually gui d e t h e mselves in accor d a nce with
2
acc e pte d principl e s
But it is of ex tr em e impo r tance
that ther e shoul d b e th e p ossib il ity o f a revisio n of the
W
f so c i ty
h b r ig a n d i th s u rv ival f n a n t iq u typ
E; T
nim p 3 6
i
t
l
i
n
t
i
d
U
C f M ill s t oi g mpy pp
3
b o u t th n a u t ic al al m a a c
II

TH E

'

" M

gnsl

u o

w m

um u

~
w

2 1 1

m om

ue

2 1

1,

r a

e o

ar a

e
,

M OR A L PH I L O S O P H Y

2
2
3
a ce pte d

Herein
lies
t
h
e
practical
evil
O f intui
g
SI em S of morals that they ten d to fossilize the
tI Oni St S Y
principles of conduct at t h e particular stag e of social
d e velopment w hic h commends itself to the particular
intuitionist Hence t h e sympathy whic h t h ose interested
in social reforms have so O ften felt with whatever theo r y
of morals promised an escape from t h e tyranny of a
xe d se t of abstract form u lae
The popularity and u n
popularity of utilitaria nism have both b een d ue to the
weapon of criticism which it provided for an atta ck upon
existin g prej udi c es and th e m eans w h ic h it se e me d to
supply for an a d vance in our ideal of social w ellbeing

The criterion of a su m of pleasures has b e en accepte d

an d h as see m ed to wor k w ell i n practice because those
who have applied it have faile d to notice that wh ile
f
u ltimate
sta
dard
w
as
the
eelin
g
of
a
ar e ntl
p
y
n
haracter and of social
e a su r e I n r e al i ty t h e i r I de al o f C
h as de te r m I ne w hat k in d of pleasure they sh ould
00
cons i der referable for themselves an d others If w e
say explicitly t h at the ethical end is the common g ood
we certainly seem to be sayin g somethin g m uch vaguer
than in sayin g that it is the g re atest sum of pl e asure s
for t h e g r e atest number of individuals ; but th e latter
phrase is d eceptive in its apparent de nitene ss and
when a distinctio n of qualities is introduced the stan

dard O f
or of the good o f
e r fe c tio n of C h aracter
t h e co m m
e b f gh t in to de te r r in t h e
O the co m

code

'

on
ex
of
e in so m e cases I nc m a i e
It
becomes all 1 m r tant to
O n i sm 1 8 1 t whose
1
?
continued existence is the determinant of rig ht
I f we
x th e lim it at any th ing s h ort of t h e whole comm u nity
of man ki n d ( not to g o on to all se ntie nf b elngs) we are
1 Cf p
3

00

TH E

C O M M ON GOOD

2
3

always laying ourselve s open to th e o bj e ction that the

succ e ss of th e organ ism we ar e conside ring may b e
incompat ib le with th e e xiste nc e or at least with the
d esirab l e e x iste nc e o f som e organisms outsi de it SO
long as we d e te rmine w ell b eing b y r e fere nc e to a
struggl e fo r e x ist e nce we imply vanquish e d as w ell
as victors in th e stru ggl e I f we e xt e n d our Vie w
of th e social organism so as to inclu d e th e w hole
O f mank in d
d o we th e n get any r eal help from
th e co nc e pt ions which ar e applica b le to th e e volut io n
?
A r e we not thro w n b ack on
of animal organisms
,

be

Of

n of I ndI VI d

"

course

f in d ivid ual s

But may no t th e p e rfe ction of th e in d ivi d ual b e

incompati b le w ith the p erfe ction of mankin d as a
3
w hol e
To this we can only ans we r that our conc eption
of th e p e rfe ction of mankin d is d e pen d e nt on our
conc e pt ion of th e p e rfe ction o f in d ivid uals We th ink
of all as b e ing in the co nd ition O f thos e w hom we
regar d e d as th e b est An d on th e oth e r han d we
cannot cons id e r any in d ivi d ual to b e living the b est
life poss ib le for him unl e ss h is actions have some
r e fe r e nc e to th e w ell b eing O f oth e rs though thos e
others ne e d not n ece ssar ily b e those imm e d iately
arou nd him T h e artist th e po e t th e proph e t th e
saint may app ear as th e un d ut iful so n the n eglige nt
hus b an d t h e u npatr iotic C iti z e n SO far as we a d mir e
the m an w ho sa cr i ces others to h is o w n a dvanc e ment
our a d mirat io n is no t moral an d is e ithe r aesthe tic or
immoral But th e d istinct ion b e tween th e t wo cases
is not d if cult to make T h e artist or po e t is
u nd ou b t e dly e xpre ssing h ims el f an d cultivating h is
o wn capac iti e s ; b ut h e is pro d uc ing som e th ing w hich
go e s to contrib ut e to th e w ell b e ing of mankin d
T h e m er ely am b itious m an w ho lov e s to shin e or the
8 pp 3
3

cc

01

02

2
3

M OR A L PH I LO S O PH Y

pleasure see k er Wh o ha s a t h eory O f e g ois m h as

h i m self only as an obj ect and regard s all ot h ers as
m erely m eans to h is s elf develop m ent T h e artist and
poet may be so m etimes too apt to err i n t h e reverse
way by reg ardin g h i s own c haracter and life merely
as a mean s to the produ c tion of w h at 1 8 artisti c ally
bea u tifu l ; for t h e m oral m an mu s t not forget t h at
h e and ot h er s are ali k e ends An et h ical theory
cannot be adeq u ate w h i ch will not allow u s to ad m ire
t h ose w h o m we feel bo u nd to c onsider t h e h i gh est of
m an k ind ; and yet if we were to assum e a denite

series of ine x ible r ules abo u t O bedience to parents

-

common

tas k
considerin g ot h ers always rat h er t h an oneself
et c we s h ould h ave to c onde m n so m e w h o m m an k ind
h ave been ready to wors h ip We mu st ad m it t h e c a s e

l
We can only
of calls to parti cu lar vo c ations
j u d g e in su ch c ases by re s u lts We cannot ex cu s e t h e
ne glectfu l son w h o tell s u s h e left h o m e be c ause h e
felt t h e vocation to be a poet and w h o spe nds his ti m e
drin k in g in tavern s We c annot e xcu se the wife w h o
deserts her hu sband and c h ildren becau s e she says s h e
ha s a vocation fo r t h e relig io u s life ( t h o ug h we m ay
per h aps bla m e h er less t h an t h e teachers w h o h ave g iven
her a perverted ideal of t h e reli g ious life ) The
c ond uc t w h i ch lead s to ne g le c t of so m e of t h e ordinary
m ax i m s of so c ial cond u ct mu st be c apable of vindication
by reference to so m e consideration of so c ial wellbein g
It i s not enough to appeal to nat u re ; for nature m ay
be bro ugh t in to conse c rate any and every i m pulse
And nature is O ften what we h ave to resist not w h at
we h ave to follow
,

Cf

8
9 ,

an d

F
i
o
idei,
C org
m
f

TH E

CO M M ON GOOD

2
3

DE V E L O P M EN T O F I D EA S o r COM M O N GOOD
I n the early forms of society the conc e pt of hu m an
well b eing is limite d to the wellbe ing of the fa mily or
tri b e to w hich the in d ivi d ual belo ngs Morality for
him is d ete rmine d b y the nee d s o f his family or tri b e
That is right w hich ten d s to its preservation and succ ess :
that is w rong w hich ten d s to its d ecay or d issolution
The in d ivi d ual b y hims el f has no morality ; b ut in the
stru ggle for the w elfare of the family w e have alre a d y
in an elem e ntary form many of the virtues nota b ly
that o f courag e As other commun ities grow up
wi d er than that o f the family the i d eal of e xc ell e nce
is chang e d When we come to the highly develope d

C ity state o f th e Classical worl d th e civic virtu es

become th e most prominent sometimes threatening
to crush out those of the family altog e ther W ith
the decay Of the R oman Empire an d the sprea d of
C hrist ianity th e re gr ew up the id e a of a community
of mankin d or at least of C hristen d om ; an d with
the incursions o f the northern barb arians the family
an d tribal virtu e s regain some what of their importance ;
b ut th e n the civic virtues fall into comparative negl e ct
T h e ris e of the mo de rn nations has restore d th e m to
th e ir place in our complex an d d i f cult i d eal But
beyon d th e nation there isgr owingp more an d mor e
n e ss o r h umanity not no w as
ith th e StOics nor limite d
as w
to those of one creed as in the M i d dle Ages The
inte rests o f humanity see m often to conict w ith the
interests o f the natio n as th e inte rests of the nation
w ith the int e r e sts o f th e family The chil d must
le arn in the littl e worl d of hom e an d school th e
lessons to b e use d in the larger w orl d outsi d e : an d
e t t h e virtues of manhoo d ne e d e d in th e larger w orl d
y
are not exactly the same as those of chil d hoo d an d
yo u th So it is in th e e d ucation o f th e human race
.

WN

W
wh

'

'

au r

r vr

M OR A L P H I L O S O PH Y

6
3
2

At each step in advance correction an d modication

are required T h e very fa c t of prog ress ma kes abstract
ethi cal pre c epts of little value : they have only a
g eneral validity and may not t t h e case when we
are
u d m e nt s
Wis h to apply the m O u r et h i c al J
g
j ud gm ent s abo u t particulars and o f our political
j u d gm ents th e same is true
When any meas u re of state action is proposed t h ere
is little advantag e to be g ot by as k in g whether t h is
?
is the sphere of the state or w hether it is meddlin g
with t h e sphere of the individual ? as if everyone
co uld tell beforehand wit h out any political experien c e

w h at t h ose sp h eres were T h ese sp h ere s are what

we t h in k th ey ou g ht to be
.

'

C U S T O M A N D M O R A L P R O G R E SS
T h ose w h o st u dy h u m an society in the h istorical
spirit are con s tantly r em indin us o f th e i m portance of
cu sto m in the form ation 0 morali ty
The g reat
maj ority of man k ind all t h e world over not only those
w h o are in a pri m itive s tag e b u t even a m on g ourselves
regu late t h e ir c ond u ct b y t h e observance of w h at is
c u s to m ary T h e q u estion w ky one sho u ld do so and so
i s h ardly as k e d at all I f it is as k ed by some ras h er

spirits it s ee m s su f ciently met by t h e answer I t i s

what every one does ( every one m eanin g only

every one of t h e partic u lar s o c ial g ro u p to w h i ch th e
speak er belon gs ) People livin g in an advan ced stag e
of develop m ent w h ere the ter m s of reective t h o ug ht
h ave beco m e c o mm onplaces are very apt to say and
i m ag ine t h at they are re gulatin g t h eir c ond u ct by t h e
li gh t of cons c ience or t h e fear of God w h en t h ey are
only gropin g alon g in t h e wa k e of t h eir neigh bo u r s
pra c ti c e and s wayed b y the fear O f M rs Gr u ndy A
very great m aj ority of the a c tion s of even the m ost
Ba g h ot P y i nd P liti pp 5 7 9 Al o Cl iffor d
Le t e nd E y ( Ev r l y Ed it io n) V l II p 1 0 6
1 2

c ur : a

x c:

ssa :

e se

cs,

CU S TO M

A N D M ORA L

PROGRE S S

2
3

e ctiv ely

conscie n tio u s person must n e c e ssarily b e

p e rforme d as customary practice s Moral progress
c onsists mainly in t h e creation o f goo d customs
in
mak ing people instinctively ( as we say ) i e u nr e e ctingly
an d unhesitatingly d o w hat is r ight an d at the mom e nt
of action it is g e n erally impossi ble or d i f cult to pause
a nd reect
We mus t do an d perhaps w e ar e happiest
if w e d o not ne e d to re e ct too much aft e r war d s
But a community c e rtainl y a highly complex com
munity cannot b e in a h e al thy stat e if there are not
som e p e rsons at l east who insist on asking th e ru d e but
n e ce ssary Why
an d w ho mor e ove r w ill insist on
e tting a satisfactory ans w e r to it
It
is
as
I
have
sai
d
g
inconvenient or impossi b l e to b e asking this question
of ours elve s or others at the very moment wh e n some
particular action is requir e d All the more n ee d for
a sking it w ith r egar d to various kind: o f action e specially
when these k in d s of actions b ecom e the su bj ects o f
l egislative e nactm e nts It is tru e enough ( as Bag e hot
that
soc
i
al
coh
e sion is so important that in j u d ging
sa 3
y )
ages
w
e must not fe e l d isgust
o f the morality O f e arl
y
or impatience at the way in w hich w hat we shoul d regar d
as the rights of free thought free speech and free action
are ruthle ssly ignore d But on th e other han d the
valu e of the cake O f custom in a n e arly stage must
not b lin d us to its possi bl e mischief in a later Th e
ha r d en e d c lay w alls may remain long afte r th e p e ople
living w ithin hav e outgro wn t h e nee d of th e m an d the
re

