THE PHILOSOPHY OF GEORGE HENRY LEWES

Citation preview

INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original docum ent. While the m ost advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication th at the photographer suspected th at the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite m ethod in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate th at the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered a t additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Z eeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

LD3907 s •jj? Kaminsky, Jack , 1922The p h i l o s o p h y o f G e o r g e H e n r y Lewes. «K22 jjew Y o r k , 1950# i i i , 2 £ l ty p e w ritte n le a v e s , fa c sim s. 29 cm. T h e s i s ( P h .D . ) - New Y o rk U n i v e r ­ s i t y , G rad u ate S c h o o l, 1 9 5 0 . B i b l i o g r a p h y : p.2l|2-2 lj.9 « C57577

Shilf List

Xerox University Microfilms,

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

T H IS D ISSERTATIO N HAS BEEN M IC R O FILM ED EX A C TLY AS RECEIVED.

sSS*

-YV

«

THE PHILOSOPHY OP GEORGE HENRY LEWES

hy

J a c k K am insky

S u b m itted i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e d e g r e e o f D o c to r o f P h i l o s o p h y a t New Y ork U n i v e r s i t y .

May, 1950

( P la t e 1) F a c s i m i l e o f an u n p u b l i s h e d l e t t e r by G eorge H e n ry Lewes i n my p o s s e s s i o n . R e f e r e n c e i s made t o L e w es1 L i f e and Works o f G o e th e .

—-

4rtxs& t~J- o l t^ Z tZ ^ /y u ^

S a m a.r h y p o t h e s i s o f a t t r a c t i v e f o rc e in h e r e n t in the m olecules o f m a t t e r ; b u t i t w ou ld make no a l t e r a t i o n i n o u r f o r m u l a o f t h e law; t h e d r a w i n g would s t i l l t a k e p l a c e w i t h a n i n v e r s e q u a d r a t i c po w er , and a l l o u r c a l c u l a t i o n s would r e m a i n u n s h a k e n . 2 S i n c e f o r Lewes t h e v a l i d i t y o f laws r e s t s on t h e i r c a p a c i t y t o be f o r m u l a t e d i n m a t h e m a t i c a l t e r m s , a 1. F o u n d a t i o n s , I , 298. 2 . A r i s t o t l e , p . 94.

70 h y p o t h e s is t h a t in no way c o u ld change th e m ath em atics in v o lv e d would be o f v e r y l i t t l e u s e in making th e w orld more i n t e l l i g i b l e t o u s .

A c t u a lly , Lewes c l e a r l y i m p lie s ,

e v e r y s p i r i t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n can be red u ced to an ad­ ju n c tiv e p o s i t i o n in any e x p la n a tio n t h a t i s g iv e n f o r phenomena.

When we e x p la in phenomena we g iv e th e e x p la ­

n a t io n and th e n , i f we w is h , we add th e s p i r i t u a l i n t e r ­ p r e ta tio n .

R e g a r d le ss o f what e x p la n a t io n i s g iv e n , th e

s p i r i t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ca n alw ays be s u i t a b l y added. But th e a d d it io n t o know ledge comes i n th e s c i e n t i f i c e x p la n a tio n th a t i s g i v e n , n o t in th e added s p i r i t u a l th e o r y . F u rth erm o re, i t s h o u ld be c l e a r t h a t a lth o u g h s c ie n c e d o es u se f i c t i o n s , th e y a r e em ployed in a f a r d i f f e r e n t manner th an th e way th e y a r e u se d in t h e o l o g i c a l and m e ta p h y s ic a l s c h o o l s .

In s c ie n c e and m ath em atics we

i n s e r t f i c t i o n s b u t we make c e r t a i n t h a t th e y a r e s t r i c t l y a c co u n te d f o r in o u r

r e s u lts .

Thus F erm at’ s s o l u t i o n to

th e m a th em a tic a l problem we have g iv e n above

In sertsa

f i c t i o n , b u t Fermat makes c e r t a i n th a t i t i s s u b t r a c t e d a g a in b e fo r e he g e t s t o th e f i n a l r e s u l t .

But m eta­

p h y s ic ia n s r a r e l y o b se r v e t h i s ty p e o f p r a c t i c e and w i l l i n g l y p erm it t h e i r f i c t i t i o u s p r e m ise s t o e n t e r in t o and I n f lu e n c e t h e i r r e s u l t s .

P o s s i b l y , Lewes d e c l a r e s ,

th e r e m igh t some day

b e a p ro p er m e ta p h y sic s I f th e

m e ta p h y s ic ia n s nw ere

t o i m it a t e th e p r a c t ic e o f th e

m a th em a tic ia n s and e lim in a t e from ( t h e i r ) r e s u l t s a l l

71 t h a t was a r b it r a r y and f i c t i t i o u s

in ( t h e i r ) o p e r a t io n s ,

n o t a llo w in g t h e i r in c o m p r e h e n s ib le d a ta to e n t e r in t o th e f i n a l e q u a t io n s , n o t a llo w in g what was assum ed in th e p r e m ise s to be more th a n an assu m p tion in th e co n clu sio n ." ^ The f i n a l ty p e o f h y p o t h e s is t h a t Lewes d i f f e r ­ e n t i a t e s i s th e I l l u s o r y H y p o th e sis w h ich " is n o t deduced from th e phenomena; i t

i s n o t an a id ; i t i s s im p ly a

r e s ta te m e n t o f th e o b se r v e d f a c t s in a com pendious and g e n e r a l l y am biguous p h r a s e ." 2

T hus, f o r exam p le, we sa y

t h a t one t h in g h a s an a f f i n i t y f o r a n o th e r and t h in k t h a t th e term a f f i n i t y i s a s u f f i c i e n t e x p la n a t io n o f what i s h a p p en in g .®

A c t u a l ly , a f f i n i t y t e l l s u s n o t h in g .

I t is

o n ly a n o th e r s h o r t e r term f o r th e d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e r e a c t io n s o f phenomena X t o phenomena Y.

I t i s ou r t e n ­

d en cy t o h y p o s t a t lz e term s t h a t le a d s t o th e i l l u s i o n t h a t we have a r e a l h y p o t h e s is when we sp e a k ab out a f f i n i t y . T h is typ e o f i l l u s i o n i s a fr e q u e n t one and b o th p h ilo s o p h e r s a s w e l l a s s c i e n t i s t s a re known t o a c c e p t w ith o u t q u e s t io n th e v a l i d i t y o f su c h p r o p o s it io n s as "N ature abhors a vacuum ," o r "Nature d o es n o th in g in v a in ." ^ We a c c e p t t h e s e g e n e r a l s ta te m e n ts as h y p o t h e s e s , o r e v e n la w s , a b o u t r e a l i t y .

But a c l o s e i n s p e c t i o n w ould r e v e a l

t h a t "such i s th e in f l u e n c e o f mere nam ing, t h a t th e r e ­ b a p tism o f o u r ig n o r a n c e seem s t o be an i l l u m i n a t i o n , and e x e r c ia a a a charm t h a t i s a l l th e more o b s t r u c t i v e to 1. 2. 3. 4.

F o u n d a tio n s, I , 2 6 5 . I b id ., I , 308. 6 o m te*a P h ilo s o p h y o f th e S c ie n c e s , p . 1 2 3 f f . f o u n d a t io n s . I . 50iB7r:~5Tao C om tek P h ilo s o p h y o f th e S c ie n c e s ? pp. 5 2 -3 , 54, 91.

72 R e se a r c h , b e c a u s e we o f t e n f i n d a p o s i t i v e a d van tage in a p h ra se w h ich c o n d en se s a m u ltitu d e o f d e t a i l s ; and th e a d v a n ta g e o f th e fo rm u la le a d s u s to con fou n d i t w ith a p r in c ip le ." ^ -

We are d e lu d e d in t o t h in k in g t h a t naming i s

e q u iv a le n t t o e x p la n a tio n *

I t was Lew es' r e c o g n it io n o f

th e f a c t t h a t many h y p o th e s e s sound p l a u s i b l e b u t are r e a l l y i l l u s o r y t h a t l e d him to r e j e c t th e l a t e r w r it in g s o f Comte.

A lth o u g h he s a d l y ad m its t h a t "by my freedom "^

o f c r i t i c i s m he l o s t th e f r ie n d s h ip o f Comte, he i s k e e n ly aware t h a t C om te's l a t e r work c o n t a in s in a lm o st e v e r y c h a p t e r .• .s o m e th in g q u e s t io n a b le o r e x tr a v a g a n t w h ich w i l l be found due to h is s t a t i n g an h y p o t h e s is w h ich i s . q u i c k l y tra n sfo rm ed i n t o a b a s i s o f d e d u c t io n , n e i t h e r p rem ise n or c o n c lu s io n b e in g su b m itte d t o v e r i f i c a t i o n . 5 F or s i m i l a r r e a so n s he o b j e c t s to C om te's p h ra se t h a t " s c ie n c e p e r m its u s S a s i l y t o c o n c e iv e a h a p p ie r a rr a n g e ­ m en t. S c ie n c e p e r m its l t J W herefore i s s c ie n c e t o be f i n a l a r b i t e r in q u e s t io n s w h o lly beyond i t s com p reh en sion ? We can c o n c e iv e s im p le r a rr a n g e ­ m en ts; d o es i t tE e r e f o r e f o ll o w t h a t o u r s im p le r c o n c e p tio n s w ou ld be b e t t e r ? What i s s i m p l i c i t y b u t a human c o n v e n ie n c e , and how i s i t b e t t e r in e s s e n c e th an c o m p le x it y ? .. . I t w ould b e s im p le r f o r man t o b e born a t on ce and im m o rta l; bqt what h as p h ilo s o p h y t o do w it h s i m p l i c i t y ? 5 And, f i n a l l y , he c o m p le te ly r e j e c t s C om te's l a t e r a s s e r ­ t i o n t h a t u n i t y and a d a p ta tio n t o human d e s i r e s a r e t o be 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

F o u n d a tio n s, I , 308* "A uguste Com te," F o r t n ig h t ly R eview , I I I ( 1 8 6 5 - 6 ) , 4 0 9 , "Comte and M i l l , "f o r t n i g h t l y R eview , VI ( 1 8 6 6 ), 4 0 2 . Comte’ s P h ilo s o p h y o f th e S c i e n c e s , p . 9 1 . I b id .

73 t e s t a o f s p e c u la t i o n . The t e s t o f a s p e c u la t io n I s n o t (a s h e seem s t o th in k ) i t s co n v er g e n c e tow ards Hu n i t y n and i t s a d a p ta tio n t o our " d e s ir e f o r S y n t h e s i s ” and sy ste m , b u t i t s c o r re sp o n d en ce w it h r e a l i t y ; i t s o b j e c t i v e , n o t i t s s u b j e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r ; i t s p o s i t i o n in th e scheme o f t h in g s , n o t i t s s e r v i c e to ou r t h e o r i e s . 1 The I l l u s o r y H y p o th e s is , th e n , a c c o u n ts f o r a l l th o s e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l, s u b j e c t i v e , and m ista k e n b e l i e f s w h ich we th in k a re v a l i d as e x p la n a tio n s b u t w h ich are in r e a l i t y m e a n in g le s s .

Such h y p o th e s e s are in c a p a b le

o f y i e l d i n g a n y th in g more th an t a u t o l o g i e s and r a t i o n a l ­ iz a t io n s ,* *

s in c e th e y do n o t t e l l u s a n y th in g more about

r e a l i t y , f o r " a l l h y p o th e s e s a r e i l l u s o r y w h ich can n ot j u s t i f y th e m s e lv e s by e n la r g in g know ledge." ®

I t i s tr u e

t h a t th e I l l u s o r y H y p o th e sis o f t e n " s a t i s f i e s th e I n t e l ­ l e c t u a l n eed f o r an e x p la n a t io n , b u t we must be wary ; le s t we a c c e p t t h i s f u l f i l l m e n t o f a n eed as e q u iv a le n t t o an en la rg e m en t o f k n o w led ge." ^

The d e s i r e f o r e x p la n a t io n

i s su ch a s t r o n g one t h a t we a r e o f t e n read y t o a c c e p t p s e u d o - e x p la n a t io n s , and Lewes n o t e s t h a t he h im s e lf must " c o n s t a n t ly s t r u g g le a g a in s t I t." ®

There i s alw ays th e

i n c l i n a t i o n t o " su p p ress t r u t h , l e s t I t sh o u ld be in c o n ­ v e n i e n t , and t o fa v o r e r r o r I f i t seem s t o p r o t e c t our c h e r is h e d c o n v ic t io n s ." ®

But i f we a r e e v e r

g o in g t o

1 . "Comte and H i l l , " p . 4 0 0 . In h i s f i n a l work on Comte, Lewes i s more subdued in h is c r i t i c i s m and i s s a t i s ­ f i e d w ith l a b e l i n g C om te's l a t e r work " prem atu re." Comte *a P h ilo s o p h y o f th e S c ie n c e s , p . 3 3 9 . 2 . The P h y iT c a l feaaia of~fflndf. p . 2^ 3. 3 . F o u n d a tio n s, 1 , i l l . 4 . The P h y s lo a l B a s is o f Mind, p . 2 5 3 . 5. I b id ., p . 254. 6 . ^ Spontaneous G e n e r a tio n ," B la ck w o o d 's E dinburgh Mag­ a z i n e , LXXXIX ( 1 8 6 1 ) , 165:

74 o b t a in s c i e n t i f i c t r u t h , we m ust s t r u g g l e a g a in s t su ch i n c l i n a t i o n s and s e e k t o e r e c t o b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a f o r ou r b e l i e f s * Many a tim e h ave I had t o r e l i n q u i s h p la u s i b l e e x p la n a tio n s w h ich w ou ld have su p p o r te d my s p e c u la t io n s c o u ld I b u t have b e l ie v e d th e y r e p r e s e n te d th e f a c t s ; b u t b e in g u n a b le to b e l i e v e t h i s , I had t o remember t h a t h y p o th e s e s and e x p la n a tio n s ap p ear and d is a p p e a r — o n ly th e s o lid fa c t liv e s * I f t h e r e i s one le s s o n em­ p h a t i c a l l y ta u g h t by P h ilo s o p h y , i t i s th e un­ wisdom o f fo u n d in g our c o n c lu s io n s on our d e s ir e s r a th e r th a n on th e o b j e c t i v e f a c t s . * Axioms and N e c e s s a r y T ruths W ith h i s a n a l y s i s o f s c i e n t i f i c law s and h y p o th e s e s , Lewes h as a p p a r e n tly r e v e a l e d th e sharp d i s t i n c t i o n b etw een tr a n s c e n d e n t a l and s c i e n t i f i c c o n c e p tio n s and th e f a l l a c y o f c o n s id e r in g th e a b s t r a c t n e s s o f s c ie n c e s im i l a r t o th e a b s t r a c t n e s s o f tr a n s c e n d e n ta lis m *

One i s o b ta in e d from

and r e le v a n t f o r e x p e r ie n c e , th e o t h e r i s o b ta in e d p r io r to and i s i r r e l e v a n t f o r e x p e r ie n c e *

However, b e fo r e h is

fo r m u la tio n o f th e s c i e n t i f i c m ethod can be c o n s id e r e d c o m p le te he must i n v e s t i g a t e th e problem s t h a t a t t a c h t o th e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f axiom s and n e c e s s a r y t r u t h s .

A m eta­

p h y s ic ia n m igh t adm it a l l t h a t Lewes h as s a id s o f a r , b u t h e w ould s a y , "Whit o f axiom s? and s e l f - e v i d e n t *

S u r e ly th e y a re i n t u i t i v e

f h e i # p r o o f c e r t a i n l y d o e s n 't ap p ear

t o depend on e i t h e r OOfcditlOh* OP v e r i f i c a t i o n . "

Con­

s e q u e n t ly , i t w ould seem t h a t th e s e l f - e v i d e n c y o f axiom s i s o v e r and ab ove th e ty p e o t t r u t h t h a t i s u s u a l l y 1 . The P h y s le a l B a l l s o f M ind, p . 254

75 a tta c h e d t o s c i e n t i f i c law s*

We te n d t o f e e l th a t e v e r y

law I s c o r r i g i b l e , b u t t h a t by i t s v e r y n a t u r e , an axiom I s n o t*

What, f o r ex a m p le, s h a l l we s a y c o n c e r n in g th e

se v e n axiom s o f V eb len and Young In t h e i r P r o j e c t iv e G eom etry, o r th e axiom s t h a t E u c lid h im s e lf p rop osed ?

The

E u c lid e a n axiom s h ave a c e r t a i n u r g en cy t h a t I s f a r d i f f e r ­ e n t from t h a t e x e m p lif ie d in a law o f p h y s ic s *

To s t a t e

t h a t p a r a l l e l l i n e s can n e v e r m eet i s a p r o p o s it io n w h ich we th in k w i l l h o ld i n a l l phenomena, w h ile i t i s e a s y to c o n c e iv e o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s law s w ould n o t h o ld .

in w h ich many o f ou r p h y s ic a l

Thus, th e i n t u i t l o n i s t s have m ain­

t a in e d t h a t th e axiom s o f E u c lid a re in c a p a b le o f b e in g fa ls ifie d *

Nor i s t h i s a l l *

U n lik e p h y s i c a l la w s , we

su p p o s e d ly im m e d ia te ly i n t u i t th e t r u t h o f th e axiom s* The p h y s i c a l law o b t a in s i t s

t r u t h d e v e lo p m e n t a lly , e . g . ,

a s we a ccu m u la te more d a t a , i t s more p e r f e c t * g r a sp i t s

t r u t h becom es more and

But w it h th e axiom , we somehow im m ed ia tely

t r u t h w ith o u t e v e r r e q u ir in g any more in fo r m a t io n .

By j u s t g la n c in g a t r e a l i t y , we know t h a t th e axiom s a r e t r u e , ev en i f no means are e v e r ta k e n t o v e r i f y them*

In

f a c t , th e y a r e in c a p a b le o f b e in g v e r i f i e d by any means s in c e su c h v e r i f i c a t i o n w ou ld mean t h a t th e y w ere l i k e p h y s ic a l law s and t h a t f u t u r e e x p e r ie n c e c o u ld d is p r o v e them .

We t h in k t h a t axiom s can n e v e r b e d is p r o v e d , t h a t

th e y are e i t h e r a p r i o r i o r , as K a n tla n s have f r e q u e n t ly m a in ta in e d , t h e y a r e th e form s by w h ich th e mind i s a b le t o make e x p e r ie n c e i n t e l l i g i b l e *

76 T hus, I f Lewes i s g o in g t o make a c le a n sw eep o f a l l a p r i o r i r e a s o n in g , he m ust g iv e an a c c o u n t o f th e axiom s t h a t w i l l be c o n s i s t e n t w ith a l l h i s p r e v io u s v iew s c o n c e r n in g th e b a s i c a l l y e m p ir ic a l f o u n d a tio n s o f a l l r e a s o n ­ in g . B e fo r e a tte m p tin g t o g iv e h i s own an sw er to w hat he b e l i e v e s i s th e n a tu r e o f s e l f - e v i d e n t a x io m s, Lewes c r i t i ­ c i s e s th e v ie w s o f h i s o p p o n e n ts .

F i r s t o f a l l , Lewes d e­

c l a r e s , i t i s i n c o r r e c t to s p e a k , as Kant d id , in term s o f c e r t a i n m en ta l fo r m s . o r c a t e g o r i e s . o f th o u g h t w h ich a r e a p r io r i.

What Kant d id was t o h y p o s t a t lz e c e r t a i n con ­

s t a n t s t h a t w ere fou n d in e x p e r ie n c e and th en m a in ta in t h a t i t was b y v i r t u e o f t h e s e c o n s t a n t s t h a t e x p e r ie n c e was made p o s s i b l e .

Kant " s e p a r a te s E x p e r ie n c e from th e c o n c r e t e

f a c t s o f w h ich i t i s th e a b s t r a c t e x p r e s s io n , d e ta c h e s i t from th e organ ism and th e modes o f r e a c t i o n w h ic h b e lo n g t o th e i n h e r i t e d s t r u c t u r e , and th e n a r g u e s t h a t w ith o u t th e modes o f r e a c t i o n s u c h a s Space and Time r e p r e s e n t , no e x p e r ie n c e i s p o s s i b l e . T h e

f a l l a c y h e r e i s t h a t Kant

h a s e l e v a t e d t o r e a l i t y what can o n ly be g iv e n l o g i c a l v a lid ity .

We can p o s t u l a t e v a r io u s la w s o f th o u g h t.

But

we s h o u ld know what we are d o in g when we make su c h p o s tu ­ la tio n s . From t h e i n f i n i t e l y v a r y in g c o n d it io n s we e x t r i c a t e c e r t a i n c o n s t a n t s , and t o t h e s e we a f f i x a math­ e m a t ic a l e x p r e s s i o n . The p a r a b o la d e s c r ib e d i n th e c o u r s e o f a c a n n o n - b a ll, th e e c l i p s e o f th e p la n ­ e t a r y o r b i t , th e cu rv e o f a w ave, e t c . , a r e 1 . The S t u d y o f P s y c h o l o g y , p . 1 7 3 .

77 m a th e m a tic a l e x p r e s s I o n a : I t i s ab surd t o p e r ­ s o n i f y t h e s e as m otor a g e n c ie s . In l i k e manner, from th e v a r i e t i e s o f F e e lin g we e x t r i c a t e c e r t a i n c o n s ta n t a p p ea ra n ces w h ich w e c a l l Laws o f S e n s i­ b i l i t y , Forms o f T hought, L o g ic a l R u le s . These we d e s c r ib e and c l a s s i f y , a s we d e s c r ib e and c l a s s i f y th e p la n e s o f c le a v a g e o f c r y s t a l s . But t o su p p o se t h a t t h e s e law s have an a p r i o r i Ind e­ p en d e n c e, and r e n d e r ou r f e e l i n g s and know ledge p o s s i b l e , I s e q u iv a le n t t o th e s u p p o s it io n o f p la n e s o f c le a v a g e f l o a t i n g ab ou t In th e Cosmos, and when d e s c e n d in g upon c e r t a in s o l u t i o n s , f a s h io n ­ in g them i n t o c r y s t a l s . 1 T h is c r i t i c i s m a g a in s t th e v a r io u s d u a lism s t h a t th e m e ta p h y s ic ia n s alw ays i n s e r t i n t o t h e i r t h e o r i e s I s ta k e n up more f u l l y when Lewes fo r m u la te s h i s E m p ir ic a l M e ta p h y sic s .

Here I t I s s u f f i c i e n t to n o te t h a t Lewes

r e j e c t s th e K a n tia n c o n c e p tio n w h ich makes what I s a p ro ­ d u c t o f b o th org a n ism and en viron m en t s im p ly a r e s u lt a n t o f th e organ ism I t s e l f .

Lewes rem arks t h a t

b e c a u se we a b s t r a c t th e m a t e r ia l o f an o b j e c t from i t s form , c o n s id e r in g e a c h a p a r t , we g e t in t o th e h a b it o f t r e a t i n g form a s I f i t w ere in r e a l i t y s e p a r a b le from m a t e r i a l . By a s i m i l a r I l l u s i o n we come t o reg a r d th e p r o c e s s ( o f t h in k in g ) a p a r t from th e p r o d u c t ( t h o u g h t ) , and g e n e r a l i s i n g th e p r o c e s s , we c a l l i t Mind o r I n t e l l e c t , w h ich th en means no lo n g e r th e m en ta l phenomena con d en sed I n to a term , b u t th e s o u r c e o f t h e s e phenom ena.2 T h is ty p e o f i l l u s i o n i s s tr e n g t h e n e d by ou r ways o f s p e a k in g .

We sp eak o f th e Mind and I t s Forms o f Thought

as i f th e y w ere s e p a r a te d from e x p e r ie n c e .

But In r e a l i t y ,

t h a t w h ich we know as Mind o r as Form o f Thought i s g e n e r ­ a t e d from th e I n t e r a c t i o n o f o rg a n ism w it h en v ir o n m e n t. O b s e r v a tio n , Lewes n o t e s , Nhas shown t h a t we do n o t b r in g 1 . The S tud y o f P s y c h o lo g y , p# 1 7 4 . 2 . f o u n d a t io n s . I , 2 0 0 .

78 on our e n tr a n c e I n t o t h e w o rld d e f i n i t e I n t u i t i o n s o f s p a c e , n o r do o u r f i r s t s e n s i b l e Im p r e ssio n s c a l l f o r t h su c h I n t u i t i o n s ; th e y a r e s lo w ly form ed .

To an sw er t h i s

by s a y in g t h a t we b r in g w it h u s th e a b s t r a c t form o f S p a ce, w h ich r e n d e r s p o s s i b l e th e e v o l u t io n o f c o n c r e t e sp a c e e x ­ p e r i e n c e s , I s t o p la c e th e g e n e r a l c o n c e p tio n b e f o r e th e p a r t ic u l a r s I t g e n e r a l i z e s F u rth erm o re, th e Laws o f Thought d e r iv e d from th e p a r t i c u l a r co m b in a tio n o f organ ism and medium, ca n n o t v a l i d l y be term ed u n iv e r s a l, as Kant w ish e d them t o be d e s ig n a t e d .

In th e c a s e o f a n im a ls , i t I s h ig h ly p r o b a b le

t h a t Kant w ould have c la im e d t h a t t h e y , l i k e humans, a l s o h ave e x p e r ie n c e s o f s p a c e .a n d t im e , and t h a t th e y t h e r e f o r e h ave fo rm s.

Now th e e m p l r l c i s t l c s i d e o f K antwould have

d e n ie d th e c la im t h a t mind i s

In d ep en d en t o f th e o rg a n ism .

Then m in d s, Lewes a s s e r t s , m ust h ave b een "but th e a c t i v i t y o f th e o r g a n is m s .1,2

But I f t h i s i s th e c a s e , th en th e

form s a re c e r t a i n l y n o t u n i v e r s a l " fo r I f th e I n t u i t i o n s o f sp a c e and tim e a re th e a c t i v i t i e s o f th e o rg a n ism , th ey m ust d i f f e r in a n im a ls and men in a cco rd a n ce w ith d i f f e r ­ e n c e s o f s t r u c t u r e . "3

I t i s c o n c e iv a b le t h a t m inds o f a

d i f f e r e n t s t r u c t u r e w ould n o t h ave su ch form s a t a l l and w ould i n t u i t f a r d i f f e r e n t ty p e s o f sp a c e and t im e . H ence, w h ile a n im a ls o f a much s im p le r s t r u c t u r e th an o u rs w ould o n ly i n t u i t sp a c e o f two d im e n s io n s , a s t r u c t u r e more com plex th an o u rs w ould i n t u i t a 1 . The S tu d y o f P s y c h o lo g y , p . 1 76. 2 . TFTdTTpT 1 7 5 . --------3. m

79 a ap ace o f f o u r , f i v e , o r n d im e n s io n s — a con­ c l u s i o n w h ich th e Im a g in e iy Geom etry o f L o b atsch ew sk y, Rlemann, and H e lm h o ltz , shows to be a c c e p t a b le T h e r e fo r e , th e u n i v e r s a l i t y o f th e form s i s a ls o r e j e c t e d by L ew es.

O rganism s o f a d i f f e r e n t k in d can v e r y e a s i l y

b e th o u g h t o f as h a v in g a f a r d i f f e r e n t k in d o f e x p e r ie n c e th a n we h a v e . N e x t, Lewes i n s p e c t s th e a s s e r t i o n t h a t axiom s a re im m e d ia tely i n t u i t e d , and t h i s he a ls b r e j e c t s .

The s w i f t ­

n e s s w it h w h ich we s a y t h a t a p r o p o s it io n i s s e l f - e v i d e n t . h as n o th in g to do w ith i t s s e l f - e v i d e n c y . The axiom " i f e q u a ls be tak en from e q u a ls , th e rem ain d ers a re e q u a l1* may in d e e d be more r a p id ly i n t u i t e d than th e p a r t ic u l a r t r u t h r e s p e c t in g th e sq u a re o f th e h y p o te n u se in th e f o r t y - s e v e n t h o f E u c l i d , w h ich ca n o n ly be s e e n by a mind t h a t h as f o llo w e d th e s t e p s o f th e d e m o n str a tio n ; b u t t h i s g r e a t e r e a s e and r a p i d i t y o f v i s i o n d o es n o t endow th e s e e n w it h g r e a t e r c e r t i t u d e ; and th e seco n d t r u t h I s e q u a lly i r r e s i s t i b l e 'Kith t h e f i r s t , when once th e r e l a t i o n s a re i n t u i t e d . * L ew es, th e n , r e j e c t s b o th th e u s e o f m en ta l forms o r im m ediate i n t u i t i o n s as th e s o u r c e s o f axiom s o r any s e lf-e v id e n t tr u th s.

