The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1895-03-01
tWRITTEN FOR THE ENQrIRER.l
DIR. Wards PHIL OSOPHl.


Not long since. DR.. Lester +. Ward,
of the Smithsonian Institute. made
some remarks before the Society for
Philosophical Inquiry at Washington,
d. c.. which indicated strange mis-
apprehension Of the history and aims
Of specula i've philosophy on the part
of that gentleman.
In looking over some old numbers
of the journal of Speculative Philos-
ophy' | find paper read by him at
the Kant centennial in 1881, in which
the same misrepresentation seems TO pre-
vail. The title of the paper is ''kant' $
Antinomics in the Light of Modern
Science 1t is contained in the De-
tober number.
1t is not always easy to grasp just
what DIR. Wards meaning is This
obscurity does not al Use from the intri-
cacv of the matter itself, for i, is found
in the simplest statements, and is OF
such quality and degree, that we are
constrained TO think the ambiguity is
intentional. The Doctor seems to be
aware that he is on unknown and ip-
perry ground.
'sIt has become fashionable" says the
Doctor at the outset, ''to regard all
controversy as mere logomachy in
which some mere word is the true bone
of contention" The Doctor is careful
enough not to commit himself to this
sweeping affirmation and obviously
hints his preference in saying, this
view finds strong support &c. He
says that the most bitter conflicts are
between those who do not differ at all,
but who have adopt Il different words
to express the same opinion. He cites
two instances where the parties 10 the
controversy ''did not differ at all, as
he thinks: the first, he says, arising
from the attempt to add Il single Liter
to the Nicene Shibboleth and the sec
ond growing out Of the appending of
IL word to the Latin creed. But the
differnce of emitting or adding that
''single letter was precisely the differ
ence between affirming and denying
the Godhood of Jesus Christ. Nor did
the controversy arise. as the Doctor
mistakenly supposes, from the attempt
to add the letter to the ''Nicene shlb-
bo!eth." 1t ragged before the council
was called which settled it. This
smacks of pedantry. too, and bad ped
antry at that, but not quite SO bad us
introducinea Greek phraze in common
place matter where an English word
would have served every purpose, for
which performance in a composition Il
school-boy ought to be birched.
Our Doctor next betakes himself to
Greek philosophy. He says that all
systems of thought fall under two
grand divisions and that Plao is the
representative Of the one and Epicurus
of the other: that the former Is teleo.
logical and explains nature as the pro-
duct Of will and design while the lat
ter is genetic or evolutionary and ex-
plains it as the becoming of one thing
out of another. He saws. The teleo-
logical and genetic modes of explana-
ton are. therefore, the respective
foundations Of the two great schools
of human thought which severally
embrace al men,
1t strikes the student of the history
Of philosophy with no little surprise
to be informed that Epicurus was the
father or representative of any other
school than that Of Eat. drink and
be merry for tomorrow We die. The
Greek Epicurus ignored Physics and
Dialectics. They simply adopted the
easy atomSm of DemocritlS and be-
came atheists and thought they would
confer the greatest Of benefits on man
kind by releasing them from the fear
of future punishment and giving no
other rein TO the pursuit Of pleasure
than that which worldly prudence die
tated.
1t is not far to see how Dr.. Ward
made this mistake. lie fell into it
from a two-fold misunderstanding of
what Kant himself had said. Kant
sand that Plato affirm d the existence
of superSensible Being and that Epi-
Gurus denied it and adds, This is the
opposition of Epicureanism to Platoon
ISM" ! his particular opposition III u
particular respect DR.. Ward mistook
for the general opposition between the
two great poles of thought: and then,
i'll the second place he did not under
stand or overlook Kant's qualification
VIZ, that it was questionable whether
Epicurus ever had, in fact, held that
doctrine us effectively valid.
Worse than this, however. is the
bIunder that Plato's system was teIeo-
logical. 1t betrayS total Ignorance
Of that system by DR.. Ward. The
food was sopra-essential and will and
design could not be predicated of it.
Besides, Aristotle says distinctly Met.
Book |. Chapter g that Plato dit not
accept the firal PSYCHOLOGICAL cause or
the efficient cause lprim"m mobitcJ
but only the material and the formal
causes.
From writer Of such loose reading
we may expect "a lriorj' that but ht-
tie light Will be turned on the Crit
ilue. And we are not disappointed.
The world should certainly feel CRATE
ful to DR.. Ward for taking poor Kant
under his protection. 1t is true he
Gnds some things which are low in him,