'

xa m pl s of cu sto m s s u rv iving Tylor Ant p l gy pp

i
n th w a d r i g h ord s
w
Pu
tt
g
ol
d
to
d
at
h
c
sary
i
n
h
t
4
B
t w it h
n so m
i
s
u
rv
v
d
to
a
g
r
c
u
lt
u
ral
sta
g
c
as
s
i
i
h
t
i
t
y

T h c at s pla c
s ttl d l if t h r g ra du ally ca m k i d r tr at m nt
w ass ig n d to t h ol d
d so proo f f valo u r
p 4
Valo u r w as d d f x ist c
a s c alp t w
d d b for m arr iag c o u l d b form d T h is w
o t i u d wh r th trop h y w got b y tr a c h ry g p r haps so m
O l d wo ma n
d w ayla id stra g r
s u rv iv s into sta g s wh r th stat ta k s
Fa m ily v g a c
1

Fo r

1 1

e c,

as n ee

e e

n ee

or

e ,

n e

e n e

en e , a n

as

an

en

1 2

e e

as

ro o o

as n e es

see

as

e e

2
3

M O R A L PH I L O S O PH Y

m an wh o brea k s t h em t h rou gh and lets t h e free air

c irculate will certainly be called a revolutionary spirit
but h e is doin g a necessary wor k for the progress o f his
ra c e Of c ourse it m ust be a test of any su ggested
c h an g e in t h e m oral code t h at it m u st be capa b le of
becomin g in its turn part of a xed c u sto m ary co d e
Else it is no real m oral ( i e social ) code but only t h e
prod u ct of individ u al e c centricity or sel s h ness I t
m u s t be co g itable as la w universal
at least we mu st
be able to thin k of a large group of persons re g ulatin g
t h eir lives b y it and yet s till co h erin g in a so c ial
org anism not necessarily h owever the same org anis m
1
or org anism s to w h i c h t h ey previously belon g ed
T h us w h en so m e bol d spirits in ancient Hellas probably
so m e a u da c io u s Sop h i s ts t h e h u m anists the rationalists
t h e freet h in kers of t h eir time s uggested the u nnatural
ness and conseq u ently the wron g of Slavery t h e g reates t
p h ilosop h er of antiquity felt it ne c essary to refute t h em
becau se h e c o uld not u nderstand s ociety continuin g to
exist a s a c o h erent unity w ithout a substr u ct u re of non
free labo u r And undoubtedly society as he u nderstood
it c o u ld not s u bsist wit h out slavery but not t h erefore
a ll so c ietie s
And li k ely enou g h these S op h ists had not
g i ven t h e m s elves t h e troubl e to t h in k out all the
bearin g s Of t h eir new do c trine of individual rig hts So
nowa d ays t h e opponents of t h e eq u ality of the se xes
p u nis hm nt in h a nd ( I s th ch all ng in du ll ing partly t h is
partly n app al to th judgm n t f G d 3 )
An ot h r s u rv ival app ars in t h ta k ing f oat h s b y sol m n for m
h ol d ing u p th h a n d k iss ing th b o k t
For m al it i s att n d ing th
al f e l p pe ty
a s u rv ival fro m
t im wh n la nd was c o mm o n nd c o u l d t h r for o nly b part d
th
t
w it h n a g r m n t f all th tr ib
O b s rv t h im porta nc atta ch in g t th a c t f dining to g t h r
T h gu t b c o m s in so m sort ne of t h h o u s h ol d nd so i n
lo ng r n al i n
R c t iv M
t it m u st j u t ify it lf b y b ing a b l to pa s ov r
in to a n w Sittli nf it
2 S
B nn s G e k P nil pn Vol
ch
,

r a

ro

ar e

e e

e c

e, e c .

es

ee

'

ee

or a

r e

se

oro

er r ,

C U S TO M A ND M ORA L

P ROGRE S S

2
3

feel or say that society is b ase d on th e family an d th e

family cannot coh e r e w ithout the su b ord ination ofwoma n ;
an d it is tru e an d ought to b e fac e d by th e a dvocate s o f
w oman s rights that many institutions must un d e rgo
consi d erabl e changes b e caus e o f th e intro d uction o f a
ne w i d ea of human equality
We must sh ew that these
C hange s w ill be for th e better
This constant asking O f

?
W hy
ought not to b e d re a d e d b y thos e wh o
recognise the full valu e o f custom I f th e custom still
remains a use ful one for th e pre servation of social well
b ei ng th e n th e custom w ill lose non e O f its sanctity if
consciously an d will ingly accepte d O b e d ience to a law
in w hich w e acquiesc e is 11% bo ndage h i lim
nu t
cm
f d cy to p ersist long after the reason
fo r them has passe d a w ay a nd th e n it b ecomes impor
tant to d iscover w heth e r th ey ar e harml e ss or hurtful
I f harmless th e y may b e allo we d to cont inu e as inte re st
ing r elics that link u s in kin d ly sentiment w ith pas t
ge nerations ; b ut if hurtfu l they ought to b e u n
h e sitatingly swept away History has taught us very
little if it make s us th ink more of ol d clothes than of
thos e w ho have to w ear th e m
All these things se e m mostly commonplaces which
w o u l d accept wh e n th ey are expr e sse d in
e veryone
g e neral terms ; but th e application of th e m in practice
always meets w ith gr e at resistance T h e tr u th that
morality rests on custom make s p e ople think that
every custom must b e necessary to morali ty an d at th e
sam e tim e people ignore the e ase w ith w hich new
customs will grow up as th ey have gro w n in the
past

that virtue is a habit

T h e Aristot elian d octrine
an d the somewhat startling sayin g that th e man w ho
,

'

'

'

uch f th wro g d o i g f th worl d c o m s fro m wa t of

T ylor A tn p l gy p
im a g i at io
Cf p 3 9
1

ro o o

M OR A L PH I L O S O PH Y

o
33

for m s habits is lost each contains an aspect of the

truth If a society or an individual is in a h ealt h y
condition morally the maj ority of ri g ht acts m ust be
done as a matter of c ourse wit h out any reecting about
them B u t a society is not in a healthy condition if it
does not lead to some at least O f its m e m bers
ponderin g ho w to ma k e it better
In any g iven c om m unity the mass O f m en are in
di ff erent to new i d eas are u nr e e ctiv e and t h erefore
b y t h eir v is iner ticze are ran g ed on the side of e x istin g
institutions
A small ar d e nt minority may arise
stron gly possessed of some new idea There m ay be a
still smalle r minority of persons conscientiou sly and
after reection opposed to t h is ne w idea and reg ardin g
it as ne ce ssar ily su b v e r sive of the m oral healt h of t h e
N o w if those possessed O f t h e ne w idea
so c iety
separate th emselves from t h e rest O f t h e co mm uni ty
and disg usted by t h e anta g onis m and i ndi fference of
t h ose round th em wit h dra w fro m any a c tive part in
t h e political life Of t h eir country and either within
its borders or in so m e new land attempt of the m selves
to realise t h eir ideal of a better life the victory re m ains
wit h t h e traditional idea and institution B u t if
eit h er wit h or witho u t som e practi c al ex periment on a
s m all scale in the direction O f w h at they are aimin g at
they set the m selves to an a c tive propa gandis m of t h eir
ideas t h ey g rad u ally win over converts fro m t h e
indi ff erent mass u ntil t h ey ma k e the m selves into a
maj ority c apable in any co u ntry with free institutions
of translatin g their ideas into a law Very soon after
t h is h as been done t h e w hole indi fferentis m of t h e
co mmu nity c o m es to be ran ged on t h e side of thi s new
instit u tion The conscientious opponents m ay continue
to g ru m ble ; b u t t h ey have no lon ger t h e practi c al
conservati s m of popular feelin g on t h eir Side A step
ha s been g ained which is no t li kely ag ain to be lost
and th e way i s prepared for so m e new proj e c t of
.

H ERE D I T Y

33

r e form
Thus thos e w ho have at heart th e most
extensive proj ects of social re form w ill gain l e ss for the
w orl d at large by w ith d raw ing th ems elve s into separate
communiti e s w here their w hol e i d e al can b e actually
reali z e d than by pre ssing the s e parat e articl e s of th e ir
programme as occasion O ffers upon th e e xisting
political forc e s in th e community Of course it is
e ssential that som e thinkers an d teach e rs at least shoul d
ke e p alive th e vision o f th e p e rfe cte d i d eal an d it is
very useful that som e shoul d make practical experim e nts
on ho w eve r small a scale if only to prove the
capaciti e s an d ad aptab ilities o f human nature But we
must g ive up th e i de a O f e arlier ag e s that thes e separate
communitie s represent all that can b e d one in th e way
ofre forming an evil w orl d W e must utilize th is te rri ble
might of custo m w hich is rang e d against us an d w h e rev e r
it is possible win its support fo r our o wn i d eas
.

H ER ED ITY
S upposing it prove d that acquire d charact e rs ar e not
transmitte d b ut only those wh ich have aris e n spon
ta neo u sly w hat is th e e ff ect on our practical attit u d e ?
At rst s ight it might see m that w e w ere d elivere d over
completely to a ne w kin d o f fatalism T h e evil goes
on perpetuating itself from g e neration to gen e ration
along w ith such elem e nt of good as there may b e a
b lin d natural process with which we can not inte rfere
B u t is it S O ? It w ill certainly follo w that l e ss can b e
hope d merely from the e d ucat ion O f in d ividuals fo r th e
But d oes it not also
atu r e w e ll b eing of the rac e
S ince
follo w that more m ust be d one by institutions
the inherite d te nd enci e s of e ach in d ivi d ual cannot b e
altere d in his d e sc e n d ants b y our act ion e xc e pt b y
taking care that so far as they ar e evil th e y Shall b e
counteracte d so far as they are goo d they shall b e
suppleme nt e d by the mate with w ho m he is paire d it
i s all the m ore important that he should live his life in
.

M O RAL P H I L O S O P H Y

2
3

such an environ m ent as will furt h er all t h at is g ood

and hinder all t h at is bad We m u s t s u rro u nd eac h
individu al wit h t h e best and h ealt h iest inuence s We
k no w t h at t h e bad in u ences of his father s environ m ent
will not dire c tly a ff ect hi m we h ave only h is ori nal
sin
to deal wit h and no a c quired transg ression 0 h is
ancestors And we m ust k eep these instit u tions g oin g
or i m prove t h em because we cannot tr u st to the g ood
e ff e c ts prod uc ed in any individ u al bein g tran s m itted to
h is descendants u nless they al s o are trained ami d
si m ilarly h ealt h y surroundin g s
T hu s we h ave to
consider t h e possibility of t h e trans m ission of a type of
culture irrespective of racial c ontin u ity In hum an
bein gs i nstinct c o u nts for less imitation and deliberate
direction of t h e will co u nt for m uc h m ore t h an even
i n t h e h i gh e s t of t h e o t h er animals T h e animal can
only transm it a g ood q u ali ty if it become s an in h erited
instin c t ( t h roug h eli m ination of those t h at h ave it not)
m an c an trans m it t h e stimul u s to g ood in t h e for m of
law or c u stom
.