He i s read y a t t h i s p o in t to g iv e

h i s own s o l u t i o n to th e p rob lem . Now a c a r e f u l r e a d in g o f L ew es1 w r it in g on t h i s q u e s t io n w i l l r e v e a l t h a t th e r e i s a n o t a b le change from h is e a r lie r to h is la t e r p o s it io n .

In th e B io g r a p h ic a l

H is t o r y o f P h ilo s o p h y , he c o n s i s t e n t l y m a in ta in s t h a t th e axiom s a re in d e ed " n o th in g more th an our e x p e r ie n c e

1 . The S tu d y o f P s y c h o lo g y , p . 1 7 5 . 2 . PounaifiopiT r, 3&;

1

80 g e n e r a liz e d ." ^ -

The a b s t r a c t n o t io n o f c a u s a t io n w h ich

seem ed to b e su c h a m ile s t o n e in th e K an tian p h ilo s o p h y i s sim p ly "founded upon th e e x p e r ie n c e o f p a r t ic u la r of

c a u s a t i o n .

”2

a cts

ou r m ost fu n d am en tal I d e a s , ou r su p p o s e d ly

n e c e s s a r y tr u th s "are n o th in g more th an id e a s fram ed i n our minds by the u n ifo r m ity o f ou r e x p e r ie n c e .

And th u s , we

r e tu r n t o th e o ld p o s i t i o n , t h a t e x p e r ie n c e , and e x p e r ie n c e a lo n e , i s

th e s o u r c e o f a l l i d e a s . H e

a g r e e s w it h

L o c k e 's b e l i e f t h a t a l l s e l f - e v i d e n t t r u t h s can be shown to be d e r iv e d from e x p e r i e n c e , ^

and s t r o n g ly c r i t i c i z e s

W hewell f o r s u g g e s t in g t h a t th e axiom s are d e r iv e d b y i n ­ t u itio n . 5 T his i s Lew es' m ain p o s i t i o n in regard to th e n a tu r e o f th e a x io m s, and ev en in th e Problem s he s t a t e s th a t th e axiom s come "from th e g e n e r a l ground o f e x p e r ie n c e , o u t o f w h ich a l l t r u t h s a r is e ." ®

However, th e Problem s p r e s e n t

a much more i n t e r e s t i n g a n a l y s is than th a t in th e B io g ra p h ­ i c a l H is t o r y .

Here a g a in , Lewes d e c la r e s t h a t th e axiom s

have " t h e ir o r i g i n i n E xperience."*^

But Lewes ap p ears to

be s a y in g t h a t a lth o u g h we m a in ta in t h a t e x p e r ie n c e i s a re q u ir em en t f o r th e a x io m s, i t

i s n o t th e main r e q u ir e m e n t.

Thus, he i n s i s t s th a t "I do n o t w ish to be u n d ersto o d

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

B io g r a p h ic a l H is t o r y (1885 E d i t i o n ) , p . 6 6 3 . I b i d . , p . 6(a8. I b id . . p . 6 7 4 . I b i d . , p p. 5 3 9 f f . I b i d . . pp. 6 3 9 ff• F o u n d a tio n s. I , 3 5 3 .

7.

Ib id ..

I . "356.

81 as a d o p tin g th e v ie w t h a t Axioms a re fou n d ed on I n d u c t io n .n* We do n o t o b t a in Axioms by "any com p arison o f i n s t a n c e s . *2 A lth o u g h Lewes d o es n o t sp e a k o f n e c e s s a r y c o n d it io n s and n e c e s s a r y and s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n s , we m igh t I n f e r him to mean t h a t e x p e r ie n c e i s a n e c e s s a r y c o n d it io n f o r th e con ­ s t r u c t i o n o f a x io m s, b u t i t i s n o t th e s u f f i c i e n t c o n d it i o n . What w ould be th e s u f f i c i e n t c o n d itio n ?

Lewes s t a t e s t h a t

wwe sh o u ld a l l a g r ee to c a l l a t r u t h s e l f - e v i d e n t when no o t h e r e v id e n c e I s n eed ed o u t s id e th e term s o f i t s

e x p r e s s io n ,

b e c a u se no o t h e r r e l a t i o n s a r e im p lie d beyond th e r e l a t i o n s s p e c i f i e d . ”3

Lewes h e r e i s a s s e r t i n g t h a t a p r o p o s it io n

r e c e i v e s i t s c o n n o ta tio n o f s e l f - e v l d e n c y s t r i c t l y by an a n a ly s is o f i t s

te r m s.

When we f u l l y u n d ersta n d th e terms

o f a p r o p o s i t i o n , th e s e l f - e v l d e n c y o f th e p r o p o s it io n i s a p p a r e n t.

T h is d o e s n o t mean t h a t an axiom i s I n t u i t e d by

everyon e.

I t means t h a t I f we know what we mean b y th e

term s o f a p r o p o s i t i o n , th en we can r e c o g n iz e th e s e l f e v ld e n c y o f th e p r o p o s i t i o n . To th e mind w h ich h as once le a r n e d th e p r o p e r t ie s o f num bers, th e p r o p o s it io n 2 + 2 » 4 I s s e l f e v i d e n t . The term s mean t h a t and n o th in g e l s e . But t o th e mind u n in s t r u c t e d in su c h p r o p e r t i e s , th e p r o p o s it io n , so f a r from b e in g s e l f - e v i d e n t , i s n o t e v id e n t a t a l l . 4 T h e r e fo r e , f o r Lewes e x p e r ie n c e I s r e q u ir e d f o r th e p r o d u c tio n o f te r m s.

Once we have g iv e n th e s e term s

1 . F o u n d a tio n s, I , 3 5 6 . 2. 3 . TEI3. , I , 3 5 4 . 4 . F o u n d a tio n s , I , 3 5 4 -3 5 5 .

82

p r e c i s e m ean in g, th e s e l f - e v i d e n c y o f t h e i r co m b in a tio n i s s e e n from an in s p e c t i o n o f t h e i r m eanings*

For ex a m p le, we

m igh t in s p e c t a p r o p o s it io n o f th e n a tu r e "A gran d p aren t i s a p a r e n t o f a p a r e n t .”

On Lew es' p r e m is e s , th e s e l f - e v i -

d en cy o f th e p r o p o s it io n d oes n o t r e s t on i t s

im m ediate

i n t u i t i o n as su c h .

o r no know­

To someone who h as l i t t l e

le d g e ab ou t w hat th e term s mean th e p r o p o s it io n i s f a r fr o m s e lf-e v id e n t.

I t i s e x p e r ie n c e t h a t adds th e s p e c i f i c a t i o n

o f w hat i s meant by th e te r m s.

But t h i s s t i l l d o es n o t mean

t h a t th e p r o p o s it io n i s s e l f - e v i d e n t .

I t Is o n ly once we

h ave g iv e n d e f i n i t e and p r e c is e m eanings t o th e term s and h ave i n v e s t i g a t e d th e r e l a t i o n s b etw een t h e s e term s t h a t ou r s e l f - e v l d e n c y becom es a p p a r e n t.

I f we know th e mean­

in g s o f th e term s g ra n d p a ren ts and p a r e n t . an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f th e r e l a t i o n s h i p I n v o lv e d b etw een th e two term s i n th e p r o p o s it io n "A g ra n d p a ren t i s a p a r e n t o f a p a ren t" w ould r e v e a l t h a t th e term g ran d p aren t e n t a i l s "a p a r e n t o f a p a r e n t." I t w ould a p p ea r th a t Lewes w ould be in agreem ent w it h t h o s e who r e g a r d n e c e s s a r y p r o p o s it io n s as c o n v e n t io n a l. We can d e n o te our term s in any way we p l e a s e .

But on ce

su c h term s h ave b e e n g iv e n some p r e c i s e m eanin g, th e n th e way in w hich th e y a r e i n t e r - r e l a t e d becom es o b v io u s under a n a ly s is .

Someone who sp eak s th e E n g lis h la n g u a g e may

d e c id e t o g iv e a c o m p le te ly d i f f e r e n t m eaning t o th e term g ra n d p a ren t from w hat i s u s u a l l y a c c e p te d ; b u t i f h e i s t o be i n t e l l i g i b l e t o th e E n g lis h sp e a k in g w o r ld , th e term

63 g r a n d p a ren t must s i g n i f y "a p a r e n t o f a p a ren t" and n o th in g e ls e *

The term s th e m s e lv e s have b een c o n v e n t io n a lly d e­

n o t e d , h u t th e r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t su c h d e n o t a t io n s produce a re n e c e s s a r y i f th e r e i s t o he any i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y .

T h is

i s what Lewes means when he d e c l a r e s : I f th e p r o p o s it io n he n e i t h e r s e l f - e v i d e n t n or i llu m in a t e d from g e n e r a l E x p e r ie n c e — a s , f o r ex a m p le, when f i r s t th e p r o p o s i t io n r e s p e c t in g th e sq u a re o f th e h y p o te n u se i s p r e s e n te d — we have to a s c e r t a i n w hat a r e th e r e l a t i o n s s p e c i f i e d in th e term s; th e s e a r e shown t o u s * * .a n d from t h a t m om ent,the p a r t ic u l a r p r o p o s it io n i s no l e s s i r r e s i s t i b l e th an an axiom* The r e l a t i o n s are w hat th e y a r e , and c a n n o t he o t h e r th a n what th e y a r e .1 Now in fo r m u la tin g t h i s ty p e o f s e l f - e v i d e n c y , Lewes i n v o lv e s h im s e lf in an i n t r i c a t e d i f f i c u l t y w h ich i s d i r ­ e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to h i s c o n f u s io n o f th e n a tu r e o f c o n d i­ t io n s *

F or L ew es, any p r o p o s it io n can be g iv e n th e s t a t u s

o f b e in g s e l f - e v i d e n t o r n e c e s s a r y i f we c o g n iz e th e r e ­ l a t i o n s t h a t a re in v o lv e d in th e m eanings o f th e term s* T hus, f o r ex a m p le, he d e m o n str a te s how e a s y i t

i s t o t h in k

o f su c h a p r o p o s it io n as " F ir e b u m s paper" h a v in g th e same n e c e s s i t y t h a t i s s t i p u l a t e d in th e axiom s* " F ir e b u m s paper" w ould be c a l l e d a c o n t in g e n t tr u th * I t may b e s o ; i t may a l s o be a n e c e s s a r y t r u t h — an i d e n t i c a l p r o p o s i t i o n . The f a c t t h a t th e c o n c e p tio n o f F ir e i s th e c o n c e p tio n o f some­ t h in g w h ich b u m s c o m b u s tib le t h in g s i s n o t r e n d e re d d u b io u s , c o n t in g e n t , b y th e f a c t t h a t we can c o n c e iv e F ir e p la c e d in r e l a t i o n s w h ich w ould n o t be th o s e o f co m b u stio n * . .T h a t u n d er p a r t i c u l a r c o n d i t i o n s , th e t h in g we d e s ig n a t e F ir e w i l l b u m th e t h in g we d e s ig n a t e P a p er, i s a c o n t in g e n t p r o p o s it io n , an e q u a tio n o f c o n d i­ t i o n s w h ich m ust be v e r i f i e d ; when v e r i f i e d , i t i s n o t o n ly a n e c e s s a r y t r u t h from w h ich a l l 1* F o u n d a tio n s . I 356*

84 c o n tin g e n c y has v a n is h e d , b u t e a s i l y assum es th e u n i v e r s a l form , n a m ely , " F ire o f t h i s k in d u nder t h e s e c o n d it io n s w i l l alw ays and e v e r y ­ w here burn p ap er o f t h i s kind* Thus i f we g iv e p r e c i s e s p e c i f i c a t i o n t o ou r te r m s, we can make any p r o p o s it io n a n e c e s s a r y o n e .

In o u r d i s c u s s i o n

on th e r e l a t i v i t y o f la w s we have p o in te d o u t how t r i v i a l s u c h a c o n c e p tio n o f n e c e s s i t y b eco m es.

Lewes d oes n o t

d i s c e r n t h a t th e problem o f n e c e s s i t y d o es n o t r e s t on th e s im p le a s s e r t i o n t h a t u n d er c e r t a i n c o n d it io n s some ph e­ nomenon o c c u r s b u t r a t h e r on w h eth er we can s p e c i f y th o s e c o n d it io n s to su ch an e x t e n t th a t th e phenomenon X w i l l b e e n t a i l e d when th e c o n d it io n s r e c u r i n t h e f u t u r e .

O th er­

w i s e , th e r e can n e v e r b e a l e g i t i m a t e t e s t o f what Lewes c a lls n e c e s s ity .

I f th e phenomenon X d o es n o t o c c u r , an

e x p o n e n t o f Lew es' v ie w can sa y t h a t th e c o n d it io n s have ch a n g ed .

And i f Lewes a tte m p ts t o m o d ify h i s p o s i t i o n by

s a y in g t h a t a s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f c o n d it io n s w i l l p r o b a b ly r e s u l t in th e r e - o c c u r r e n c e o f phenomenon X, th e n he has g iv e n up h i s c o n c e p tio n o f n e c e s s i t y . H owever, a lth o u g h Lewes d o es n o t n o te t h i s d i f f i ­ c u l t y , th e d e s i r e t o g i v e n e c e s s i t y t o p a r t i c u l a r propor s i t i o n s as w e l l as axiom s f o r c e s him i n t o a more c a r e f u l e la b o r a t io n o f how we g i v e m eanings t o te r m s .

Now a s e l f -

e v id e n t p r o p o s it io n i s d e r iv e d from th e r e l a t i o n s b etw een th e m eanings o f i t s

te r m s.

But t h e s e m ea n in g s, in a c c o r d ­

an ce w it h Lew es' e n t i r e p o s i t i o n , are n e v e r a b s o lu t e , but g iv e n in a cco rd a n ce w it h c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s . 1 . F o u n d a tio n s. I , 3 7 2 .

I t i s when

85 we u n i v e r s a l i z e t h e s e c o n d it io n s t h a t th e p a r t ic u l a r p r o p o s it io n becom es n e c e s s a r y and a x io m a t i c .*

ttE very

t r u t h i s n e c e s s a r y ; e v e r y t r u t h i s u n i v e r s a l , when i t s c o n d it io n s a r e

u n i v e r s a l i z e d .

”2

Thus when I make th e

p r o p o s it io n " F ire burns p a p er” a n e c e s s a r y o n e , what I am d o in g I s a s s e r t i n g t h a t w h erev er and w h en ever I e n c o u n te r c o n d it io n s t h a t a re e x a c t l y s i m i l a r t o t h e p r e s e n t one in w h ich f i r e i s a c t u a l l y fou n d to burn p a p e r , th en I w i l l f in d t h a t f i r e w i l l burn p a p e r .

Now t h i s ty p e o f n e c e s s i t y

i s t r i v i a l , b u t w it h i t Lewes in tr o d u c e s h i s n o t io n o f h o m o g e n e ity . Lewes may have b een c o n s c io u s o f th e f a c t t h a t t o show how a l l p r o p o s it io n s can be made s e l f - e v i d e n t d oes n o t s o l v e th e problem o f why we do d i s t i n g u i s h b etw een axiom s and e m p ir ic a l s t a t e m e n t s .

At any r a t e , he i s aware

t h a t th e term s o f an e m p ir ic a l o r c o n t in g e n t p r o p o s i t io n , a lth o u g h th e y can a r b i t r a r i l y be u n i v e r s a l i z e d , do n o t have th e same c o n s ta n c y u n d er a v a r i e t y o f c o n d it io n s as do the term s o f a m a th e m a tic a l axiom .

Under d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s ,

f i r e i s n e i t h e r f i r e n o r d oes i t burn p a p er.

But E u c l i d ’s

axiom s a p p ea r t o h o ld , i f n o t u n d er a l l c o n d it i o n s , th en c e r t a i n l y u n d er many more c o n d it io n s th an d o es th e p rop o­ s itio n ,

" F ire b u m s p a p e r ."

I t i s p erh ap s w ith t h i s v ie w

in mind t h a t Lewes d e c la r e s t h a t th e d i f f e r e n c e i s one o f h o m o g e n e ity .

An axiom "assum es th e h o m o g en eity o f th e

1 . F o u n d a tio n s, I , 3 6 9 f f .

2. 151377X 370.

66 term s i t f o r m u la t e s . "■*•

In th e p r o c e s s o f in d u c tio n we are

a lw a y s making f u r t h e r I n f e r e n c e s ab ou t our te r m s.

But in

th e axiom "so lo n g as t h e s e term s p r e s e r v e t h e i r h o m o g en eity , so lo n g w i l l th e p r o p o s it io n p r e s e r v e i t s n e c e s s i t y . "2

in

an axiom th e term s do n o t change in t h e i r c o n n o t a tio n s as t h e y do in p u r e ly e m p ir ic a l p r o p o s i t i o n s . a re hom ogeneous.

The term s th en

When we are co n cern ed w it h axiom s i n

g e o m etry , we know t h a t th e term s w i l l alw ays rem ain c o n s t a n t . A cco rd in g t o L ew es, th e e x p e r ie n c e to w h ic h t h e s e term s r e ­ f e r w i l l alw ays he th e sam e. It is

i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t L ew es1 n o t io n o f h om ogen eity

a n t i c i p a t e s th e answ er t h a t was t o he g iv e n t o M i l l ' s fam­ ous q u e s t io n c o n c e r n in g th e n a tu r e o f in d u c t io n : Why i s a s i n g l e I n s t a n c e , in some c a s e s , s u f f i c i e n t f o r a co m p le te in d u c tio n w h ile in o t h e r s , m yriads o f c o n c u r r in g i n s t a n c e s , w it h o u t a s i n g l e e x c e p t io n known o r presum ed, go su ch a v e r y l i t t l e way toward e s t a h l i s h i n g an u n i v e r s a l p r o p o s it io n ? Whoever can answ er t h i s q u e s t io n knows more o f th e p h ilo s o p h y o f l o g i c than th e w i s e s t o f th e a n c i e n t s , and h as s o lv e d th e problem o f in d u c t i o n .3 I t i s d o u b tfu l w h eth er Lewes " so lv e d th e problem o f in d u c tio n " o r ev en knows "more o f th e p h ilo s o p h y o f l o g i c th an th e w i s e s t o f th e a n c i e n t s ."

However, Lew es' n o t io n

o f h o m o g en eity s u g g e s t s an a n sw er.

We ten d t o t h in k t h a t

th e r e a so n one in s t a n c e i s s u f f i c i e n t f o r a co m p lete i n ­ d u c t io n in c e r t a i n c a s e s and i n s u f f i c i e n t in o t h e r c a s e s i s due to t h e h o m o g en eity o f term s in th e form er and th e h e t e r o g e n e i t y in th e l a t t e r . Lewes n e v e r c l e a r l y s t a t e s 1 . F o u n d a tio n s, I 3 5 7 . 2 . I b i d . , 1 ,~ 3 5 6 . 3 . M i l l , System o f L o g ic , 9 th E d it io n , I , 3 6 3 .

87

h la n o t io n on h o m o g en eity In t h i s way, and I t I s p o s s i b l e th a t he nowhere I n te n d s th e m eaning we have g iv e n .

However,

h i s la n g u a g e i s so ambiguous in t h i s c o n n e c t io n t h a t t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y has th e same v a l i d i t y as any o t h e r .

It is

s u f f i c i e n t to n o te t h a t th e n o t io n o f h o m o g en eity app ears in s e v e r a l in s t a n c e s in Lew es' works and t h a t he app ears to be w r e s t l i n g w it h th e problem o f where i t f i t s

in a

s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r y U n f o r t u n a t e l y , i t i s a problem w h ich Lewes n e v e r c l e a r l y r e s o l v e s . 2 B efo re we c o n c lu d e t h i s s e c t i o n on th e a x io m s, we s h o u ld n o te a g a in t h a t Lewes d oes n o t r e j e c t n o n -E u c lid e a n g eo m etry .

He a d m its th a t i t

i s p o s s i b l e f o r u s t o work

w it h p r o p o s it io n s w hose term s have no e m p ir ic a l c o n t e n t . But su ch p r o p o s it io n s have no s i g n i f i c a n c e .

For Lew es,

th e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f E u c lid e a n Geom etry I s t h a t I t s term s r e f e r to e x p e r ie n c e , and "any a tte m p t to d e v e lo p g e o m e tr i­ c a l p r i n c i p l e s w ith o u t i n t u i t i o n s , can o n ly be o p e r a tio n s on sym b ols w a n tin g a s s ig n a b le v a l u e s . ”®

Lewes c la im s t h a t

numerous o t h e r g e o m e tr ie s c e r t a i n l y can be d e v e lo p e d .

But •i

th e y are u n im p o rta n t s in c e th e y a r e n o t baaed on I n t u i t e d

1 . F o u n d a tio n s , I , 3 3 8 -3 8 1 . 2 . C f. dohen and N a g e l, L o g ic and S c i e n t i f i c M ethod. p p .2 8 1 f f ., where t h e n o t io n o f h o m o g en eity i s a p p lie d t o th e p rob ­ lem o f i n d u c t io n . N a g e l's answ er t o M ill i s t h a t "While we ca n n e v e r be a lt o g e t h e r c e r t a i n t h a t an exam ined v e r i f y i n g in s t a n c e i s a f a i r sam ple o f a l l p o s s i b l e i n s t a n c e s , i n some c a s e s th e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h i s i s tr u e la v e r y h ig h . T h is i s th e c a s e when th e s u b j e c t m a tte r o f th e in q u ir y i s hom ogeneous in c e r t a i n r e l e ­ v a n t w a y s .” 3 . "Im aginary Geometry and th e T ru th o f A xiom s," p . 1 9 6 .

1 i

88 e x p e r ie n c e .

Such g e o m e tr ie s can g i v e us c o n s is t e n c y , b u t

su c h c o n s is t e n c y I s c e r t a i n l y n o t t r u t h . T ruth i s th e e q u a tio n o f i t s term s; and when th e term s have i n t u i t i o n s f o r t h e i r im port and o b j e c t ­ iv e r e a l s as t h e i r b a s i s , th e e q u a tio n e x p r e s s e s a r e a l t r u t h ; when th e term s are sy m b o ls, th e im port o f w b ich h as no a s s ig n a b le i n t u i t i o n s , th e e q u a tio n e x p r e s s e s a s y m b o lic a l t r u t h w h ich can be c o n s id e r e d a p p l i c a b l e , r e a l , o n ly b y a s s i g n i n g r e a l v a l u e s . The c o n s is t e n c y i s a b se n c e o f i n t e r n a l c o n t r a d ic t io n ; and t h i s c o n s is t e n c y b e lo n g s t o th e Im agin ary G eom etry. T his i s what l o g i c i a n s c a l l Formal T ru th . But what i s commonly u n d e r sto o d as T ruth i s som eth in g more than t h i s ; i t i s th e ab s c e n c e o f e x t e r n a l c o n t r a d ic t io n , i . e . , th e e q u iv ­ a le n c e o f th e s ig n s and th e t h in g s s i g n i f i e d , o f f e e l i n g s and f a c t s . l Lewes b e l i e v e s t h a t th e new n o n -E u c lid e a n g e o m e tr ie s may be s a t i s f a c t o r y as a d i s p l a y o f sy m b o lic m a n ip u la tio n s , b u t t h e y ca n n e v e r g i v e u s s a t i s f a c t o r y t r u t h .

Our sym bols

m ust have i n t u i t i o n s f o r t h e i r v a lu e s ; o t h e r w is e , t h e y le a d t o t a u t o l o g i e s " n ever t o r e a l r e s u l t s ;

r e a l t r u t h s . "2

A n a l y t ic a l fo r m u la s , Lewes m a in t a in s , may le a d us t o th e d is c o v e r y o f new s y m b o lic a l form u las b u t " th e p o in t h ere i n s i s t e d upon i s t h a t th e y r e q u ir e v e r i f i c a t i o n by S en se and I n t u i t i o n b e f o r e th e y can d i s c l o s e th e e x i s t e n c e o f new f a c t s ." 3 Even th ou gh Lewes r e c o g n iz e s t h a t geom etry and th e axiom s d e a l p r im a r ily w it h th e r e l a t i o n s b etw een te r m s , he r e f u s e s t o go f u r t h e r and adm it th e p u r e ly n o n - e x p e r le n t la l c o n t e n t o f th e te r m s .

In th e t y p i c a l n in e t e e n t h c e n tu r y

t r a d i t i o n , Lewes a ck n ow led ges t h a t b o th m ath em atics and 1 . "Im aginary Geom etry and th e T ruth o f A xiom s," p . 1 9 7 . 2 . I b id ., p . 197. 3 . ib id . , p . 200.

89 geo m etry r e c e i v e t h e i r e s s e n t i a l v a l i d i t y from e m p ir ic a l g ro u n d s.

A lth o u g h he has advanced a s t e p heyond many o f

h i s c o n tem p o r a ries by a d m ittin g t h a t n o n -E u c lid e a n g e o ­ m e tr ie s a re p e r f e c t l y u n d e r s ta n d a b le , he c o n c lu d e s by d en y in g t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e b e c a u se t h e i r term s are i n ­ c a p a b le o f t r a n s l a t i o n in t o e m p ir ic a l i n t u i t i o n s . In c o n c lu s io n , we h ave found th a t L ew es’ prim ary co n cern h as b een to e s t a b l i s h a s c i e n t i f i c method t h a t a c co r d s w it h a c t u a l s c i e n t i f i c p r a c t i c e .

In fo r m u la tin g

t h i s method he h as b een l e d in t o th e prim ary prob lem s con ­ c e r n in g la w s , h y p o th e s e s , and a x io m s.

He has d e a l t w ith

t h e s e c o n c e p tio n s by (1 ) show in g how th e y are d is t in g u is h e d from th e c o n c e p tio n s t h a t are u se d b y th e tr a n s c e n d e n t a l p h ilo s o p h e r s , and (2 ) how, b a s i c a l l y , th e y a r e d e r iv e d from e x p e r ie n c e .

In c e r t a i n im p o rta n t r e s p e c t s , we have found

t h a t he i s d e f i c i e n t .

Thus, h i s c o n c e p tio n o f th e c e r ­

t a i n t y under g iv e n c o n d it io n s tu rn ed ou t to be t r i v i a l and h i s n o t io n o f h o m o g en eity was n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y d e v e lo p e d . In a cco rd a n ce w it h n in e t e e n t h c e n tu r y p h ilo s o p h e r s , he b a se d b o th m a th em a tics and l o g i c on e x p e r ie n c e even th ough he was b e g in n in g to u n d ersta n d t h a t more than e x p e r ie n c e i s n eed ed b e f o r e we ca n s a y a p r o p o s it io n i s e i t h e r an axiom or is s e lf-e v id e n t. However, th e r e a l im portance o f Lewes r e s t s n o t so much in h i s a n a ly s e s o f some o f th e i n t r i c a t e q u e s t io n s o f m athem atios and p h y s i c s , b u t i n h is a ttem p t t o c o n s t r u c t in t h e o r e t i c a l term s e x a c t l y what th e s c i e n t i s t d o es in

90 o b t a in in g in fo r m a tio n ab ou t th e w o r ld .

U n lik e th o s e o f

h i s age who, c a r e l e s s l y and w ith o u t any r e a l u n d e r s ta n d in g , d e s ig n a t e d th e s c i e n t i f i c m ethod as th e e m p ir ic a l m ethod, Lewes a tte m p te d to r e v e a l c a r e f u l l y what s c i e n t i f i c method a c tu a lly i s .

F or t h i s rea so n we fou n d him u n w illin g to b e

s a t i s f i e d w it h th e u se o f th e word V e r i f i c a t i o n as th e p rim ary s ig n o f s c i e n t i f i c m ethod.

One had t o i n v e s t i g a t e

w hat v e r i f i c a t i o n m ean t, how one b rou gh t i t

in t o e f f e c t ,

how i t d i f f e r e d from th e ty p e o f v e r i f i c a t i o n u se d in o t h e r fie ld s .

T h is same s c r u t in y i s r e v e a le d i n Lew es' i n v e s t i ­

g a t io n o f la w s , h y p o th e s e s , and a x io m s.

A d e m o n str a tio n

o f how we a c t u a l l y o b ta in th e s e c o n c e p tio n s and how su c h c o n c e p tio n s a re d i s t i n g u i s h e d from t h o s e in tr a n s c e n d e n t­ a lis m has b een L ew es' t a s k . I t I s In th e l i g h t o f what Lewes h as b een t r y i n g to do in t h i s s e c t i o n t h a t we w i l l be a b le t o u n d ersta n d th e n a tu r e o f h i s E m p ir ic a l M e ta p h y sic s .

