Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1917-08-15
THE DILEMMA OF IDEALISM
BY J. p. MORGAN, Harvard Club Of
Hawaii.

Hawaii.
Today, August Is, Is the one hun
dred a1d forteyeighth anniversary OF
tie birth In Corsica OF Napoleon Bon
aparte. In these martial days when
our life is quickeEed by the conflict Of
those physical forces over which Bon
aparte was a preemipen: master, It
might not be uniting TO make some
mention OF the mans career, or at
least to use this occasion to present
the following short study OF the is
sues which were as true in his time
as they are today.
1t is easy to villify or apotheosize
Napoleon. In the accompanying study
| have done neither. | have tried TO
bring into contrast the two opposing
instincts which trouble thoughtful
men at the 1mminence Of war. II
becomes little easier for some to go
into this fight whole-heartedly after a
realization of its inevit9bility. The is
sue concerns the validity Of idealism
in the practical work OF the day: or
idealism, not as a personal standard
of belief, but as a philosophical basis
for immediate action.
In order the better to present both
aspects in unison, resort to the Pla-
tonic dialogue, a device which has
been used for similar purposes by
George Berkeley in his "Alciphron,"
tice and Liberty" AS the time-free
personification of the opposing doc
trtnes l choose Napoleon Bonaparte
and Josiah Royce; guiltless both Of
them of the words and the senti-
ments, perhaps, which l now impute
to them, but conspicuous, neverthe-
less, as examples Of the variety of the
dilemma.
NAPOLEON: am reminded by
your argument of that saying Of Pas
calls: Felix qui potutt rerum
cognoscere causas." It seems to me
that he hints at the eternal inability
Of the mass Of men to comprehend
philosophically.
ROYCE: But it is not essential
that the masses should have this abil-
ity. Men in general do not under
stand revealed religion, and yet they
follow the churches They do not I'M
derstand chemistry and yet they
strike matches. They do not reason
about patriotism and still they follow
the flag.
NAPOLEoN: Let US then confine
our discussion so as to involve only
the leaders Of men. Does It not now
appear to you that ideal courses Of
action are for approach only and not
for actual employment?
ROYCE: would say that as
leaders decide that question they
stamp themselves either pragmatists
or idealists.
NAPOLEON: As pragmatist,
then l warn you that men may be led
no faster than the speed Of the aver
age. The leader, whether he be pre-
eminent in peace or in war, must
have constant thought for the feet
Of his soldiers, for the opinions of
his people. He can not rush forward
with the vanguard or linger with the
camp followers; he must ally himself
neither with the radicals nor the re-
dictionaries.
ROYCE: How is he then a leader
If he is forever in the center Of his
phalanx?
NAPOLEON: He is a leader only
insofar as the wielder of the baton
in an orchestra is a leader. He CO.
ordinates his men and produces from
a conflict Of separate harmonies one
unified polyphony. He does nothing
more.
ROYCE: Such a leader exists, ad-
nit But he exists as an administra-
tor of status quo. There is another
type Of leader who definitely projects
himself and his people into new arenas
Of action. He foresees and endeavors
to outguess opposing forces of i'll; he
turns his people from the toll of
Egypt to the promised land Of Canaan;
be revolutionizes or at least definitely
shapes the thought Of his time, wheth-
er it be in philosophy or art or poll
tics.
NAPOLEON: But you will find that
man is not an idealist in most cases;
be Is an opportunist. His course is
ike that Of water, forever restlessly
seeking a change Of level. His pro
lection il not toward idealism but to-
ward change.
ROYCE: Do you then deny the ex.
istence Of idealism?
NAPOLEON: No; rather do I as.
sert that the leaders Of men, or the
coordinators Of men, are far too ef-
fective (as proved by their success) |
TO allow themselves to be dominated !
by the ideal at the expense Of the |
popular. Let me give you an example. |
In my own career have consistently |
the means to the end. l
have been justified by my success.
My eventual failure was not due to
inherent weaknesses in my system but
to various detached errors which l |
made and which I never took the time
Dr. the care to rectify. BY these I re-
Ter to my neglect to mollify England
and when l might have done so; to
my excessive reliance on arms to car
y myself through crisis as they arose;
TO the creation Of an emperorship too |
much dependent on my personal abi1-
ty and not closely enough bound up