'

M O RA L ITY

N D NA TU R E

To live in a cc ordan c e w it h nat u re was t h e precept

of the Stoics T h e modern biologist repeats the
precept in a new and di fferent sen s e T h e nat u re
of th e Sto ic h ad t h e ambition and the vagueness Of o u r

p h rase pn g ctiofi tdg :

n at u re
t h e m odern s c ienti c r efof iiier o f th ics means t h e
totality of t h e physical universe as h e understands it
M an s d u ty i s t hu s co m prised in the c o m prehension or
interpretation of th e nat u re of w h i ch h e nds h i m self a
part and t h e sub m itting himself to the conditions of life

H om o n atu r a e interpr es et
whic h he t hu s dis c overs

if we m ay reverse t h e order of B a c on s words

m inister
To endeavo u r to u nderstand h is position in t h e u niverse
is m ost c ertainly the c h ief i ntelle c tual d u ty of man
B u t does it follow t h at h e m ust s u b m it t h at h e m u s t
.

M ORAL I T Y A N D N AT U RE

333

o b ey ? I s this not one o f th e in ferenc e s fr om that

un fortunate ambiguity in the wor d law

I f we
d o su b mit on any occas ion is it not to conqu e r where

we can ?
P o r endo v incitu r
To the inevita ble we
must su b mit w ith such resignation as we can nd ;
but is everything that we d iscover existing th e
inevita b le ? Of course if we inclu de in nature as in
one s e nse we certainly may all that human effort has
d on e an d can d o if we inclu d e all systems of law
an d all institutions d eli b e rately frame d fo r certain
d e nite purposes then all human con d uct is in the
last resort accord ing to nature B u t th e proposition

has th e n b e come a truism : Wh atever is is

To
o b ey nature is usually un d e rstoo d to b e not a truism
b ut a couns el a precept w h ich we shall follo w if we
an d b y d isregar d ing which we shall suff er
ar e wis e
I n this sense it is certainly true that a man if he
w ishes to live long an d h e althily must o b ey the
pr e cepts as to health w hich may b e fram e d after
a stu d y of the physical con d itions o f h ealth ; that
a nation if it w ishes to continu e to exist an d to
ourish must not b e a prey to p erpetu al inte rnal
d iss e nsions an d must not squan d er its natural
re sources in unpro tab le w ays It is also true that
w hen w e wish to d e fe at any natural ten d ency which
if allowe d to carry itself out w oul d lea d to r e sults
that we w ish to avoi d w e shall succee d b ette r in our
cont e st if we thoroughly un d erstan d the movements
of our e nemy F or nature is in many c ase s the
enemy o f our b e st en d eavours I t is curious h o w
thos e w ho d e nounce th e too read y b eli ef in th e
po w e r of th e State to reme dy evils ( if only State
b e sp elt w ith a capital S) are so rea d y to acc e pt
any ten d e ncy or fact as in evita ble w h ich can b e
d igni e d b y th e sanction of Nature w ith a capital N
Physicians hav e not d iscar d e d th e ir b elie f in the
d
F
d
i
Cf p
d
i
i
C
7
7
y
,

0,

an

or ess o

10

an

M OR A L PH I L O S O PH Y

3 34

expedien c y of vac c ination On t h e c o ntr ar ) t h ey

are prepared to hope for the appli c ability o f similar
expedients in t h e case of some ot h er diseases The
proceedin g is certainly based upon a k nowledge
of nature and follo w s the discovery that a mild
form of the disease i s a prophyla c tic against a
severer ; but t h e proceedin g m ay surely be fairly
described as an endeavour to defeat t h e results
w h ic h woul d follow if natural causes w ere l e ft to
wor k out their full e ffects The scienti c p h ysician
w ill be careful in h is administration of medi c in e but
will not throw all p h ysic to the dog s : the scienti c
surg eon does not in g away h is lan c et and h is k nife
because these are arti cial c ontrivan c es What j usti es
th e a d mirer of natural science in preac h ing la issez fa ir e
to the politician or in tellin g the man w h o is tryin g
to live the best life t h at he m ust submit to a g uide
whic h he k nows to be blind w asteful pitiless Nature
is non m oral and morality has to struggle up from her
g rasp Nature tells only of s u ccess : m orality tells of
d uty and rig ht If we listened only to the teachin gs
of nature at any sta g e at w hi c h we h appen to h e we
could frame a code of conduct ; an d it w ould certain ly
be the code on w h ich a g reat maj ority practically act
We Shoul d allo w the stron g to stren g then themselve s
and the wea k to g o to the wall But to carry t h is out
thorou g hly we S houl d h ave to undo t h e g reatest part
of what centuries of the civilizin g inuences of law
and relig ion have accomplished We sho u ld h av e to
discard not only t h e ideals of t h e democrat and the
socialist We should have with Strauss to sco ff at
th e possibili ty of abolishin g war We S hould have to
eliminate the supposed Virtue of compassion We
should h ave to surrender all our dreams of equality
an d fraternity Th e re are m any who w ould be pre
pare d to admit all t h is in t h eory as we ll as to act on it
practically ; but t h ose who wi ll not admit it i n theory
,

M ORAL I T Y

A N D NAT U RE

33 5

must re cogni z e that nature is no t our gui d e b ut only

the raw mat e rial w ith w hich we have to work T h e
animal we say is at o ne w ith nature H e is no n
moral an d if it b e happiness to e scap e th e thought o f
S in an d th e consc ious ness of an id e al
h e is happy
W ith r e ectio n w e see that th e H e b re w G o d was
mistak e n and that all is not ve ry goo d an d we try
to make it b e tt e r Again an d again we may o nly make
it w ors e ; b ut u nl e ss we suppress our thought a nd
sink b ack into th e animal we k e ep on our e n d e avours
Each ste p in a d vanc e giv e s a h eight e n e d co nsc ious ness
o f w hat has st ill to b e d on e
T his is not an incr e as e
of happ iness b ut it is th e victory that com e s through
su ffe ring if th e s u fferi ng st imulat e to e ffort an d b e
not allo we d to d ea de n us to apathy
If we start our stu d y fro m th e Si d e of thought
We arr ive at a syste m o f id ealism w h ich s eems to
promis e us an ult imate reconciliation w ith all that
I f we start from
we can conc e iv e o f b e st an d h igh e st
th e si d e o f nat u r e th e r e s e e ms no e scap e from p e ssimism
But natu re is
if we onc e allo w ours e lv e s to r e e ct
logically in explica bl e a nd un int ell ig ib l e w itho u t tho u ght
an d ye t we d o un de rsta nd nature to som e e xte nt
A r e we not th e r e fore justi e d in th e b eli e f ho we v e r
har d to r e co ncil e w ith facts that th er e is an ult imate
r e co nc iliation an u ltimate satisfaction ? But w hy
?
?
at th e end o f a proce ss in time
I s th e r e
u ltim a te
r
e xc e pt fo r philosophy
an
e co nciliation e xc e pt in MM
y
an d fo r art I s the oth er worl d only th e compr e h e nsio n
I f th e re is a th e or e t ic an d
o f this in its compl e ten e ss
an artistic satis faction w oul d not symm e try r e qu ire
?
that th e r e Shoul d b e a pract ical also
,

E
U
A
L
IT
Y
Q
4
All m e n ar e b y natur e e qual
not
u n d e rstoo d as b y th e sc ie nti c stu d e nt
S
p 94
I

ee

if na tu r e b e
T h e struggl e

M OR A L PH I L O S O PH Y

6
33

for e x istence res u ltin g in t h e s u rvival of t h e ttest

m eans a continu al as s ertion of ineq u a lity
Inalienable

1
righ ts m eans ri gh ts to equality ( c f L oc k e ) It is
not a state m ent of fact B u t nat u re h ere tho ugh
g ured as a past ordinance t h at has been interfered
with is really our ideal for the fut u re T h is ideal has
c o m e into t h e m inds of h uman bein g s or into the
m inds of so m e of t h em throu gh t h e su ff erin g ca u sed
by inequality Once x ed in t h e m inds of any con
side r ab le n um ber it beco m es itself one of t h e fa c tors i n
t h e str uggle for exi s tence and m ore and m ore deter
mines the co u r s e of t h e evol u tion of so c iety M e n
impre s sed with the belief in an ideal of eq u ality will
do acts and will abstain fro m acts w h i ch they ot h erwise
would h ave negle c ted and done without hesitation
I t is n ot tr u e t h at any and every h u m an bein g is
eq u al to any ot h er B u t t h e de m o c ratic ideal is t h at as
far as outward arran ge m ents g o th e y ough t to be equal
2
1
C
ivil
Eq u ality is a very ambi gu ous term
( )
equality equality before t h e law is generally accepted
as part of w h at we now expect in civilized co mm u nities
u s su r a ii and
qu
2
E
ality in political ri gh ts
u
s
(j
( )
g
j
h onor u m ) is so m ethin g di fferent and may rea s onably be
refu s ed in t h e interests of t h e wellbein g and prog ress of
society as a w h ole when c ivil equality is rea d ily
g ranted ( 3 ) Social or economi c e q u ality is itself am

I t m ay m ean eq u ality of opport u nity t h e

b igu o u s

c areer open to talent which will soon lead to g reat

ineq u ality a m on g individ u al s at least even if inequality
a m on g families were prevented Or it m ay be taken
to m ean equality of position g uaranteed irrespe c tive of
t h e value of the w or k done
N ow in framin g our ideal it is i m possible to satisfy
everybody s wishes The w ishes and demands of
individuals h ave only to be ta k en ac c o u nt of so far
,

C ivil Gover nment, Bk

Th e
F
on
e
.

ro m a pap r

ch
I d eal
.

of

a W orl d stat
-

E Q UA L I TY

337

as they are suf ciently veh e ment an d su icie ntly wi d ely

S hare d to b e a factor in determining w hat can practically
b e attaine d W hat we have to consi d er is the we ll
.

envi ronment which

aio ne ad m its of such
stu d y an d knowle dge as can
make it an o bject to b e aime d at W e may w ish
that an in d ivi d ual or any in d ivi d ual may b e goo d
or happy or b oth ; b u t we cannot d irectly will it W e
can only se ek to provi d e the surroun d ing co nd itions
w hich w e hope will pro d uce such e ffe cts Eve n w ith
r e gar d to ourselves each o f us cannot will to b e goo d
S t ill less can he will to b e happy
Such v olit ions are
futile unless they mean that we seek those o bj ects
w hich we beli eve w ill pro duce th e se e ffects on u s
W e must choos e to do this or that particular th ing
An d so if we say the ultimate e nd of political institu
tions is th e great e st happiness o f in d ivi d uals or the
perfection of character of in d ividualsthe statesman or
th e pol itical theorist can only hop e to attain such
en d s b y pro d ucing such a social environment as w ill
e nable the av e rage in d ivi d ual he has to de al w ith to
have a fair chance o f d eveloping a goo d Charact er o r
attaining happiness Law s comman d ing happin e ss ar e
an ab surd ity : law s comman d ing moral exc ell e nc e ar e
moral pre cepts Laws in th e political sense must
for b i d or comman d ce rta in kinds o f acts ; must pro
vid e c e rtain inst itutions
Thus the d esirab ility of civil equality of political
e quality of social an d economic e quality ( in any s e nse )
must b e j u dg e d b y consi d e ration o f what w ill b e st pro
mote general social well b eing an d progress an d not b y

w
ishes
of
in
d
vi
d
u
ls
exc e pt so far as thes e form a
h
e
i
a
t
l imiting factor in estim atin possi b ility (as h as j ust b e en
said) I t is on groun d s o f social sta b il ity an d progress
that thos e who have urge d th e n e e d of c ivil e quality fo r
m