Now t h a t he f e e l s

t h a t he h a s a p t l y d e s c r ib e d what he means by s c i e n t i f i c m ethod, how I t c o n s t r u c t s law s and e r e c t s h y p o th e s e s , Lewes I s rea d y t o a p p ly th e method t o a f i e l d o f s t u d y .

He s u g ­

g e s t s t h a t th e m ethod can b e u se d in su c h f i e l d s as H is t o r y , Language, R e lig io n ,* - d r i t l c i s m , 2 and c e r t a i n l y In P sy­ c h o lo g y , o f w h ich Lewes was th e g r e a t n in e t e e n t h c e n tu r y e x p o n e n t.

But th e Problem s o f L if e and Mind c o n c e n tr a te d

on n e i t h e r o f t h e s e f i e l d s .

The m ethod was t o be a p p lie d

1 . ”0n th e Dread and D i s l i k e o f S c i e n c e , ” F o r t n ig h t ly R eview , XXIX ( 1 8 7 8 ) , 8 0 9 . 2 . P r in c ip le s o f S u ccess in L ite r a tu r e , p . 122.

91 to a f i e l d

t h a t has s u p p o s e d ly b een op p osed by d e f i n i t i o n

to s c i e n t i f i c m ethod— M e ta p h y sic s .

Lewes was th e n in e t e e n t h

c e n tu r y ex p o n en t o f an E m p ir ic a l M etap h ysics*

92

CHAPTER I I INTRODUCTION TO AN EMPIRICAL METAPHYSICS In th e l a s t s e c t i o n we have s e e n t h a t L ew es' p r i ­ mary con cern was th e fo r m u la tio n o f th e m eaning o f s c i e n ­ t i f i c m ethod.

Such a m ethod, i f c o r r e c t l y s t a t e d , Lewes

th o u g h t, w ould he as s u c c e s s f u l in i t s

a p p lic a t i o n to th e

s o c i a l s c ie n c e s a s i t had h een t o th e p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s . There was n o th in g in th e n a tu r e o f any f i e l d

o f s tu d y o f

human th o u g h t e x c e p t T h eo lo g y t h a t im p lie d m a t e r ia l th a t c o u ld n o t he b ro u g h t u n d er th e s c i e n t i f i c m ethod.

That

t h i s was a tr u is m Lewes w ish e d to p r o v e ,n o t by a p p ly in g th e method to th e s o c i a l s c ie n c e s h u t t o m e ta p h y sic s i t ­ s e lf. I t sh o u ld he u n d e r sto o d t h a t th e n in e t e e n t h c e n tu r y had a c c e p te d w ith o u t q u e s t io n th e gap t h a t had d e v e lo p e d b etw een s c i e n c e and m e ta p h y s ic s .

S tr o n g ly in f lu e n c e d by

5

th e K a n tia n c o n c lu s io n ab out th e

l i m i t a t i o n s o f k n ow led ge,

|

m e ta p h y s ic ia n s , p r o b a b ly m is in t e r p r e t in g Kant in th e same way th a t F ic h t e d id , c la im e d th e K a n tia n t h e o r ie s a s p r o o f o f th e n e c e s s a r i l y t r a n s c e n d e n t a l n a tu r e o f m e ta p h y s ic s . E x p e r ie n c e I t s e l f was to be i n v e s t i g a t e d by th e s c i e n c e s , b u t t o m e ta p h y sic s was due th e t a s k o f d is c o v e r in g th e r e l a t i o n s b etw een phenomena and noumena, b etw een th e know able and th e unknow able.

M e ta p h y sic ia n s ware n o t to

f

93 be r e s t r a in e d by e x p e r ie n c e o r by th e s c i e n t i f i c method w h ich w orked o n ly w it h e x p e r ie n c e .

Or i f th e y w ere t o u se

e x p e r ie n c e , i t was w ith th e fir m u n d e r sta n d in g t h a t e x p e r i­ en c e was t o b e a sp r in g b o a r d to what was n o t g iv e n i n ex ­ p e r ie n c e .

The problem s o f m e ta p h y sic s w ere r a p id ly becom ing

th e problem s o f T h e o lo g y .

The s tu d y o f B e in g was no lo n g e r

co n d u cted on th e n a t u r a l i s t i c l e v e l on w h ich A r i s t o t l e had p u rsu ed i t .

B ein g had tu rn ed in t o an unknowable c o n c e p tio n

t h a t m e ta p h y s ic ia n s p a r a d o x ic a lly s t r o v e to make kn ow ab le. The r ig o r o u s r e a s o n in g o f A r i s t o t l e , in v o lv e d in th e l e g i t i ­ mate a ttem p t to make r e a l i t y more i n t e l l i g i b l e , was g iv e n o v e r t o th e l i t e r a r y m e ta p h y sic s o f C o le r id g e , th e in c o h e r e n t r a n tin g s o f C a r ly le , and th e pure s o lip s is m o f Green and o th e r s o f th e I d e a l i s t S c h o o l.

P h ilo s o p h e r s w ere co n cern ed

w it h e i t h e r a w h o le s a le an th rop om orp h izin g o f n a t u r e , as was e v id e n t i n th e e n t i r e Am erican T r a n s c e n d e n ta l S c h o o l o f A l c o t t , Em erson, T horeau, and H edge, o r a w id e -e y e d s c r u t i n y o f t h e i r own e g o s as s e e n in th e i d e a l i s t co n ­ c e n t r a t io n on E g o s, S u p er-E g o s, and A b s o lu te E g o s.

T. H.

G ree n 's g r e a t c r i t i c i s m a g a in s t Lewes was t h a t Lewes had n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y in v o lv e d h im s e lf i n th e n a tu r e o f th e E g o .l I t was in t h i s age o f u n r e s tr a in e d Im a g in in g s and u n t e s t e d a s s e r t i o n s t h a t Lewes demanded a r e - e v a l u a t i o n o f m eta­ p h y s i c a l t h in k in g and an end t o t h e o r i e s t h a t made p u r e ly s u b je c tiv e or l i t e r a r y b e l i e f s t h e ir c r i t e r i a .

M eta p h y sics

had to do w ith a t e s t a b l e and v e r i f i a b l e r e a l i t y , n o t w ith 1 . C f. Thomas H i l l G reen , Prolegom ena t o E t h i c s , 3rd E d it io n , p. 66.

94 th e s u b j e c t r e a l i t y o f p o e t s and a r t i s t s .

" M etaph ysics

I s a s c i e n c e 11— t h i s became th e k e y n o te o f Lew es' m a tu r e st w ork. G e n e r a lly , Lewes had b een c h a r a c t e r iz e d as a p o s i ­ t i v i s t i n h i s t h in k in g .

I n flu e n c e d s t r o n g ly by M ill and

C om te,, we have s e e n how he became a l i f e l o n g ex p o n en t o f th e s c i e n t i f i c m ethod.

H is B io g r a p h ic a l H is t o r y o f P h i­

lo s o p h y . a lth o u g h r i g h t f u l l y ackn ow ledged as s p e c io u s a t s e v e r a l p o in ts ,* - e x e m p lif ie d L ew es' c o n s ta n t en d eavor t o r e n d e r o b s o l e t e any th in k in g t h a t c o u ld n o t obey s c i e n t i f i c c a n o n s.

The p o s i t i v e m ethod o f s c i e n c e , he d e c la r e d , i s

"the o n ly Method a d a p ted to human c a p a c i t y , th e o n ly one on w h ich t r u t h can b e fo u n d ." 2

R eason in g i s

to be con­

s id e r e d v a l i d o n ly i f i t

is

’’r i g o r o u s l y s u b o r d in a te d to

V e r i f i c a t i o n , *3 Wh i c h i s

wth e grand c h a r a c t e r i s t i c d i s ­

t in g u i s h i n g S c ie n c e from P h ilo s o p h y , modern in q u ir y from a n c ie n t i n q u i r y . B e c a u s e

o f t h i s em phasis on s c i e n t i f i c

m eth od , Lewes has alw ays ap p eared as a s tr o n g op pon ent o f any ty p e o f m e ta p h y s ic s .

T h is im p r e ss io n i s r e in f o r c e d

when he s t a t e s t h a t "I r e j e c t a l l o n t o l o g i c a l sch em es”5 and i n s i s t s t h a t " th e con dem n ation o f M eta p h y sics i s In evitab le.It

i s o u r s t r e n g t h , h e s a y s e ls e w h e r e ,

1 . S o r le y c o r r e c t l y s t a t e s t h a t Lew es' f i r s t e d i t i o n o f th e B io g r a p h ic a l H is t o r y was s l i g h t and in a c c u r a t e , b u t h i s l a t e r e d i t i o n s rem ed ied many b le m is h e s and ’’showed th e a u t h o r 's a b i l i t y t o a p p r e c ia t e o t h e r p o in t s o f v iew th an t h a t from w h ich he had s t a r t e d ." — W .R .S o r le y , A H is t o r y o f E n g lis h P h ilo s o p h y , p . 2 7 3 . 2 * Bl o g r a p h i c a l ^ l s t o r y (lB Sh E d i t i o n ) t p . 7 8 4 . 3. A r is to tle , f . 67. 4 . B io g r a p h ic a l H is t o r y (1 8 8 5 E d i t i o n ) , p . x x x . 5 . ^ S p in o z a ." F o r t n ig h t ly R eview , IV ( 1 8 6 6 ) , 3 9 9 . 6 . B loggaphloaJ^ h i s t o r y (1865 E d i t i o n ) , p . x x x .

95 t h a t "we r e j e c t as f r i v o l o u s a l l m e ta p h y s ic s . H owever, th e f o r c e o f L ew es’ a t t a c k i s n o t d ir e c t e d a g a in s t th e domain o f m e ta p h y s ic s .

He i s n o t con cern ed

w it h d en y in g th e v a l i d i t y o f s p e c u la t io n ahout th e problem s i n w h ich m e ta p h y sic s i s i n t e r e s t e d .

Even in h i s e a r l i e s t

w ork, where he i s s t r u g g lin g t o c l a r i f y th e p r e c i s e n a tu r e o f th e g r ie v a n c e s he has a g a in s t th e m e ta p h y s ic ia n s , he i s c o n s c io u s o f th e f a c t t h a t c o n fu s io n o f m ethods was a b a s ic e v i l o f th e p h ilo s o p h ic sy ste m s o f th e d a y .

In c r i t i c i z i n g

D e s c a r te s and S p in o z a , he comments t h a t "A Method i s th e v i t a l p r i n c i p l e o f a l l s c i e n c e ; i t i s o n ly by Method t h a t s c ie n c e i s p o s s i b l e . "2

And in th e A r i s t o t l e he s t a t e s *

No one f a m i l i a r w it h H is to r y w i l l c o n s id e r t h a t to o much im p ortan ce i s h e r e a s s ig n e d t o Method; few w i l l o o n s id e r t h a t i t s tr u e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have h i t h e r t o b een a d e q u a te ly expounded even by th o s e who have s p e c i a l l y t r e a t e d o f i t . . . H e n c e , th e i t e r a t e d i n ­ s i s t e n c e on i t in th e s e ^ p a g e s , " car l e s hommes on t e n c o r e p lu s b e s o ln de m ethode que de d o c t r i n e , d 'e d u c a t io n que d ’ i n s t r u c t i o n . ” (Comte, Cours de P h ilo s o p h ic P o s i t i v e , 1 8 3 5 , I I , 225iP T his c a u se o f f a i l u r e " a r is e s from n o t d i s t i n g u i s h ­ in g b etw een M e ta p h y sic a l and P h ilo s o p h ic a l M e t h o d s . T h e fu n d am en tal d i f f e r e n c e b etw een s c i e n t i f i c and m e ta p h y s ic a l s p e c u la t i o n "does n o t l i e

in t h e i r o b j e c t s , b u t in t h e i r

m e th o d s ,"5 he a s s e r t e d in h i s su p p o s e d ly a n t i- m e t a p h y s ic a l 1 . " S p in o z a 's L if e and W orks," W estm in ster R eview , XXXIX (1 8 4 3 ), 4 0 6 . ! S. I b id ., p . 384. 3# A r i s t o t l e , p p . 9 9 - 1 0 0 . 4 . "Goethe as a Man o f S c ie n c e ," W estm in ster R eview , LV III (1 8 5 3 ), 4 9 1 . C f. A lso "The Modern M eta p h y sics and M oral P h ilo s o p h y o f P r a n c e ," B r i t i s h and F o r e ig n R eview , XV (1 8 4 3 ), 4 0 0 , where th e n e c e s s i t y f o r a s i n g l e m ethod i s a g a in s t r e s s e d . 5 . B io g r a p h ic a l H is to r y (1 8 8 5 E d i t i o n ) , p . x x x .

96

B i o g r a p h i c a l H i s t o r y , T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n b e tw e e n s u b j e c t m a t t e r and m eth o d was t o become t h e p rim e means w h e re b y Lewes was a b l e t o i n t r o d u c e h i s e m p i r i c a l m e t a p h y s i c s . I t was p r o b a b l y h i s s t r o n g i n t e r e s t i n a l l f i e l d s o f s c i e n c e t h a t made Lewes r e c o g n i z e t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f r e a c h i n g some u n d e r s t a n d i n g r e g a r d i n g c e r t a i n g e n e r a l c a t e g o r i e s t h a t s c i e n t i s t s used u n q u e s tio n in g ly . M a tte r, r e a l i t y ,

su b sta n c e

w ere a l l c o n c e p t s em ployed i n t h e s c i e n c e s . Lewes f e l t t h a t t h e c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f s u c h c o n c e p t s w ould p r o d u c e t h e t y p e o f . u n i t y w h ic h h e , a s a p o s i t i v i s t , h a d c o n s t a n t l y e x p o u n d e d .^ P erh ap s- we c o u l d e x t r a c t t h e p r o b le m o f o n t o l o g y and w i t h s u c h m a t e r i a l m old a s c i e n c e o f m e t a p h y s i c s i n t h e same way t h a t we h a v e m o ld ed s c i e n c e s o f b i o l o g y , c h e m i s t r y , a n d p h y s i c s . T h e re i s no l o g i c a l n e c e s s i t y f o r m e t a p h y s i c s t o be t r a n s ­ c e n d e n t a l . I f we make a d i s t i n c t i o n b e tw e e n t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f m e t a p h y s i c s and i t s m e th o d , Lewes a s s e r t e d i n t h e P ro b le m s o f L i f e and M ind, ^ we w ou ld f i n d t h a t i t i s n o t t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r t h a t i s i n v a l i d b u t t h e m e th o d . The m a t e r i a l o f m etap h y sics i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t r a n s c e n d e n ta l. I t i s th e m eth o d w h ic h i s u s e d ; t . h a t m akes i t t r a n s c e n d e n t a l . The v an i t y o f m e t a p h y s i c s " l i e s .

i n i t s M etho d, n o t

in i t s

a i m . " ^ I t i s t h e " M e t a p h y s i c a l M ethod t h a t h a s b e e n r e ­ lin q u ish e d ," ^ not i t s

c o n t e n t s . I f m etap h y sics i s "e v e r

t o r e a c h a s o l u t i o n ftf i t s p r o b l e m s , i t m u st r e l i n q u i s h 1 . C f . Comte1s P h i l o s o p h y o f t h e S c i e n c e s , p . 8 f f ; a l s o "On t h e D re a d and D i s l i k e o f S c i e n c e , " p p . 8 0 5 - 8 1 5 . 2 . F o u n d a tio n s. I , 14. 3 . A r i s t o t l e , p . 66. 4 . "M r. G r o t e * s P l a t o , " F o r t n i g h t l y R e v ie w , I I ( 1 8 6 5 ) , 1 7 1 .

97 t h a t Method a l t o g e t h e r f o r th e Method o f S c ie n c e , w h ich h as p ro v ed i t s p o w e r . F i n a l l y ,

he im p lo r e s h i s r e a d e r s

n o t to th in k t h a t by h i s in t r o d u c t io n o f m e ta p h y s ic a l co n ­ c e p t i o n s , he has r e t r e a t e d from h i s e a r l i e r p o s i t i o n con ­ c e r n in g th e suprem acy o f s c i e n c e . T h is i s n o t a r e t r e a t , b u t a change o f f r o n t . Throughout my p o le m ic a g a in s t M e ta p h y sic s , th e a t t a c k s w ere d i r e c t e d a g a in s t th e i r r a t i o n a l M ethod, as one by w h ich a l l problem s w h a tev er must be i n s o l u b l e . 2 T h e r e fo r e , Lewes p r o p o se s th e in t r o d u c t io n o f a new ap p roach t o th e s tu d y o f m e ta p h y s ic s .

The new m e ta p h y sic s

w i l l be a s c i e n t i f i c o n e , and how t h i s i s a c c o m p lish e d b e ­ comes th e problem o f th e Problem s o f L if e and Mind. I t i s tow ard s t r a n s fo r m a tio n o f M eta p h y sics by r e d u c t io n to th e Method o f S c ie n c e t h a t t h e s e p a g es te n d . T h e ir o b j e c t i s t o show t h a t th e Method w h ich h as h i t h e r t o a c h ie v e d su c h s p le n d id s u c c e s s i n S c ie n c e n eed s o n ly t o be p r o p e r ly i n ­ t e r p r e t e d and a p p lie d , and by i t th e in d u c tio n s and d e d u c tio n s from e x p e r ie n c e w i l l f u r n is h s o r l u t i o n s to e v e r y m e ta p h y s ic a l problem s t h a t can be r a t i o n a l l y s t a t e d ; w h e r e a s , no p rob lem , m eta­ p h y s i c a l o r s c i e n t i f i c , w h ich i s i r r a t i o n a l l y s t a t e d , can r e c e i v e a r a t i o n a l s o l u t i o n . I p ro p o se t o show t h a t m e ta p h y s ic a l problem s h a v e , r a t i o n a l l y , no o th e r d i f f i c u l t i e s th an th o s e w h ich b e s e t a l l p ro b lem s; and, when s c i e n t i f i c a l l y t r e a t e d , th e y a r e c a p a b le o f s o l u t i o n s n o t l e s s s a t i s f a c t o r y and c e r t a i n than t h o s e o f p h y s i c s . ® Lewes h a s a lr e a d y in s p e c t e d th e n a tu r e o f s c i e n t i f i c m ethod i t s e l f .

He i s g o in g t o show t h a t t h i s m ethod can be

a p p lie d s u c c e s s f u l l y t o m e ta p h y s ic s .

H owever, b e f o r e any

r e a l s o l u t i o n s t o th e p rob lem s o f m e ta p h y sic s can be form u­ l a t e d , we m ust r i d o u r s e lv e s o f much t h a t i s e x tr a n e o u s t o F o u n d a tio n s , I I , 1 0 3 . 2 . F o u n d a tio n s , I , 5 . 3 . 3 M < S .7 " I 7 2 -5 .

98 m e ta p h y s ic s , o f much t h a t has su c c e e d e d In o b f u s c a t in g its

rea l c h a r a c te r is tic s . In a g e n e r a l way we have a lr e a d y s e e n what Lewes

o p p o ses in th e v iew o f t r a d i t i o n a l m e ta p h y s ic ia n s .

He i s

op p osed t o t h e i r c o n s ta n t r e c o u r s e to s u p r a - e x p e r ie n t ia l c o n c e p ts w henever th e y m eet problem s w h ich sqppear to be in s o lu b le .

He i s op p osed to t h e i r u n q u e stio n e d a c c e p ta n c e

o f th e M e tem p lrlo a l R egion w h ich i s in c a p a b le o f e v e r b e­ in g e x p e r ie n c e d , where " S p e c u la tio n roams u n ch eck ed , where s e n s e h as no f o o t i n g , where E xp erim ent can e x e r c i s e no con­ t r o l , and where C a lc u la t io n ends i n I m p o s sib le Q u a n tit ie s .' The M e te m p ir ic a l p h ilo s o p h y , u n lik e s c i e n c e , " s u b s t it u t e s f o r th e i d e a l c o n s t r u c t io n s o f S c ie n c e th e i d e a l c o n s t r u c ­ t io n s o f I m a g i n a t i o n . U n l i k e

th e v e r i f i a b l e in f e r e n c e s

made b y s c i e n c e , th e i n f e r e n c e s o f M etem p lrlcs " s t a r t from no w e ll-g r o u n d e d b a s i s ; th e a rc h e s th e y throw are n o t from known f a c t to unknown f a c t , b u t from some unknown t o some o th e r unknown.

D e d u ctio n s a r e drawn from th e n a tu r e o f

God, th e n a tu r e o f S p i r i t , th e e s s e n c e s o f T h in g s , and from what R eason ca n p o s t u l a t e .

R is in g from su c h m i s t s , th e

a rc h so b r i l l i a n t t o lo o k upon i s a f t e r a l l a ra in b o w , n o t a b r id g e ." ®

S in c e t h i s t h e o lo g i c a l- m e t a p h y s ic a l s p e c u la t io n

o f m e te m p lr lc s " se e s God everyw h ere and in a l l t h i n g s , "4 i t i s alw ays c a p a b le o f r a t i o n a l i z i n g e v e n ts r a t h e r th a n 1 . F o u n d a tio n s, I , 1 6 .

2. Tbrar —

3 . B io g r a p h ic a l H is t o r y (1 8 8 5 E d i t i o n ) , p . x x i v . 4 . Mina a s a Function of th e O rganism , p . 1 6 .

99 o f g i v i n g r e a l s c i e n t i f i c e x p la n a t io n s f o r them .

Theo­

l o g i c a l s p e c u la t i o n , Lewes c o n c lu d e s , i s c o m p le te ly w orth ­ l e s s , and he i n s i s t s on th e i r r e c o n c i l i b i l i t y o f s c ie n c e w ith t h e o l o g y . *

In f a c t , a f t e r o b s e r v in g th e sharp b reak

t h a t has come ab ou t b etw een s c ie n c e and t h e o lo g y , he a s k s , "How lo n g w i l l i t be b e f o r e M o r a lity i s r e n d e r e d ind ep en d ­ e n t o f T h eo lo g y , s t u d ie d by i t s e l f , f o r I t s e l f , b e a r in g in i t s e l f I t s own c r i t e r i o n and I t s own m ethods?"2

ge r e j e c t s

th e c l e r g y as t e a c h e r s f o r th e p u b lic® and r e m o n str a te s a g a in s t t h e o lo g ia n s who have a lr e a d y "shown t h e i r incom ­ p e te n c e " 4 In b e in g u n a b le t o produce a b e t t e r w o r ld .

Any

a tte m p t a t r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , Lewes m a in t a in s , h as alw ays b een v a lu e le s s .

"Whenever we exam ine any o f th e p re te n d e d r e ­

c o n c i l i a t i o n s , we f in d t h a t th e y a re e i t h e r r e s t r i c t e d to g e n e r a l i t i e s so vague as to embrace a lm o st e v e r y c o n t r a ­ d i c t i o n , o r t o p e r v e r s io n s o f la n g u a g e so a r b it r a r y as to o b l i t e r a t e a l l th e marks o f e r r o r ." ®

He c l e v e r l y , i f some­

what c u r s o r i l y , makes a co m p le te r e j e c t i o n o f C h r is tia n P h ilo s o p h y as a p h ilo s o p h y . . . . C h r i s t i a n P h ilo s o p h y i s a m isnom er. A C h r i s t i a n ’ may b e a l s o a P h ilo s o p h e r ; b u t to t a l k o f C h r is t ia n P h ilo s o p h y i s an ab u se o f la n g u a g e . C h r is t ia n P h ilo s o p h y means C h r is t ia n M e ta p h y sic s ; and t h a t means th e s o l u t i o n o f m e ta p h y s ic a l problem s upon th e d o c t r in e s r e v e a le d th ro u g h C h r is t ; r e v e a le d b e ­ c a u se I n a c c e s s i b l e bo R eason; r e v e a le d and a c c e p te d 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

" C a u s e r ie s ,* F o r t n ig h t ly R eview , V ( 1 8 6 6 ), 2 4 1 -2 4 2 . I b id . , p . 2 4 3 . w( 5 a u s e r ie s ," F o r t n ig h t ly R eview , VI (1 8 6 6 ), 3 7 0 . C om te's P h ilo s o p h y o f tne Scienc e s, p . 2 5 1 . ^The Reign o? l a w . ""For^nlghfcly Review, V II (1 8 6 7 ), 1 05.

100 by F a it h , b e c a u se Reason i s u t t e r l y in c o m p e te n ts So t h a t m e ta p h y s ic a l p ro b lem s, th e a tte m p te d s o l u t i o n o f w h ich by Reason c o n s t i t u t e s P h ilo s o p h y , a re s o lv e d by F a it h , and y e t th e name o f P h ilo s o p h y i s r e t a in e d ! But th e v ery e s s e n c e o f P h ilo s o p h y c o n s i s t s in r e a s o n in g , as th e e s s e n c e o f R e lig io n i s F a it h . There c a n n o t, c o n s e q u e n t ly , be a R e lig io u s P h ilo so p h y J i t i s a c o n t r a d ic t io n in t e r m s .1 T his ty p e o f comment i s a g l i b one and Lewes ad m its e ls e w h e r e t h a t he i s r e a l l y q u it e ig n o r a n t ab ou t C h r is t ia n o th o u g h t . * But i t r e v e a ls how s t r o n g ly Lewes i s op p osed to th e a d m issio n o f any t r a n s c e n d e n t a l e le m e n ts i n t o th e ty p e o f m e ta p h y sic s he has i n m ind.

N e it h e r t h e o l o g i c a l n o r

m e ta p h y s ic a l m ethods su ch as th e y have b een c h a r a c t e r iz e d in th e p a s t a re to s e r v e as s o l u t i o n s to th e p rob lem s o f m e ta p h y s ic s .

S u b s ta n c e , c a u s a t io n , m a tte r , and a l l th e

o t h e r n o t io n s o f m e ta p h y sic s are n o t t o b e s o lv e d by a m ethod th a t e n t a i l s a t r a n s c e n d e n t a l s o l u t i o n .

Such an

e n ta ilm e n t h as p rod u ced th e s tr a n g e and p e c u l i a r l y incom ­ p r e h e n s ib le r e a l i t y t h a t has c h a r a c t e r iz e d m e ta p h y s ic a l sy ste m s.

Lewes w ould p r o b a b ly have a g r e e d -w ith th e remark

made by C. I . Lew is in a r e c e n t b ook , "Any M eta p h y sics w h ich p o r tr a y s r e a l i t y a s so m eth in g s t r a n g e ly u n f a m ilia r o r beyond th e o r d in a r y g r a s p , stam ps i t s e l f as th aum aturgy, and i s f a l s e upon th e f a c e o f it ." ® Lew es' main c r i t i c i s m a g a in s t t r a d i t i o n a l m eta­ p h y s ic s i s t h a t i t c o n f u s e s and b rin g s e n t i r e l y i r r e l e v a n t answ ers t o b e a r on th e im p o rta n t p roblem s o f m e ta p h y s ic s . 1 . B io g r a p h ic a l H is t o r y (1 8 8 5 E d i t i o n ) , p . 3 3 8 . 2 . " C a u s e r ie s ," f o r t n i g h t l y R eview . V ( 1 8 6 6 ), 2 4 1 . 3 . C. I . L e w is, Mind and the"W orld O rder, p . 1 0 .

101 M eta p h y sics o f th e p a s t W ith d ra w s a t t e n t i o n from th e c l o s e s c r u t i n y o f f a c t s , and d e lu d e s th e mind w it h u n v e r i f i e d , u n v e r i f i a b l e a s s u m p t io n s ."1

The d is p u t e s t h a t do o f t e n

o c c u r in su c h a m e ta p h y sic s can he t r a c e d p u r e ly to '^ d isp u te s about terms"** in w h ich th e a ssu m p tio n i s made t h a t “d i s t i n c t names r e p r e s e n t d i s t i n c t f a c t s , s o t h a t t o a n a ly z e th e mean­ in g o f words i s h e ld e q u iv a le n t t o a n a l y s is o f th e th in g s r e p r e s e n t e d .*3

Such a m e ta p h y sic s c o m p le te ly ig n o r e s what

i s r e a l l y m eant by v e r i f i c a t i o n . The v i c e o f t h e a p r i o r i m e t h o d . . . i s n o t t h a t i t g o e s b e f o r e t h e T a c t s and a n t i c i p a t e s th e t a r d y c o n c lu s io n s o f e x p e r ie n c e ; b u t t h a t i t r e s t s con­ t e n t e d w i t h i t s pwn v e r d i c t s w i t h o u t s e e k i n g t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n o f f a c t s , o r s e e k in g o n ly a p a r t i a l c o n fro n ta tio n w ith f a c t s . 4 Nor a re t h e s e th e o n ly wajs t h a t th e tr u e n a tu r e o f m e ta p h y sic s h a s b een clo u d e d o v e r by numerous s u p e r f i c i a l appendages t h a t have o n ly s u c c e e d e d in making m e ta p h y sic s a m y s te r io u s and u n r e a l s t u d y .

