New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-07-28
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
THE DIVINE IDEA AS DEMONSTRABLE-
REALITY.

REALITY
THE CONCEPTION OF GOD. PHILOSOPHICAL
Idea as a Demonstrable Realty. BY. Josiah
Royce. Professor Of the History OF r r nS
HowsOn Profess9s In "a The PI6fsyso or
81 P6osop and S the nVersy Of Texas oc
tavo. PIP. sst The Macmillan Company.
The appearance Of such book as this is not
an everyday affair Seldom is so solid contri-
button made TO the effort of modern thought to
solve its most stubborn problem. The agree
ment Of such a quartet OF thinkers in the reality
OF personal deity. mans moral freedom and i'm
mortality is a notable sign OF the decline OF that
aCnosticism which has been a fashionable pro-
fession OF phllosophic minds
The volume takes It's title from that OF It's
opening essay. an address by Professor Royce
before the Philosophical Union Of the University
OF California. which then publicly discussed
bv Professors Mezes lie COnte and Howison.
whose criticisms are here consecutvely sub
Joined The larger part OF the volume consists
OF a supplementary essay by Professor Royce.
more fully unfolding his views and their
grounds To the whole luminous introduction
has been IyefiXed by the editor, who apparently
is Professor HowisCn.
OF the four disputants. Professor lie Con'e
occupies a medating position. while Professors
Mezes and Hovison maintain against Professor
Povce that his argument Is Lot adequate. as he
holds. to establish what they all hold to be true
viz. the personality Of God and the real moral
freedom and Immortality of man. The interest
OF the discussion convcTges upon the question
OF moral freedom. and makes the debate signlh-
can, in religious and philosophical thought. Ihis
significance is especially marked In Professor
Royce's supplementary essay. in which the pr'r-
cipal Of individuation and the nature of ind!-
riCipa s.
cusslon. Professor Howisor's contribution to
the present volume is mainly critical and mega
tive but we are promised ere long an Affirmative
treatment of the subject from his point OF view
The common philosophy of all four speakers
is idealsm-that explanation OF the cosmos
which holds that the ultimate Reality, In which
all things are grounded, is Mind. Ihey hoid as
Hegel held that whatever is real Is rational
and whatever is rational is real The vital
question for them is. Have we stated the ideal?
on this only they differ. Professor Royce holds
that the Absolute Being is so 10 speak. organic
inclusive Of all finite cxis,cnccs, their individual
experiences organic in his absolute experience.
vet not so as to lose that indeterminate charac-
ter which is the condition of moral Freedom.
THE City OF God" he boldly declares, lis God,
while it's citizens are free and finite individuals"
Professor Howison objects that this is Oriental
pantheism which makes God all in all'-ap-
parently forgetting that St Paul himself used
these words. His argument insists on the dis
tnct reality. the full otherhood. OF the creation.
so that there shall be no confusion OF the Great
ure with the Creator. nor any interfuson OF the
Creator with the creature In the technical
language Of philosophy Professor Royce's view
IS designated as "Idcalistic Monism' Professor
Howsons as journalistic or Ethical Idealism';
Professor lie Contc terms his mcdiatnG view
"Evolutional Idcalism." The gist OF IT Is, that
nature conceived Of a part OF the Divine
Energy lis the womb in which. and evolution
the process by which, generated sons OF
God"
That religion in its highest historic import is
yerifable by reason is the conviction which does
not suffer serious minds to be permanently sat
isfied with agnosticism. which. after all, is but
the temporary At of lasstude consequent on toll
some and unrewarded search. Professor Royce.
while declaring his aversion to many Of the
unessential accidents of religious tradition as
represented in the historical faith" maintains
that every ethical predicate that the highest
religious faith Of the past has attributed TO God
is capable of exact Interpretation in the terms
Of" what he presents at Idealistic Monism.
Whether this is so is the question at Issue In
this discussion The subtle determinations and
an inviting intellectual gymnastc to the philo-
sophically disposed. leave at least this impress
sion: The ideas of moral freedom and personal
Immortality. closely involved with the con-
cep,ion Of God, require TO be somewhat clarified
before the theistic problem itself can be further
determined.