M OR A L PH I L O S O P H Y

8
33

all h ave often felt it necessary to deny political equality

Those w h o ought not to be treate d as slaves may
nevertheless be quite un t to d etermine the policy of a
nation even indirectly It is from this point o f vie w
t h at q u estions of t h e s u ffrag e ou gh t to be considere d
Practically they h ave to be considered also fro m the
point of view of w h at can be safely refuse d and the
best constitution m ust be somewhat of a co m pro m ise
T h e sa m e cons ideration applies to so c ial eq u ality
Eq u ality of c on d itions if m ade t h e obj ect of le gislative
endeavo u r m u st be sou g ht not as directly m eanin g
g eneral h appiness but as see m in g to o ffer the most
favourable conditions for t h e attain m ent of individual
wellbein g and h appiness
T h e true defence of de m ocra c y i e of equality of
political and then of social opportunity is t h at human
b ei ng s are not eq u al in capa c ities or in C haracter but
t h at their res pective merits can only be ascertained
by actual trial Jud g ed fro m t h e standard of society as
an org anis m and not as an a gg reg ate of individual s
g ifte d wit h equal nat u ral ri gh ts democratic institutions
are defensible in so far as they o ff er ( or c an be made to
o ffer) th e best means of obtainin g a g enuine aristocracy
or g overnment by the best
It is m ore important t h at o f ces should be open
to all than t h at all s h ould h ave votes Givin g all a
vote m ay be m erely an escape fro m t h e fear of r e vo lu
tion : universal su ff rag e h as not h in g glorious about it
Ta k en strictly it m eans the absur d ity t h at all men s
opinion s are of equal value
I t is only an escap e
from t h e di f culty of decidin g w h ose opinions are of
most val u e B u t restrictions on elig ibility to o f ce ar e
inj urious to the chances of favourable variations
,

E Q U A L I T Y A N D F REE D O M
quoted
by
B et w een u nequals sweet is equal love
(
C oventry Patmore in defence of inequality ) Yes only
.

E Q U A L I T Y A N D FRE EDO M

339

b ecause an d if they can consi d er each other e quals

M ahaff y in his r t of Conv er sa tion sho w s that pl e asant
soc ial intercourse is only possi b l e on t h e assumption of
e qualit
e ast fo r th e tim e b e ing
at
l
y
I t is fr e qu e ntly rem arke d that the r elations existing
b e t wee n an ol d Tory squire and h is d e p e n d e nts ar e
much more fri e n d ly an d kin d ly than thos e b e twee n th e
R a d ical manufacture r an d h is w orkm e n or eve n h is
d om e stic s e rv ants an d th e in fe r e nce is usually d raw n
e
C
b
y
that
Tory
must
r
o u r th o e
e pr e s e nt a
h
t
e
( g
p )
high e r typ e than th e R a d ical T h e r eason re ally is that
t h e r elat ion o f master to s e rvant forms an e ss e ntial
part of th e T ory syste m o f things an d is acc epte d b y
b oth as t an d proper I t th e re fore e ntails c e rtain
m utual d utie s Mast e r an d s e rvant ar e b oth m em b e rs
of a system ; they ar e b oth m e m b ers o f a common
hous ehol d a fa m ilia in the original sen s e Wh e re as the
r elation o f master an d servant is m e rely a survival in a
soc i e ty w hich pr ofesses to b e b as e d upon equal ity I t
is a t e mporary con d it ion result ing from a contract
b e tw e e n thos e w ho ar e profess e dly equals ; b ut s inc e
th e r e is a n actual inequality b e caus e o f d iff er e nc e in
in mann e rs in assoc iate s in int e r e sts co
e d ucation
e x ist ing along w ith a pro fe sse d e qual ity th e r elat ion is
u ncom forta b le straine d u nhealthy fals e I t is not the
m e re pr e s e nc e of a cash
n exus that makes th e diicu lty
A g e ntleman may b e on quite fr ie nd ly t e rms a nd fe el
no co nstra int in th e pr e s e nc e o f h is d octor or his la wy e r
although accustom e d to pay them fee s ; b ut th e n h e is
b y e d ucation and at all eve nts b y op inion plac e d o n an
I f we coul d suppos e all stigma
e qual ity w ith them
attaching to manual la b our of any kin d remo ve d an d
an d such a g e n e ral stan dar d o f com fort
e d ucation
di ff use d throughout th e w hol e commun ity as w oul d
t h at yo u c a nnot str ic tly xa m in wh at i w it h o u t
O b s rv
c ons id r ing wh at w nd wh at will h ( t nd n ) g wh at
o u r m oral pr inc ipl a b o u t th fa m ily prop rty t
,

as a

Y 2

s,

e c

c I es

1:

M OR A L PH I L O S O P H Y

o
34

m a k e social intercourse easy between all its m embers

the con s traint and u npleas antness b etween t h ose wh o
are en g ag ed say in directin g s o m e g reat ind u strial
enterprise and those w h o coo k food or clean roo m s
might completely disappear and friendliness and friend
ship would be c ome possible in a deg ree neve r found
w h en the old servant is after all only on a level wit h
t h e fait h fu l do g T h e contrast between a Tory ( aristo
c ratic ) s o c iety and a Radi c al ( de m o c ratic ) is t h e contrast
between a co m plete society t h e very best of w h ic h h as
already been seen ( let u s hope that the worst of it
h as been seen al s o ) and a society wh ic h i s as yet only
in t h e process of for m ation w h ich is in c omplete which
h as g one only h alf way often only t h rou gh its neg ativ e
stage and wh i ch t h erefore is full of contradictions
T h e Tory is apt to s c o ff at the Radic al for his
I ncons i stency ; it i s per h aps well t h at he S hould pro
v ide d t h at we are tau gh t t h ereby not to g o bac k to the

m ore easy goin g morali ty of our criti c but to advanc e

in t h e di f cult pat h of realizin g our own ideal And
it is well to repeat suc h a watchword as equality and
fraternity lest we S hould forg et our ideal and a m id
some deg ree of personal comfort beco m e as h amed of it
The Tory ac c epts a lower ideal ( so we t h in k ) therefore
h e can m ore easily realize it We h ave c hosen a h ig her
t h erefore we are more apt to fall short
T h e aristocratic ideal is proportionate inequality
eq u ality only as p is a ller ( Cf the views of Plato and
Aristotle )
Th e de m ocratic ideal is equ ality ineq u alities only as
,

a ller
i
s
p

M EA N S

A N D EN D

Does t h e end j ustify the m eans

Can we separate
?

politi c al fro m m oral rig h tness

Rat h er people are
too ras h i n assumin g they have got g ood ends (e g
suc h an end as that of unifor m ity in reli gion ) C on
.

M E A N S A N D EN D

34

si d e r also ho w much that we separate o ff ab stractly

as
means re ally forms part of the en d e g uni

formity I n r eligion may b e willing un iformity or for ced

I f our end is w illing uni form i ty can w e e t that b y
?
penal law s
I f our end is exte rnal uni formity we
certa inly can if th ey are su f ciently strict an d w e can
pr e ve nt r e b ellion
S o if our en d is the p e rman e nce o f family ti e s d o we
mean w illing or e nforce d
Again if our e nd is moral
purity do w e m e an the innoc e nc e of ignoranc e or th e
innoc e nc e o f a noble choice ? T h e mea ns simply as
means for an en d d o get th e i r moral valu e from th e
e nd
I f the e nd is approve d the question ab out means
is a question o f e f ci e ncy b ut we d on t w ant to se t up
sid e re sults l e a d ing to w hat is d etrim e ntal e g Punish
m e n t is goo d or ba d sol ely accord ing to th e en d in
Vie w C e rta in punishments are b a d b ecause o f other
b a d results (e g their b rutaliz i ng e ffe ct on the com
mu nity ) or b ecause th ey ar e in exc e ss of w hat is
nee d e d
All u nne cessa ry pain is an evil I f imprisonme nt is
su f ci e nt d on t have ogging D on t hav e ogging in
pu b lic e tc
er s e b a d
F orce
not
th e sens e of r e straint is
p
W
W
P e rse cut i on I S a ve ry a m b I gu o u s t e rm [I t may mea n
restraint in th e interest o f a parti cular s e ct or b el i e f
w hich is b a d ; or r e straint for the w ell b e i ng or eve n
th e sa fe ty of the community w hich may b e goo d ]
,

MH

z
-

u vm ,

y
.

M O RA L S A N D P O L I TI C S
I C ons id e r th e assumption that th e y are d i fferent
Ollt S concerns
:
i
Morality
concerns
in
d
iv
d
uals
a
p
( )

a group o f in d ivi d uals as a whol e

That is tru e so far ; b ut e th ics has to d o W i th the
con d uct of the in d ivi d ual in relation to or in possi b le
relatio n to oth e r in d ivi d uals an d I n any case W i th
in d ivi d uals as m e m b e rs of a society
1

34

M OR A L P H I L O S O P H Y

On the other hand politics concerns the actions o f

in d ividuals an d th e g ood or t h e bad in politics must
u ltim a tel
e
f
f
be
j
ud
g
ed
by
t
h
e
ects
on
individuals
i
n
y
(
society of course)
h
e
e atest
A
maxim
t
h
e
gr
h
appiness
of
the
( )
g
greatest nu m ber may b e valid in politics and yet not
in morality This is only true in the sense that politics
bein g more c omplicated than s o m e parts of morality
may g et on with less carefully form ulated maxims
witho u t their defe c ts becomin g so easily apparent
c
h
as to do wit h the en ds of life
M
orality
politics
()
wit h m e ans to these ends Aristotle s Vie w is b etter :
The proper g ood of man is th e same for the in
dividual an d the state yet the g ood of the state seems
a g ran d e r and more perfe ct thi ng both to attain and

to sec u re ( Eth Nic I 2

B u t morality has
also to do with means The remoter or mor e com
plicated m eans are often mor e d i f cult to j ud ge
Ta k e a question of the g reater morality e g oug ht
I to g ive u p tim e and ener g y to a certain course of
?
study
I am bound to ma k e a very d i f cult calcula
lation as to what is nee d ed as to w hat I shall b e
able to do as to the deg re e in w hich this may interfere
with other duties 85 c
People generally are g ui d e d
to a larg e extent by se ntim e nt the advice of oth e rs
the action of ( inh e rite d an d acquire d ) impulse tak e n
as a guidin g voi c e etc T h is is an exact parall e l to
?
w h at happens in politics O ug ht I to vote for A or B
?
O u ght a statesman to adopt a certain policy
Or
e ty
ee
a
friend
asks
m
e
to
become
sur
trust
or
to
e
g
len d him m oney
An evidently distressed person
as k s help What oug h t I to do ? C alculation is
needed as to the balance of possibilities the balancin g
of di ffe rent clai m s People generally a on t consi d e r
these matters with g reat care ; they act on impulse
senti m ent custom To this there is an exact parallel
in politics A nance m inister may b e quite as
,

