New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-07-11
PROBLEMS IN PHILOSOPHY.
FRENCH, AMERICAN AND GERMAN TEN
DENOTES INDICATED.

Ernest Navle Docteur Phosophe de ~ nj.
yersitf de Zurich. Professor Honoraire de
& Gle. &C. oGeneve ct Bale; Felix Alcan Paris
BASAL CONCEPTS IN PHILOSOPHY An I In,
Alexander T. ormond, Pm. D.. Professor OF
Philosophy in Princeton so1 uhVers''' 'N'
THE ELEMENTS OF METAPHYSICS Being Bel, IA a
Guide for Lectures and Private Use ,i Ky Dr.
PAU Deussen Professor 0rdnarns Of I'd ph fpem
The Second German Edition with the Persona soma
collaboration Of the AuthTT. , bs Authors Ad
dress before the Bombay Branch OF the hoyai
A aans in sG is rsya Go the
I 5s Pn x fFHm he Macmillan 4aShha CO.
Many readers will Join in the hope that the
venerable Professor Ernest Naville may live 10
complete the philosophical treatise of which the
volume cited above is merely the Introduction.
The half century and more which he has devoted
TO the science of sciences gives him rieh' "
speak with authority. right when ne uses
however with studied moderation. Like most
of the great modern thinkers Of France eSpeciai-
" from Cousn--who is nowadays undeserVea'y
neglected-onward. he has a turn for eciecticisiH'
for choosing what he deems best In all systems.
The method may be one which prec!udes STAR
Ting discoveries 1t certainly Is free from the
gross errors that sure TO emerge IN every
ono sided scheme Of thought. But this middle
some of which at least are sufficiently remote
from those reached by TIL popular thinking Oh
the present day. Philosophy stands opposed to
tho snacial sciences which are limited TO the
consideration Of a particular range of phenomena
bv the mere fact that 1t Is the study OF the uni
versal problem An essential characteristic OF
reason is the demand for unity and so 1t requires
OF philosophy persistent effort TO attain pFlh-
ciple from which thought can start in seeking u
collate and account for the data furnished py eN-
perience The opposition then between phlloso-
phy and the special sciences is not one or methou
To cav that the latter go wholly upon experience
while the former constructs its doctrines prlofl
is an error growing out Of the pretensions OF an
extreme idealism which is false system just De-
cause II seeks to transcend experience not D! the
aid Of experience. but in spite of IT, 10 condemn
PHILOSOPHY because Of one-sided idealism is as
bad as to censure it because it is not geometry
or chemistry. In so far ideasm is true, 1t IS
mart of philosophy and this is the case also with
the special sciences. 1t was not breaking WIN
ALI the conceptions Of philosophy which opened
the wav for the sciences. The universal science
IS nothing but recognition Of the results OF all
the particular sciences, and these obtain from II
not their experimental contents, but those direct
ing principles which point TO the rational eA-
PLANTATION of the data Of experience Ihis peihe
the relation Of philosophy TO science 1t Is iposs'
Bile to base a complete system Of philosophy upon
the doctrine Of evolution. useful as is that ny
pothesis in the history Of nature and OF man.
When this doctrine is proposed as solution OF
the universal problem. remarks Professor Ma
Vile II reverts to materiallsm or idealism ana
usually affords confused melange OF these TWO
systems.
In connection with this statement Of the case
against evolution as principle OF universal
VALIDITY it is Interesting TO observe how Professor
Ormond treats the subject. The key 10 MS 'he-
orv appears TO lie in his brief review Of Angus
lines relations to Manichesm. In the pctur-
asoue teaching Of this Oriental system there hg-
ured a Prince Of Darkness and a Prince or Light
who were engaged in a never-ending battle Tor
sunremacy Perhaps the popular conception Oh
the antagonism between the Deity and the deVN
at the present day is near enough TO this ancient
heresy TO make clear the ENHANCEMENT IN whlc"
Augustine found himself when he began 10 'hlhh'
AT first the Oriental duasm attracted him. ana
Union no abandoned II he was still held by the
question which It roughly tried to answer. name
". as to the relation of evil 10 the Creator AS
he studied this question, he came to the concur
sion that evil was only negative. and was posi-
bic only because Of the mutability or the Great
ures in whom It was displayed. They were mu-
because
they were made But when he came TO speak al
length Of this nothing which he held to be the
origin Of things, he confused two contradictory
notions He wrote at times as II the nothing OF
which he made so much were truly an unreaIlty'
whereas he could have meant only TO deny II all
the attributes that belong to the Absolute. the
phrase "out Of nothing" would be. in the words
OF Professor Ormond, wholly nane IT, 1t were
not conceived as entering In some way INTO the
nature Of the creature" 1t is pure negative over
against a pure affirmative I'm other words. 10
the thought of Augustine the nothing is a datum
which explains something. whereas the concep-
ton Of II that got lodged in subsequent theology
cal thinking is not a datum and Is powerless 10
explain anything" 1t Is in this way that Pro-
lessor Ormond comes by his assertion of non-be-
Ing. that which can neither destroy itself nor
maintain its own existence as opposed to being,
the .elf-existent Creation out Of nothing can
then be only the beginning OF process OF deve-
opment. Blu. this development cannot even be-
gin except by the aid Of organizing principle
which the modern hypothesis OF evolution ex-
cludes from matter. Life always presupposes
life A mechanical theory Of the universe Is
bound 70 contradict itself Evolutionsts are
driven to assert an Absolute. as Mr. Spencer
does and they sooner or later led. unwilling
" perhaps. to endow this Absolute with person
ality that is self-conscious activity, as in the
frequent phrases which imply that changes In
animal life arc due to purpose.
The materialist is a man, says Professor Ma
Vile who forgets himself he forgets that nelli-
gence is a thing wholly distinct from the objects
TO which 1t gives attention. The idealist con-
ceiyes the universe the evolution OF princi- |
pie wholly unconscious. His view OF matter then
does not differ from tina. Of the materialist. but
the two contradict each other throughout in
their conception Of the universal principle ana
OF the phenomena of the moral order. Above the |
blind necessity which both insist upon Professor
Naville advocates philosophy Of liberty which
in the contemplation OF creative spirit estab- |