R a m ific a tio n s o f tr a n s c e n d ­

e n t a lis m have, s u b t l y in tr u d e d th e m s e lv e s among th e t h e o r ie s o f s c ie n c e .

Thus Lewes d e c r i e s th e p r e v a le n c e o f m eta­

p h y s i c a l n o t io n s in B io lo g y " w ith i t s its

’V i t a l P r i n c i p l e , ’

’N atu re c u r in g h e r s e l f , ’ and i t s fam ous n o t io n o f

o r g a n iz e d b o d ie s b e in g in d ep en d en t o f c h e m ic a l a c t i o n . "5 1. 2. 3. 4.

A r is to tle , p . 31. f o u n d a t io n s . I , 1 8 9 . A r i s t o t l e , pp. 8 8 - 8 9 . "Goethe as a Man o f S c ie n c e ," W estm in ste r R eview , L X III, 4 9 1 . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t Lewes d id n o t con ­ s i d e r G oethe an exp on en t o f th e a p r i o r i m ethod and, w ith v e r y h ig h p r a i s e , he sp e a k s o r G oethe as "one o f th e G reat N a t u r a l is t s to whom S c ie n c e i s s e r i o u s l y in d e b t e d ." — p . 5 0 5 . 5 . Comte♦s P h ilo s o p h y o f th e S c i e n c e s , p . 164; a l s o p p . l 4 0 f f .

102 Lewes i s e s p e c i a l l y a n t a g o n is t ic t o any v i t a l i s t i c

th e o r y

and he ta k e s e v e r y o p p o r tu n ity in h i s P h y s ic a l B a s is o f Mind t o a tta c k i t .

The id e a o f "a s o u l , a s p i r i t , an

a r c h e u s , a v i t a l p r i n c i p l e , a v i t a l f o r c e , a n ls u s form a t i v u s , a p la n , o r d iv in e i d e a . . . h a v e from tim e to tim e r e p r e s e n te d th e m e ta p h y s ic a l s t a g e o f B i o l o g y . T h e c o n c e p tio n o f v it a lis m " m ust b e r e j e c t e d b e c a u se i t i s m e te m p ir ic a l and

u n v e r i f i a b l e .

"2

ism by s p e a k in g o f a v i t a l f o r c e .

uo r can we m o d ify v i t a l ­ V i t a l f o r c e a l s o "must

be r e j e c t e d , b e c a u se i t i s i r r e c o n c i l a b l e w ith any d e f i n i t e id e a we have o f f o r c e . "3

Lewes c o n c lu d e s t h a t what we

c h a r a c t e r iz e a s v i t a l i t y in th e w o rld i s sim p ly "the sum o f th e p r o p e r t ie s o f m a tte r in th e s t a t e o f o r g a n iz a t io n . We are a b l e , t h e r e f o r e , t o g i v e a n a t u r a l i s t i c in t e r p r e ­ t a t i o n to l i f e w ith o u t c a l l i n g in t o p la y v a r io u s t r a n ­ s c e n d e n ta l c o n c e p tio n s w h ich seem a s i f th ey e x p l a i n , b u t a re o n ly nam es.

The u se o f su c h a term as ' V i t a l P r in c ip le *

i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t to e x p l a i n a n y th in g a t a l l .

To e x p la in

what L i f e i s we do n o t j u s t g iv e th e p r o c e s s a name.

We

"must o b se r v e and c l a s s i f y th e p r o c e s s e s w h ich go on in o r g a n iz e d s u b s t a n c e s •" 5

By t h in k in g o f v i t a l i t y a s some­

t h i n g more th an th e r e s p o n se s o f o r g a n iz e d s u b s ta n c e s to 1 . The P h y s ic a l B a s is o f Mind, p . 2 5 . N ew ton, as w e l l as Lamarck, a re in c lu d e d in th e number o f s c i e n t i s t s who u se d t r a n s c e n d e n t a l c o n c e p t io n s a s p r o o f on o c c a ­ s io n .— A r is to tle , p . 9 7 ff. 2 . The P h y s ic a l B a s is o f Mind, p . 3 4 . 3 . T L T d . ----------------------------------4. I b id ., p. 36. 5 . The P h y s ic a l B a s is o f Mind, p . 3 5 .

103 t h e i r medium, we have s u c c e e d e d in in tr o d u c in g u nw arranted t r a n s c e n d e n t a l a n a ly s e s i n t o B io lo g y .

I d e a l i s t s as w e l l as

T h e o lo g ia n s have c o n s id e r e d th e n o t io n o f v i t a l i s m

th e

e s s e n t i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e i r t h e o r ie s about th e " d iv in it y " o r "G odlike" a s p e c t o f men.

But t h i s ty p e o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n

h a s no v a l i d i t y f o r a m e ta p h y sic s t h a t i s p u r e ly co n cern ed w it h B e in g , qua B e in g -B e in g th a t by I t s e l f t e l l s u s n o th in g a b o u t any d iv in e p r i n c i p l e . S i m i l a r l y , Lewes d e c r ie s th e u s e o f v a r io u s o th e r term s su c h as " a f f i n i t y " and " a rch ety p es" and c o n s id e r s them a s o n ly h in d r a n c e s .t o an u n d e r sta n d in g o f th e r e a l n a tu r e o f m e ta p h y s ic s .

Such term s have b een f r e e l y u se d

b y t r a n s c e n d e n t a l m e ta p h y s ic ia n s , b u t th e new m e ta p h y sic s t h a t Lewes w i l l t r y t o c o n s t r u c t w i l l n o t a llo w th e i n c l u ­ s i o n o f su c h te r m s. F i n a l l y , Lewes c o n c lu d e s t h a t i t i s p e r f e c t l y tr u e t h a t "There i s o n t o lo g y on th e M e te m p ir ic a l M ethod; and th is ,

l i k e a l l I n q u ir ie s so p u r su e d , i s n e c e s s a r i l y f r u i t ­

l e s s . "■*■ But t h e r e I s a n o th e r ty p e o f o n t o lo g y . There I s o n t o lo g y p u rsu ed on th e E m p ir ic a l M ethod, and t h i s i s A b s tr a c t S c ie n c e , w h ich i s o c c u p ie d w it h th e g e n e r a l la w s o f B e i n g . * I t i s t h i s l a t t e r ty p e o f o n t o lo g y w h ich Lewes l a b e l s " E m p iric a l M etap h ysics"® and w h ich " is th e s c ie n c e o f t h o s e h ig h e s t g e n e r a l i t i e s w h ich emerge from th e stu d y o f T h in g s, . . . th e r e c a n be no d i f f e r e n c e b etw een S c ie n c e 1 . F o u n d a tio n s. I . 6 0 . 2.

m

3.

Ib id .

-------------

. pp. 61, 6 2 .

104 and M eta p h y sics e x c e p t In th e d e g r e e o f g e n e r a l i t y . I t I s t h i s ty p e o f m e ta p h y s ic s , and n o t th e T r a n sc e n d e n ta l A n a ly s is , th a t i s o f h i g h e s t s i g n i f i c a n c e s in c e Prom th e law s o f th e Cosmos d is c o v e r e d by S c ie n c e , I t e l i c i t s c e r t a i n g e n e r a l r e l a t i o n s , w h ich a r e th e n v i s i b l e in phenomena, j u s t as th e th e o r y o f G r a v it a t io n , o r i g i n a t e d by I n d u c tio n s from t e r ­ r e s t r i a l p h y s i c s , was co n fir m ed by in d u c tio n s from c e l e s t i a l p h y s i c s , and when th u s e s t a b l i s h e d was a fte r w a r d s r e f l e c t e d b a ck on t e r r e s t r i a l p h y s i c s , d i s c l o s i n g u n e x p e c te d r e l a t i o n s t h e r e . 2 Thus a c c e p t in g th e g e n e r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f th e A r i s t o t e l i a n d e f i n i t i o n , Lewes c o n c lu d e s : . . . o u r d e f i n i t i o n o f e m p ir ic a l M eta p h y sics (we r e c o g n iz e no o t h e r ) w i l l be " the s c ie n c e o f th e m ost g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s .® The f u l l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f Lewes 1 c o n t r ib u t io n to M eta p h y sics was l o s t t o n in e t e e n t h c e n tu r y p h ilo s o p h y , and H a rriso n p erh ap s sp ok e f o r a l l o f h i s c o n te m p o r a r ie s when he s a id t h a t L ew es' " attem pt t o r e v iv e M eta p h y sics un d er a s c i e n t i f i c a s p e c t h as d e s e r v e d ly f a i l e d . P r o b a b l y fe w , e x c e p t p erh ap s f o r th e y o u t h f u l C. S . P e ir c e ® and L e s l i e S te p h e n s,® w ere ev e n c o n s c io u s o f th e f a c t th a t Lewes was p r o p o sin g a method w hereby M eta p h y sics c o u ld become a s c ie n c e .

O nly i n th e t w e n t ie t h c e n t u r y , w it h P e i r c e ’ s

1 . F o u n d a tio n s , I , 6 2 . 2.

I b id .,

6t>.

5 . Tblc[. . 6 2 . 4 . F r e d e r ic H a r r is o n , The P h ilo s o p h y o f Common S e n se , p p . 1 1 6 -1 1 7 . 5 . P e ir c e w a s, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , a c q u a in te d w it h th e Problem s o f L i f e and Mind s in c e he sp ea k s a p p r o v in g ly o f L ew es' p r i n c i p l e o f v e r i f i c a t i o n In th e A r i s t o t l e . C f. C. S . P e i r c e , C o lle c t e d P a p e r s . I , 1 4 . 6 . C f. page 1 5 5 , f o o t n o t e 1 o f t h i s t h e s i s .

105 I n t r o d u c t io n o f a s c i e n t i f i c m e ta p h y sic s d id L ew es1 e a r l i e r c o n c e p tio n h ea r f r u i t . We f i n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t Lewes has c l e a r l y d is c e r n e d t h a t a M eta p h y sics n e e d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y im ply a tr a n s c e n d ­ e n t a l e le m e n t.

W ith an A r i s t o t e l i a n is m t h a t i s n o t c lo a k e d

by th e la y e r s o f m is i n t e r p r e t a t io n t h a t th e S c h o l a s t i c in ­ tr o d u c e d , Lewes r e g a r d s M eta p h y sics s im p ly as what "comes a f t e r P h y s i c s ." I

In f a c t , he m a in ta in s th a t A r i s t o t l e

w ould have b een th e f i r s t S c h o l a s t i c i s m . "2

a

to r e p u d ia t e th e " in a n it y o f

v a l i d M eta p h y sics i s n o t c o n cern ed w ith

M e te m p ir ic a l d a ta t h a t i s s e n s i b l e e x p e r i e n c e ."3

"In c a p a b le o f a r e d u c t io n to

jn th e same way t h a t "the o b j e c t s

o f S c ie n c e a re th e law s o f s e n s i b l e phenomena; th e o b j e c t s o f M eta p h y sics a re n o t t h e s e , b u t law s o f th e la w s — th e C a lc u lu s o f o p e r a t i o n s . R i g h t l y u n d e r s to o d , Lewes d e­ c la r e s ,

" th ere i s t r u t h in s a y in g t h a t a m e ta p h y s ic ia n may

have a k n ow led ge o f B ein g as c e r t a i n as th e m a th e m a tic ia n 's know ledge o f M agn itu d e, as th e c h e m is t 's k n ow led ge o f a f ­ fin ity ,

as th e B i o l o g i s t ' s know ledge o f L i f e , as th e

S o c i o l o g i s t ' s k n ow led ge o f S o c i e t y . "5

C o n se q u e n tly , Lewes

can be c r e d i t e d w it h a u n iq u e p o s i t i o n i n n in e t e e n t h c e n tu r y th o u g h t.

H is u n u su a l ap proach i s o f su c h a n a tu r e t h a t he

1 . F o u n d a tio n s . I , 6 3 . 2 . A r i s t o t l e ' , p . 3 8 2 . In f a c t , Lewes m a in ta in s e ls e w h e r e , "Bacon d id n o t a t t a c k th e Method w h ich A r i s t o t l e t a u g h t ; In d e e d , he was v e r y I m p e r fe c tly a c q u a in te d w ith I t . He a t ta c k e d th e Method w h ich t h e f o llo w e r s o f A r i s t o t l e p r a c t i c e d ." — A r i s t o t l e , p . 1 1 3 . 3 . F o u n d a tio n s, I , 6 1 . 4 . IEi d " '"p. " 5 2 . 5 . Ib id . , p . 6 0 .

106 was r e j e c t e d by b o th m e ta p h y s ic ia n s a s w e l l as P o s i t i v i s t s . The t r a d i t i o n a l a n t i t h e s i s b etw een e m p ir ic is m and m eta­ p h y s ic s was s t i l l

to o s tr o n g t o p e r m it e v e n the n o t io n o f

th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f an e m p ir ic a l m e ta p h y s ic s . The e m p ir ic a l m e ta p h y sic s t h a t we h ave c o n s id e r e d h e r e , Lewes c o n t in u e s , sh o u ld c e r t a i n l y be c o n s id e r e d a s a " p o s s ib le b ran ch o f S c i e n c e . A f t e r a l l , what d o es co n ­ s t i t u t e a s c ie n c e ?

Lewes an sw ers t h a t i t i s " th e c o o r d i­

n a t io n o f

And what a re th e c h a r a c te r s o f a s c ie n c e

fa c ts .

"2

by w h ich i t ca n b e r e c o g n iz e d ? A s c i e n c e e x i s t s (1 ) when i t h a s a c l e a r l y d e f in e d o b j e c t ; (2 ) when i t has a c l e a r l y d e fin e d p la c e in th e r e g io n o f r e s e a r c h , a p la c e n o t o c c u p ie d by any o t h e r ; and (3 ) when i t h as a c l e a r l y d e f in e d Method o f a p p ly in g th e r e s u l t s o f E x p e r ie n c e to th e e x t e n ­ s io n o f e x p e r ie n c e .® A l l t h e s e c h a r a c t e r s , Lewes a s s e r t s , "are r e c o g n iz ­ a b le in M e ta p h y sic s . I t s o b j e c t i s th e d isen g a g em en t o f c e r t a in m ost g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s su c h as C au se, F o r c e , L i f e , M ind, e t c . , from th e s c ie n c e s w h ich u s u a l l y im p ly t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s , and th e e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t e le m e n ts — th e f a c t s , s e n s i b l e and l o g i c a l , w h ich t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s i n v o l v e , and th e r e l a t i o n s o f th e s e p r i n c i p l e s . I t s p l a c e , as a s p e c i a l D i s c i p l i n e , i s t h a t o f an O b je c tiv e L o g ic . I t s method i s th a t o f d e a lin g e x c l u s i v e l y w it h th e known f u n c t io n s o f unknown q u a n t i t i e s , and a t e v e r y s t a g e o f in q u ir y s e p a r a t in g th e e m p ir ic a l from th e m e te m p lr lc a l d a ta .® Thus, a c c o r d in g to L ew es, th e ty p e o f M eta p h y sics he h a s in mind can c e r t a i n l y be g iv e n s c i e n t i f i c v a l i d i t y . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

F o u n d a tio n s , I , 7 3 . Ib id .. IblcL. Ib id .

F o u n d a tio n s , I , 7 3 .

And

107 su c h a c o n c e p t io n , a lth o u g h he ad m its t h a t I t I s n o t nnow f o r th e f i r s t tim e o r i g i n a t e d , i s now " fo r th e f i r s t t i m e . . . d e f i n i t e l y e x p r e s s e d in i t s p r i n c i p l e s and

b e a r i n g s .

”2

Many have th o u g h t, and some few h ave p r o c la im e d , t h a t M eta p h y sics s h o u ld be b a sed on f a c t s and i t s problem s r e s o lv e d on th e p r i n c i p l e o f E x p e r ie n c e . But no o n e— t o my k n o w le d g e --h a s e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d how t h i s was to b e e f f e c t e d . 3 A f t e r a co m p le te r e j e c t i o n o f much t h a t was o b v io u s ly t r a n s c e n d e n t a l i n m e ta p h y s ic s , Lewes i s now p rep a red to make a f in e r a n a ly s is .

He w i l l n o t o n ly s o lv e some o f th e t r a d i ­

t i o n a l problem s t h a t have b o th e r e d m e ta p h y s ic ia n s , b u t con­ s t r u c t a m e ta p h y sic s t h a t w i l l k eep in c o n t a c t w it h b o th common s e n s e r e a l i t y and th e r e a l i t y o f s c i e n c e .

Once we

h ave come t o th e n u c le u s o f m e ta p h y s ic a l m a t e r ia l and e x ­ p la in e d s a t i s f a c t o r i l y th e problem s w h ich have b een in c u r r e d from t h i s n u c le u s , ou r t a s k w i l l become p r o g r e s s i v e l y s im p le . 1 . I b i d . , I , 7 6 . Lewes ack n ow led ges th e f a c t t h a t Kant has a l s o th o u g h t ab ou t th a p o s s i b i l i t y o f a s c i e n t i f i c m e ta p h y s ic s . But K a n t's answ ers had "not b een s a t i s ­ f a c t o r y . ”— I b id . , I , 7 9 . C f. K a n t's P rolegom en a, e d i t e d P a u l b a r u s, 1 9 4 5 , p . 2 , where fcant in q u ir e s ab ou t M e ta p h y sic s : ”I f i t be a s c i e n c e , how comes i t t h a t i t ca n n o t, l i k e o t h e r s c i e n c e s , o b t a in u n iv e r s a l and perm anent r e c o g n it io n ? I f n o t , how can i t m ain­ t a in i t s p r e t e n s io n s and k eep th e human mind in s u s p e n se w it h h o p e s , n e v e r c e a s in g , y e t n e v e r f u l f i l l e d ? W hether th en we d em o n stra te ou r know ledge o r our Ig n o ra n ce in t h i s f i e l d , we m ust come on ce f o r a l l t o a d e f i n i t e con ­ c l u s i o n r e s p e c t i n g th e n a tu r e o f t h i s s o - c a l l e d s c i e n c e , w h ich c a n n o t p o s s i b l y rem ain on i t s p r e s e n t f o o t i n g . I t seem s a lm o st r i d i c u l o u s , w h ile e v e r y o t h e r s c ie n c e i s c o n s t a n t l y a d v a n c in g , t h a t in t h i s , w h ich p r e te n d s to b e Wisdom in c a r n a te , f o r Whose o r a c le ev er y o n e in ­ q u i r e s , we s h o u ld c o n s t a n t l y move around th e same s p o t , w ith o u t g a in in g a s i n g l e s t e p ." C. D. Broad h as v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g l y d e n ie d t h a t m e ta p h y sic s i s u n a b le t o a d v a n ce. C f. th e in t r o d u c t io n t o h i s S c i e n t i f i c T hou gh t, pp. 1 1 -2 5 . 2 . F o u n d a tio n s , I , 7 6 . 3 .

I b i d . ,

p .

7 7 .

O n ly b y r e c o g n i z i n g some o f t h e m e t e m p i r i c a l e l e m e n t s t h a t h a v e c r e p t i n t o o u r c a l c u l a t i o n s w i l l we b e a b l e t o g i v e r e a l s o l u t i o n s to t h e p ro b le m s o f m e t a p h y s i c s .

We m u s t d e ­

f i n e f i r s t some o f t h e b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n s w i t h w h ic h m e ta ­ p h y s ic s w orks.

We m ust " c l e a r l y u n d e r s t a n d t h e c o n d i t i o n s

o f m e t a p h y s i c a l i n q u i r y . "1

T h e re a r e num erous i n s t a n c e s i n

w h ic h "o ne man t h i n k s t h e p r o b le m s o l u b l e w h ic h a n o t h e r p r o ­ nounces n o t to be s o lu b l e .

What t h e n i s o u r

c r ite r io n ? " 2

We a s s e r t t h a t " m e t e m p i r i c a l e l e m e n t s m ust be th ro w n o u t o f th e c o n s tr u c tio n .

But w h a t a r e t h e m e t e m p i r i c a l e l e m e n t s ? " 3

0

The a n sw e rs t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s w i l l become e v i d e n t i f we r e g a r d Lewes as f a c i n g two m ain p r o b le m s :

(1 ) W ith

w h a t k i n d o f r e a l i t y c a n we d e a l s u c c e s s f u l l y an d ( 2 ) o n c e we h a v e s p e c i f i e d s u c h a r e a l i t y , how do we s o l v e t h e t r a d i ­ t i o n a l p ro b le m s o f m e t a p h y s i c s , e . g . , c a u s a tio n , e tc ?

su b sta n c e , m a tte r,

I n t h e f i r s t p r o b le m , w h at we w i s h t o know

i s t h e t y p e o f w o r l d w i t h w h ic h we a r e a c q u a i n t e d .

Some

p h i l o s o p h e r s h av e c l a i m e d t h a t r e a l i t y i s p u r e l y m a t e r i a l ­ istic .

O th e r s , l i k e B e rk e le y and F i c h t e , have d e c la r e d

t h a t r e a l i t y i s o n ly c o n s c io u s n e s s .

S t i l l o th e rs, lik e

D e s c a r t e s an d S p i n o z a , h a v e i n s i s t e d on t h e b i f u r c a t i o n o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s and m a t t e r an d t h a t r e a l i t y i s t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f b o th .

S t i l l o t h e r s h a v e r e j e c t e d a l l t h e s e c l a i m s an d

a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e r e i s a r e a l i t y b u t i t i s s o d i v o r c e d fro m t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f men t h a t we c a n a t t a i n i t o n l y by a

109 s p ir itu a l in sig h t.

T h i s i s t h e p r o b le m Lewes m u st s o l v e

b e f o r e an y o t h e r p r o b le m s c a n be s o l v e d .

The m ean in g t h a t

we w i l l g i v e t o s u c h c o n c e p t s as s u b s t a n c e , m a t t e r , e t c . , w i l l r e s t on e x a c t l y t h e s i g n i f i c a t i o n we g i v e t o r e a l i t y . A b if u r c a te d r e a l i t y w i l l r e s u l t in a d i f f e r e n t co n c e p tio n o f s u b s t a n c e , f o r e x a m p le ,

th a n a r e a l i t y t h a t d o es n o t

rec o g n iz e such a b if u r c a tio n .

A m a te r ia lis t or e p i-p h e -

n o m e n a lis tic r e a l i t y w i l l produce a f a r d i f f e r e n t u n d e r­ s t a n d i n g o f s u b s t a n c e t h a n w i l l a r e a l i t y w h ic h i s p u r e l y c o n sc io u sn e ss.

T h u s , t h e m ain p r o b le m f o r Lewes i s th e

i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f w h a t r e a l i t y i s an d w h e t h e r t h e d i v i s i o n b e tw e e n mind a n d b o d y , c o n s c i o u s n e s s a n d m a t t e r , le g itim a te one.

Once t h i s

is a

i s s o l v e d t h e n we c a n make a

c o n s t r u c t i v e a t t e m p t i n f o r m u l a t i n g t h e p ro b le m s o f su b ­ s t a n c e and m a t t e r and c a u s a t i o n . The R e v o l t A g a i n s t D u a lis m The o ne b e l i e f t h a t c o n s i s t e n t l y r u n s t h r o u g h Lewes 1 p h i l o s o p h y i s t h e t o t a l d e n i a l o f t h e n o t i o n t h a t r e a l i t y i s i n a n y way a c t u a l l y d u a l i s t l c .

I t is

im p o rta n t

t o s a y a c t u a l l y b e c a u s e Lewes d o e s a d m it t h a t e x p e r i e n c e c o n ta in s s h a rp ly d e lin e a te d d i s t i n c t i o n s .

H ow ever, t h e s e

d is tin c tio n s a re lo g ic a l, not a c tu a l in n a tu re .

We make

t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e tw e e n t h e two s i d e s o f a p e n n y , b u t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n i s n o t a r e a l one. n e c e s s a r y t o one a n o t h e r . under s id e .

B o th s i d e s a r e a b s o l u t e l y

E v e ry u p p e r s i d e w i l l h av e a n

B ut th e f a u l t o f m e ta p h y sic ia n s has been,

110 Lewes a s s e r t s ,

t h a t th e y m ista k e t h i s l o g i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n

In r e a l i t y f o r a n a c t u a l d i s t i n c t i o n .

B e c a u se t h e y s a y

t h e r e I s m ind a n d h o d y , t h e y t h i n k t h a t b o t h a r e I n some way s e p a r a t e d .

But Lewes e m p h a t i c a l l y d e n i e s t h i s and h i s

d e n i a l c a r r i e s o v e r i n t o e v e r y f i e l d i n w h ic h he i s i n t e r ­ e s te d .

I n P s y c h o lo g y , S o c i o l o g y , and M e ta p h y s ic s he s t a n d s

a d a m a n t l y o p p o s e d t o th e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f an y n o t i o n s t h a t w o u ld make any r e a l d i v i s i o n i n r e a l i t y .

H is p h y s i o l o g i c a l

s t u d i e s a r e f i l l e d w i t h w a r n i n g s a g a i n s t t h o s e who t a k e t h e d iv isio n s e rio u s ly .

I t becom es o u r n e x t t a s k , t h e n , t o

ex am in e m ore c l o s e l y L e w e s' a t t e m p t t o cem en t t h e d u a l i s m t h a t had a p p e a re d i n th e v a r io u s f i e l d s o f s tu d y . The N a t u r a l i s t i c E x p l a n a t i o n o f L i f e The f i r s t d u a l i s m t h a t Lewes r e j e c t s i s t h e n o t i o n th a t lif e rences.

i s i n some way a b o v e a n d b e y o n d n a t u r a l o c c u r ­ F o r t h i s r e a s o n , a s we h a v e a l r e a d y s e e n , Lewes

s h a r p l y r e j e c t s V i t a l i s m o r an y s i m i l a r c o n c e p t i o n a s an e x p la n a tio n of l i f e .

L i f e , l i k e a l l o t h e r phenom ena f o u n d

in e x p e r ie n c e , can be e x p la in e d in n a t u r a l te rm s .

I t is

t r u e t h a t we a r e s t i l l u n a b l e t o g i v e t h e f u l l e x p l a n a t i o n , b u t i t does n o t fo llo w t h a t l i f e

is

i n some way d i s a s s o c i ­

a t e d fro m t h e r e s t o f t h e n a t u r a l w o r l d . *

Lewes s t r o n g l y

s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e d a y may p e r h a p s n o t b e t o o f a r d i s t a n t when man w i l l c r e a t e l i f e

j u s t a s he m a n u fa c tu re s m a ch in es.

. . . t h e s k i l l o f man h a s a l r e a d y s u c c e e d e d i n m aking many o r g a n i c s u b s t a n c e s , a n d w i l l p e r h a p s e v e n t u a l l y s u c c e e d i n m a k in g a c e l l , c e r t a i n l y w i l l , i f e v e r -V e 1 . C om te1s P h i l o s o p h y o f t h e S c i e n c e s , p . 1 6 1 .

I ll t h e s p e c i a l s y n t h e s i s w h ic h b i n d s t h e e l e m e n t s t o g e t h e r s h o u l d be d i s c o v e r e d . 1 In agreem ent w ith th e s c i e n t i s t , E r n s t H aeck el, h is fam ous c o n t e m p o r a r y , Lewes m a i n t a i n s t h a t i f we w e re e v e r t o g a t h e r t o g e t h e r s u f f i c i e n t m a t e r i a l , we w o uld be a b l e t o produce l i f e .

He i s s t r o n g l y i m p r e s s e d b y t h e s e e m in g l y

l i f e l i k e p ro p e rtie s of c ry s ta ls under c e rta in co n d itio n s, an d c a n n o t a c c e p t t h e c o n c l u s i o n s o f L e i b i g , P r e y e r , H e l m h o l t z , A r r h e n i u s , an d o t h e r c o n t e m p o r a r i e s t h a t l i f e i s a s e t e r n a l , u n c r e a t e d , an d i n d e s t r u c t i b l e a s m a t t e r . T h is d o e s n o t mean t h a t Lewes d i d n o t co m p reh en d how e x ­ t r e m e l y c o m p l i c a t e d was t h e p r o b le m o f l i f e .