I
I

,
,

M OR AL S

A N D PO L ITI C S

343

scrupulous about spe n d ing as a p e rson in his private

e xp e ns e s
in managi ng trust fun d s e tc
Patronag e com e s in in private matte rs as in pu blic
The chief d i ff e re nc e b etween national an d privat e
int e r e sts is th e nee d of m il itary d e fe nces This is
parall el to privat e morality w h e n th e r e is an ab s e nce o f
s e ttl e d la w an d privat e rai d s an d fe u d s fre que ntly
occur The co d e of m ilitary honour comes in h e re
Y e t e ve n no w a w ar b et we e n nations is parall el to a
law suit b etw e e n in d ivi d uals I n b oth th e r e is th e
temptation to gain an a dvantage w h e n we hav e a

goo d case though moral claims may b e th e

oth e r way Each ju d g e s h is own cas e as w ith nations
Soc iety d i f culti e s suggest a certain parall e l o
t
d iplomatic relations I n b oth we nd d elicate man
oeuvr e s an d th e d i f culty of k e eping to strict truth
Th e re for e political casuistry is o f th e same h ind as th e
casuistry of private morals
What is tru e is that la w an d m or a lity are d istinct
2
T h e question as to w hat is lega l is ultimat ely a que stion
?
of fa cts What is th e law or custom o f th e country
C onfusion arises where law is so larg ely a matt e r o f
j u d icial interpre tation The i d e a o f jus n a tu r a e also
mak e s con fusion o w ing to th e am b iguity o f the term s

right an d j ustice
Bentham an d Austin d i d goo d
servic e in e n d e avouring to clear up this confusion I n
any cas e la w is d istinct from pol itics
ew
th e
i
e llian
But
w
hat
of
ach
av
vi
that
h
e
M
t
3

ult imat e political principl e is the r a ison a eta t pu b lic

safe ty
T h e truth is this that th e statesman is not a s
a rule e ntitle d to go b ehin d th e question o f th e
pre s e rvation of the in d e pe n de nce of his coun try
C ompare w ith this in private morals self pr e s e rvat ion
or th e w elfare of our family Gener a lly we d o not go
b ehin d these I t is th e sam e w ith on e s mainte nanc e o f
a caus e or of any soci e ty company e tc one b elongs to
W
e r e cogn i se
a
college
a
school
a
town
a
church
)
(
,

'

M OR A L PH I L O S O PH Y

3 44

h at as a r u le we have to advo c ate t h e clai m s of what

h as obvious C lai m s on u s u nless h igh er c lai m s very
di s tinctly c o m e in T h en we mu s t defy th e idea of

loyalty
etc
espr it a e cor s
p
?
The
I S not t h e s a m e t h e case wit h the s tates m an
independence of one s state the m ai ntenance of t h e
constit u tion et c are not u ltim a te ena s C f Sardinia

whi c h wa s m erg ed in Italy

t h e s u rrender of Savoy
Hanover ; Scotland at t h e U nion
a nd even Ni c e ;
ic u lt q u estion of c as u istry h ere
B u t t h ere is a very di
t

I ND EX

A b ol u t
s

e,

as

x p ri c
co m i g t b i g

t h e,

a nd

84 ;
be
n
2 2 8
i n , i in i n
and
nf ee, 3 0 3
e
n e , P
fe
1

e n e,

no

e n

e en

ee

o f,

2
3

m i l 44
A ar ch ist p h ilosop h ical 5
A n a x a g oras
A im is m 3 8
A postl s C r d 6
A pp ara nc d r al ity 89 sqq ;
d ill u s io
9
A p i i pr i c ipl s tr u m a i g
e

10

10

ee

e an

an

n, 2 0

r or

o f,

69

A r isto c rat ic

an d

e n n

d m o c rat ic id als
e

34

A ristotl

2 ,
8
8
6
,
,
,
5
9
97 9 ,
1 0 4 s , 1 1 3 , 1 5 3 , 1 6 0, 1 6 1 ,
q
1 81 , 2 0 1 , 2 1 1 , 2 6 7 ,
1
0
2
o
n
1
0
6
2
;
.
,
, 3
, 3
3
34
9 34

e,

nal c a u s
v i w f p h ilo
sop h y 6 8 q ; log ic 3 9
d it io n f a logical t rm
n
f
n
a
alys
i
s
i
n
f
r
c
3
5
6 ; nt h y m m
f 66 ; n
a fr m at io nd n g at io n 4 ;
n o bj c t iv c o n t ing n c y
n
att it ud to r l ig io n 3
S lav ry 3 8
n d P lato
A r istotl
3
e, 2 0
s

n a

e,

e o

1 2

2 0

2 02

2 02

2 0

1 2

ee

ne

Augu st i
Au st i Jo h
Au th ority

n e, 2 1

n,

n,

343

an d

r aso n

8
4

Ba c o n Fra nc is 8 3 7 3 3
alt r 3 6 3 7
Ba g h ot W
Ba in P ro f ssor A 3 8
6
6; n
Bal fo u r A rt hu r J
A bsol u t
th
; c r it ic is m
f H g l
B ntha m J r my 3 4 3
B r k l y B is h op 89 9 3
94
,

e e

2 0

2 2

e e

2 1 2

2 10

e,

ological c o nc pts appl i d to

ph ilosop hy 3 4 6 7
Bla c k i P ro f ssor
d m in d 9 5 sqq
Bo d y
77
B o r w ar 4 9
8
P ro f ssor B
Bosa q u t
5
Bi

85 ;

n n

on

e,

63

xp ri c
e

en

3 7

u tl r
e

on

0,

8
3,
q
e an d t h e
i e
th e
s

tm

A b sol u t 84 ;
l ss s l f 89
Bro w i g El i a b t h
Buddh is m 6
5
e

ra dl y

an

e,

e e

2 08

1
I

en

1 1

ne

Ac t o s d st c t o b tw
u r
A l x a d r ro ssor

A r ol d M atth w 6 4 3
A s hl y P rof ssor W J 8
A th a as ia C r d 6
A to m t va g l ical d oc tr i

B lSh O P, 3 1 8
.

8
3

0
3 7,

3 4,

6
34

I ND E X

C al d r w oo d P rof ssor H n ry 3
C alv in
C alv inists 4
C a m p b ll P ro f ssor L w is
C arlyl Ja n W l h
C as u istry 5
C at g or ic al Im p rat iv 3 6
C a u sat io P r inc ipl f 7 6 7 8
e

1 2 2

e,

e s

1 1

2 01

e, 2

n,

C o ns rv t is m

an

ra d ic al is m

0
7 ,

3 39
n i e nc
u h , 1 4 6 , 1 88
a nd
n in e n
en
dis
,
t ingu ish e d f m
2 2 2
e ,
e c i e,
2 2 7
fe ss
m es o n, 1 9 6 sq
n in i ,
in c i e o f, 2 2
n in u m
he
of c n ci u

C o s st y
C o t g cy

tr t
appar t
ro r al
P ro

o bj t v
or
Ja
C o t u ty pr pl
C o t u t ory
o s o s
n ss
95
C o n tra d ic t io n pr inc ipl of 7 4
.

C a u s 3 3 85 d iff r t m a n
ing s f
4
5
7
f c i n t n d l
6
8
37
4
44
47
I
C h a c nat u r f 9 7 s q
8
9
C h a ng im pl i s p r m a n nc
8
C o n tra d ic tory n d c o n trary oppo
C h arl s I 5 5
s it io 4 8
W J 3 39
67
C h m istry m n tal
C
th p
C h r ist ia n Chu r ch
6
Cu
sto
m
m
oral
pro
g
r
ss
d
8
4
9
i
n
8
v i w f m att r
6
n
d
f
r

c
t
o
;
3
7
q
m oral ity
r
l
i
g
i
o
n
v
i
ls
f
s
u
pport
;
;
3 7
3 7
9
57
f should b
for n w
C h r ist ia n ity d ist in c t iv id al f
w
h
i
t
d
m
o
c
rat
c
r
l
g
o
d
as
i
i
n
i
3 7
33
C u to m s t nd n c y to u n d u p
5 8 5 ; n d m oral ity 3 3 ;
nd
im m ortal ity
s ist nc f 3 9
6
nd
P lato nic d u al is m 9 5
C y n ic 7
C hu r ch n d Stat 5 3 q q
D arw in C h arl s 5 4
69
C lar nd o n 5 5
7
f
D
m
o
c
ra
c
y
tr
u
d
f
c
C l iffor d W K
6
n
49 3

psy ch o p h ys ic al parall l is m 9 6 ;
338
n h app in
t
I d als
nd
t
s a m a ns 3 7
D m
t
C o h r n c pr in c ipl
f 7 s qq
C o m m o n g oo d in r lat io n to D s c art s 8 3 5
3
f
t
st
tr
u
t
h
s
q
c o nd uc t 3 s q d v lop m n t
7
74 ;
f id as f 3 5
d u al is m 9 5 s q
D s ir
sat isfa c t io n f d o s t
Comt 3 5
u
ara
t
tr
u
t
h
n
C o c pt g n ral nat u r f 4 ;
44
5
g
D t r mi is m d ist i gu is h d fro m
A r istotl s v i w f 1 5 3
f
n
fatal is m
a
d
qu
a
c
y
i
C o nd or c t 9 7
3
psy ch olo g ic al a s w r to 3 3 sq
C o nd u c t d ial c t ic f 5 7 s q
D
al
c
t
c
6
i
i
d f 37
7
49
9
D ic t u m f A r istotl
6
C o s c i nc 3 7
C o n s c io u s n ss w orl d f nd r al D is sta b l is hm n t ff c ts of 5 3 sq
D
o
u
k
h
o
b
ors
6
i
w orl d
8
s
q
m
pl
i
s
5
5
7
i
D
u
al
s
m
t i ity
h
n
n
n
d
t
;
73
53
D u t i s c o n ic t f
s c io u 3 5
59
57 q
C o ns rvat io n f m att r nd
D u ty for m n d c o n t n t of
n rgy 8
e,

e en

10

10

na

e,

e o

1 2 1

e,

es

e e

as

2 1

e,

en

2 2

e,

no

1 1

2 2

co

ac

O,

1 1

ee

e e

e en e

e,

ar is o cr a lc

2 0

s,

e,

er

e o

oc r a lc a

on

'

o n,

e o

e o

e,

s,

ee

an

e,

1 2

1 2

ou r

1 2

e, 2 2

1 2

1 2

SC 1

2 2

I N D EX

c o o m ic r lat io s s u pra at io al
5 7 ; c o o m ic fa c tor i h i
tory 3 6
Eg tra s c d ntal
d m p ir ic al
E

o,

75
i

en

an

l at c s
m a at o t h ory
m grat o
m p do l s
p r c sm
var ou s m a g s
ma s
c o duc t orm
t t
t hym m A r stot l a
v ro m t so c al
p cu r s att t ud to r l g o
.

3
E i

p p h no m no n c ons c io u s n ss as
e

v l pro l m
vol u t o atu r
nd
pr c pl
c o t u ty
d ist inc t io b tw b iolog ic al
d so c ial 3 8
Evol u t io n is m id al ist
Evol u t io nist p h ilosop h y
9
t h ic s 6 7 9 89 ; t h ic s
d pol it ic s 4
so c iology
f
i
t
d
s
to
atal
sm 5
43
Ex c l ud d m idd l
princ ipl f
E i,
b e o f, 1 3 1 , 2 2 5
E
i n, n
e o f, 2 2 8 ;
in i e o f
n in i ,
.

an

Ee
, 2 0 0, 2 0 3 , 2 0 8
E n i n
e
1 2 8
,
E i
i n, 2 4 6
E
e
c e , 2 00
Em i i i , 3 1 , 7 2 , 2 7 8
End,
i
e n in
2 ;
o f, 2
9
e nd an d
e n ,
0
1
2
,
,
34
34
34 ;
e nd o f
n
a nd c o n
, f
e n o f, 2
77
En
e
i
e,
e i n, 1 6 6
En i n e n ,
i , 3 37
E i
ean ,
i
e
e i i n,
1 2

34 7

2 2

ee n

2 2

1 1

an

en

e,

7 4 2 1 3 7 2 1 4 1 2 1 44
E i e n e , in
i
e,
2
e
n
9
n i
ne ,
93
E e ie n e, 85
as
be
of
e
i , 86
e
e ie n e
e, 1 8
an d t h e
b
4
E e n
in
n
ie
,
1
0f:
,
93

x st c
spa c
r lat o
to c o s c o u s ss sq
xp r c
o j ct
m tap hys c s sq xp r c
A sol u t
x t r al worl d pla m a s v w
.

