New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-03-05


philosophical meaning OF the phrase Let me ask
readers to consult what have printed on PIP. 35l,
352 seq. and 10 compare with this the statements
on PIP. 33S 339.
Next my reviewer misled. doubt, partly by the
preceding misconception. asks what ladder we are
offered climb this position Of individual
eternity, 10 affirm which "of all souls, Of every in
dividual member OF the human race" he says,
seems stupendously audacious." This "audacity'
Ike the other audacity Of making out all minds 10
be cocreators with God. he appears infer from
his sense of the insignifcance of most human lives,
exhibited in their temporal history, difficulty
that, of late. il good deal the fashion to feel
and in regard to which and its real baselessness
think it sufficient here to refer readers the tell
ing refutaton of It that my friend Professor James
has given pp. 36-41 of his Ingersoll Lecture on
Human Immortality. Not in this fashion, de
haut has, did Christ look upon even the most
derelict and pitiful of human spirits not so does
his gospel teach that God regards them. All, he
declares infinitely precious in Gods sight, and
TO every alike is offered the eternal prize
of the Divine Image to be
When my reviewer attempts to answer this ques-
ton about the ladder l offer for climbing to this
audacious height he goes astray again. He thinks
il is my substitution of Final Cause for the time
honOred Efficient Cause 5 the mode OF the
causal relationship between soul and soul and be-
tween God and all other spirits; and he therefore
declares the ladder too short reach the object.
Doubtless in this last point he IS right but the
posal Of this substitution the ladder is pro
viewers words. 1t never occurred to in thinking
out my system. nor in writing my Essays, that this
very important step of putting Final Causation at
the central root of the causal system any part
OF the positive argument for the belonging of the
individual to the eternal order. Doubtless it is
Indispensable precursor Of the proof for if the
lation Of God TO souls is that of their Efficient
Cause, literal Maker they cannot be possessed
of a real freedom cannot be the genuine causes of
their own acts and characters cannot belong. that
% he or Orle at all TO
be Indispensable condition of a thing is far from
being the sufficient ground for it.
What. then. is the proof offered for this stu
pendously audacous' proposition? Have I really
offered none? The reviewer declares that with all
the sundry improvements upon the Monadology OF
Leibnitz which he is so laudatory to say have
made, have still not cleared the essential objec-
ton Lebnitz's scheme the objection that 1t is
IAN indemOnstrable speculation motived. indeed, by
a noble interest but cathedral in the clouds" Is
this in fact the case?
1t certainly is not. 1t would be strange indeed,
If, coming before the public with theory some
what startling in its departure from the ruling
opinion had INDUCED the mere desire to stir up
sensation and had omitted even an attempt to
prove my main proposition I have not been guilty
of this negligence On the contrary. I have argued
the proposition of the eternity of each individual
mnd-that is, its genuinely sef-active reality, in
the most careful and thorough way, and in the only
way that 1 conceive Of its being proved. This
1 have done, in some sense, in every essay in the
volume, but chiefly, Of course, in the first. in the
third, in the latter part Of the fifth and especially
in the sixth. The argument. in brief is simply that
of taking up the problem of the reality and the
source Of knowledge. and in face of the supposed
evolutionary explaining OF all "a priori' knowledge
away by the cumulative force of hereditary habit
massed through ages, proving with exact care that
every human mind. and therefore by analogy every
individual mind as such, does have and exercise
this "a priori' knowledge. Surprising this 10 have
been done (and must refer readers TO my book to
test my proofs, the unavoidable meaning Of the
fact is that every mind possesses a spontaneous
objective cognition and is therefore Of what,
quoting the ever memorable expression used by the
writer of the Fourth Gospel have called the pos
session of life in itself" This, l maintain, is the
only ineligible meaning which anybody attach
TO self-existence, independent being and real free
dom. also it is the only ineligible meaning of
knowing "a prior'
Ny readers I fear. have like my reviewer been
somewhat misled by looking into my concluding
essay for the most important proofs OF my main
position. But there am dealing with problem,
with problems. important and intricate indeed,
but still subordinate to this main one and only
auxiliary my principal aim I there chiefly
concerned in showing that if to have
moral order in the world of ultimate reaIity-an
order necessarily based in the freedom and u
tonomy Of the individual mind-we must abandon
what may be called "creationism": must abandon II
in all its forms and pre-eminently In the
which have come into such serious conflict since
the middle OF the nineteenth century, mean or
course. the dualistic or transcendant creationism
Of Hebraic theology and the monstic immanen-
tial creationism OF Hegelfanism and the evolution
airy philosophy. If freedom is to be saved. show
it be saved through such deasm
places this efficient view Of causatiOn by view
purely final or ideal, the principle by which God
sustans and rules the world. But, supposing this
established. how do know that free world is
a fact? If freedom requires that the soul shall be
coexistent with God in eternity-that IS in the
Of fap -boyu
prove that freedom and such a world Of coexistent
self-active beings are at once realities?
answer here, as ] have answered in my book:
BY proving the reality of "a priori" knowledge IN
the Individual And for the detail this proof l
again beg TO refer readers to my frst my third and
my sixth essay.
Finally the reviewers own habituaI way OF
philosophzinE has led him into a risconception OF
my form of idealism sided and merely sub
jective 1T remains to note he says what seems
confusion Of ideas. reappearing from point to
point Of the argument in failure to recognize the
distinction between a subjective and an objective
view Of the universe. IT is human thought which
organizes the motley phenomena presented to the
senses into the majestic order called Nature. And
this is reasonable ground for viewing Nature OBJ
jectively the manifestation of a creative divine
mind. akin to the human mind that re-creates ii in
thought But this logical construction of Nature
is transformed by Dr. Howson into the real object
of which it is but the shadow. Souls are affirmed
not only 10 be coexistent with God but also CO.
creators with him" Now it is Just this last point
however, that shows the universally social chat IS
the public and objective aspect my idealstc in
terrretation of Nature. l no more teach merely
subjective basis for Nature than my reviewer does
The difference is that he is in the habit, whether
consciously not. of finding the objective
aspect of the world in the efficient causaity Of God
alone, while I find it in the harmonious cooperation
Of all the eternal minds including God as the Final
Cause, Supreme Ideal. which all are nationally
attracted But let readers consult pages %x-xxii
and compare them with my pages 36l- 1863. I no