He w o uld

p r o b a b l y h a v e a g r e e d w i t h t h e m o dern v iew o f O p a r i n t h a t s o f a r a s t h e b a s i c e l e m e n t s o f m a t t e r a r e c o n c e r n e d , we know n o t h i n g " a s t o how t h e s e s t r u c t u r e s w e re f o r m e d . "2 But he w o u ld h a v e c la i m e d t h a t t h i s d o e s n o t p e r m i t us t o g iv e th e c o n c e p tio n o f l i f e

a ran k th a t ta k e s i t ou t of

t h e l e v e l o f n a t u r a l i s t i c phenom ena. I n t h e same v e i n Lewes d e n i e s t h e P r e f o r m a t i o n T heory, v i z . ,

t h a t t h e o r g a n is m d e v e l o p s i n a c c o r d a n c e

w ith a p re c o n c e iv e d p la n .

It

Is n o t t r u e to say t h a t th e

o r g a n i s m o r e v e n t h e t i s s u e s o f t h e o r g a n i s m become w h at t h e y a r e b e c a u s e o f a p l a n o r t y p e t h a t f o r c e s s u c h and o n ly such a d ev elo p m en t. same c r i t i c i s m

T h is c o n c e p t i o n i s open t o t h e

t h a t Lewes d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e o l o g i c a l and

tr a n s c e n d e n ta l p la n s and ty p e s . The P h y s l e a l B a s i s o f M ind, p . 1 3 . 2 . A. I . O p a r i n , t h e O r i g i n o f L i f e , p . 1 9 7 .

112 The ty p e d o e s n o t d o m i n a te t h e c o n d i t i o n s ; i t em erg es fro m th em ; t h e a n i m a l o r g a n i s m I s n o t c a s t In a m o u ld , h u t t h e i m a g i n a r y m ould i s t h e form w h ic h t h e p o l a r i t i e s o f t h e o r g a n i c s u b s t a n c e a s s u m e .^ The c o n c e p t i o n o f ty p e a s a d e t e r m i n i n g i n f l u e n c e , he co n ­ tin u e s,

wa r i s e s fro m t h a t f a l l a c y o f t a k i n g a r e s u l t a n t f o r

a p r i n c i p l e , w h ic h h a s p l a y e d so c o n s p i c u o u s a p a r t i n t h e h isto ry of

p h ilo s o p h y .

”2

jje a c c e p t s t h e D a r w in ia n T h e o ry 5 ;

e s p e c i a l l y i t s e m p h a s is on t h e n e c e s s i t y o f c o n s i d e r i n g t h e e x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f t h e o r g a n i s m .

In

f a c t , h e i s s o e n t h u s i a s t i c a b o u t t h e D a r w in ia n t h e o r y t h a t he b r i n g s t h e " s t r u g g l e ” o f e v o l u t i o n i n t o p l a y i n t h e i n ­ t e r n a l en v iro n m e n t o f th e o rg a n ism . The e x i s t e n c e o f a n o r g a n is m i s n o t o n l y d e p e n d e n t on t h e e x t e r n a l e x i s t e n c e o f o t h e r s , and i s t h e o u t ­ come o f a s t r u g g l e ; b u t a l s o on t h e i n t e r n a l c o n d i ­ t i o n s w h ic h c o o p e r a t e i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f i t s s t r u c t u r e , t h i s s t r u c t u r e b e i n g t h e ou tco m e o f a s tru g g le .* He p r o c e e d s t o v e r i f y s u c h a n e x t e n s i o n o f D arw in* s h y p o ­ t h e s i s b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g how t h e t i s s u e s and o r g a n s o f t h e b od y a r e '’r i g o r o u s l y l i m i t e d by t h e c o m p e t i t i o n an d a n t a g o ­ n is m o f t h e o t h e r s , e a c h o f w h ic h h a s i t s p o t e n t i a l i n ­ d e f i n i t e n e s s and i t s r e a l l i m i t s . ”5

T h is H e g e l i a n i z e d

D a rw in ism r e a c h e s i t s h i g h e s t e x a g g e r a t i o n s when he t r i e s t o make i t a c c o u n t f o r i l l n e s s and d i s e a s e . W h enever t h e r e i s a n e n c r o a c h m e n t o f one t i s s u e on a n o th e r , t h e r e i s a d is tu r b a n c e o f t h e norm al b a l a n c e , w h ic h r e a d i l y p a s s e s i n t o a p a t h o l o g i c a l 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The P h y s i c a l B a s i s o f M ind, p . 1 0 6 . TbTd. I b id . , pp. 1 1 5 ff, 49. i b i d . , p . 116. Ib id .

113

sta te . I f th e b r a i n i s o v e rru n w ith c o n n e c tiv e t i s s u e , o r t h e h e a r t w i t h f a t t y t i s s u e , we know th e c o n s e q u e n c e s. I f th e c o n n ectiv e t i s s u e is d e f i c i e n t , e p i t h e l i a l r u n s e x c e s s , no l o n g e r l i m i t e d b y I t s n o r m a l a n t a g o n i s t , an d pus o r c a n c e r re su lt. S u ch a h y p o t h e s i s i s n o t o n l y e x a g g e r a t e d , b u t I t i s f a l s e on t h e f a c e o f i t . us

At no p o i n t d o e s Lewes t e l l

by v i r t u e o f w hat we c a n s a y

a n t a g o n i s t o f t i s s u e B.

And c e r t a i n l y , i t

t h a t when t h e c o n n e c t i v e t i s s u e t h e l i a l ru n s to e x c e s s .

t h a t t i s s u e A I s an is n o t th e case

is d e f ic ie n t,

th e e p i ­

F u r t h e r m o r e , a t no p o i n t c a n we

e v e r s a y when we do o r do n o t h a v e a d e f i c i e n c y .

Lewes

h a s i n v o l v e d h i m s e l f i n p r e c i s e l y t h e same d i f f i c u l t y t h a t he has been c o n s t a n t l y a t t a c k i n g , v i z . ,

th e attem p t to

c o n n o te n a t u r e i n term s t h a t a re p u r e ly s u b j e c t i v e .

That

men f e e l c o n f l i c t d o e s n o t im p ly t h a t t h e same c o n f l i c t s h o u ld be In tr o d u c e d I n to n a t u r e .

And c e r t a i n l y t h i s co n ­

c e p t i o n o f a n t a g o n i s m , a v e r y p o p u l a r one i n t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , c a n b e o f no v a l u e t o s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r y .

One h a s

a s much r i g h t t o s a y t h a t c e l l A i s a n t a g o n i s t i c t o c e l l B a s one h a s t o s a y t h a t c e l l A i s

t h e m o r t a l enemy o f c e l l B.

Ho s c i e n t i s t who c l e a r l y u n d e r s t o o d t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s d o c t r i n e w o u ld a c c e p t i t .

A ll t h a t th e d o c tr in e can be s a id

t o mean i s t h a t t h i n g s r e a c t w i t h o ne a n o t h e r . r e a c t i s t h e p r o b le m o f s c i e n c e .

How t h e y

Ho s c i e n t i s t w o u ld m a in ­

t a i n t h a t two t h i n g s r e a c t t o o n e a n o t h e r b e c a u s e o f t h e i r a n t a g o n i s m t o one a n o t h e r .

T h is w o u ld be a n i r r e l e v a n t

1 . The P h y s i c a l B a a ls o f M ind, p . 1 1 9 .

114

and m e a n i n g l e s s e x p l a n a t i o n .

E x p la n a tio n a c c r u e s to

phenom ena b y s h o w in g how A r e a c t s t o B i n c e r t a i n c i r ­ c u m s t a n c e s , n o t by a s s e r t i n g some k i n d o f m y s t i c a l a n t a g o ­ n is m t h a t A h a s f o r B an d B f o r A.

Lewes may h a v e b e e n

aw are o f a d e f i c i e n c y i n h i s r e a s o n i n g h e r e b e c a u s e t h e d o c t r i n e a p p e a rs a t th e b e g in n in g o f th e P h y s i c a l B asis o f M ind, b u t i s q u i t e f o r g o t t e n b y t h e t i m e h e g e t s t o t h e end.

Nowhere e l s e

i n t h e P ro b le m s o f L i f e and Mind i s t h e

d o c t r in e m en tio n ed . H ow ever, t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f L ew es' p h y s i o l o g i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n s i s n o t s o much t h a t he a c c e p t s c e r t a i n f a l s e d o c t r i n e s , b u t t h a t h e w is h e s t o r e j e c t a n y e x p l a n a t i o n s of l i f e

th a t p la c e

n a t u r a l w o rld .

life

i n a r e a l m s e p a r a t e d f ro m t h e

F o r t h i s r e a s o n h e a c c e p t s D a rw in ism , r e ­

j e c t s V i t a l i s m , and f i r m l y b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e tim e w i l l come when s c i e n c e w i l l b e a b l e t o s y n t h e s i z e l i f e .

The P s y c h o lo g y o f Man H av ing r e j e c t e d d u a l i s m i n p h y s i o l o g y , Lewes w i l l do l i k e w i s e i n a l l h i s p s y c h o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s .

In acco rd ­

a n c e w i t h w h a t he c a l l s h i s " R u le s o f P h i l o s o p h i z i n g , w h ic h a r e o n l y a summary r e i t e r a t i o n o f h i s f a i t h i n t h e e m p i r i c o - s c i e n t i f i c m ethod o f Newton and Comte, Lewes

1 . F o u n d a t i o n s , I , p p . 8 1 f f . C f . A ppendix, w here t h e s e ru le s are l i s t e d .

115 p r o c e e d s t o exam in e t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l m echanism o f m a n .i Now when we I n v e s t i g a t e t h e n a t u r e o f man a s a human b e i n g , we f i n d t h a t t h e v e r y p r o c e s s o f h i s b e i n g a b l e t o t h i n k I s due t o an e x t e r n a l e n v i r o n m e n t t h a t a c t s u p o n him and u po n w h ic h h e i n t u r n r e a c t s .

T h is i s f u n d a m e n t a l f o r Lewes.

The f i r s t common f a c t and t h e m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l i s th a t our p s y c h ic a l a c t i v i t y is th e ex p re ssio n ( l ) o f t h e a c t i o n o f t h e e x t e r n a l medium on t h e o r g a n i s m , an d (2 ) o f th e r e a c t i o n o f t h e o r g a n i s m . * * T h e re i s n o t man a n d h i s e n v i r o n m e n t s o t h a t we c a n s e p a r a t e one fro m t h e o t h e r . w o rld .

Man i s p a r t a n d p a r c e l o f t h e n a t u r a l

As D arw in h a s p o i n t e d o u t s o c l e a r l y , man i s e s s e n ­

t i a l l y an d i n e v i t a b l e t i e d t o t h e a n i m a l k in g d o m .

And i n

t h e same way t h a t a n i m a l s a r e m o ld ed and m old t h e e n v i r o n ­ m ent i n w h ic h t h e y l i v e , so d o e s m an.

For th i s reason

Lewes r e j e c t s t h e " i r r a t i o n a l e f f o r t o f t h e o l o g i a n s and m e t a p h y s i c i a n s who s e v e r human n a t u r e f ro m a l l community w i t h a n im a l n a t u r e . " 3 n f e **i s an e v o l u t i o n , n o t a s e p a r a t e creation.W e

"m ust s t u d y man f i r s t a s an an im al"® i f we

a r e e v e r g o i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d m a n 's p l a c e i n t h e w o r l d . 1.

I t s h o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d t h a t Lewes was o n e o f t h e f o r e . m o st p s y c h o l o g i s t s o f h i s t i m e . H is n um ero us volum es on a n im a l and p l a n t l i f e t e s t i f y t o t h e I n t r i c a t e a n d m i n u t e r e s e a r c h i n w h ic h he e n g a g e d . Raymond S t . James P e r r i n c o r r e c t l y a s s e r t e d t h a t Lewes was " p e r ­ h a p s t h e b e s t e q u i p p e d man o f h i s tim e t o d e a l w i t h t h e p r o b le m s o f P s y c h o l o g y . " — The E v o l u t i o n o f Know­ l e d g e . p . 2 73 . A more r e c e n t c r i t i c , A la n w l l l a r d Brown, h a s a l s o d e c l a r e d t h a t L e w e s' P h y s i c a l B a a is o f Mind i s one o f th e " e a r l y m onum ents" o f P sy c h o ­ l o g y . — The M e t a p h y s i c a l S o c i e t y , p . 4 9 n . 2 . Mind a s a P u n o i l o n o f t h e O r g a n is m , p . 3 . 3 . The S tu d y o f P s y c h o lo g y , p . 1 2 2 . 4 . flo m te 'a PhTTosophy o f t h e S c i e n c e s , p . 1 6 1 . 5. I b i d . , p. 3 6 ."

116 From man t o a n i m a l , from a n i m a l t o p l a n t , an d from p la n t to c r y s t a l , th e re i s a d e sc e n d in g s c a le of i n t e n s i t y a n d c o m p l e x i t y I n v i t a l an d p s y c h i c a l phenom ena, h u t now here i s t h e r e more t h a n a d i f f e r ­ ence o f degree Man i s s o b a s i c a l l y t i e d t o t h e a n i m a l w o r ld t h a t t o I g n o r e t h i s f a c t i s t o i g n o r e a l l t h e f i n d i n g s o f m odern s c i e n c e . We a r e n o t t r a n s c e n d e n t a l b e i n g s , b u t n a t u r a l b e i n g s i n th e same way t h a t a n im a ls a r e n a t u r a l b e i n g s .

We m u st be

s t u d i e d a s s u c h , n o t a s c r e a t u r e s somehow d i v i n e l y t o u c h e d . How ever, i t I s a l s o t r u e t h a t man i s n o t s o l e l y an im a l.

Man, Lewes d e c l a r e s ,

" I s n o t s i m p l y an A nim al

O r g a n is m ; he i s a l s o a u n i t i n a s o c i a l O rg a n ism .

He l e a d s

a n i n d i v i d u a l l i f e , w h ic h I s a l s o p a r t o f a c o l l e c t i v e l i f e . "2 S o c i e t y , Lewes s a y s i n an e a r l y a r t i c l e ,

is " in se p a ra b le

f r o m m a n ; . . . i t i s t h e e l e m e n t I n w h ic h a l o n e h e c a n f r e e l y m o v e . "3 Man I s " d i s t i n c t i v e l y a s o c i a l b e i n g . H e

" liv e s

i n s o c i e t y , i s m e n t a l l y d e v e l o p e d by i t and f o r i t . "3

T h is

i s L ew es' second im p o rta n t p r i n c i p l e o f th e p sy c h o lo g y o f m an.

J u s t as t h e f i s h l i v e s an d a c t s i n h i s w a t e r y e n v i r o n ­

m e n t , s i m i l a r l y man l i v e s an d a c t s i n h i s p h y s i c a l - s o c i a l e n v iro n m e n t.

I t i s o n l y b y r e g a r d i n g man a s a s o c i a l b e i n g

t h a t we a r e a b l e t o make a t r u e a n d v a l i d a n a l y s i s o f h im . Man i s an o r g a n is m a d j u s t i n g t o a n d m o d i f y i n g t h e s o c i a l

1 . Mind a s a F u n c t i o n o f t h e O r g a n i s m , p . 2 0 . 2 . fo u n d a tio n s , I , 101. 3 . "The Modern M e ta p h y s ic s a n d M o ra l P h i l o s o p h y o f F r a n c e , " p . 3 3 6. 4 . The S tu d y o f P s y c h o lo g y , p . 5 . 3. I b id . , p . 36.

117

medium i n w h ic h h e l i v e s . The o r g a n is m a d j u s t s i t s e l f t o t h e e x t e r n a l medium; i t c r e a t e s a n d i s i n t u r n m o d i f i e d by t h e s o c i a l Medium, f o r S o c i e t y i s t h e p r o d u c t o f human f e e l i n g s , and i t s e x i s t e n c e i s p a r i p a s s u s d e v e l o p e d w i t h the f e e l i n g s w h ic h i n t u r n i t m o d i f i e s a n d e n l a r g e s a t each s t a g e . 1 And a g a i n : Man i s by h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n f o r c e d t o l i v e f o r o t h e r s and i n o t h e r s . The w e l f a r e o f h i s f a m i l y , h i s t r i b e , h i s n a t i o n , and a t l a s t t h e w e l f a r e o f H um anity a t l a r g e , i s f e l t o r d i s c e r n e d t o b e i n t e r ­ woven w i t h h i s own w e l f a r e . H is l i f e i s p a r t o f a s o c i a l l i f e , a i d e d a n d t h w a r t e d b y t h e n e e d s an d d e e d s o f f e l l o w men, w h ic h t h u s become e x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s e x i s t e n c e a n d m u st b e s t u d i e d w ith e q u al s o l i c i t h d e . 2 To Lewes a l l t h e o r i e s t h a t t r y t o p l a c e man o u t s i d e o f h i s s o c i a l p h y s ic a l e n v iro n m e n t a r e f a i l u r e s .

Tou n d e r ­

s t a n d man one h a s t o c o n s i d e r h im as a s o c i a l a n i m a l , a s i n some way d i v o r c e d fro m h i s s o c i e t y .

not

Human p s y c h o ­

lo g y i s n o t j u s t a m a tte r o f e i t h e r " se e k in g th e d a ta s o l e l y i n i n t r o s p e c t i v e a n a l y s i s o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s , "3 o r i n s e e k in g "th e d a ta in th e c o m b in a tio n o f su ch a n a ly s is w ith i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f nervous p h e n o m e n a . B o t h le a d e i t h e r t o a c o m p le te s o l i p s i s m o r e l s e t o a d u a l i s m t h a t p e r m i t s

1 . The S tu d y o f P s y c h o lo g y , p p . 7 1 - 2 . C f. a l s o The P h y s l e a l B asis o f"B in d , pp. 56, 50. 2 . The S tu d y o f P s y c h o l o g y , p . 4 1 . C f . a l s o The P h y s l e a l B a s i s of~ETlnd, p . v . The c o m p l e t e i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p o f man an d h i s e n v i r o n m e n t i s s u c h an i m p o r t a n t p o i n t w i t h Lewes t h a t he r e j e c t s t h o s e t h e o r i e s t h a t r e g a r d man a s a p a s s i v e o b j e c t w h ic h t h e b r a i n d i r e c t s . " I t l a t h e man, an d n o t t h e b r a i n , t h a t t h i n k s : i t i s tE e o r g a n i s m a s a w h o le , a n d n o t one o r g a n t h a t f e e l s an d a c t s . " — P h y s i c a l B a s i s o f M ind, p . 4 9 8 . 3 . F o u n d a tio n s, I , l o l . 4 . t f i c r:-----------

118 t h e e n t r a n c e I n t o p h i l o s o p h i c a l t h e o r y o f num erous t r a n ­ s c e n d e n t a l an d u n v e r i f i a b l e h y p o t h e s e s . t o human a f f a i r s ,

To b e p e r t i n e n t

t h e f i e l d o f P s y c h o lo g y " h a s t o s e e k i t s

d a t a i n B i o l o g y an d i n S o c i o l o g y . ”1

The s o c i a l s c i e n c e s

m ust s t u d y man i n h i s medium, n o t man a b s t r a c t e d f ro m s u c h a m ed iu m .^

F o r t h i s r e a s o n Lewes c r i t i c i z e s M i l l f o r s u g ­

g e s t i n g t h a t t h e r e m ig h t be m e n t a l law s t h a t w ould h o l d r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e m a t e r i a l c o n d i t i o n s in v o l v e d .® c ritic is m

A s im ila r

i s d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t S p e n c e r who, a c c o r d i n g t o

Lewes, d i d n o t g i v e c r e d i t en o u g h t o t h e s o c i a l d e v e lo p m e n t o f m i n d .^

Mind m u st be s t u d i e d a s a n a t u r a l phenom enon and

i n t h e S tu d y o f P s y c h o l o g y , h e u n h e s i t a t i n g l y d e c l a r e s t h a t "P sy ch o lo g y , in s p i t e o f th e d o m in a n tly s u b je c ti v e a s p e o t o f i t s phenom ena, m u s t , f o r a l l s t u d e n t s who r e j e c t t h e id e a o f t h e s o u l as so m eth in g in d e p e n d e n t o f th e o rg a n ism , be a p a r t o f B i o l o g y ." ®

T h is i s i n c o m p le t e o p p o s i t i o n t o

t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f P s y c h o lo g y fro m B i o l o g y , f o r w h ic h he h ad o r i g i n a l l y a r g u e d ,®

b u t Lewes i s now f i r m l y c o n v i n c e d t h a t

s u c h a s e p a r a t i o n w ou ld ad d i n s t e a d o f d e t r a c t f ro m t h e

1. 2.

3* 4• 5* 6.

F o u n d a t i o n s . I , 101* F o r t & i s r e a s o n Lewes c o u l d no l o n g e r a g r e e w i t h M i l l t h a t P s y c h o lo g y s h o u l d b e a c o m p l e t e l y s e p a r a t e d s c ie n c e . " B io l o g y w o u ld n o t b e a p e r f e c t s c i e n c e , i t w o u ld n o t b e a s c i e n c e a t a l l , w i t h o u t i n c l u d i n g p s y c h i c a l phenom ena; t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f v i t a l fro m p s y c h i c a l ( i n a n a n i m a l o r g a n is m ) i s a s c i e n t i f i c a r t i f i c e , n o t a r e a l d i s t i n c t i o n * " — "Comte an d M i l l , " p . 390* The S tu d y o f P s y c h o l o g y , p p . 5 8 f f* I b i d » , p p • "5977*" I b i d * , p . 65* "Comte an d M i l l , " F o r t n i g h t l y R eview , VI ( 1 8 6 6 ) , 390*

119 c o n f u s i o n I n t h e two f i e l d s .

The d e p e n d e n c y o f t h e two

f i e l d s on o ne a n o t h e r h a s become so d i s c e r n i b l e t h a t " B i o l o g i s t s h a v e c e a s e d t o I s o l a t e man f ro m N a t u r e , a n d t h e y h a v e b e e n f o l l o w e d b y p s y c h o l o g i s t s who h a v e c e a s e d t o i s o l a t e man fro m t h e a n i m a l s T h e

d u a lism t h a t o r i g i ­

n a l l y a p p e a r e d b e tw e e n P s y c h o lo g y and B i o l o g y , Lewes f e e l s , i s r a p i d l y b e i n g overcom e as b o t h f i e l d s a r e b eco m in g aw are o f t h e i r im p o rta n c e f o r e a c h o t h e r .

Lewes c o n c l u d e s h i s

r e m a rk s on t h e p s y c h o lo g y o f man w i t h t h e o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t Man i s a s o c i a l a n i m a l - - t h e u n i t o f a c o l l e c t i v e l i f e — an d t o i s o l a t e him fro m S o c i e t y i s a l m o s t as g r e a t a l i m i t a t i o n o f t h e s c o p e o f P s y c h o lo g y as t o i s o l a t e him f ro m N a t u r e . To s e e k t h e w ho le d a t a o f o u r s c i e n c e i n n e u r a l p r o c e s s e s on t h e one h a n d , a n d r e v e l a t i o n s o f I n t r o s p e c t i o n on t h e o t h e r , i s t o l e a v e i n e x p l i c a b l e t h e many a n d p r o f o u n d d i f f e r e n c e s w h ic h d i s t i n g u i s h man f ro m t h e a n i m a l s ; a n d t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s c a n b e shown t o d e p e n d on t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e S o c i a l F a c t o r , w h ic h t r a n s ­ fo rm s p e r c e p t i o n s i n t o c o n c e p t i o n s , an d s e n s a t i o n s in to s e n tim e n ts .® F o r Lewes t h e n , i n t h e f i n a l a n a l y s i s , n e i t h e r P s y ­ c h o lo g y n o r B i o l o g y , n o r b o t h i n c o m b i n a t i o n , c a n e f f e c t i v e l y e x p l a i n t h e n a t u r e o f man u n l e s s t h e y h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e S o c ia l F a c to r.

I t I s th e n e c e s s i t y o f t h i s S o c ia l F a c to r

i n a l l human t h i n k i n g t h a t Lewes r e c o g n i z e s .

A r e c e n t com­

m e n t a t o r , W. R, S o r l e y , m a i n t a i n s t h a t Lewes was "one o f th e f i r s t

t o e m p h a s iz e t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e s o c i a l f a c t o r

1 . The S t u d y o f P s y c h o l o g y , p . 77 2 . T b l d . p . 7S 7 C f . a l s o ” The M e n ta l C o n d i t i o n o f B a b i e s , " f f o r a h l l l M a g a z in e , V I I ( 1 8 6 3 ) , 6 4 9 - 6 5 6 , w here Lewes s u g g e s t s t h a t Lam arck may h a v e b e e n c o r r e c t i n c l a i m ­ i n g t h a t we a r e b o m w i t h c e r t a i n s o c i a l t r a i t s . H ow ever, Lewes n e v e r c a r e f u l l y d e v e l o p s t h i s n o t i o n .

120 I n t h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f m ind and t o e x h i b i t i t a w o r k i n g . n3L B o th A r i s t o t l e and H e g e l made a s i m i l a r e m p h a s is , b u t i t I s e s s e n t i a l l y t r u e t h a t Lewes f i r s t a t t e m p t e d a p s y c h o l o ­ g i c a l s t u d y o f p r e c i s e l y how t h e S o c i a l F a c t o r comes i n t o p l a y I n human r e a s o n i n g . We h a v e f o u n d t h e n t h a t Lewes h a s a l s o a t t e m p t e d t o c l o s e up t h e b i f u r c a t i o n t h a t I s f r e q u e n t l y made b e tw e e n man and h i s s o c i e t y .

T h is d u a l i s m i s a l o g i c a l one and we

sh o u ld n o t m ista k e w hat i s o n ly l o g i c a l in n a t u r e f o r r e a l ­ ity .

T h e re i s n o t man a n d h i s s o c i e t y } t h e r e I s man i n e v i ­

t a b l y and n e c e s s a r i l y com bined w i t h h i s s o c i a l medium.

To

u n d e r s t a n d how t h e m ind o f man w o r k s , we m u st n o t o n l y i n ­ v e s t i g a t e t h e b i o l o g i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s b u t a l s o th e s o c i a l en v iro n m e n t.

S cien ce n o t o n ly s tu d i e s a c r im in a l

by h i s p h y s i c a l and m e n t a l d e f i c i e n c i e s b u t by t h e e n v i r o n ­ m ent i n w h ic h he l i v e s , b y t h e p e o p l e an d i n s t i t u t i o n s a f f e c t h im .

th a t

I t i s by th e s y n th e s is o f a l l th e s e f a c t o r s

t h a t we a r e a b l e f i n a l l y t o f o r m u l a t e v a r i o u s c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e a c t i o n s o f men t o v a r i o u s s t i m u l i .

Lewes

c la im s t h a t any p h ilo s o p h y t h a t does n o t r e c o g n iz e t h i s fa c t,

t h a t i s b e n t on s e a r c h i n g f o r an u n f a t h o m a b le e s s e n c e

o f man w h i c h i s o v e r and ab ov e h i s s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t , i s in sig n ific a n t.

Such a s t u d y r e n d e r s p h i l o s o p h y I m p o t e n t

and i n c a p a b l e o f g i v i n g u s t h e t y p e o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f l i f e w h ich I s n e e d e d .

The c o n t i n u a t i o n o f b e l i e f i n

1 . W. R. S o r l e y , A H i s t o r y o f E n g l i s h P h i l o s o p h y , p . 2 7 4 . C f. a l s o P e r r i n , f h e E v o l u t i o n o f K n o w led g e, p . 3 0 4 , a n d C a r v e t h R ead, WG. H. Lewes 'T o s t h u m o u s V o lu m e s ,” M in d, VI ( 1 8 8 1 ) , 4 9 8 .

121 p h y s i o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l d u a l i s m s can o n l y l e a d t o a f a l s i ­ f i c a t i o n o f w hat i s r e a l l y fo u n d in e x p e r ie n c e .

E x p e rien ce

t e l l s us n o th in g o f su c h d u a lism s e x c e p t t h a t th e y a re p u r e ly a rtific ia l.

We do make s u c h d i s t i n c t i o n s b u t as o u r i d e a s

d e v e l o p we l o s e s i g h t o f t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s w ere o r i g i n a l l y a r b i t r a r y , u n r e a l , and o n l y a n a r b i t r a r y c l a s s i ­ f i c a t i o n o f d i f f e r e n t p h a s e s o f an e x p e r i e n c e w h i c h d o es n o t a c t u a l l y have s e p a r a t e p h a s e s . c a l w ith a r e a l d i s t i n c t i o n .

We m u st n o t c o n f u s e a l o g i ­ P r e c i s e l y how t h e s e d i s t i n c ­

t i o n s a p p e a r i n e x p e r i e n c e we m u st now i n v e s t i g a t e .

R easo n ed R e a li s m , o r t h e D o u b le - A s p e c t T h e o ry Up to t h i s p o i n t Lewes h a s b e e n p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d w ith co m b a ttin g th e d u alism s t h a t ap p e a re d in b o th th e p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . ta in e d are n o t r e a l . search .