97

p st m olo g y nd lo g ic 7 84
8
sq
psy
ch
olo
g
y
8
n
d
3
S
n
d
m
tap
h
ys
i
c
s
sq
7
7
Ep ist m olo g ic al id al is m 9 4
Eq u al ity 4
var
i
o
u
s
;
3
3 5 q
m a ing s f 3 3 6 n id al
i
c
v
l pol it ical nd
6
i
;
3 37
33
so c ial 3 3 6 3 3 7 3 3 8; q u al ity
d o m 3 3 8 q q u al ity
nd fr
n d in q u al ity so c ial 3 3 9
Et h ic al n d 9
Et h ic s in r lat io n to m tap h ys ic s
sq
n d pol it ic s
6
8
q
i
n
i
8
d
r
l
g
o
8
;
7
3
m tap h ys ic f 8 ;
s c i c f 3 6 83 ; d ist inc t
fro m s c i c s f at u r
7
s ch m f a syst m f t h ic s
8 ; Ch r ist ia n t h ic s 3 3
h istor ical t h ic s 88 h istory
f t h ic s
i
art
t
h
c
s
f
9
t h ic s nd m oral ity in
83 ;
r lat io n to r l ig io n h istorical
o u tl in 3
Eva ng l ic al r l ig io n a fra gm n t
6
f C at h ol ic fa it h
E i

e n

ee

1 10 s

an

en e

e,

e, 2

en e

a
,

1 1

0,

1 2

1 2

act
1

t h ory

and

6 4 sq
i n, P in i
i n ,

4 6,

sqq

a r ba r r c pal A M
a t h rat o al m a i g

F i
F i

6
i

2 2

1 2 2

o f,

e n n

atal s m

d t rm i is m
i
volv
d
i
h
r
d
i
ty
t
3
i
i
f
vol
u
t
o
st
atal
33
5
i m f th Ra d ical
53
f th
w orl d 4 9
F d rat io
Im p r ial 5
d
F li g
at u r f 84
t h o ugh t 8 q
d c o t t f th m oral
For m
F

no

2 2

n,

1 s

d, 2 7 7
i e, 3 0 5

en

an

n en

an

e e

ee

e e

a nd

43

o u ll
n in t ll c t
nd
;
f li g
7
Fras r P ro f ssor A C m pb lL
F

ee
e

2 1

ee,

an

ee

ee

r d rick th Gr at 5 5
r a c t io s d ist ingu is h d fro m
u nfr 3 3
nd
n c ss ity
Fr d o m
48
t a
d q u al ity 3 3 8 q ;
fa c t b u t n id al
43

F
F

e e

no

I ND E X

8
34
F

ee

w ill

1 1

2 2

at u r f 1 1
lo g ic al asp c t f
pr d st inat io n 4
or d inary d o c tr in
v il ff c t f fals
n

t o

7 9, 3 0 2 ;
he
3 8;
2 2
a
n
d
;
4
d e fe c o f
o f,
0
3 5
c nc e i n
2

ts

o f,

0
3

pt o

app ara nc nd r al ity

I
p h ilosop h y f h istory 1
H g l ia nis m nd th A t h a n as ia n
Cr d 60
H n ry VIII
55
H ra c l it a ns 0
3
H ra c l it u 7 5
8
3
H r d ity in r lat io n to b iolo g y
nd so c iolo g y
r
lat
o
i
i
n
n
4
to m oral pra c t ic 3 3 1 q
d o n t involv fatal is m 3 3 1
H r t ic s v il ff c t f sol it d n
e

ee

0, 2 0

s,

1 2

1 02

1 2

W0

12 1

e e

Gr

6
6
6
8, 1 9 3
,
,
H , 2 2 , 2 8 in u e nc e
ee n , T
e m n on f i h,
o n R i c ie , 5

i
1 8
m
c
n
e e
o
,
9
59 ;

Gr

th

s r o
l ss a t

H a m ilto n Sir
lo g ic 2 0 3

e o

at

as

e, 2

e,

u s e

e, 2

Is

e o

H Offding, H

or

6
9 ,

es a

66

H ome Rule 5 3
H o u s e s o f P arl ia m en t

r for m
e

in,

H u m a nity
0
1
3

H um e

l if

e o f,

as th ic al
e

en

d,

av id

3 3,

6 4,

6 5,

fo m al

on

as w ll
v nts 1 0
pro b l m s
f
d t ing i h d
fro m t h os f s c i nc 1 4
H istor ic al m t h o d th
81
H o bb s 6 6
n l ik n s nd
H obhous L T
id n t ity 1 6 3 4
H o d g so n Sh dw th 1 0 8

52

i k p h ilosop hy
2

fals o pt o
G oo c o pt o
o m o g oo
r lat o to
c o nd u c t 3 1 q ; d v lop m n t
f id as f 3 5
G osp l fo u rt h id n t i s C h r ist
w it h t r nal r aso n 5 7
G r at Br ita in pol it ic al r for m in
2

vl

3 1 5 sq

3 ,
2 41
er
2 3 4,
2 3 0,
2 2 5,
p
e i e ffe c
o f, 2 3
of
so n alit
9
y
i ns o f, 3 0 8
e c nc e
nce
i n o f, 2 9 4 ; t h e
d,
c m n
d in e i n
,

H e ro e x pla nat io n o f t h e 3 0 7
H in du la w 5 6
H istory h as to d o w it h m ea n ings

e e

es

x,

eu

2 2

e,

G alto n Fra nc is 4
G o m try n n Eu c l id a n
G r m a ny in 8 6
ill u strat io n
of
G lin
c lo c k s
G iro nd ists 6 3
G ost ic i m 8
G o d nat u r f 5 9

e e

2 1

Hu x l ey
H yslop

T H
P rof ssor
.

2 2

88, 9 4, 9 6
H , I 50

app in s as m oral nd 3 8 3 7 I d al c o n c pt io n f 3 5 q ;
i
n
i
d
r
al
s
u
ppos
d
a
t
t
h
s
s
n
i
n
as
m
a
s
h
app
8
;
37
79 9 ;
f
6
8
8
I
8
f b l i v rs
n ss
4
3
4
I d al is m B r k l y s 9 4 ; nd
H art m a nn 3 0 6
p ss im is m 3 3 5
H at c h Edw in 1 4
I d al ist n d vol u t io nist t h ic s
H ay n s E S P 5 4
vol u t io nis m
89 ;
id al ist
H d o n is m 3 9 7 9
1
8
H g l 5 6 1 68
i
I
d
as
n

u
n
c
f
n
pra
c
t
i
c
att
t
u
d
to
w
ar
d
s
ol
d
r
i
5 ;
f
6
i
p h ilosop h y
v
w
3
9
H

e s,

2 0

2 0

2 2 2

e e

2 2

e,

I ND EX

3 49

Id t ity pr i c ipl f 7 4 3 7
o
b
j
c
t
v
ch
a
c
i
n
7
d s im ilar ity
83
r
l
i
g
i
o
;
4
4
q
3 ;
I ll u s io s at u r f 8
d f c f pl u ral is m 7
Im itat io c o s c io u s a fa ctor i
a frm at iv d g at iv judg
hum a vol u t io 3 8 im ita
m ts 4
m ot io al
th
t io
d i st i c t i
hum a
c h ara c t r f b l i f in r al ity
b i gs 3 3
fa it h
6
Imm ortal ity 6 3 8; v il ff c t J s u s d So c rat s 5 8 m oral
f fals c o c pt io s
f 3 8
t a ch i g f 5
I c ar at io d o c tr i
f
W
J
vo
s
v
w
lo
g
c
i
f
i
59
6
n lo g ic al t r m s
35 q
39
I co c iva b il ity f th oppos it
53
a t st f tru t h 3 4 4 6 J w s r l ig io n f 5 7 6
v
i
w
s
f
M
i
ll
8
d
S
f
Jo
h
so
a
mu
l
r
u
tat
o
i
f
9
Sp c r
B
r
k
l
y
77
4
4
9
I d ividu al atu r f 5
Jos p h H 5 5
isolat io
f
f
J
udgm
t
at
u
r
83 q
5
45
6
i
m
porta
c
f
i
i
f
A
r
stotl
s
v
w
typ
s
,
7
3
54
f 5 8 ; th u it f t h o ugh t
I d iv idu al is m pro b l m f 49
i
g
at
v
o
b
j
c
t
i
o
s
to
d
i r l ig io
f

m
5
3
9
q
i
t
v
a
alyt
c
i
d
;
4
4
7
4
y
t h t ic 4 i g l ll ti
I duc t iv m t h o d s f M 11 r ally
6 ; x t s iv
d u iv rsal
d duc t iv 6 7
I nf r c pro b l m d para d o x
d i t s iv i t rpr tat io
f
lo
g
i
c
al
a
alys
i
s
f
f
i
6
ll
s
v
w
i
8
M
f
;
;
3
5
5
9
5
q u at io al t h ory f 6 ;
i f r c s f ti i 6 9
at u r f p r c pt iv judgm t
I st it u t io s d cu sto m s c apa b l
65 q
judgm t i volv s
or m o u s variat io n 3 q ;
f
r f r c to r al ity 5 9
c orr c t iv f vil h r d ity i
i
i
judgm
t
propos
t
o
d
i
A
t
h
a
i d iv idu als
33
i
s t c
8
t
h
c
al
d
i st it u t io ns
Sparta
d
5
i
i
l
judgm
ts
a
b
o
u
t
i
l
t
8
p
3
q
part icu lars 3 6
I trosp c t io 7 3
I tu it io is m 8 d f c ts f J u st i c at io va g l ic al d o c tr i
en

e o

e n

ne

en e

0, 1

2 0

or

2 0 s

e e

en

en

en e n e,

3 7 , 3 9: 4
nf e
16
g
I n tu it io n ist
e i
i
2

62
i

4 5,

e e

1 1

c o u s s psy ch ology w t h log c

syst m s
pra c t cal v ls f 3
I r la nd 5 3
I solat io
I nd iv idu al
e

2 2

m orals

of

n 27

o f,

1 2

9 5,

P ro fe ssor

a t

2 1

3,

2 1

c o t i g cy
n

en

8,

2 2

3;

