New-York tribune., 1882-04-18

trine of sense. perception in which much Is
handed over to subjectivity would take his stand
on idealsm pure and simple. Such, however. Is
not his position. He acknowledges that there Is no
possibility OF proving that there is an externai
world. But we must believe that our fellow-men
exist. To deny or doubt this he tells us, is 10 re-
duce philosophy to farce. But they are external
to u.s. II human persons are realities distinct from
ourselves and not mere dreams there Is nothing
gained by DENYING the objective reality OF the
world process which passes before u.s. even though
we are compelled by analysis to correct TO sur
prisng degree the views taken OF IT by uncrltical
common sense. We must either assume That there
are objects Of sense-percepton, or hold that our
intellectual nature is instrument of delusion
We are precluded ethical grounds from depart
ing 80 far from common sense subjective Ideallsm
would oblge us to go. 1t is on ethical grounds
according to Professor Bovine that our trust in our
intellectual faculties is ultimately founded. Unless
these are veracious it is vain to affirm or deny any
thing There is guarantee of their veraclty apart
from the trustworthiness OF the Creator
Professor Bovine objects then, that the Berkeleian
doctrine is too wide a Iegress from the common
sense beliefs of men. That doctrine is that only
spirits exist, and that the world which we seen 10
see is only world-yision which the Deity Dy
uniform and regular operation of His will, evokes
in the finite minds to wlom lie has given being
The Bcrkeean might be disposed to dispute the prop
osition that his view of things is at much WIDER
remove from the vulgar apprehension than tue
objective idealisIn which Professor Bovine would
substitute for it. But, waving this point what, we
NAV ask, is Professor Bownes conception How
shall We understand hm' The world, we are 'old'
is more than the divine ideas. more than thoughts
of the Infinite These thoughts are set IN reality.
Matter and all its laws are the divine purpose IN
cessantv realizing itself. If we inquire INTO the
meaning of these phrases, it is explained that there
is not only conception of the world IN tile dlvlne
mind but an energzing of God, flowing activities
of the Infinite" which imply an exerton OF VIII on
His part and such an exerticn of will constitutes
an object. whether the percevDg mind OF the ciea-
ture exist or not. God does not evoke IN each IN
divdual a world. vision corresponding to the divine
IDEAS but His energizing contains III 1t something
perceptible wherever finite minds exist to perceive
il. But what that something is, whereby Professor
Bownes theory diferentiates itself from that of
Berkeley is not made clear. The distinction be-
tween objective Idealism in tins form and the ideal
ism of Berkeley is rather tenuOus Certainly IL Is
not broad enough TO give to either OF the two
views much advantage i'll an appeal to uneducated
common sense.
II cen hardly be deemed n reproach TO the authOr
of this work if he succeeds less the positive than
in the negative part of his undertaking. Inc
following passage will afford an example OF the
force of his reasoning in opposition to the empirical
theory:
Asa psvch,ogy. il fails to explain the facts of the
mind as a philosophy, it is suicidal as system,
it is without consistency If. however. anyone
still feels well disposed toward the doctrine, we
venture TO suggest few points TO be Kept In mlnd
N Let him decide what lie means by experience
If he means only affections OF the sensibillty, let
him show how such affections can generate the
US and categOries of thought. If be means by
experience the Old-fashiOned. unreasoned view OF
Locke in which all the categories were Implicit let
him answer the kantlan question How Is eXlell
ence possible (2l Let HIM decide as to the pace
of the Outer world Ill his theory whether 1t be real
or unreal determining ground OF our mentaI me-
or only projection of sensitive states III ne ue-
cides that mental states are oDlecGvely deter
mined let him show where he gets the notion OF
determination. If he decides that they are not OBJ
iectIvely determined let him show how TO escape |
pure egOtisn. If he decides that there is no deter
mlnation anywhere, let him show that his own doc
trine does not disappear. (3l Let him further |
decide whether he admits any universal principles |
or not. If he does admit them, let him show how |
universal principles can be deduced or proved from
"A particular experience without posting sell |
suf1cing insight in the mind If he denies both the
insight and the fixed principles, let HIM show that
any proper truth remaius, or that the result IS not
an Overwhelming sceptcIsm. ~ Let him also
master the distinction between the causes ana
grounds of belief, and keep the two questions sepa
rate After he has fairly graspeG the difference let
him give some standard Of truth which shall not |
either vanish into scep' icism or rest upon mental
insight OF course in doing tins work, he is eX- |
pected not beg the question: and not to appeal 10
thoughlless common sense to help him out of
trouble Common is good in ITS place, but It's
place is not to defend a theory from its wn conse-
quences. The proof. if given at ALL must be from
the data of the theory itself. Pending such proof
we hold that the mind is able to know some things
on its own account-that is Priorl. This fri0r1
character of rational truth however, does not con
sst i'll its being universally or easily known, but IN
the fact that when known, the mind accepts 1t on
its warrant.
The criterion of pror truth is found in its self
evident character. Insight is the touchstone of its
validity The distinction between the causes and
the grounds of belief Professor Bovine insists on
with commendable urgency Many writers of the
empirical schools content themselves with an eX-
plicaton of the genesis of knowledge, which, be
that genesis true false, does not OF Itself deter
mine the question of its trust worthiness.
We have only to add that the work of Professor
Bovine is marked by a striking freshness and
ability a comprehensive mastery of the history OF
philosophy from the beginnings OF speculation, a
pene tratng knowledge of recent discussions In tins
department, and an uncommon power OF presenting
abstruse trains of thOnght in a perspicuOus and
lively form. 1t will take high rank in the philo
sophical literature of the time.