New-York tribune., 1902-02-13

Seven years ago, several distinguished men
engaged in a discussion before the Philosophical
Union Of the University Of California. The sub
iect was THE Nature Of the Divine Idea as
Deronstrable Reality The speakers were
Professors Royce. of Harvard: lie Conte and
Howison. Of the University of California and
Mezes. Of the University Of Texas. All OF them
thests. and all idealists. they not fully
agreed. The difference was most marked in the
views Of DR.. Royce and Dr. Howison- DR..
Royce's position was criticised by DR.. Howison
pantheistic. incompatible with the reality Of
human personality and moral responsibility.
The discussion did not end there. Two years
later II was published by the Macmillan Com
pany under the title. The Conception of God -
supplementary Essay by DR.. Royce occupy
ing more than half OF the volume with further
definitions OF his position and replies to criti-
cisrns. DR.. Howson. his part. announced
that he would in due time speak further on his
side In the volume now before US he has done
DR.. Royce also has continued to elaborate
his own views and has recently published them
in his two volumes of Clifford Lectures at Aber-
deem THE World and the Individual"
In the light OF these facts one will recognize
more significance in Dr. Howison's book than
fits title conveys. 1t is important portion Of
the most noteworthy philosophical discussion
that for many a day has taken place in this
country.
the One Reality that lies behind the innumer-
able diverse phenomena Of the world. The reg
nant, or at least ascendant philosophy of
time finds IL in Mind. This is what is meant in
philosophical speech by Idealism, or, TO speak
more accurately, Idealstic Monism. before
which Naterialtstic Monism. with its doctrine OF
Matter the ultimate Reality. is plainly
treating. Both DIR. Royce and DR.. Howison
nonists and idealists. But DR.. Howison dis
Personal Idealism." declaring that DR.. Royce's
fdealism is not personal but pantheistic. THE
City OF God is God" said Professor Royce,
~whiIe it's citizens free and finite individ-
S1als." DR.. Howison holds this affirmation of
freedom in such g connection to be nugatory.
He opposes such monism with the doctrine OF
Pluralsn, stated succinctly thus: THE whole
World Of Spirits including God and united
through recognition of him. is the real Prime
Mover Of which since the elimination Of Greek
philosophy have heard much" The entire
argument which follows is devoted TO establish
q substantial basis for moral interests in the
reality and eternity Of free human personality.
It is with this interest that the Introductory
Essay which gives its title TO the book The
Limits OF Evolution is especially concerned.
These limits are successfully exhibited. % as
an unbridged chasm between the phenomena of
the universe and the rational principle that con-
stitutes them a cosmic order; 90 the gulf be-
tween the inorganic world and the organic,
where evolution a doctrine OF continuous de-
velopment finds another limit; (3) a crevasse
between the explicable and the unknowable. at
which evolutionary theory halts again; "a at
the passage from Nature to human nature in its
distinctive character of Reason. The multi
tudinous congeries Of facts presented in the
natural world is thing, and their linkage into
the orderly system called Nature is quite an
other thing. But this linkage under the name
evolution is the work of Reason. The ground
Of every generalization Of facts is an addition
to the facts which the mind itself supplies from
its pFiort ideas Of Time Space. Causality, etc.
Thus Reason furnishes the thread OF kinship
connecting all phenomena into a rational series.
Nature. as such series, is effect OF creative
Thought. Ideality is the vital cord OF Nature
conceived as an evolutionary order.
The continuous connective required by the ev-
olUtionary theory being thus found in the spir
itual nature Of himself. DR.. Howisons d-
vergence from what ne opposes ''panthestic
Idealsm" begins to appear. He agrees with 1t in
recognizing "an absolute Impersonation of that
nature, 10 be called God but dissents from its
doctrine that the rational elements Of our nature
primarily seated, not in humanity, but in
Deity. TO be thence gradually impaired to
minds they slowly created by the process
Of psychic evolution" In this word, created"
DR.. Howiso,i finds a monstrous error, and one is
tempted TO agree with him some extent.
Creation" is strictly Calvinistic notion; the
"creature" is what he is made to be by his max
sr." Doubtless some fallacies would be eliminated
could theology get rid OF terms that imply an
efficient causation at the root of being by
substituting for Creator and Maker" the
Christian word, Father" But right here DR..
Howison interposes a somewhat startling caveat
by saying: mot Divine agency can give rise
20 another self-sctive intelligence by any pro-
dnctiDe act.''
Here DR.. Howison calls up TO speculative
heights where the rarehed metaphysical air
makes breathing laborious. He is evidently in
terested for Christian principles. but does not
make it plain how he would justify the
Christian word for God further than in making
the term Father" signify the dependence of all
spirits upon him, in this statement:
Real creation means such an eternal depen-
dence Of other souls upon God that the nom
existence Of God would involve the non-ex-
istence OF all souls, while his existence is the
essential supplementary Reahty that raises
them to reality: without him they would be but
void names and bare possibilities.
In another statement what may seem i'm
piled here. viz. that the non-existence of souls
would involve Gods non-existence is explicitly
affirmed:
There is an absolutely perfect mind. God.
whose very perfection lies IN his giving COM
plete recognition 10 all other spirits. the COM
plement In terms of which alone his self
definition is TO himself completely thinkabe..
In this doctrine OF the eternal soul. without
beginning and without end, Plato's speculation
reappears in modern philosophy. One finds. in
deed, less difficulty in the conception of Deity
as social than solitary. and in thinking that
shere never was moment when the Father of
all Spirits was not the Father. 1t is quite an