6
9

8,

r al
e

2 02

an
an

ar e

n e

ne

1 1
2

3,

74 ;
1
3
ic

a nt
s c pt c s m
r ply to H um 3 3 n t h s
nd r l ig io n
3
p
n
f
p
a
c
8
d
ra
l
t
;
4
p
t io f th worl d 4 9
in t ns io n f
N
K y s
t rm s 5 6
e,

n o

ne

on

on

e,

1 2

e ua

on

en

n,

8, 6 6 , 1 0 7 , 1 0 9 ,
6
6
2
2
8
2
2
2 08
,
,
,
3
9,
ii ,
e
a nd

1 1

2 00 ,

Will ia m

n o

Ja m s

en

en

ve ,

ec

s n

n, e

ca

n e

en

n, 2

u ar , c o

e e en e

an

an

e an

e o

s n

2 0

n en

ne

2 0

an

1 2 2

an

or

en

an

an

e e

en

e e n e,

n e en e

n,

e,

e,

'

n, 1 1

2 1

n e o

1 2

an

o n,

0, I

on

2 2

e e

an

e,

0, 1

2 0

ne

on

n, 1 2

on

as

e,

2 0

n e

e an

en

n e

n,

on

2 10

e en e o

2 2 0 s

on

2 2

n,

an

2 0

n e

1 2

n,

an

er

I ND EX

35

Kn

owl dg
e

o f,

ss nt ial c o nd it io ns
r lat iv ity f 7 4 ;

e,

3
i i
1

o bj c t v ty f 1 8 q 3 ;
tra n ubj c t iv 1 7 6 ; n t a
pro duc t f m r ind iv idu al
a c t iv ity 87 ; k no w l dg nd
s c i nc 6 5 im p rf c t k n o w
l d g im pl i s n id al 3 5 ;
k n o w l dg b r ing s s u ff r ing
e

s s

e e

e, 2

45

e,

ss fa r
a ar k a ypot h s s
apla
a u r P ro ssor
co t
ut s
m oral ty st c t o
b tw n 3 4 3
nd l ib rt
L w
s
u
ppos
d
n
y
i b tw n 1 4 8
t ith
L w f n at u r d ist ingu is h d fro m
m oral la w 1 3 6 3 6 7 q ;
-

ee

es s

ee

e,

0 s

3 33

t h o ug h t in psy c h olo g y
nd lo g ic
1 3 6 ; m tap h ys ical
appl ic at io n f 1 4 8
L ib ni
1
5
9
pr
i
n
c
i
pl
f
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
ty
;
39
m
i
n
d
n
d
b
o
d
y
8
;
9
Vi w f c o n t ing n c y
L ib
n iz n d B r k l y
94
L to u r n a u
89
L w s G or g H n ry 9 7
Lib ral is m 5 3 5 6
Lib rty
Fr d o m
Lif w ast
nd pr
rvat io n f
aws

of

1 02

z,

2 2

r2

93

ee

2 2 2

e,

Li e

e e

2 2

e
e

2 0

10

e se

of

so c ial org a nis m as

th e

t h ic al nd 9 9
Sim ilar ity
Lik n ss
6
1
Lo c k
6
33
7
7
7
f 7 ; a r gu la
Lo g ic n at u r
t iv s c i nc 1 3 5 c r it ic is m of
c at g or i s 84 r lat io n to
p i t m olo gy 1 3 8 1 81 s q
e

e,

s e

e o

2 01

e,

s,

e,

ze ,

r orI

2 00 , 2

e,

2 2

2 1 2

2 01

M a c h iav ell i, 3 4 3
M a ck in tos h , Sir Ja m es , 2 6 7

M Le nnan
F 2 69
M T aggar t,
M E , 1 47
M ah ay,
P , 3 39
M a ine , Sir H
2 2 3, 2 6
9
M art in e a u , Ja m es 2 7 2
M artyr d o m , s ig ni c a n c e o f,
.

61

a proof f fa c ts 4 3
M ast r n d s rva n t r lat io n s
no t

M at h e m at ic al

o f,

for mu la

d el u s iv e

3 39

log ic 1 5 4 6 8
M at h m at ic pro g r ss of
5 ;
c o n c pt io n f appl i d to st ud y
f m n
6 6 im itat io n of a
c u rs to p h ilosop h y 7
M at r ial c a u s 1
M at r ial is m
94
M att r nd m in d n t s parat
s ub sta nc s 3
M a u d sl y H
6
53
78
M a ns nd n d 3 4 3 4 3 4
M ta g o m try 1 5
f
M tap h ys ic s s ubj c t m att r
sp cu lat iv pro b l m
84 s qq
f
88 q ; r lat io n to pi t
sq r lat io n t
m l gy
1 7
s c i n c 7 8 r lat io n to t h ic s
I
6
sq
8
q
in

s,

so

2 1

o o

10 s

s e

2
,

e, 2

e,

0,

2 2

2 1

e,

La i ez i e , 5 1 , 5 6
L m c in h
e i,
43
c e, 2 3 0
L
L
ie ,
fe
S S , 2 3 8, 2 4 3 ;
on
n ic o f d
ie , 2 5 8
Law and
i , d i in i n
e

r lat io n to psy ch olo gy I 3 4 q

m tap h ys ic al appl ic at io n
7
f lo g ic al la w
8
4
Lo g ic al pr ior ity nd p i ty n
t im 5 7 8
Lo n l in ss
6
7
4
Lot
I
68
n H g l
p h ilosoph y f h istory
Lov
5
Lu tosla w s k i W

M e tar ith m e tic , 1 5 1

M ill , J
1 3 1 0 5 , I 44, 2 6 7 , 2 7 2 ,
.

c o nfu s io n of lo g ic al and
psy ch olo g ic al q u est io n s 3 0
2
1
3

I NDEX

c o c iva b il ity f
t h oppos it
sqq
7
4
94 ;
c o otat o f prop r a m s
i
l
k ss u lt imat
57 ;
c at g ory 9 4 ;
r al k i d s
i
f
i
w
u
v
rsals
6
94 ;
i
i
A
r
stot
l
a
syllo
g
i
s
m
94 ;
r
c
6
i
f
3
q
fro m part icu lar to part icu lar
f ca u s
6 3 c o c pt io
68
i duc t iv m t h o d s 83
67 ;
log ic d p h ilosop h ical ra d i
li m
psy
ch
olo
g
i
c
al
3
9
ato m is m 6 4 ; pl u ral is m 9 4 ;
happ i ss 3 7 9 8;
t h is m 5
Mi d
d m att r
t s parat
s u b sta c s 3
d b o dy 9 5 q q
Mi d
77
M i d s d iff r c s f 7 3
i
M ira c l s 5 7 5 9 3 7
d c 3 3
im p r f c t io s
M o a d is m
8S
1

0
4

in

on

on

n o

on

as

on

2 0

on

on

V e

e ne

e,

nn

n e

n e en e

35

r for m s mu st b c apa b l
b c o m ing cu sto m s 3 8
M oral t h olog y f th s ch ool m
M oral

e o

312
M i n,
e
M iille r , P fe
M
i i , 1 90

e n,

or so Ja m s C ott r
ro ssor M
yst c s m
M yt h olo g y
e

ax ,

1 2 2

3 4
2 6
9
1

n e

n o

e, I

an

ca

on

ne

2 2

en

as e v

o is m
n

2 2

an

n, n

an

e,

an

an

n,

p h ilosop hy 3 5 4 4 4 8
m tap hys ical d h istor ic al
6
l m ts f, 9 d ist ingu is h d
nd
83
fro m m oral s c i n c
nd
psy ch ology 7 q
s c i nc 6 4
M orals n d pol it ic s r lat io n f
sq
t
h
c
s
i
E
34
M oral pro g r ss i pro g r ss in th
f c o du c t
id al
97 ;
s ists in c r at i g g oo d cu sto m s
M oral

en

e, 2

32 7

1 14 ;

3 3 4,
335
333

e n n

to

3 34
Ne

c ss ity d ist i gu is h d fro m fat

n

2 2

e,

lato s m
yth a g or a sm
c o s c c l m ta
to s

ni
1
6
8
2 8
N eo P
,
,
e ni
68
N eo P
,
N o n c o n fo r m ist n ie n e, i i
i n o f, 5 6
-

j c t v ty k o wl dg
cc a m s ra or
ma y
p o
r ks s
pt m s m
p ss m s m

e , 1 82 s
e
Ob e i i o f n
q

80
O
z
,
2 s
1
n , 1 88
O ne in th e
,
9 q
e n e o f, 6 6
O in i n , G e e
e i i
a nd
O i i
,
3 9,
.

44
O i in

rg

7 8,

O
O

an

6 8sq

val id ity

n e

35 q
s

e n,

6
7

o b rt

8sq q

5 7,

ugh t c o c pt io
2

e, 2

o f,

1 1

4 qq
s

0
3 5,

0
3

an

e e

e o

an

an

2 0

e,

2 1

n,

m
at
r
i
al
i
st
i
c
73
d pl u ral is m
9
a
m
s
s
c
r
t
c
s
m
i
i
f
i
7 q
J
M o ta gu P rof ssor F C 5
d cu sto m 3 6 q ;
M oral ity
Ch r is
d Ch r ist ia ity 3 3
t ia at u r f 3 4 cc l s ias
d
d la w 3 4 3
t ic al 3 4
at u r 3 3 3 3 5 d r l ig io

e,

e e

e,

o f, 2

no

e en e

on

an

an

n e

at io al ity 5 6
atu ral r igh ts 3 9 4
at u ral s l c t io 3 3 5
at u ral ist m tap hys ics 6
at u r 3 7 3 9 7 6 q 7 9
r lat io to m oral ity 3 3
3 3 5 r lat io n to t h o ugh t
m a i g f o b d i nc to
v il f b l ind o b d i nc

N
N
N
N
N

con

P al ey 3 1 2 3 1 3
P a ra l l e l i s m p sy c h op h ys i c a l
.

95 qq
s

P at m or e C ov en try 4 1
P a u l in e Ep istl es 1 2 5
,

338
.

35

I N DE X

P arso P ro f ssor Karl 85

P r c pt io n as s ub c o ns c io u s inf r
n,

e n e,

65

en

65

99
e fe c i n o f m n k ind
e h ic
e n d, 3 2 3
2 7,
n i ,
2 40,
2
s
e
47 q ;
ie
c ie , 2 7 , 2 80 ; in
i
nn e
i n
i ,
wi h
d
e n
2 1 8
e o f, 2 7 6
2
e i i
2
2
6
and
,
,
3 9,
;
94
i i m,
2
a
n
d
,
39
44 ;
id e i m , 3 3 5
hi
h , 2 3 , 6 7 sq , 7 3 , 1 1 2 ,
h is
2 8,
69 ;
12 4 ;
o f,
e i i n,
1 2 3
e
i n
i n to
c ie nc e , 2 3 , 2 4 ,
e
6
2
0 ;
2 64 s ,
s ,
2
8
2 8
,
4 q
9
q
i y n
e e
in e
to
.

P r to

as t

o f,

57

a m s c o nnotat io n

P rot sta n t r volt a g a inst a u t h or ity

P r c pt iv j u d g m ts
e

P rop r

al

P rso al ty
m pl s so ty
co ct o
t pl u ral s m
o ub l at u r
P ss m s m
opt m s
al s
P losop y
tory
r lat o to r l g o
r lat o
s
.

31

P sy c h olo g y n at u r f 6 q
n
sq
as
a
s
c
i
c
6
7
7
r
lat
o
i
n
t
35
7
q ;
p is t m olo g y 7 8 ; log ic 7
m
tap
h
ys
c
s
i
34 q
7
m
oral
p
h
losop
h
y
i
73
7
2

e,

0,

10

s
z
7 q

2
7

,
,

P sy c h op h y ic al parall l is m 9 5 s qq
2

0,

10

P yt h a g oras

6 7,

66

prof ss s
l c t al d
P lato 4 6
u

2 0

sat sf o ly
m a nd s 1 5
2

1 06,

2 1 1

9 7,
1 6,

2 2

2 01

,
,

v i w f p h ilo op h y 6 7 6 9 ;
att it ud t r l ig io n 3 ;
f
d u al is m
3 ; P m nide
s

P lato

1 2

ar

Soph istes
e,
a nd A i

2 01

2 0

r stotl

o f,

2 02

2 03,

2 08

6,
a nd

3,

62 ,

73
i ,
18
,

n
p
rso
al
ty
93
nd polyt h is m
1 8;
P
ro
n d m o n is m
1
;
73
9
Ja m s n 1 9 6
f
7 ;
c r it ic is m f 3 6 9
P ol it ic s n d t h ic
17
81
nd m orals
3 08 ;
34 1 q ;
n d stat
m a n s h ip 3 4 1 sq
P olyth is m nd pl u ral is m in
or d inary t h o u g h t 8
P r d st inat io n nd fr w ill
1

88

e sso r

es

2 1

4
e ic
i n , 1 84
i i ,
ic , a nd
i e, 1 5 2 , 2 7 8
2

2 1

2 0

s,

pr

th e

d ic at e

R a d ic al a nd Tory , 3 3 9
R a d ic al is and o n s e rvat is , 7 0
R at io n al is o f th e 1 8t h c e n t ry ,

m
m

82
i m,
i ,
81

ee

pr ior ity

in

p ist m olo gic al 1 7 4 s q

n at u r
f 85 s qq
88
f 89
1
d gr s
1
n o wl dg
1
k
f
1
;
75
q
t st f 1 9 7 im pl i s bj
r lat io n to app ar
ti ity 1 87
a n c nd ill u io n 89
9
r lat io n to t h o ug h t 83
R al W orl d m a n in g f 1 7 9 s q
R aso n th nly ltim t
th
ity
r aso n nd w ill 4 4
16
R f r nd um 5 sq
R for m rs po it io n of o c ial 6
R eal
R e al

s
ty
2

eo

a e au

or

e e e

0
33

2 0

ec

0,

ee

0,

d
g
u
5
r lat io n to t h ic s
8 31
i
r
lat
o
to
m
oral
ty
n
i
3
n
i
f
i
f
u
or
m
ty
nd
3
34
h app in s 3 4 6
R po ns ib il ity n t ind iv idu al b t
o c ial 3 6 q
R e i , T h o m as , 1 7 8
R e l i io n, n at r e o f, 1 1 8,
.