They a r e o n l y c o n v e n i e n c e s f o r r e ­

They a r e t h e f i c t i o n s

o f te n so prone to u s e .

Such d u a l i s m s h e h a s m a in ­

t h a t s c i e n t i f i c m eth o d i s

Now i f we a d m it t h i s ,

t h e n we w i l l

se e t h a t th e d u alism s t h a t e x p e r ie n c e i t s e l f s u p p o se d ly y ie ld s are f i c t i t i o u s . th e re is body.

We s a y t h a t t h e r e i s m ind a n d t h a t

B u t when we u s e t h e t e r m na n d w we s h o u l d

n o t t h i n k t h a t we a r e a c t u a l l y m aking t h e d i s t i n c t i o n . T h e re a r e n o t m inds an d b o d i e s f l o a t i n g d i s c o n n e c t e d l y th ro u g h r e a l i t y .

E x p e rie n c e t e l l s us no s u c h t h i n g .

E x p e r i e n c e o n l y t e l l s u s t h a t i n e x p e r i e n c e we make c e r t a i n d i s t i n c t i o n s , b u t s u c h d i s t i n c t i o n s a r e i n e v i t a b l e and n e c e s s a r ily t i e d to e x p e rie n c e .

The r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t

122 e x p e r i e n c e i s so com posed t h a t t h e r e a r e o n l y a s p e c t s i n i t a n d n o t d e f i n i t e c l e a v a g e s makes up w h a t Lewes c a l l s R e a so n e d R e a li s m , o r t h e D o u b le - A s p e c t T h e o r y . very c le a r ly a n tic ip a te s

T h is n o t i o n

t h e " d o u b le a s p e c t " t h e o r i e s o f

more r e c e n t p h i l o s o p h e r s s u c h as N a t o r p , D u r a n t D r a k e , C. L. M organ, and D r i e s c h . The d u a l i s m o f s u b j e c t and o b j e c t h a s h a d a r i c h an d v a r i e d c a r e e r .

A lt h o u g h t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n d i s t i n c t i o n

b e tw e e n s e n s e and r e a s o n i m p l i e d s u c h a d u a l i s m , D e s c a r t e s f i r s t m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e d i s t i n c t i o n was a r e a l o n e .

If

we i n v e s t i g a t e t h i n k i n g , we f i n d s e n s e , and t h e more l a s t ­ i n g p r o d u c t s w h ic h we e x t r a c t fro m s e n s e . a m p le , we e x t r a c t la w s f ro m s e n s e .

Thus, f o r ex­

T h erefo re, a d is tin c tio n

was made b e tw e e n t h i n k i n g and s e n s i n g .

I t is by v i r t u e o f

o u r t h i n k i n g t h a t t h e w o r l d becom es i n t e l l i g i b l e . S e n s e i s o n l y t h e m a t e r i a l w h ic h t h o u g h t u s e s t o f a s h i o n l a w s , l o g i c , m a th e m a tic s, e t c .

Now fro m t h i s d i v i s i o n i n c o n s c i o u s n e s s

i t was n o t so d i f f i c u l t t o c o n c lu d e t h a t on t h e one h an d t h e r e was a n e x t e r n a l w o r l d and on t h e o t h e r h a n d a c o n s c i o u s n e s s i n t o w h ic h t h e s e n s e poured.

o f t h e e x t e r n a l w o r l d was

I t was t h i s c o n c e p t i o n t h a t p l a y e d s u c h a n i m p o r t -

a n t p a r t i n th e K a n tia n and H e g e lia n t h e o r i e s .

B o th h a d

a c c e p t e d t h e d ic h o to m y b e tw e e n m ind and w h a t was n o t - m i n d , and h a d c o n s t r u c t e d t h e i r t h e o r i e s b y d e s i g n a t i n g how t h e s e two a l i e n f a c t o r s w ere b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r . u sed th e P in e a l g la n d .

D e s c a rte s had

The O c c a s l o n a l i s t s h a d u s e d God.

L e i b n i t z h a d u s e d t h e p r i n c i p l e o f p r e - e s t a b l i s h e d h arm o n y .

■

t | s i '! |

123 K ant h a d u s e d t h e s c h e m a t i z e d c a t e g o r i e s a s w e l l a s t h e th in g -in -ltse lf;

an d H eg el h a d u s e d t h e d i a l e c t i c a l p r o c e s s

o f t h e s i s - a n t l t h e s i s - s y n t h e s i s . None o f t h e s e a t t e m p t s h ad been very s u c c e s s fu l.

How t h e s u b j e c t i v e a n d o b j e c t i v e

a s p e c t s o f r e a l i t y w ere b r o u g h t t o g e t h e r r e m a i n e d a p e r t i ­ n e n t . an d s e e m in g l y i n s o l u b l e p r o b le m f o r m e t a p h y s i c s . Lewes c o n te n d s t h a t h i s R ea so n ed R e a lis m s o l v e s t h i s p r o b le m .

F i r s t o f a l l , we s h o u l d r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e f r e ­

q u e n t a s s e r t i o n c o n c e r n i n g Mt h e n a t u r a l i l l u s i o n o f S e n s e ” ! a n d t h e r e a l i t y o f T ho ug ht i s f a l s e .

The c o n s t a n t b e l i e f

t h a t R ea so n i s i n some way o v e r a n d ab o v e s e n s e i s f a l s e . Such a d u a l i s m h a s b e e n v e r y s u b t l y i n j e c t e d i n t o e x p e r i ­ ence b ecau se o f th e m is ta k e s t h a t a r e o f te n found in s e n s e . . . . f o u n d e d on a p r e c i p i t a t e c o n c l u s i o n fro m p r a c t i ­ c a l m is ta k e s , t h i s n o tio n o f th e senses as so u rc e s o f d e c e p t i o n l e d t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t R easo n was th e o n ly ground o f s e c u r i t y . I f sen se d e c e iv e d u s , R eason c o r r e c t e d t h e f a l s e r e p o r t s . R eason h e n c e ­ f o r w a r d becam e a u t h o r i t a t i v e , f i n a l . 2 But s u r e l y , Lewes c o n t i n u e s , ”no t h e o r y o f P e r c e p ­ t i o n can h a v e t h e c e r t a i n t y t h a t b e l o n g s t o t h e P e r c e p t i o n i t s e l f ; no e x p l a n a t i o n o f a c o n c l u s i o n c a n b e v a l i d w h ic h i g n o r e s t h e v e r y f a c t s c o n c l u d e d . . . ”3 I t i s p r e p o s t e r o u s t h a t we s h o u l d l a b e l a s I l l u s o r y t h a t fro m w h ic h a l l s c i e n ­ tific

in v e s tig a tio n b e g in s.

S t i l l , n e ith e r th e i d e a l i s t

n o r th e r e a l i s t e v e r c o m p le te ly esc a p e from th e i m p l i c i t

1 . F o u n d a tio n s, I , 167. 2. m

3. Ib id .

—

—

124 assu m p tio n t h a t se n se Is i l l u s o r y .

The i d e a l i s t s f i n d

t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f an e x t e r n a l r e a l i t y t o be t h a t nt h e r e i s r e a l l y n o t h i n g t o e x p l a i n e x c e p t t h e i l l u s i o n t h a t an e x t e r n a l r e a l i t y e x i s t s . "1

The R e a l i s t s ,

" w h i l e a d m i t t i n g t h a t an e x t e r n a l r e a l i t y v e r i t a b l y e x i s t s , d e c l a r e t h a t i t c a n n e v e r b e known b y u s as_ i t e x i s t s , b u t o n l y u n d e r some fo rm i n w h ic h we c l o t h e i t . "2 is s t i l l

Thus t h e r e

"a t o u c h o f t h e o l d i l l u s i o n l i n g e r i n g i n i t ,

an d

o u r s u r e s t k n o w led g e i s , a f t e r a l l , p h a n t a s m a l . " 3 I t i s o b v io u s t h a t t h e ty p e o f d i s t i n c t i o n t o w h ich b o t h t h e i d e a l i s t s and t h e r e a l i s t s m issed l i g h t l y .

r e f e r can n o t be d i s ­

I t Is ev id e n t t h a t r e a l i t y

b o t h o b j e c t i v e an d s u b j e c t i v e e l e m e n t s .

in f o r m s u s o f

I t t e l l s us th a t

t h e r e a r e t h i n g s a b o u t w h ic h we f r e q u e n t l y make m i s t a k e s an d o t h e r t h i n g s t h a t seem more c e r t a i n .

T h e re I s a d e ­

c i d e d d i f f e r e n c e b e tw e e n s e n s e and l a w s , b e tw e e n e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l r e a l i t i e s .

Lewes a d m its t h e s e d i s t i n c t i o n s .

B ut t h e m ain d i f f i c u l t y i s s o l v e d I f we r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e

1 . F o u n d a t i o n s , I , 1 6 7 . S uch an e x p l a n a t i o n a s t h e i d e a l 1 s t g i v e s m ig h t be s u c c e s s f u l , Lewes a s s e r t s , e x c e p t f o r a tw o -fo ld m is ta k e : " I t confounds th e c o n c e p tio n o f g e n e ra l r e l a t io n s w ith p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s , de­ c la r in g th a t because th e E x te rn a l, in I t s r e l a t i o n to th e s e n t i e n t o rg an ism , can o n ly be w hat i t i s f e l t to b e , t h e r e f o r e i t c a n h a v e no o t h e r r e l a t i o n s t o o t h e r in d iv id u a l r e a ls . T h is I s t h e f i r s t m i s t a k e . The second i s th e d is r e g a r d o f th e c o n s ta n t p re se n c e o f t h e o b j e c t i v e r e a l i n e v e r y f a c t o f P e e l i n g : t h e N o ts e l f i s e m p h a tic a lly p r e s e n t in th e v ery c o n sc io u sn e ss o f S e l f . " - The P h y s i c a l B a s i s o f M ind, p . 3 5 1 . 2. F o u n d a tio n s , I , 168. 3. Ib id .

125 d i s t i n c t i o n i s no more t h a n a l o g i c a l a r t i f i c e . The R e a so n e d R e a lis m o f t h i s w ork d e n i e s a l t o ­ g e t h e r t h e a s su m e d d i s t i n c t i o n b e tw e e n noumenon and phenom enon, e x c e p t as a c o n v e n i e n t a r t i f i c e of c la s s if ic a tio n ... T h is i s t h e n u c l e u s o f L e w e s ' v ie w s i n r e g a r d t o th e d u a lism o f r e a l i t y .

I n t h e same way t h a t we h av e s e e n

t h a t man i s d i s a s s o c i a t e d fro m h i s e n v ir o n m e n t o n l y i n a l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i o n , s i m i l a r l y , w h at we c a l l o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e i n e x p e r i e n c e a r e s im p ly d i s t i n c t i o n s g iv en e x p e rie n c e .

i n one

We a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h e x p e r i e n c e and

i n i t we d i s t i n g u i s h b e tw e e n v a r i o u s d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s i n o u r a t t e m p t t o make t h e e x p e r i e n c e more i n t e l l i g i b l e .

Just

a s f o r v a r i o u s p u r p o s e s we c l a s s i f y v a r i o u s t i s s u e s and o r g a n s i n an o r g a n i s m , s o i n e x p e r i e n c e we make c e r t a i n d i s t i n c t i o n s so as to n arrow o u r f i e l d o f s tu d y .

But a t

no p o i n t s h o u l d we t h i n k t h a t t h e s e d i s t i n c t i o n s a r e r e a l . We may s p e a k o f t i s s u e s and o r g a n s , b u t no b i o l o g i s t w o u ld f i n d them m e a n i n g f u l u n l e s s t h e y w e re i m p l i c i t l y u n d e r s t o o d as p a r t s o f an o r g a n i s m .

When we s a y t h a t t h i s s e c t i o n o f

r e a l i t y i s s u b j e c t i v e an d t h e o t h e r i s o b j e c t i v e , we do n o t mean t h a t t h e r e i s a n a c t u a l d i v i s i o n .

We mean o n l y

t h a t f o r t h e s a k e o f c o n v e n i e n c e we h av e made c e r t a i n d i s ­ t i n c t i o n s i n t h e one e x p e r i e n c e w i t h w h ic h we a r e p r e s e n t e d . The v e r y s i m p l e s t a n a l y s i s p r o v e s t h i s , Lewes d e c l a r e s . When we a n a l y z e w h a t we mean when we s p e a k o f l i g h t , we

1 . F o u n d a t i o n s , I , 16 8 .

126 f i n d t h a t " l i g h t " i s n o t j u s t an o b j e c t i v e f a c t o r . is i t s o le ly s u b je c tiv e . lig h t,

Nor

To p r o d u c e t h e s e n s a t i o n o f

e x p e r i e n c e m ust be so d e v i s e d t h a t i t h a s a s u b ­

j e c t i v e and an o b j e c t i v e a s p e c t .

L i g h t , a s we know i t ,

is

a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t i v e an d t h e o b j e c t i v e a s p e c t s o f e x p e rie n c e . P s y c h o lo g y a c c e p t i n g t h e d e v e l o p e d o r g a n is m as one o f t h e f a c t o r s i n t h e f a c t o f P e r c e p t i o n , e s t i m a t e s t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h i s c o - o p e r a n t , and c o n c l u d e s t h a t s i n c e t h e O rg an ism n e c e s s a r i l y r e a c t s a c c o r d i n g t o i t s m od es, i t may b e s a i d t o c o l o r o b j e c t s , a l t h o u g h t h i s mode o f r e a c t i o n i s i t s e l f a mode o r i g i n a l l y due t o t h e a c t i o n s of o b je c ts. I t i s L i g h t w h ic h f a s h i o n s t h e r e t i n a t o lu m in o u s r e s p o n s e s . Not t h a t t h e e x ­ t e r n a l R e a l w h ic h s t i m u l a t e s t h e r e t i n a c a n be s u p p o s e d t o be i t s e l f lu m in o u s? i t a l s o i s one fa c to r. But L i g h t — t h e O b j e c t — i s b o t h f a c t o r s ? th u s th e o b j e c t i s n e c e s s a r i l y o b j e c t - s u b j e c t ; and t h e s u b j e c t i s e q u a l l y s u b j e c t - o b j e c t . 1 The d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t we make b e tw e e n o b j e c t and s u b . j e c t " i s s im p l y t h a t o f a s p e c t s . w e a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h e x p e r i e n c e and i n e x p e r i e n c e we make c e r t a i n d i c h o t o m i e s . B ut t h e s e d i c h o t o m i e s a r e n o t r e a l .

T h e re a r e n o t two

e x p e r i e n c e s — one o b j e c t i v e and one s u b j e c t i v e .

T h e re i s

o n l y one e x p e r i e n c e i n w h ic h we f i n d c e r t a i n d i f f e r e n c e s . E v e ry e x p e r i e n c e p r e s e n t s "a t w o - f o l d A s p e c t , r e a l and id e a l,

a c t u a l an d v i r t u a l , p a r t i c u l a r and g e n e r a l . " ®

u n i v e r s e w h ic h we know " i s

t h e u n i v e r s e i n P e e l i n g , and

a l l i t s v a r i e t i e s are b u t v a r i e t i e s o f P e e lin g ." 4 fo re,

1. 2. 3. 4.

The

T h ere­

t h e two a s p e c t s a r e p u r e l y a s p e c t s o f f e e l i n g .

We

F o u n d a tio n s, I , 171. ib ia '. y r , T 7 1 -1 7 2 . F o u n d a t i o n s , I I , 15. I b i d . , I I , 17. F o r Lewes t h e t e r m " F e e l i n g " c o n n o te s no more t h a n s e n s e d a t a .

127 a r e p e r m i t t e d t o t r e a t t h e s e a s p e c t s o f phenomena as l o g i c a l a r t i f i c e s , b u t we "m ust n o t be m i s l e d i n t o t h e b e l i e f t h a t our a r t i f i c e has i t s p a r a l l e l in R e a lity . R e a lity i s th e e x p e rie n c e j u s t as i t i s p r e s e n te d . The f e e l i n g s e x t e r n a l i z e d , and i d e a l l y c o n n e c t e d w ith an E x te r n a l O rder o r N o t - s e l f , c o n s t i t u t e o b je c tiv e c o n sc io u sn e ss in th e p e r c e p tio n o f th in g s , f a c ts , e v e n ts, The f e e l i n g s no l o n g e r e x t e r n a l i z e d , b u t i d e a l l y co n n ected w ith th e In n e r L ife o r S e l f , c o n s t i t u t e s u b je c tiv e con­ s c io u sn e ss in th e p e r c e p tio n o f s t a t e s , changes, re su lts. The a n t i t h e s i s b e tw e e n f a c t s and f e e l i n g s , P h y s i c s and A e s t h e t i c s , i s l o g i c a l and n e c e s s a r y ; b u t i t i s a l o g i c a l a r t i f i c e , n o t a p sy c h ic a l r e a l i t y . * A l l t h a t we h a v e i s one g i v e n c o n s c i o u s e x p e r i e n c e w h ic h , f o r l o g i c a l r e a s o n s , we d i v i d e i n t o num erous s e g ­ m en ts.

But we m u st n o t c o n f u s e , as t h e t r a n s c e n d e n t a l

p h i l o s o p h e r s a r e so p r o n e t o d o , t h i s l o g i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n w ith a r e a l one.

We a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h some o b j e c t X.

We may r e g a r d i t a s an i d e a o r a s an e x t e r n a l o b j e c t . How ever, t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n i t s e l f d o es n o t c h a n g e r e g a r d ­ l e s s o f w h at way we r e g a r d i t .

I t i s a s e n s e datum w h ic h

t h e m ind i n s p e c t s fro m num erous d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s .

T hu s,

i n t h e c a s e o f l i g h t , we a r e so m e tim e s i n t e r e s t e d i n i t as a wave l e n g t h ; so m e tim e s i n i t s But b e c a u s e we i n v e s t i g a t e i t

r e a c t i o n on t h e b r a i n .

i n t h e s e d i f f e r e n t w ays d o e s

n o t mean t h a t t h e r e i s a wave l e n g t h and s o m e th in g e l s e w h ic h i s t h e r e a c t i o n i n t h e b r a i n . a s p e c t s o f t h e same g i v e n phenom enon.

1 . F o u n d a t i o n s , I I , 18. 2 . The S t u d y o f P s y c h o l o g y , p . 8 7 .

B o th a r e two d i f f e r e n t When we i n v e s t i g a t e

128 t h e phenom enon as an I d e a , we a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h m aking a S u b je c tiv e A n a ly s is .

When we a r e i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e

phenom enon as a n e x t e r n a l t h i n g , we a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h m aking an O b j e c t i v e A n a l y s i s . 2 re q u ire d .

B o th t y p e s o f s t u d y a r e

But c o n f u s i o n r e s u l t s o n l y when we l o s e s i g h t

o f t h e f a c t t h a t b o t h a r e a b s o l u t e l y d e p e n d e n t on one a n o th e r. Our i n t e l l i g i b l e u n i v e r s e i s c o n s t r u c t e d o u t o f t h e e l e m e n t s o f P e e l i n g a c c o r d i n g to c e r t a i n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , t h e b r o a d e s t o f w h ic h i s t h a t i n t o e x t e r n a l an d i n t e r n a l , o b j e c t an d s u b j e c t . The a b s t r a c t i o n s M a t t e r an d Mind once fo rm e d and f i x e d i n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s y m b o ls , a r e e a s i l y a c c r e d i t e d a s two d i f f e r e n t R e a l s . But t h e s e p a r a t i o n i s i d e a l and i s r e a l l y a d i s t i n c t i o n o f A s p e c t s . We know o u r s e l v e s a s Body-M ind; we do n o t know o u r s e l v e s a s Body a n d Mind, i f by t h a t be m eant two c o e x i s t e n t i n d e p e n d e n t E x i s t e n ts.3 Lew es, t h e n , r e j e c t s t h e v a r i o u s d u a l i s m s t h a t h av e b e e n made a b o u t t h e p h y s i c a l an d p s y c h i c a l w o r l d s .

Man i s

p a r t o f n a t u r e ; th e i n t e r n a l is p a r t o f th e e x t e r n a l as w e ll as v ic e - v e r s a .

We c a n s p e a k o f t h e co n vex a n d c o n c a v e

s i d e s o f t h e l e n s , b u t b o t h a r e a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y t o one a n o th e r.

When we make t h e s e p a r a t i o n ,

it

is o n ly f o r con­

v e n i e n c e i n r e g a r d t o some p r o b le m s u c h a s we f i n d i n m a t h e m a t i c s , w here t h e d i s t i n c t i o n becom es i m p o r t a n t . But i t i s n e c e s s a r y f o r u s t o u n d e r s t a n d e x a c t l y w h at i t 1 . The S tu d y o f P s y c h o l o g y , p . 82 f f . T h is may a p p e a r t o be i n c o n t r a d i b t i n n t o Lewes * r e n u n c i a t i o n o f an y s u b j e c t i v e a p p r o a c h i n t h e A r i s t o t l e , p . 5 5 . B ut h i s o p p o s i t i o n i s n o t a g a i n s t t h e i n t r o s p e c t i v e m etho d a s s u c h , b u t a g a i n s t t h e u s e o f a s u b j e c t i v e m ethod i n a n a ly z in g th e o b j e c t i v e a s p e c t o f e x p e r ie n c e . 2 . The S tu d y o f P s y c h o l o g y , p p . 1 1 2 f f . 3 . The P h y s l c a T fe a sls o f Mind, p . 3 9 6 .

l a t h a t we a r e d o i n g .

We c a n s e p a r a t e o u r s e l v e s In

t h o u g h t fro m t h e e n t i r e u n i v e r s e , h u t I t I s f a n t a s t i c t o t h i n k t h a t t h i s c a n a c t u a l l y he d o n e . We can i n d e e d i d e a l l y s e p a r a t e o u r s e l v e s fro m t h e Cosmos; i n t h e same way we c a n i d e a l l y s e p a r a t e o u r i n n e r S e l f o r S o u l fro m o u r o u t e r S e l f o r Body; and a g a i n , o u r S o u l fro m I t s s e n t i e n t s t a t e s , o u r Body from i t s p h y s i c a l c h a n g e s . B ut n o t so i n r e a l i t y . The s e p a r a t i o n i s a l o g i c a l a r t i f i c e , and a l o g i c a l n e c e s s i t y f o r S c i e n c e . Nor i s t h i s

a ll.

The m e t a p h y s i c s w i t h w h ich we a r e

c o n c e r n e d , n a m e ly , an e m p i r i c a l m e t a p h y s i c s , i s n o t con­ c e r n e d w i t h e x i s t e n c e as i t i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d fro m e x p e r i ­ ence.

Our m e t a p h y s i c s i s one o f e x p e r i e n c e f o r

t h e s im p l e

r e a s o n t h a t e x i s t e n c e i a e x p e r i e n c e f o r u s , and t h e d i s ­ t i n c t i o n s we make f o r e x p e r i e n c e w i l l a l s o b e w hat w ould h o ld f o r e x is te n c e . E x i s t e n c e — t h a t i s t o s a y , t h e o n l y e x i s t e n c e con­ te m p la te d hy u s — i s o b j e c t i v e E x p e rie n c e : I t i s th e e x te r n a l a s p e c t o f P e e lin g . N o th in g c a n h av e r e a l i t y f o r us u n t i l I t o ccu rs w ith in th e c i r c l e o f F e e lin g , e i t h e r d i r e c t l y th ro u g h P e rc e p tio n , or I n d i r e c t l y t h r o u g h i n t u i t i o n . . .O u r w o r l d a r i s e s in c o n s c io u s n e s s .2 For p h ilo s o p h ic a l purposes e x is te n c e iv e a s p e c t o f e x p e r ie n c e . e x p e rie n c e .

is th e o b j e c t ­

T h e re i s n o t e x i s t e n c e a n d

What we c a l l e x i s t e n c e i s r e a l l y

ju s t a n o th e r

a sp e c t of e x p e rie n c e . By r e d u c i n g e x i s t e n c e t o a n a s p e c t o f e x p e r i e n c e , Lewes d o e s n o t w is h h i s v ie w t o "be c o n f o u n d e d w i t h t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f i d e a l i s m , w h ic h a b o l i s h e s t h e r e a l i t y o f an

1 . The P h y s l e a l B a s i s o f M ind, p . 3 9 7 . 2 . F o u n d a tio n s, I I , l l .

130 e x t e r n a l w o r l d and t r a n s f o r m s i t I n t o t h e p h a n t a s m a l p ro je c tio n o f our in te r n a l c h a n g e s . O n

th e c o n tra ry ,

Lewes d o e s n o t w is h t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e m ind c r e a t e s i t s e x p e r i e n c e a s t h e i d e a l i s t s h a v e o fte n m ain ta in e d .

We a r e g i v e n e x p e r i e n c e .

That e x p e r i ­

e n c e h a s t h e two-fold n a t u r e w h ic h we h a v e b e e n d i s c u s s i n g . The e x p e r i e n c e i s n o t c r e a t e d by u s .

T h is i s th e way e x ­

p e r i e n c e i s and t h e r e i s n o t h i n g more t h a t we c a n do a b o u t it.

Lewes u s e s h i s famous ex am p le o f L i g h t t o r e v e a l how

e x p e r i e n c e p r e s e n t s us w ith t h i s

tw o -fo ld a s p e c t, b u t t h i s

d o e s n o t mean t h a t L i g h t i s o u r c r e a t i o n . The c o n c e p t i o n h e r e b r o u g h t f o r w a r d i n s i s t s upon t h e e x t e r n a l R eal as t h e c o m p le m e n ta ry f a c t o r o f t h e i n t e r n a l f e e l i n g ; b u t , in a sm u c h a s i t i s a f a c t o r , i t c a n n o t be s e p a r a t e d , th o u g h i t c a n be d i s t i n g u i s h e d f ro m t h e p r o d u c t . T h e re c a n n o t be an o b je c t w ith o u t a c o r r e l a t i v e s u b j e c t ; th e r e - c a n n o t be a q u a l i t y w i t h o u t a c o r r e l a t i v e f e e l i n g ; a n d v i c e v e r s a . The i d e n t i t y o f o b j e c t an d s u b ­ j e c t may b e i l l u s t r a t e d as t h a t o f l i g h t and s i g h t ; w h ic h p o p u l a r l a n g u a g e , w i t h hap py am bigu­ i t y , e x p r e s s e s i n t h e w ord " s e n s a t i o n , ” m eanin g b o t h t h e a c t o f f e e l i n g an d t h e f e l t . We c a n n o t see w ith o u t l i g h t , f o r th e l i g h t is th e s e e n ; n o r can th e v i b r a t i o n s o f th e e t h e r (supposed to be th e o b j e c t i v e f a c t o r in l i g h t ) be b ro u g h t i n to c e r t a i n r e l a t io n s w ith th e o p tic ap p a ra tu s w ith ­ o u t b e in g th e re b y tra n sfo rm e d in to l i g h t ; th e v i b r a t i o n s , by c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h c e r t a i n n e u r a l u n i t s , y ie ld th is p ro d u c t. The c o m b i n a t i o n i s n e c e s s a ry f o r th e r e s u l t . D e ta c h one o f t h e f a c t o r s — o b j e c t i v e o r s u b j e c t i v e — and t h e p r o d u c t is im p o ss ib le .* The w o r ld " a r i s e s i n c o n s c i o u s n e s s ; n o t a s t h e p r o d u c t o f t h e s u b j e c t o n l y , b u t as t h e p r o d u c t o f o b j e c t and

1. F o u n d a tio n s, I ,

2. T5IT.----------

12

131

s u b je c t." I

He c o n c l u d e s w i t h an o u t b u r s t o f p o e t i c

m etap h o r: The w o r ld grow s a s we g ro w ; and we grow w i t h t h e g r o w th o f t h e w o r l d . N o th in g e x i s t s f o r u s b u t w h at i s f e l t . We a r e t h e c e n t e r s t £ w h ic h t h e i n t e l l i g i b l e u n i v e r s e c o n v e r g e s , from w h ic h i t r a d i a t e s . ^ Lewes c a r r i e s t h e a t t a c k a g a i n s t d u a l i s m i n t o a l l th e v a rio u s f i e l d s

o f phenomena t h a t s u p p o s e d l y d e m o n s t r a t e

t h e n e c e s s i t y o f a s s u m in g some fo rm o f d u a l i s m . d istin c tio n

The v e r y

t h a t i s made b e tw e e n A p p e a ra n c e and R e a l i t y

i s no more th a n a " c o n v e n i e n t a r t i f i c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n . " ® F o r e x a m p le , we o f t e n e n c o u n t e r t h i s p r o b le m .

