New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-06-04

As More was to Macliavclli in the sixtecn'h
.o,,r,r HARRINGTON is 10 Hobbies in the seven
tenth After a critical and cynical view .,
,,oli,ical PHILOSOPHY, VIC have poli'icai loca''
This IL the ONLY reference which Dr. l'ohai n'n0'
IN one of the most striking facts reNeaeu ~
his elaborate study OF philosophy from '''o
roint of view OF economies. one nhs"' ''pP''
that this phenomenon, the penuuAuui smiho "
humanity between the practical ana inc I'M
nr.c,;cab,e was q novelty OF the two centuries
speci6ed. Not at all. 1t is the prlhcipai N'
son-at least for those VINO WISH u''' o'
calculating the futurc-to nc oo'slHca io' ~
book For it must be remembered tha'' '''o"s"
,ho nresent age boasts of IFS practica! tirn' IL
=. arro;notcd I,v some OF the widest theories
,h.t cvey harcbraincd spectators conceived
What will como next is getting to be an inter-
cst;nr probem The only thing quite certain Is
that il will not be the millennium
Dr Ronar starts with Plato. Consequently
Tho anhorism lust quoted should be reversed III
i,s terms. 1t should read: After poh'ic'I
ideal we have a critical and cynical We" VI
nolitical philosophy After Plato. Aristotle; ai,er
early Christian enthusiasm. mediaevai Hrls'o'i'
ianism: after the almost absurd fla'ohisi' "a
renaissance. the murderOus schshness Oh Md'"'
avelli: after the Utopias Of More ana iiaI'n'5
son. the cold sensationalism OF Locke anu ,u"'.
affP ROSScdu,
NJ Kant and Fichte and Goodwin, the stern
roolsm of Nautilus and the utilitariansm OF
Icntbam. after Marx and Engels and Prudhoh
.rd Henry George and the author OF LOOKING
psct,xn,d, and fiat money and free trade
whotp The delugc? No. indeed. The average
run Of people like fooling, but theS cahno' oo
fooled beyond certain very definite limits liz
pendulum must swing back
plato was incapabc of describing humanity as
A. existed IIo idealized political orsaniza.ion
+h. Greek civic state which tie world hao az
-, ortc,own And yet as DIR. Bonar points
mt. "the economical principle OF DIVISION u
labor was by Plato once for all founded on us
rh,lcsorhical basis Economically MS dclec, was
that he took an ascetic, that IS. whoiiS uiiiea.
,.;.v q, wealth. lie hoped to turn men from
the nursuit of riches to the attainment of leisure
Aristotle agreed as to the value OF ieis"re' o".
he Jaw what Plato could not see, the limlta'ion'
~ mankind "He was too practical ana 100 l"is
alive 10 the needs of human nature 70 De asoe'io
in his view Of wealth; but he had no hlgh ts'-
mate of human nature in the persons OF MS leiio"
citizens: Most men will the good ana CHOOSE 'no
evil: most men delight in coarse pleas''e9 :
.most men follow riches without limit most men
are neither very good nor very bad IL 'ncn
have changed any since Aristotles day. ~ ''i'''
,nrsop would like TO have the change pointed
carry into it what Plato only talked about IN tne
rl.cid stmosnbere which his fiction created. lie
ann,ied the principle of the division OF labor lar
mora thoroughly than Plato had done, ana he
- a.,v its limits He even fOresaw diiny "hat
might he possible in an age of mechahic'i hi'e'i,
tion The free man," he says. as parap'raSe'
BY DIR. Bonar, may engage in manuai ar's up -
q certain limit. but, if he devotes himself who"N
IN them. his mind is narrowed and his pony en-
feebled lie becomes like a slave who is mercy
a living tool If we could only have sht,'eS
throwing themselves we should need 10 s.aN',
and 1--WE may infer the industrial arts would not
W. aocr,dino.n But bound by the prcjudces OF
his ace. he held the taking of interest 10 DE ui'
natural and deemed trade only form OF chea'
inc although he came near the dehhltoh "
capital and recognized the function oil money
Holding mere household barter TO be natural M
acknowledged that the advance TO general 'rad'
was inevitable however much II was 10 We It.
orctted. The movement of commerce once begun
mere barter was inadequate. Hence the lhNeh
t;on Of money which, while it facilitates IN
=. transfer of goods. is yet only piece of good
like the rest. and though toleraby constant /
not absolutely invariable in its value" One SEE
that Aristotle though he lived a number OF year
AGO had really got somewhere with his economica
theories In spite of bis contemptuous atttur
toward mankind, and his sardonc realism IL
gave the impulse TO the reaction that may D
said 10 have eliminated in the utter unworld
illness of early Christianity Says Dr. Bonar;
Pcrhaps the most remarkable feature in Arii
tote's conception of the chief end OF man .s th'
II IL not directly social at all The highest goo
is contemplation of truth. the next best Is a., ue
velopment OF the virtues The first inloive
secusion from politics, and IS the lot OF ici
highly gifted minds: it is the second that
open to the ordinary citizen Aristotle was pei
haps conscious that the Greek state was n
life. The history Of his own country was max
inc This PAINFULLY clear When the State an
civil society could no longer furnish a RUE
thoy were sought in the individual rather tina
tho social nature Of man ,., ,o.. 49, mn,
than furnish foothold and room for the practic
OF virtue and the perfect exercise OF hum
faculties. certain measure OF material re
sources Is no doubt, held Indispensable. my
is viewed as a fixed factor. The proglessiv" II
crease Of wealth in people Is regarded as a
evil rather than as f fe s thona H' tn tend
OWL. and the nccessares of life are not cor
ccivcd as expanding with spiritual needs, hu
tcspccially in Plato rather diminishing, I'M
increasing with the growth of ccX'raordinar
bowers and gifts This had probably been IN
ieachinr Of Socrates himself, who nracliScl pl,l
living and high thinking. though en- orcas,"
bc couh share the pleasures OF ~ly society II
thought that TO have fcw wants was godlike an
therefore best for man.
But Socrates and tho others also thought NV
NOT AS individuals purely. but rs integral mcn'p''
Of a State Subsequent schools Of PHILOSOPHY
osnecia,ly the Stoics, led the way TO cicaT'
view Of the relations of individuals TO soci"tl
and showed how much there WIS in the lndIVI
nal that could not I've explained by the state
made to depend wholly on Institutions
What Stoicism began for the few, Chriu'''i'
accomplished for the many, 1t broke down |,
exclusive regard to State aud citizenship
far rs existing States We're concerned II was Il
divilnahstic: but like that of the Sfolcs, tie
diyidualsm of Christianity was ITSELF fonh"eo
tho conception of State-a state which '"
sniritual and owed nothing TO the coerciVc LOT
OF arms and magistrates How soon 'his
visible and spiritual State became visible 81
,.mnoral. history tells The human tendency