1 2

0,

es
s

1 I

e s,

1 2

P r d at o
P r or ty lo g al
tm

P l u ral is m

2 00 ,

tl

2
e

6o

n t i c at io n
u
a
Q

I N DEX
a ga inst sta b l is h d ord r
t w o k ind s f 3
R it ch i P ro f ssor Dav id f Ed in
b u rgh U n iv rs ity
Dav id G org
R it ch i
ant
c d ts
st ud n t at Ed in
b u rgh
sqq ; op in io n f
S tti h U n i
ity syst m 3 q
at O x for d 4 sqq ; m arr iag
w it h T H
4 ; c o n c t io
Gr n
d A T oy n b
5 q ;
ch ara c t r ist ic s as a t a ch r
8 sqq
p u b l is h d w rit i gs
P
ro
ssor
at
f
S
t
;
q
A nd r ws
p
rso
al
ty
n
i
;
qq
d
at
h
p
h
lo
i
;
4 qq
5
sop h ic al pos it io
8 qq ;
id al ist vol u t io n is m i m ta
p h ys ic s
n n at u ral is m
;
q
d pl u ral is m
sq
n
h
t
5
h istory f p h ilosop hy 8 q ;
d t h ory f k no w
n lo g ic
l dg 3 q ; n psych ology
th ic s d pol it ics
3 3 sq
n
n
i
n
t
u
i
t
i
o
n
i
s
m
d
;
35 q
h d o is m 3 7 q ; so c ial is m
n
n d in d iv idu al is m
;
39 q
pra c t ic al t h ic s nd pol it ic s
h
n
i
n
d
t
m
arr
a
g
44 q ;
war d
fa m ily 4 5 q ;
p a c 4 8 q ; n r lat io ns f
stat s 4 9 q ; n pol it ic al
r for m in Gr at Br ita in 5 ;
n d Stat
n Chu r ch
53 q ;
r l igio n nd t h ology
n
c
r
d
s
6
sq
n
57 q
imm ortal ity 6 sq
f
P ro f ssor Will ia m
Rit ch i
Ed in b u rgh U n iv rs ity I

R evolt

e,

2 0

en

co

e,

ver s

ee ,

an

an

on

e,

an

ee

Ritsc h l,

1 2

n,

en

1 1

in

6
5

pr im it iv

312

o f,

ch op h a u r 99 8 3 6
chu rm a
E
83
c
c o c ptu al s u bj c t
m att r f 5 6 ; l gi i
m at m at rial is m f
pr s u ppos it io s f 6 3 3
prog r ss f 49 s c i c d
p h ilosoph y 4 6 4 7 8 84
i
s
c
c
t
h
c
al
86
i
d
9 ;
id als
54
Sc i t i c t h o ugh t w orl d f 8
S llar P ro f ssor W Y
S l f u iv rsal
d i d iv idu al
t
m
l
ss
t
m
l
s
i
i
8
;
5
9
d m p ir ic al
75
47
c a u s 3 4 s l f d ot h r s lv s
S
en
S
n,
S ie nc e ,
e

10

2 0

an

e e

e e s
as

an

an

e,

an

an

en

en e

2 2

en e

10

n e

2 0

h
l c o s c io u s ss
t
53
u nity f 7 4 q ; th c o d i
t io n f fr will 3 4
S l f id n t ity v id nc
f 48
i
c o m pl t
d
S l h
v rsal i u n t h i ka b l 9 6
S l f r al isat io n n t m r ly r la
t iv nd i d iv idu al 9 6 as
m oral nd 3 7 9 5
S lv s in d iv idu al n t s parat
x
st
c
ot
h
r
s
lv
s
i
n
f
3

Se f

ne

e e

e,

e o

A dr w

P ro fe ssor

un

74 q

an

e, 2

th

e o

e e

s n ess,

Se

ee

3 6
e
i
an
Si i i
i
i
i
1 4 ;
1 6 3 sq ,
9
i e n i , I 83
S i i , 2 4 6 andin i i
of
n i
a nd th e
2
4
.

m lar ty as

d t ty
o c al s m
59

o f,

en

x s q u al ty f 3 8sq
dgwick P ro f ssor H ry

Se
Si

o c ial

2 10

pt ic is m

on

Sc e

e e

u al l m t
8
r l ig io
R os b ry Earl f

R it

on

e,

ch ill r F C
ra d ic al m p iric is m 9 5
Sch olast ic s m oral t h olog y
S

on

on e

0 s

e,

an

2 1 s

1 1 s

1 2

n,

e,

10

an

ee

e,

353

en

3 37

u lt m at cat g ory
s m lar ty d
e

an

d v dual is m
c o c t du t i s
e

v ironm n t importa nc
e

3 54
S

o c ial org a nis m

var i t i s f
en

d,

99

o c ial r for m r
e

6 8,

7 ;
i
1

as t h c al

0
0
3

32 2

r aso n pr inc ipl

ic ie n t
Su

o f,

u ra g u v rsal
u lly P ro ssor Ja m s
t rla
a la b oratory
pol t c al x p r m t
yllo g s m
ll s r t c s m
a d qu at for
argum ts

S ff
e,
ni e
, 338
S
f
e
e , 1
2
,
5
Sw i ze
nd
ii
e
e i en ,
8
4

S
i , Mi
c iii
I 61,
1 62 ;
e
e
r tior i
n
e
1
6
,

9
.

d if cu lt ie s

of

of

o c i ty 5 c os m opol ita n 5 6
appl ic at io n f b iolo g ic al n
f
i
n
to
6
so
c
ty
n
d
i
t
7
p
so c i ty
it in st it u t io n s 3 7
stat 5 5
n d th
S o c rat s 5 8 1 3 3
Sol ips is m 1 87
Taylor P rof ssor A E 6 4
v il ff c ts f 3 6
T nnyso n 3 9
Sol it ud
S op h ists 3 8
T r m s lo g ic al A r istotl s d
ill u s io n s
n t
n d t im
f
Spa c
n it i n
r
lat
o
to
i
n
53
i
i
s
qq
sp
r
t
u
al
8
nt
I
j
udgm
i
t
s
o
n
n
i
n
n
d
;
5
9
9
w orl d m a n if st d in
x t ns io n f 1 5 4 5 5 s ub
sp h ric al spa c f m or t h a n
t
i
i
o
bj
c
t
v
n
d
n
n
j
t h r d im ns io ns I 5
t i n l in t n s io n
f I 56
S p n c r H r b rt 9 5 3 7 5
T
h
a
c
k
ray
W
M
6
5
7
8
t
h
ory
T
h
olo
g
y
Ch
r
st
a
6
n
i
i
n
d
;
7
5
9
9
n
i
f k no w l d g
p
h
lo
n
P
lato
i
s
m
8
;
3
7
sop h y n d s c i n c 6 6 84 ; T h ory f k no w l dg 3 I 5 5
c r it ic is m f M ill 9 4
Th ory nd fa c t 7 1 q 9 4 6
64 q
8 39
1 5
Sp in o a
5
p h ys ic al n d th T h o ugh t n at u r f I 85 ; t h o ug h t
67
n th
n d r al ity
psy c h ic al or d rs 9 6 s qq ; d
t h o ugh t nd
83
g r s f r al ity 1 ; fr d o m
n at u r
335
n
d
n
i
T
m
spa
c
ll
u
sory
i
t
3 4
9
S tat d iff r n t iat d fro m so c i ty
n
i
f
s
l
pr
s
rvat
o
as
u
lt
T
m
l
ss
s
l
i
i
8
8
f
75
4
55 ;
9
m at pr inc ipl f 3 4 3 stat Tol rat io n r l ig io u s 5 4 sq
n
d
i
stat
Tory
d
R
a
d
c
al
n
in t r f r n c
;
3 39
7 47
c h u r c h 5 3 s q sp h r s f stat Toy nb A r nol d 5 6 7
Tra n s s u bj c t iv k n o wl d g I 7 6
n d in d iv id u al 3 6
nd
pol it ic al T r in ity d o c tr in f 6
S tat s m a ns h ip
7
1
s c i nc 5 4
4
n
d
n
i
n
r
u
t
h
c
o
s
st
c
y
64
T
6
8
8
S t p h n Si L sl i 4
7
4
i
n
f
Tr
u
t
h
u
ty
A
85
Pro f ssor
I
S t w art
3
99
d iff r n t k ind s f 1 4 I 4 3
Sto ic s 6 8 4
3 4
3
3
45
B
Tylor
E
3 7 3 9
3 5 33
65
S to u t P ro f ssor G F
S tra u ss 3 3 4
x ist nc 9 3 8 U nifor m ity f n at u r 7 6 3 4
Stru gg l f
U n iv rsal nd part ic u lar
S ubj c t n d o bj c t 1 86
39
S

ce

co

e, 2

1 2

e,

2 00 , 2 0

0,

ee

e e

1 2

1 2

2 02

0,

e,

e o

e,

0,

e e

e e

ve

co

e a

e,

ee

ve ,

e,

e,

ec

1 2 1

2 0

O,

ee

e,

e,

e,

e e

e e

e, 2

e e,

1 2

1 2

1 0,

1 2

e, 2

or e

e,

e e

0, 2

2 02

e,

2 02

e,

355

v rs ity ducat io n a d va n ta g

U ni

o f,

6
4
i

War d

on,

es

1 1

2 2

e e n,

8 sq q

sq
V t ch Wll a m 3
V rt u s t ll c t u al
7 8sq , 2 6 8
ei
i i
,
i e , in e e
.

ar ,

SO

w ll
l iv

57

7 7,

GLA G W 3 P R IN T ED A T

43

54

49

TH E U

NI VER I T Y P RE

SS

en

BY

1 07,

86

7 9,

0
2
3

1 1

sqq

1 2 1

4,
.

3 09
i

2 2

52

8
.

R O ER T M
B

r aso n 44 ; w ll to
r al will i u iv rsal
w ill f th p opl ;
o

Wors h ip

3 8,

an

308

n, 1

I 10

5, 3 3,

1 0 6,

1 04 ,

ee

e, 2

o u t h Afr ic a n

3
i

n,

2 2

or ig i d ist inc t io n

a nd

V al id ity
b tw

Watso P ro f ssor Jo h
W b r s la w
Will 85 ; fr d o m f
n,

Ja m s

P ro fessor

3 5 , 9 5 sq q

v rs ty syst m Sc ott is h 3
t
P
ro
f
sor
C
8
B
p
6 99 3
U t il itar ia n is m 3 8
U ni

A C L E H OS E A N D

LT D