We w a tc h

t h e moon s e t t i n g i n t h e h o r i z o n and we s a y t h a t t h e moon a p p e a r s l a r g e r when a t t h e h o r i z o n t h a n when a t t h e g e n ith .^

The p h i l o s o p h e r , h o w e v e r,

o f how t h e moon a p p e a r s , i t

in sists

th a t re g a rd le ss

is n o t l a r g e r a t th e h o riz o n .

I n o t h e r w o r d s , a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made b e tw e e n t h e a p p e a r ­ a n c e o f a t h i n g an d i t s

re a l n a tu re .

a s tr i c t l y f ic titio u s b ifu rc a tio n .

F o r Lew es, t h i s I s I t is c e r ta in ly tru e

t h a t we a c c e p t t h e c o r r e c t i o n t h a t I s made b y e i t h e r th e p h i l o s o p h e r o r t h e s c i e n t i s t , b u t we rem ark t h a t " h i s c o r r e c t i o n o f o u r s e n s i b l e ju d g m en t i s o n l y t h e d i s p l a c e ­ m ent o f one f a c t o f s e n s e b y a n o t h e r . " 5

The moon i s p r e ­

c i s e l y w h at i t a p p e a r s t o b e i n num erous d i f f e r e n t

1. F o u n d a tio n s, I ,

13.

2. Ibld.'T 1 7 ~ lt. 5# F o u n d a t i o n s , I I , 4 4 . 4 . I b i d . , I ± , 4 5 . The exam ple u s e d i s L e w e s '. 5. I b id .

132 o b je c tiv e -su b je c tiv e r e la tio n s .

We a r e g i v e n a h o s t o f

r e l a t i o n s o f a n o b j e c t i v e - s u b j e c t i v e n a t u r e and t h e s e r e l a t i o n s t u r n o u t t o be j u s t w h a t i s m eant when we s p e a k o f t h e moon. I t — " t h e moon”— h a s no e x i s t e n c e o u t o f t h e s p e c i ­ f i e d r e l a t i o n . . . I n some o t h e r r e l a t i o n , w h a t i s h e r e t h e m o o n 's o b j e c t i v e f a c t o r may b e — m u st b e — an o th e r e x is te n c e ; but th is o b je c tiv e f a c to r is n o t , c a n n o t be o u r moon; a n d t h e s e a r c h f o r t h i s e x i s t e n c e is e i t h e r th e r a t i o n a l s e a r c h f o r o t h e r a s p e c t s , o r th e i r r a t i o n a l en d eav o r to a s c e r t a i n w h a t a t h i n g r e a l l y i s — when i t i s n o t r e a l . 1 L e w e s' s t a t e m e n t h e r e i s an i m p o r t a n t one and i t i s f r a u g h t w i t h s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h e s o l u t i o n Lewes w i l l ad ­ v a n c e f o r t h e p r o b le m o f s u b s t a n c e , and how we w i l l d e a l w ith th e q u e s tio n of th in g s - in -th e m s e lv e s .

For our p re se n t

p u r p o s e s i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o n o t e t h a t Lewes e m p h a t i c a l l y d e n i e s t h a t t h e r e i s a r e a l d i v i s i o n t o b e made b e tw e e n a th in g as i t

is_ and a t h i n g a s i t a p p e a r s .

A ll th e ap p ear­

a n c e s t a k e n t o g e t h e r make up w h a t a t h i n g i s .

R e a lity is

what ap p e a rs u n d e r a m u ltitu d e o f c o n d i t i o n s .

To know

a n y t h i n g a s i t a p p e a r s " i s t o know i t as i t i s u n d e r t h e o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n s o f i t s

a p p e a ra n c e ."^

N o t h i n g h a s an y m ean in g " e x c e p t i n r e l a t i o n . ? 3

The d u a l ­

ism o f r e a l i t y a n d a p p e a r a n c e i s a f i c t i o n . Body an d S o u l The f i n a l d u a l i s m w h ic h L e w e s ' R easo n ed R e a lis m m u st r e s o l v e ,

an d one t h a t we h a v e a l r e a d y t o u c h e d u po n

1. F o u n d a tio n s, I I , 2 . i b i d : : 1 5 , "38. 3 . TbTcf.

45-46.

133 I n v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s I s t h a t b e tw e e n b o d y an d m in d .

The

s o l u t i o n to t h i s d u a lism w i l l be a f i t t i n g clim a x to Lew es• r e v o lt a g a in s t d u a lism .

I f th is l a s t d iv is io n Is in r e a l i t y

o v e rc o m e , t h e n Lewes f e e l s he w i l l be a b l e t o s p e c i f y an e m p ir ic a l m e ta p h y sic s t h a t w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t w ith o u t th e in c lu sio n o f tra n sc e n d e n ta l c o n te n t.

I f we c a n show t h a t

th e l a s t s tro n g h o ld o f th e d u a l i s t s , v i a , t h e i r i n s i s t e n c e on t h e a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e b e tw e e n t h e s o u l and t h e b o d y , I s re a lly fa lse ,

t h e n we c a n b e g i n t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f m e ta ­

p h y s ic s . The p r o b le m i s a s i m p l e o n e , a l t h o u g h I t s h a s u s u a l l y t a k e n num erous co m p lex t u r n s .

s o lu tio n

As Lewes p o i n t s

o u t , w hat i s r e q u i r e d i s ”a t h e o r e t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h a t F i r s t N o t i o n w h ic h e x p r e s s e s u n i v e r s a l e x p e r i e n c e , n a m e ly t h a t w h a t I know as an d a S o u l i n t h e o t h e r . O n

M y s e lf i s a body I n one th e

aspect

one h a n d , I amc o n s c i o u s

o f m y s e l f as a l i v i n g , t h i n k i n g b e i n g , and on t h e o t h e r hand, as a p h y s ic a l b e in g w ith c e r t a i n p h y s ic a l q u a l i t i e s . The q u e s t i o n becomes one o f I n t e r p r e t i n g t h e r e l a t i o n b e ­ tw een t h e p h y s i c a l and n o n - p h y s i c a l a s p e c t s o f phenom ena. S everal s o lu tio n s , g e s te d th em selv es.

as we h av e n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , h a v e s u g ­ D e s c a r t e s , t h e O c c a s i o n a l i s t s , an d

S p in o z a , In v a r io u s m o d ifie d fo rm s, s u g g e s te d t h a t t h i s b i f u r c a t i o n b e tw e e n body a n d s o u l be t r e a t e d as p a r a l l e l f o r c e s w h ic h w ere i n c o m p le te h arm o n y .

T h is harm ony was

u s u a l l y g u a r a n t e e d by a God o r u n i v e r s a l S u b s t a n c e o f

;

.... -

— —

1 . "The P h y s i c a l B a s i s o f M ind, p .

376.

134 some k i n d .

Id e a lists

s u c h a s B e r k e l e y and F i c h t e d e n i e d

t h e b i f u r c a t i o n and c o n s i d e r e d t h e p h y s i c a l as a n o t h e r n o n - p h y s ic a l id e a , o n ly o f a d i f f e r e n t n a t u r e .

M a te ria l­

i s t s b r o u g h t f o r t h t h e o p p o s i t e a l t e r n a t i v e by d e s i g n a t i n g c o n s c io u sn e ss as o n ly a n o th e r phase o f th e p h y s ic a l. Lewes d e n i e s

th e v a l i d i t y o f a l l t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s .

The f i r s t s o l u t i o n , t h a t o f D e s c a r t e s and S p i n o z a , i s n o t a c c e p t a b l e t o Lewes e v e n th o u g h he a t one p o i n t c l a i m s t h a t i f we a r e g o i n g t o a c c e p t any o n t o l o g i c a l m etho d Mt h e r e s u l t s o f S p in o z is m a r e q u i t e a s c a p a b l e o f d o v e t a i l i n g w ith th e needs o f a n o b le l i f e s y s t e m . ”^-

as an y o t h e r

Such a s o l u t i o n "w an ts t h e c a r d i n a l c h a r a c t e r

o f a f e r t i l e h y p o t h e s i s i n i t s u n v e r i f i a b l e n e s s : i t may b e t r u e ; we can n e v e r know t h a t i t i s t r u e . "2 e s s e n tia l c ritic is m

is

" i s beyond a l l s e n s i b l e

B ut t h e

th a t i t p o s tu la te s a S p ir it th a t e x p e r i e n c e . "3

D u a lists of th is

ty p e ’’p o s t u l a t e a S p i r i t m e r e l y b e c a u s e t h e y c a n n o t o t h e r w i s e e x p l a i n t h e phenom ena o f C o n s c i o u s n e s s .

H erein

th e y f a i l to see t h a t even t h e i r p o s t u l a t e b r in g s n o ja x p la n a tio n ;

i t m erely r e s t a t e s

terms.Furthermore, th a t is

t h e o l d p r o b le m i n o t h e r

Lewes o b j e c t s t o t h e p a s s i v i t y

in v o lv e d in t h i s c o n c e p tio n .

F o r t h i s r e a s o n he

a t t a c k s D e s c a r t e s f o r a s s u m in g t h a t " t h e m ind i s a p a s s i v e

1. 2. 3. 4.

’’S p i n o z a , " F o r t n i g h t l y R ev iew , IV (1 8 6 6 ) 3 9 9 . The P h y s i c a l B a s i s o r M i n d , p . 3 8 1 . T b T d . ----------------------------------Ib id .

135 r e c i p i e n t — a m i r r o r , i n w h ic h t h i n g s r e f l e c t t h e m s e l v e s . T h is i s a l t o g e t h e r f a l l a c i o u s ;

t h e m ind i s an a c t i v e c o -

o p e r a to r in a l l s e n s a t i o n — s e n s a tio n is a c o n sc io u sn e ss o f changes o p e ra te d in o u r s e l v e s , n o t a c o n s c io u sn e s s o f th e o b je c ts c a u s in g th o se c h a n g e s .”1

A s im ila r c ritic is m

i s made a g a i n s t S p i n o z a . 2 Nor i s t h e s o l u t i o n g i v e n by e i t h e r B e r k e l e y o r F ic h te e f f e c tiv e .

B e r k e l e y and F i c h t e m ust a l s o p o s i t

s p i r i t s w h ile d en y in g d u a lis m .

B e r k e le y 's id e a lis m " is

a t b o tto m b u t t h e much d e c r i e d s y s te m o f S p i n o z a , who t a u g h t t h a t t h e r e was b u t one e s s e n c e i n t h e u n i v e r s e , and t h a t one was S u b s t a n c e . ”® Nor i s m a t e r i a l i s m t h e s o l u t i o n t o t h e p r o b le m o f b od y a n d m in d .

I f mind i s a n o u t g r o w t h o f b o d y , t h e n one

m u st a c c o u n t f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t a r i s e

from b o d y and

produce m in d .4 C o n s e q u e n t l y , no s a t i s f a c t o r y s o l u t i o n h a s a p p e a r e d . How ever, a f t e r d e s i g n a t i n g t h e w e a k n e s s e s o f p r i o r p o s i ­ t i o n s , Lewes a s s e r t s t h a t " U n le s s I g r e a t l y d e c e i v e m y s e l f , I h a v e now f o u n d a s o l u t i o n o f t h e m ain d i f f i c u l t y . ” ® I f we ex am in e t h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f e x p e r i e n c e , Lewes d e c l a r e s , we w i l l f i n d t h a t " o n e o f t h e e a r l y s t a g e s i n 1. 2. 3. 4.

B i o g r a p h i c a l H i s t o r y o f P h i l o s o p h y (1 88 5 e d i t i o n ) , p . 4 5 2 . !lb lu ., p . . T b l d . . p . 568. H ow ever, Lewes i s g e n e r a l l y more s y m p a t h e t i c w i t h t h e m a t e r i a l i s t s th a n th e i m m a te r i a l is t s . C f. f o r e x ­ a m p le , C o m te 's P h i l o s o p h y o f t h e S c i e n c e s , p . 1 9 8 f f . F . A. Lange aT so s p e a k s o f ~ £ e w e s ' B i o g r a p h i c a l H i s t o r y a p p ro v in g ly . C f. H is to ry o f M a te ria lis m , t r a n s l a t e d E. C. Thomas. 5 . The P h y s l e a l B a s i s o f M ind, p . 3 8 1 .

136

t h e d e v e l o p m e n t . . . i s t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f S e l f fro m N o t Self.*-*-

From s u c h a d e v e lo p m e n t a r i s e s ttt h e h y p o t h e s i s

o f D u a lism w h ic h p o s t u l a t e s a Phys i s , o r o b j e c t - w o r l d , and an A e s th e s is , o r s u b je c t- w o r ld ;

two i n d e p e n d e n t e x i s t e n t s ,

one c o n t e m p l a t e d , t h e o t h e r c o n t e m p l a t i n g . ”2

g y t a c i 0Se

i n v e s t i g a t i o n by p h i l o s o p h e r s r e v e a l s t h a t t h e c o n t e m p l a t e d is a s y n th e s is of c o n te m p la tio n s. P s y c h o l o g i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n shows t h a t th e o b j e c t s supposed to have form s, c o l o r s , and p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n an e x t e r n a l h e m i s p h e r e , h a v e t h e s e o n l y i n v i r t u e o f t h e v e r y f e e l i n g s f ro m w h ic h t h e y a r e supposed to be s e p a r a t e d . The v i s i b l e u n i v e r s e e x i s t s o n l y as s e e n : t h e o b j e c t s a r e R e a ls c o n d i ­ t i o n e d b y t h e la w s o f s e n s i b i l i t y . ® I n s h o r t , we f i n d t h a t t h e v e r y t h i n g s w h ic h we c o n ­ s i d e r to b e e x t e r n a l and u n a t t a c h e d t o m ind a r e a c t u a l l y d e p e n d e n t upon m ind f o r num erous o f t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Lewes i s h e r e r e i t e r a t i n g w h at Locke and B e r k e l e y h ad d e m o n s tra te d , v i z . t h a t b o th th e p rim a ry and se c o n d a ry q u a l i t i e s o f phenom ena a r e d e p e n d e n t f o r w h at t h e y a r e up on m in d .

Lewes a s s e r t s t h a t e x p e r i e n c e i s t h e com bi­

n a t i o n o f s u b j e c t i v e an d o b j e c t i v e f a c t o r s . a re th e p r im itiv e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

T hese f a c t o r s

of a l l e x p e rie n c e .

Now

t h e p r e c i s e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f o b j e c t t o s u b j e c t r e s t s , a s we h a v e s e e n i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f L ew es’ s c i e n t i f i c m eth o d , on t h e n a t u r e o f i n f e r e n c e .

In feren ce is a n ecessary

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a l l i n t e l l i g i b l e e x p e rie n c e .

1 . The P h y s i c a l B a s i s o f M ind, p . 3 8 2 . 2. Ib id . 3. Ib id .

We s e e a

137 c h a i r and we i n f e r t h a t c e r t a i n o t h e r s e n s e d a t a c a n h e b r o u g h t i n t o v ie w i f we w i s h t o p r o v e t h a t t h e phenomenon is a c h a ir.

In feren ce,

th e r e f o r e , is th e s u b je c tiv e a sp e c t

im p lic itly re v e a le d in e x p e rie n c e .

Now, i n t h e a c t u a l i z i n g

o f s u c h i n f e r e n c e s , Lewes o b s e r v e s t h a t a v e r y I n t e r e s t i n g s itu a tio n occurs. n o te s,

E ach p h en o m en al p r e s e n t a t i o n , Lewes

i s a " sig n b e in g i t s e l f a f e e l i n g c o n n e c te d w ith

o th e r f e e l i n g s . T h u s ,

i n more f o r m a l l a n g u a g e , one s i g n

i s f o u n d t o im p ly o t h e r s i g n s .

The s i g n o f t h e phenomenon

c h a i r s i g n i f i e s f u r t h e r s i g n s i n t h e p r o c e s s o f m aking i t c o g n itiv e .

Prom s u c h a s i g n we i n f e r , f o r e x a m p le , t h a t

we c o u l d s i t down on s u c h an o b j e c t , e t c .

Now t h e m i s t a k e

t h a t f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r s i n s u c h i n s t a n c e s i s t h a t we t h i n k t h a t t h e r e i s an a c t u a l d etach m en t o f s i g n s .

We t h i n k

t h a t t h e s i g n o f c h a i r c a n b e " i d e a l l y d e t a c h e d " ^ from t h o s e o t h e r s i g n s t o w h ic h i t tru e .

is co n n ected .

T h is may be

But i t i n no way f o l l o w s t h a t s u c h a d e t a c h m e n t i s

a c t u a l l y th e c a s e .

O n ly i n a p u r e l y l i n g u i s t i c way c a n we

d e ta c h th e v e r i f i c a t o r y in fe re n c e s o f a sense d a ta f r o m th e sense d a tf lt- its e lf . I f we w i s h t o know w h a t X i s , t h e i n f e r e n c e s we make a b o u t i t a r e a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y .

The

c a p a c i t y o f o ne s i g n t o b e d e t a c h e d fro m a n o t h e r Lewes c a l l s The Law o f E c c e n t r i c P r o j e c t i o n . i n a l l phenom ena, and i t s t a t e s ,

The law o p e r a t e s

in essence, th a t s c ie n tis ts

may d i s s e c t phenom ena i n any way t h e y w i s h , s o l o n g as t h e y

1 . The P h y s i c a l B a s i s o f M ind, p . 3 8 3 . 2 . I b id .

^(/Wv |

138 c l e a r l y u n d e rsta n d th a t such d i s s e c t i o n is n o t a c tu a lly th e c a s e .

Now w h at h e a r i n g d o e s t h i s a n a l y s i s h a v e on

t h e p r o b le m o f m ind and body? The d i f f i c u l t y w i t h th e d u a l i s t s t a k e n to o l i t e r a l l y

is th a t th e y have

t h e m ean in g o f t h e p h r a s e , my b o d y .

A lt h o u g h , b y v i r t u e o f The Law o f E c c e n t r i c P r o j e c t i o n , we a r e p e r m i t t e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e one s i g n i s o l a t e d fro m o t h e r s , w h ic h i t i n f e r s ,

th e d u a l i s t s b e l i e v e t h a t th e l o g i c a l de­

t a c h m e n t o f body fro m s o u l i s a " r e v e l a t i o n o f a d i s t i n c t e n t i t y w i t h i n th e b o d y ." !

We s p e a k o f w h a t i s m ine and

w h at i s b o d y , and we t h i n k t h a t t h e r e f o r e , d i s t i n c t i o n b e tw e e n th e m .

Lewes s t a t e s ,

th e re i s a r e a l

" I f i t is u n d e n i­

a b l e t h a t I s a y my b od y— and t h u s i d e a l l y d e t a c h t h e Body fro m t h e S o u l — i t

i s e q u a l l y u n d e n i a b l e t h a t I s a y my

S o u l ; and fro m w h at i s t h e SoulVi d e t a c h e d ? " ^

T h a t we o f t e n

s p e a k o f b o d y an d o f m ind b y u s i n g d i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c s i g n s t o d e n o t e them d o e s n o t mean t h a t r e a l i t y a t t e s t s t o such a d i s t i n c t i o n .

We m ust l e a r n t o r e c o g n i z e when t h e r e

i s a n d when t h e r e i s n o t a r e a l d i s t i n c t i o n t o be made b e ­ tw e e n t e r m s .

I t i s th e la c k o f t h i s r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t

c a u s e s a l l t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s c o n c e r n i n g body a n d s o u l . Now I t h a s o f t e n b e e n u r g e d , e s p e c i a l l y by T. H. G re e n ,3 t h a t " n e i t h e r Body n o r S o u l c a n b e c o e x t e n s i v e w i t h 1 . The P h y s i c a l B a s i s o f M ind, p . 3 8 3 . 2. Ib id . 3 . G r e e n 's c r i t i c i s m a g a i n s t Lewes was I r r e l e v a n t . Lewes d o e s o m it r e f e r e n c e t o a c o n s c i o u s e g o , b u t h e i s aw are o f d o i n g t h i s • L e w e s 1 p r i m a r y p r o b le m was t h e in v e s tig a tio n o f e x p e rie n c e i t s e l f , n o t th e r a m if i­ c a t i o n s o f e x p e r i e n c e t o w h a t n e v e r c o u l d be e x p e r i ­ ence. C f. T. H. G re e n , W o rk s . e d i t e d by R . L . N e t t l e s h i p , I, 4 4 2 ff•

139

I t s m a n i f e s t a t i o n s , b u t demands a no u m en al R e a l f o r e a c h . w^ Thus v a r i o u s n o t i o n s o f a b s o l u t e egos h a v e b e e n I n t r o d u c e d , h u t f o r Lewes s u c h n o t i o n s h a v e no m eanin g I n an e m p i r i c a l m e tap h y sics. is

The p o s i t i n g o f an a b s o l u t e ego o f some k i n d

"an e v a s io n , n o t a s o l u t i o n o f th e

d i f f i c u l t y .

Such

a n e g o may o r may n o t e x i s t b u t t h e p o s t u l a t i o n o f s u c h an e n t i t y d o e s n o t h i n g t o c l a r i f y t h e n a t u r e o f e x p e r i e n c e itse lf.

W i th i n e x p e r i e n c e i t s e l f we make a d i s t i n c t i o n

b e tw e e n body a n d m in d .

I n a n a l y z i n g t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n more

c a r e f u l l y , we f i n d t h a t " t h e d i f f e r e n c e f e l t i s s im p ly a d i f f e r e n c e o f a s p e c t , d e t e r m i n e d by some d i f f e r e n c e

in th e

modes o f a p p r e h e n s i o n . W h a t t h e s e modes o f a p p r e h e n s i o n a r e Lewes n e v e r c l e a r l y t e l l s u s , b u t t h e y p r o b a b l y r e f e r to th e d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t a p p e a r in e x p e rie n c e in acco rd an ce w i t h t h e n a t u r e o f t h e p ro b le m t h a t i s f a c e d .

T h u s, we

c a n i n v e s t i g a t e phenom ena a s I t r e a c t s upon t h e m in d , o r t h e s o u l , o r we c a n i n v e s t i g a t e t h e same phenomena I n I t s r e l a t i o n s to body, o r o th e r m a t e r ia l o b j e c t s .

C o n f u s io n

o n l y a r i s e s when we do n o t c l e a r l y s p e c i f y t h e l e v e l o f w h ic h we a r e t h i n k i n g .

R e a l i t y i s b o t h b o d y and m in d , b u t

i n m aking t h e d i s t i n c t i o n we g i v e d i f f e r e n t sym bo ls t o each a sp e c t.

When we s p e a k o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l te rra s we

s h o u l d r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e s e same t e r m s a r e d i f f e r e n t from t h o s e te rm s t h a t a l l u d e t o body a n d t h e m a t e r i a l w o r l d .

1 . The P h y s i c a l B a s i s o f Mind, p . 3 8 3 . 2.

Ib id .

3 . I b i d . t p . 386.

140 We d e s i g n a t e r e a l i t y " i n sym b ols r e p r e s e n t i n g d i f f e r e n t c la s s e s of f e e lin g s , o b je c tiv e

and s u b j e c t i v e ; a n d t o

em ploy t h e te r m s o f one c l a s s t o d e s i g n a t e t h e c o n c e p t i o n s o f th e o th e r is to f r u s t r a t e

th e v ery purposes of lan g u ag e.

By c l e a r l y u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t a l l phenomena a r e c h a r a c t e r ­ i z e d b y t h i s d o u b le a s p e c t and t h a t c o n f u s i o n a r i s e s o n l y when we n e g l e c t t h e d i f f e r e n t d om ain s o f sym bo ls t h a t e a c h a s p e c t c l a i m s f o r i t s e l f , we w i l l a v o i d t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t h a v e a t t a c h e d t o t h e e n t i r e p r o b le m o f mind an d b o d y . I n f a c t , s c i e n c e s a r i s e by v i r t u e o f o u r d e s i r e t o f i n d c o n s i s t e n t s e t s o f sym b ols t h a t w i l l c l e a r l y y i e l d u s a mode o f a p p r e h e n d i n g phenom ena.

MAnd t h u s s c i e n c e s a r i s e :

we t r a n s l a t e e x p e r i e n c e s i n t o g e o m e t r i c a l , p h y s i c a l , chem­ i c a l , p h y s i o l o g i c a l , and p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e r m s — d i f f e r e n t sy m b ols o f t h e d i f f e r e n t modes o f a p p r e h e n d i n g p h e n o m e n a .” 2 T h u s , f o r e x a m p le , we i n v e s t i g a t e s u c h a p r o p o s i t i o n a s " I s e e an e l e p h a n t ^ n u m e r o u s d i f f e r e n t m odes.

I in te r­

p r e t t h e g i v e n e x p e r i e n c e i t s e l f o f s e e i n g an e l e p h a n t by v e r b a l sy m b ols t a k e n f ro m p a s t e x p e r i e n c e s .

A p h ilo so p h e r

g i v e s me a n e x p l a n a t i o n "by t r a n s l a t i n g my a f f e c t i o n i n t o h is t e r m s . H e

u ses su c h c o n c e p tio n s as " lin e s o f l i g h t

r e f r a c t e d by m ed ia and c o n v e r g e d by l e n s e s a c c o r d i n g t o g e o m e t r i c l a w s — o f t h e f o r m a t i o n t h e r e b y o f a t i n y image

1 . The P h y s i c a l B a s is o f M ind, p . 3 8 8 . 8 . T B T d .* p . 3 § 1 • 3 . IE T 5 . 4.

Ib id .

141 o f t h e g i g a n t i c e l e p h a n t on my r e t i n a a s on t h e p l a t e o f a c a m e r a - o b s c u r a . "1

F o r a f u r t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n I go t o t h e

p h y s i o l o g i s t who " w i l l t r a n s l a t e t h e f a c t f o r me i n te rm s n o t o f G eo m etry , b u t o f anatom y and P h y s i o l o g y . H o w e v e r , t h r o u g h o u t t h i s p r o c e s s , Lewes n o t e s ,

" i t is e v id e n t th a t

a p s y c h i c a l p r o c e s s i s i m p l i e d t h r o u g h o u t . ”3 as m e d ia , l e n s e s , r e f r a c t i o n s ,

Such te r m s

r e tin a , e t c . , " o v e rtly r e f e r ,

in d e e d , to th e m a t e r i a l o b j e c t i v e a s p e c t o f th e f a c t s , b u t t h e y a r e th e m s e l v e s t h e modes o f f e e l i n g by w h ic h t h e f a c t s a r e a p p r e h e n d e d , an d w ou ld n o t e x i s t a £ s u c h w i t h o u t t h e 'g r e e t i n g o f th e s p i r i t ' . " 4

Thus we a r e r e a s s u r e d t h a t

" t h e r e i s no s t a t e o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s i n w h ic h o b j e c t and s u b j e c t a r e n o t i n d i s s o l u b l y c o m b i n e d . "3 B o th a r e i d e n t i ­ c a l , Lewes a s s e r t s ,

in H eg elian f a s h io n , b u t th e r e " is

d i v e r s i t y i n t h e modes o f a p p r e h e n d i n g them ."®

Lewes c o n ­

clu d e s : . . . a l l in te r p r e ta tio n c o n s is ts in tra n s la tin g one s e t o f f e e l i n g s i n t h e te r m s o f a n o t h e r . We c o n d e n s e s e t s o f f e e l i n g s i n a b s t r a c t s y m b o ls ; t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e s e we m u st r e d u c e them t o t h e i r co n c re te s i g n i f i c a t e s . They a r e s i g n s ; we m ust show w hat t h e y a r e s i g n s o f . 7 The sy m bo ls O b j e c t and S u b j e c t a r e t h e m ost a b s t r a c t we c a n em p lo y .

S in ce th e y a r e u n i v e r s a l " th e y r e p r e s e n t

w hat c a n n o t in r e a l i t y be d iv o rc e d ." ® 1 . The P h y s l e a l B a s i s o f M ind, p . 3 9 1 . 2 . TSTd. 5* 6. 7. 8.

I b i d . , p . 396. I b i d . , p . 397 Ib id . Ib id .

The s e p a r a t i o n i s

142 m ade, b u t i t i s a " l o g i c a l a r t i f i c e . i t

is because

t h e s e a b s t r a c t i o n s a r e p e r s o n i f i e d and c o n s i d e r e d a p a r t t h a t " s p e c u l a t i o n i s t h e n b u s y t r y i n g t o d i s c o v e r th e l i n k w h ic h u n i t e s t h e m ." 2

Once we r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e s e p a r a t i o n

i s o n l y a l o g i c a l one and t h a t b o d y and s o u l a r e two a s ­ p e c t s o f t h e same phenom enon, we no l o n g e r n e e d w o r ry a b o u t t h e l i n k b e tw e e n th e tw o . W ith t h e s e comments on t h e u n i t y o f b o d y and s o u l , Lewes f e e l s

t h a t he has s u f f i c i e n t l y c l a r i f i e d th e f a l l a ­

c i e s t h a t h a v e a t t a c h e d to t h e d u a l i s m s o f s u b j e c t i v e , o b j e c t i v e , o f b o d y an d m in d .

