New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-08-27
A BRAND NEW ABSOLUTE.
DIR RRADLFY'S VOLUME IN TIE LIBRARY OF
PHILOSOPHY.

{, will certainly be in agreement at every point
,ytb common.sense. II will need no words out
s;do If the ycrnacnlar TO state its propositions.
Il will OK olain the jrrcvocablc opinions of human
itv without attempting TO coitravcnr them. il is
needless to say that DR.. Bradley's scheme does
NOT fulfil these requirements. System which, in
order 10 sustain itself has to make division
between God and the Absolute. and then surr'p-
titiously and BY a chance word, atfrinhte per
sonality to the latter, is fatally detective. FOR
such discrimination implies u DEFINITION OF "oa
such as has never been accepted by intelligent
and thoughtful men since monotE'lsIn was hrst
thought cut 1t is true that when men nave
sought 10 imagine the Deity they have pcrforcr
credited him with human and sometimes even
with, brute attributes When the endeavor has
bean made to work out his character ana al
triputes by logical process, the hunianzing fancy
has cgain stepped in to vtlatc IN" result but
There has always been a clear insight on the part
Of consciousness into the defects OF these lmagih-
inrs. One of the most useless exploits of certain
rodorn scientists has been the attack on what
they called anthropomorphism. Its only result
v,s IN show that they themselves were incapable
or a,stractinc their thought from their imaglh-
inps. and that thcy supposed other prophetic DE-
in thu same condition.
When DIR. Bradley SAYS that the Absolute Only
Is real hc of course states n truism. Bnt wien
no ooes on 10 say that it il only experience ne
clearly creates an Absolute TINT is capanle OF
Growth and evolution, and this, it Is needless I"
snv is contradiction in terms For experience
is impossible without a history, and the Absolute
can have no history, since II is perfect anu VI"
chanrcable forever TO say this Is not 10 as-
sumo arrogantly that one knows this opJect oi
nrofound metaphysical contemplation
only TO say that any other KIND OF dn Aoso'"''
for example. Relative Absolute. $50 use one
of Dr. Bradlcy's own favortc words-ho'iS'n'''
II is true that human experience and the expert
oroo of othor forms of consciousness, il there are
on,. must apnroach perfection If thee could
rcacn perfection they would he a"soi",'
What Dr. Bradley puts in the present must "'
rclec,ted to the futurc-an indefinite lu'urc
which will be reached or the dat" oil III" "r'cN
Kalends or at the point where the hNp'rpoi'
becomes a straight line. There Is p"' "nr
Reality- he SAYS, land its being consists III eA-
pcriencc In this one whole all appearances come
together, and in coming together they Ill various
degrees lose their distinctive natures. Inc o.
sence 81 reality lies in the union ana agreement
of existence and content, and, on the o'h'r "I'''
appcarance consists in the discrepancy pr'"r'h
those two aspects. And reality in the end I've
longs nothing Dut 1ll' SlIti' "f''' - '''r
az the content stands for something other than
its own intent and meaning, as long as vi" "N-
istcncc actually is less or more than what II cS-
Centrally must imply. so long we are concerned
with mere appearance and not with genuine
reality. And We have found in every region that
this discrepancy Of aspects prevails. The internal
being Of everything finite depends on what Is
beyond IT, Hence everywhere insisting on a 80
called fact. we have found ourselves led by ITS
inner character into something outside itself
And this scif-contradictsop, this unrest ana
ideality of all things existing is clear PROOF
that. though such things are their being IS but
appearance
But we shall find, perhaps. that Dr
Bradley contemplatcs this infinite perfection wholly
from the individual point of view. For expert
encc is found by two modes Perception ana
thought on the one SIDE ard will and deslr' on
the other Ard his criticism CT the findings 81
these messengers Of the mind is the in'eil'''
which he deems infallible just as Herbert spencer
rests on consciousness. II is infalliblc becaus" II
is useless TO question its decisions. NcN"rth'-
less perception, thought, Will and desire are
relatiOnal. and their results must be relative
Thus man has to leap the same ditch h" has al
WAYS had to leap in passing from the INIT" 10 a
concepton Of the infinite What the metaphy-
nppH mere Is II DTluS' DHb ivy va" h'''
build one so long as they insist with DR. Bradley
that all thought is relative. That is true in
matters Of the imagination. 1t is true in logic.
But it is not true in a science of pure theory;
pressed on all sides TO tic bounds OF mysticism
such as metaphysics pretcnds to be- II is surely |
a mistake to found metaphysics on logic. The
proper office Of logic is TO correct a theory so a
10 make il consistent, but not to furnish il with |
materials or definitions
When Dr. Bradley remarks that Thought can |
understand that, TO reach it's goal, it must get |
beyond relations" he certainly comedies what, by
his definition, Is impossible. but what IL
true as far az il goes nevertheless But he begins
at once to hedge with the restriction "let in It's
nature il can find no other means of progress
Hence il perceivcs that somehow this reational |
side OF its nature must be merged and must in
clude somehow the other that is the unrelatonal)
side Such fusion would compel thought 10 lose
and to transcend its proper self. And the nature
Of this fusion thought apprehend in vague
but not in detail and it can see the
reason why detailed apprehension l. impossible.
Docs thought cease to be thought when it is nm
able to go into details? The fact is that DR..
Bradley, while making fun of Mr. Spcnccr's In
movable, gets his Absolute into the very Sale
trap. lie confounds thought with processes of
thought Just as Mr.. Spencer il determined to
think only with his imagination, so DR.. Bradley
is determined TO think only when he can
logical symbols DR.. Bradley has drawn a weapon
that can be used against himself when he says
' do not wish to be irrevercnt, but Mr. Spencer's
attitude toward his Unknowable strikes me az a
pleasantly, the point Of which lies in its uncon-
cousness. 1t SEEM, proposal to take something
for God simply and solely because We do not
know what the devil ii can be-" lie does In
deed, carefully provide against view OF hia Alb
,oute the Deity, but on the other hand by
,ort of transcendental surgery he cuts down the
concept of the Deity 50 as to give his Absolute
.lbow room.
This question Of the RELATIVELY of thought il
cally the turning point Of his whole system. As
o this, he is at ore with many philosophers
Who would traverse almost everything else that
IN has said Rut he cannot be accusod NJ 4;