E x p e rien ce c o n s is t s o f th e s e

two a s p e c t s i n e v i t a b l y i n t e r t w i n e d . and we r e g a r d i t

We h a v e one e x p e r i e n c e

in i t s s u b je c tiv e a s p e c t o r i t s o b je c tiv e

a sp e c t. Now t h e p r im e p r o b le m o f t h i s s o l u t i o n to d u a l i s m i s t h a t i t c o n t a i n s num erous a m b i g u i t i e s .

L e t u s t r y to

make L e w e s ’ a n a l y s i s more p e r t i n e n t by e x a m in in g i t i n t h e l i g h t o f some c o n c r e t e e x a m p le s .

L e t u s im a g in e t h a t

e x p e r i e n c e p r e s e n t s u s w i t h some o b j e c t w h i c h , f o r t h e s a k e o f c o n v e n i e n c e , we w i l l c a l l a " k n i f e . "

I f we a c c e p t

L e w es’ a n a l y s i s o f t h e s u b j e c t i v e - o b j e c t i v e p r o c e s s , t h i s k n i f e c a n b e r e g a r d e d a s s u b j e c t i v e I n n a t u r e i n one r e ­ s p e c t and o b j e c t i v e i n a n o t h e r . In i t s o b je c tiv e a s p e c t.

L e t us ex am in e t h e o b j e c t

What i s Lewes t r y i n g t o s a y ?

Does h e mean t h a t t h i s o b j e c t i v e a s p e c t m u st a l s o t a k e a

T*16 P h y s i c a l B a s i s o f M ind, p . 397 2 . ffhe S tu d y o f P s y c h o l o g y , p . 2 0 .

143 s u b je c tiv e - o b je c tiv e a sp e c t?

T h is i s c e r t a i n l y a p o s s i b l e

m ean in g t o g i v e t o Lewes s i n c e h e e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e s t h a t e v e r y e x p e r i e n c e i s p e r m e a t e d w i t h th e s u b j e c t i v e - o b j e c t i v e e le m e n t.

Hence t h e o b j e c t i v e a s p e c t o f t h e k n i f e w ould

a l s o h a v e a s u b j e c t i v e - o b j e c t i v e a s p e c t o f i t and so on ad i n f i n i t u m .

T h is same i n f i n i t e r e g r e s s o c c u r s i f we r e ­

g a rd th e s u b je c ti v e a s p e c t o f th e k n i f e .

I f we i n v e s t i g a t e

t h e s u b j e c t i v e a s p e c t o f t h e k n i f e , we a r e i n v e s t i g a t i n g i t s o l e l y as an i d e a .

But s i n c e e v e r y t h o u g h t a n d e v e r y e x ­

p e r i e n c e , a c c o r d i n g t o L ew es, i s t h o r o u g h l y im bued w i t h th e o b je c t iv e - s u b je c t iv e a s p e c t, th en th e id e a o f k n if e a l s o h a s an o b j e c t i v e - s u b j e c t i v e c o n t e n t .

And i f we exam­

i n e t h e o b j e c t i v e o r s u b j e c t i v e a s p e c t o f t h e i d e a , we g e t a n o th e r o b je c tiv e - s u b je c tiv e c o n te n t.

E i t h e r way L e w e s’

s o l u t i o n t o t h e p ro b le m o f d u a l i s m a p p e a r s t o l e a v e him i n an i n f i n i t e r e g r e s s . How ever, we m ig h t i n t e r p r e t Lewes as s a y i n g some­ t h i n g d i f f e r e n t from t h i s .

He m ig h t be s a y i n g t h a t f i r s t

we h a v e b a r e e x p e r i e n c e a n d t h e n we make c e r t a i n d i s ­ t i n c t i o n s in th is ex p e rie n c e to h e lp us in v ario u s prob­ le m s .

Thus we a r b i t r a r i l y make d i s t i n c t i o n s o f s u b j e c t i v e

an d o b j e c t i v e i n a n e x p e r i e n c e t h a t i s i m p l i c i t l y b o t h . I n t h i s c a s e we s h o u l d n o t e f i r s t o f a l l t h a t Lewes m ust th e n g iv e up h is n o tio n t h a t e v e ry e x p e rie n c e i s a u to ­ m a tic a lly d iv id e d in to s u b je c tiv e - o b je c tiv e a s p e c ts .

At

o ne p o i n t t h e r e i s o n l y e x p e r i e n c e ; t h e n we make d i s ­ t i n c t i o n s o f s u b j e c t i v e and o b j e c t i v e w i t h i n i t .

But i f

144 th is

i s t r u e , t h e n Lewes I s f a c e d w i t h a much more s e r i o u s

p r o b le m .

W i t h o u t i n v o l v i n g o u r s e l v e s i n t h e num erous

d iffic u ltie s

a t t a c h i n g t o t h e c o n c e p t i o n s o f t h e E go, we

m u st a s k by v i r t u e o f w h at Lewes makes t h e d i s t i n c t i o n o f o b j e c t i v e and s u b j e c t i v e a s p e c t s . be an a r b i t r a r y p r o c e s s .

C e rta in ly th is cannot

We do n o t s a y t h a t i t d o e s n o t

m a t t e r w h e t h e r we c o n s i d e r X an o b j e c t i v e o r a s u b j e c t i v e asp e c t o f e x p e rie n c e .

I f we w ere t o p r e s s a s h a r p k n i f e

t o o u r h a n d , we w o u ld d i s c o v e r t h a t t h e r e i s a w o r ld o f d i f f e r e n c e a s t o w h e t h e r we r e g a r d t h e k n i f e a s a s u b j e c t ­ i v e i d e a o r a s an o b j e c t i v e a s p e c t o f e x p e r i e n c e .

Lewes

n e v e r c l e a r l y t e l l s u s w h at c r i t e r i a a r e t o be u s e d by v i r t u e o f w h ic h a phenomenon X i s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d s u b ­ je c tiv e or o b je c tiv e . It c ritic is m

i s p o s s i b l e t h a t Lewes m i g h t h a v e a n s w e re d t h i s by

r e s o r t i n g t o w h a t he h a s a l r e a d y s t a t e d i n

h i s s c i e n t i f i c m e th o d .

He m ig h t s a y t h a t t h a t w h ic h i s

m e a su ra b le o r c a p a b le o f b e in g p u t i n t o m a th e m a tic a l e q u a tio n s

i s o b j e c t i v e and t h a t w h ic h i s n o t i s s u b j e c t ­

iv e .

t h i s o n l y p u s h e s t h e p r o b le m b a c k a l i t t l e

But

t h e r ; i t does n o t e r a d i c a t e i t .

fu r-

We m u st s t i l l f i n d o u t

why Lewes t h i n k s t h e m e a s u r i n g r o d i s o b j e c t i v e an d n o t s u b je c tiv e .

A n o th e r i n f i n i t e

r e g r e s s s t a r e s Lewes i n

th e fa c e . A s i m i l a r c r i t i c i s m c a n be d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t L e w e s 1 a n a l y s i s o f t h e m in d -b o d y p r o b le m .

A l th o u g h i t may be

v e r y t r u e t h a t we u t i l i z e a l o g i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n b e tw e e n

| f j

145 b od y a n d m in d , t h e c r i t e r i o n by w h ic h t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s made Lewes n e v e r t e l l s u s .

I t is c e r ta in ly not tru e th a t

th is d i s t i n c t i o n is p u re ly a r b i t r a r y .

We do n o t s a y t h a t

a phenom enon X i s a mind i n one r e s p e c t and a bo dy i n a n o th e r

b e c a u s e o u r m inds a r e so g e a r e d t h a t we m u st r e ­

g ard i t in th is fa sh io n . n a tio n a t a l l .

Such an e x p l a n a t i o n i s no e x p l a ­

I f Lewes w i s h e s t o make h i s s o l u t i o n o f

t h e d u a l i s m p r o b le m r e l e v a n t , h e m u st show u s why c e r t a i n g i v e n p a r t s o f e x p e r i e n c e a r e c a l l e d m ind and o t h e r s b o d y , an d why t h e r e c a n n o t be a n i n t e r c h a n g e o f t h e s e c o n n o t a t i o n s .

146

CHAPTER I I I THE CONSTRUCTION OF EMPIRICAL METAPHYSICS S u b stan ce W ith t h e o v e r t h r o w o f d u a l i s m , Lewes f e e l s t h e do m ain o f m e t a p h y s i c s i s now r e a d y t o b e c o n s t r u c t e d i n its

o rig in a l sense.

In a t r a d i t i o n a l A r is to te lia n is m

Lewes m a i n t a i n s t h a t M e ta p h y s ic s w i l l b e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e law s o f b e i n g .

And s i n c e b e i n g i s e q u i v a l e n t t o e x ­

p e r i e n c e , t h e la w s o f b e i n g w i l l b e t h e law s o f e x p e r i e n c e . S i n c e m e t a p h y s i c s no l o n g e r h a s t o b e c o n c e r n e d w i t h w h e t h e r t h e r e i s some o t h e r r e a l i t y ,

t h e new m e t a p h y s i c i a n s w i l l be

a b l e t o c o n c e n t r a t e t h e i r a t t e n t i o n on t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f o b t a i n i n g la w s fro m t h e t y p e o f b e i n g t h a t i s fo u n d i n ex ­ p e rie n c e .

I f t h e r e i s a p r o b le m o f s u b s t a n c e , t h a t p r o b ­

lem w i l l h a v e t o b e s o l v e d i n te r m s t h a t a r e d e r i v e d fro m e x p e r i e n c e , n o t i n t r a n s c e n d e n t a l and u n k n o w ab le t e r m s . The n o t i o n o f s u b s t a n c e i s t o be v a l i d a t e d o n l y t h r o u g h e x p e rie n c e .

S i m i l a r l y , t h e p ro b le m s o f m a t t e r and c a u ­

s a t i o n w i l l be v a l i d a t e d o n ly i f th e y can be found i n e x p e r i e n c e an d f o r m u l a t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h e x p e r i e n c e . I f m a tte r i s an y th in g a t a l l ,

i t m u st be s o m e th in g w i t h

w h ic h we c a n r e a d i l y become a c q u a i n t e d i n e x p e r i e n c e . I f c a u s a t i o n i n t h e t r u e s e n s e o f t h e w ord i s r e a l l y f o u n d

147 I n e x p e r i e n c e , t h e n an d o n l y t h e n w i l l i t be v a l i d a t e d . We w i l l ex am ine e a c h one o f t h e s e c o n c e p t i o n s i n t u r n . F i n a l l y , we w i l l s e e how t h e q u e s t i o n o f l a n g u a g e becom es i m p o r t a n t i n - f u l l y u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e s e p r o b le m s . The p ro b le m o f s u b s t a n c e i s a b a s i c one i n m e ta ­ p h y sic s .

If,

f o r e x a m p le , we s e e a r e d c h a i r , we t e n d t o

t h i n k t h a t t h e r e d n e s s i s a q u a l i t y o f s o m e th in g w h ic h we c a ll a c h a ir.

The c h a i r - I n - i t s e l f we s a y p e r s i s t s ev e n

i f th e q u a lity , re d n e s s , c h a ir.

i s e r a d i c a t e d fro m t h e s u b s t a n c e ,

O r p e r h a p s a b e t t e r ex am p le i s s e e n I n t h e ch an g e

o f some o b j e c t fro m one c o l o r t o a n o t h e r .

We t e n d t o

t h i n k t h a t s o m e th in g c h a n g e s fro m A t o B.

For A r is to tle

t h i s c o n c e p t i o n was b a s i c f o r an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f w h a t we mean b y c h a n g e .

X c h a n g e s fro m A t o B w i t h t h e X a t y p e

o f p e r s i s t i n g i d e n t i t y among t h e f l u x .

Now t h e p r e c i s e

p ro b le m t h a t h a s b o t h e r e d p h i l o s o p h e r s i s t h e n a t u r e t h a t i s t o be a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e X w h ic h p e r s i s t s change.

th ro u g h o u t

On t h e one h a n d , we c a n n e v e r d e s c r i b e i t s i n c e

an y a t t e m p t a t s u c h a d e s c r i p t i o n g i v e s u s t h e p e r i s h a b l e q u a l i t i e s , n o t th e s u b sta n c e X i t s e l f . w hat a c h a i r i £ ,

Thus i f we a s k

t h e d e f i n i t i o n we g i v e i s

in term s o f

i t s q u a l i t i e s , n o t I n te r m s o f t h e t h i n g i t s e l f r e g a r d l e s s of q u a litie s.

I f we w ere g o i n g t o g i v e a d e f i n i t i o n o f

w h at an a u t o m o b i l e I s , 1 we w ould s a y t h a t i t i s s o m e th in g

1 . T h is c o u l d n o t b e A r i s t o t l e ’ s ex am p le s i n c e " a r t i f l c i a l p r o d u c t s ” w e re n o t t o b e c o n s i d e r e d a s s u b ­ s t a n c e s . C f . P h y s i c s , I I , 1 9 2b , 2 7 .

148 t h a t h a s f o u r w h e e l s , u s e s g a s o l i n e as p o w e r, e t c *

B ut

w h a t we w o u ld be l i s t i n g w o u ld be t h e q u a l i t i e s o f t h e a u t o m o b i l e n o t t h e n a t u r e o f t h e o b j e c t to w h ic h t h e s e q u a litie s accrue.

Locke d i d s u c c e e d i n b r i n g i n g more d a t a

t o b e a r on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f s u b s t a n c e and i t s p r o p e r t i e s by d i s t i n g u i s h i n g b e tw e e n p r im a r y and s e c o n d a r y p r o p e r t i e s . B ut e v e n h e was f o r c e d t o a d m i t a s u b s t a n c e a s "an u n c e r t a i n s u p p o s i t i o n o f we know n o t w h a t, i . e . ,

o f s o m e th in g w h e r e o f

we h a v e no ( p a r t i c u l a r , d i s t i n c t , p o s i t i v e ) i d e a . . . ” ■*• B e r k e l e y completely r e j e c t e d t h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f s u b s t a n c e and m a i n t a i n e d t h a t " t h e r e i s n o t an y o t h e r S u b s t a n c e t h a n S p i r i t , o r t h a t w h ic h p e r c e i v e s . "2

But a l t h o u g h B e r k e l e y

p r e s e n t e d a p o s s i b i l i t y o f a s o l u t i o n t o t h e p r o b le m o f S u b s t a n c e , h e was a b l e t o do t h i s o n l y b y a s s e r t i n g an a b s o l u t e i d e a l i s m t h a t was l a t e r t o become a s p i r i t u a l id e a lism .

Hume b r o u g h t L o c k e 's p o s i t i o n t o i t s

lo g ic a l

c o n c l u s i o n when h e r e j e c t e d an y ty p e o f s u b s t a n c e an d d e ­ c l a r e d t h a t we h a v e "no i d e a o f s u b s t a n c e , d i s t i n c t fro m t h a t o f a c o l l e c t i o n o f p a r t i c u l a r q u a l i t i e s , n o r h a v e we any o t h e r m ean in g when we e i t h e r t a l k o r r e a s o n c o n c e r n i n g i t . "3

K ant r e j e c t e d t h e Humian n o t i o n , a n d a l t h o u g h he

d i d co n c e d e t h a t we know s u b s t a n c e o n l y t h r o u g h i t s p r e ­ d i c a t e s , ^ h i s m ost r e c e n t e x p o s i t o r a s s e r t s t h a t K a n t ' s

1 . L o c k e , E s s a y C o n c e r n in g Human U n d e r s t e n d i n g , I , 4 , 1 9 ; P r i n g l e - ^ a t t i s o n fe d itio n , p . S§. 2 . B e r k e l e y , P r i n c i p l e s o f Human K n o w led g e, I , 7 . 3 . Hume, T r e a t i s e o f Human M a t u r e , Bk. 17 P a r t I , S e c . V I. 4 . C f . K a n t , C r i t i q u e o f P u r e R e a so n , t r a n s . Max M u l l e r , p . 334.

149 " d o c tr in e o f perm anent s u b sta n c e i s a n e c e s s a r y p re su p p o ­ s i t i o n , n o t o n l y o f N e w to n ia n p h y s i c s , b u t o f o r d i n a r y everyday e x p e r ie n c e .”1

B ut n o n e o f t h e s e p h i l o s o p h e r s h a s

b e e n a b l e t o f o r m u l a t e a c o n c e p t i o n t h a t w ould a c c o u n t f o r t h e o b v io u s d i s t i n c t i o n t h a t i s made b e tw e e n a t h i n g and its

q u a litie s.

As an e x p o n e n t o f an e m p i r i c a l t y p e o f

m e t a p h y s i c s , Lewes i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h s o l v i n g t h e p ro b le m w ith o u t in v o lv in g h im s e lf in e i t h e r a pure s e n s a tio n a lis m o r tra n sc e n d e n ta lism .

For t h i s re a s o n he r e j e c t s p r im a r ily

th e K a n tia n t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f .

I t i s a m e t e m p i r i c a l co n ­

c e p tio n . . . . l e t u s a s k w hat d e f i n i t e an d v e r i f i a b l e c o n c e p ­ t i o n i s e x p r e s s e d b y " a s o m e th in g b e h i n d t h e p h e ­ nom ena” ? I t may mean e i t h e r t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f w h ic h t h e phenom ena a r e t h e f u n c t i o n s , o r p r e - c o n d i ­ t i o n s w h ich w ere i n d i s p e n s a b l e t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s t h e n and t h e r e . B o th o f t h e s e a r e am en ab le t o e m p i r i c a l m e th o d s . A n y th in g more t h a n t h e s e i s a m e t e m p i r i c a l f i g m e n t , an unknown q u a n t i t y t o w h ic h no f u n c t i o n I s a s s i g n a b l e , a n d w h ich co n ­ s e q u e n t l y c a n h a v e no p l a c e i n a s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r y d e a l i n g o n ly w i t h known f u n c t i o n s . 2

1 . H. J . P a t o n , K a n t ' s M e ta p h y s ic o f E x p e r i e n c e , I , 2 18 . 2 . The S tu d y o f P s y c h o lo g y , p . T g . In th e fllo g ra p h lc a l E T istory o f P h i l o s o p n y Lewes seems t o a c c e p t a p p a r e n t l y t h e K a n t i a n d i s t i n c t i o n b e tw e e n phenom ena an d noum ena, s i n c e he a s s e r t s w i t h o u t comment t h e f o l l o w ­ i n g c o n s e q u e n c e o f K a n t ' s p h i l o s o p h y : "A phenom enon, in asm u ch as i t i s an a p p e a r a n c e , p r e s u p p o s e s a noumenon— a t h i n g w h ic h a p p e a r s — b u t t h i s noumenon, w h ic h i s a n e c e s s a r y p o s t u l a t e , i s o n l y a n e g a t i o n to u s . I t c a n n e v e r be p o s i t i v e l y known; I t c a n o n l y be known u n d e r t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f s e n s e an d u n d e r s t a n d i n g , e r g o , a s a p h e n o m e n o n .” p . 6 5 2 . However, i n t h e l i g h t o f Lew es' c o n s ta n t a t t a c k a g a i n s t th e i d e a l i s t s and t h e i r p o s t u l a t i o n o f a t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f , Lewes s h o u l d n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as i n a g r e e m e n t w i t h K a n t ' s v ie w p o in t.

150 S p e c u l a t i o n , Lewes a s s e r t s ,

"craves f o r a v is io n

o f th e t h i n g , o r e v e n t , i n I t s e l f , I . e . , u n r e l a t e d : In o t h e r w o r d s , as i t d oes n o t and c a n n o t e x i s t . " ! th in g -in -itse lf,

The

a s f o r m u l a t e d by K a n t , Lewes a s s e r t s ,

a " fic tio n ." I ts

is

e x i s t e n c e i s n o t t o be g r a n t e d .

He c o n c l u d e s : I n a w o rd , t h e " t h i n g i n I t s e l f " i s a m e ta ­ p h y s ic a l f e t ic h . I t r e p la c e s th e o ld concep­ t i o n o f E s s e n c e , w h ic h h a d r e p l a c e d t h e e a r l i e r c o n c e p t i o n o f s p i r i t , o r demon, l i v ­ i n g i n t h e o b j e c t , a n i m a t i n g i t an d w o rk in g by i t . The s a v a g e r e g a r d s h i s f e t i c h I n t h e l i g h t o f a v e h ic le f o r th e m a n ife s ta tio n s of a Noumenon w h ic h s h i n e s t h r o u g h i t . The Unknowable A b s o l u t e i s t h e - m o n o t h e i s t i c d e v e lo p m e n t o f t h i s f e t i c h i s m , t h e g e n e r a l i ­ z a t i o n o f u n i f i c a t i o n o f a l l th e p a r t i c u l a r e n t i t i e s o r n o u m en a.* The t h i n g - i n - i t s e l f ,

t h e noum ena, t h e r e f o r e a r e n o t t o be

a c c e p t e d a s e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e p r o b le m c o n c e r n i n g s u b ­ s t a n c e and q u a l i t i e s .

What t h e n s h a l l be t h e e x p l a n a t i o n ?

L e t u s exam in e a g a i n w h at c o n c l u s i o n s c a n b e drawn i n r e g a r d t o s u b s t a n c e and q u a l i t i e s b y t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a red c h a ir .

Now t h e t r a d i t i o n a l m e t a p h y s i c a l v iew

w o uld c l a i m t h a t we h a v e a s u b s t a n c e , t h e c h a i r , a s w e l l

1. F o u n d a tio n s , I , 332. 2. F o u n d a tio n s, I I , 393. 3 . I b i d . The s t u d y o f phenom ena, I n s t e a d o f w h at s u p p o s e d l y u n d e r l i e phenom ena, i s t h e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r ­ i s t i c o f m odern t h o u g h t , Lewes a s s e r t s . - A r i s t o t l e , p . 122. 4 . F o u n d a t i o n s , I I , 3 9 6 . A l th o u g h Lewes overcam e a g r e a t num ber o f C o m t i s t c o n c e p t i o n s , we w i l l f i n d t h a t he f r e q u e n t l y a c c e p t s t h o s e n o t i o n s o f Comtlsm w h ic h he had r e j e c t e d . T h u s, h e h e r e a c c e p t s t h e C o m t is t e v o lu tio n a ry d o c trin e . C f . Comte *3 P h i l o s o p h y o f th e S c ie n c e s , pp. 2 7 3 ff.

151 as t h e p r o p e r t i e s , e . g . ,

redness, fo u r le g s , e tc .

i f we a s k w h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e i t s e l f

Is,

However,

th e m e ta p h y sic ia n is

u n a b l e t o a n s w e r e x c e p t i n te r m s o f more p r o p e r t i e s .

T hese

p r o p e r t i e s m ig h t b e d i v i d e d i n t o p r i m a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y o n e s , b u t, e s s e n tia lly ,

t h e y a r e n o t w h at i s m e a n t b y s u b s t a n c e .

We seem t o t h i n k t h a t t h e r e a r e two s e g m e n ts i n an y p r e s e n t e d e x p e rie n c e .

On t h e one h a n d , t h e r e i s an o b j e c t X.

o th e r hand, th e re are th e q u a l i t i e s o b j e c t X.

On th e

t h a t a re added to th e

T h is seems i n t e l l i g i b l e u n t i l we i n q u i r e i n t o w hat

X by i t s e l f

is.

We f i n d t h e n t h a t t h e X becom es r e d u c e d t o

fu rth e r q u a litie s .

H en ce, as we h a v e s e e n p r e v i o u s l y , Lewes

d e n ie s th e n o tio n o f a s u b s tra tu m and a s s e r t s i s w hat i t a p p e a r s . h is to r y of e v e n ts, t o d e t e r m i n e i t . ”!

I t is

t h a t na t h i n g

th e e x p re s s io n o f a p a r t i c u l a r

t h e g r o u p o f c o n d i t i o n s w h ic h a r e s a i d E l s e w h e r e , Lewes h a s a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e

c o g n i t i o n o f an y p r e s e n t e d m a n i f o l d o f e x p e r i e n c e r e s t s on in fe re n c e .

T hu s, when we s p e a k o f a r e d c h a i r , we mean

th a t if c e rta in te s ts

c o u l d b e m ade, t h e m ean in g o f o u r

te r m s c o u l d b e v e r i f i e d .

We a l s o mean f u r t h e r t h a t u n d e r

o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s , t h e r e d c h a i r m ig h t b e v e r y d i f f e r e n t fro m w h a t i t

is.

I n a d i f f e r e n t ex a m p le Lewes m a i n t a i n s

t h a t MThe c h e m i s t who a s s u r e s us t h a t

(s u lp h u ric a c id ) is

a c o m b i n a t i o n o f s u l p h u r and o x y g e n , t e l l s u s s o m e th in g o f w h a t w o u ld b e t h e m a n i f e s t a t i o n s o f t h i s a c i d when i t i s

1. F o u n d a tio n s , I , 331.

d eco m p o sed , i . e . , when i t c e a s e s t o e x i s t as a c i d .

T h e se

e l e m e n t s , oxyg en a n d s u l p h u r , a r e a d m i t t e d t o b e c a p a b l e of m a n ife stin g very d i f f e r e n t p r o p e r tie s u nder d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s ; b u t we do n o t d o u b t t h a t , u n d e r s p e c i f i e d c o n d i t i o n s , e a c h e l e m e n t i s w h at i t m a n i f e s t s . I t

is

p r e c i s e l y t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t i s m eant when we s p e a k o f t h e s u b s t a n c e o f a p r e s e n t e d phenom ena. . . . a l l t h a t i s a s s e r t e d i s t h a t t h e "so m ew h at” i n t h i s r e l a t i o n l^s w h at i t i s f e l t to b e ; and i f I am a s k e d w hat t h i s p o s t u l a t e d "so m ew h a t” i s , i f n o t t h e m e t a p h y s i c a l T h in g i n i t s e l f , I a n s w e r , t h e "som ew hat" i s t h e a b s t r a c t p o s s i ­ b i l i t y o f one f a c t o r o f a p r o d u c t e n t e r i n g i n t o r e l a t i o n w i t h some d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s , when i t w i l l e x i s t u n d e r a n o t h e r fo rm . O xygen, when com bined w i t h s u l p h u r i s n o t a n y t h i n g w h ic h i t may b e i n o t h e r c o m b i n a t i o n s . The o b j e c t i v e f a c t o r , w h ic h I s s t o n e , when i n one r e l a t i o n t o s e n s e , may b e , m u st b e , s o m e th in g e l s e i n a n o th e r r e l a t i o n . 2 The p o s s i b i l i t y o f a p r e s e n t e d p r e h e n s i o n t o become d i f f e r e n t i n o t h e r r e l a t i o n s I s w h at we mean b y s u b s t a n c e . "The r e d t h i n g i s f o u n d t o be a l s o a s w e e t t h i n g , a l s o a s o f t t h i n g , a l s o a f e r m e n t i n g t h i n g , an d so o n . s t r a c t th is a ls o , p e rso n ify i t ,

We a b ­

a s s i g n i t an i m a g i n a r y

s u b s t a n c e , an d assum e t h a t t h e P o s s i b i l i t y i s a R e a l i t y a p a r t fro m a l l c o n d i t i o n s . "3

Thus Lewes p r e s e n t s an I n t e r ­

e s t i n g e s s a y a t a s o l u t i o n o f t h e p r o b le m o f s u b s t a n c e . We a r e no l o n g e r t o r e g a r d s u b s t a n c e a s some t y p e o f t h i n g . S u b s t a n c e i s a p o s s i b i l i t y o f a s e n s e datum t o b e o t h e r

1. F o u n d atio n s, I I , 391. 2. I b i d . 592-395. 3. I t l d i , p . 394.

th a n i t i s .

"The f a l l a c y o f a Noumenon c o n s i s t s i n a s s i g n ­

i n g r e a l i t y t o t h i s a b s t r a c t p o s s i b i l i t y . "2-

I t i s th e i n ­

f e r e n c e t h a t th e p r e s e n te d r e q u i r e s o r ca n r e q u i r e f u r t h e r e x p e r i e n c e t h a t l e a d s to. t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f s u b s t a n c e . b e lie v e

"I

(Lewes d e c l a r e s ) t h e c o n c e p t i o n o f T h in g i n i t s e l f

t o be s im p l y t h e sym bol o f t h a t o t h e r n e s s o f r e l a t i o n wh i c h t h e T h in g we p e r c e i v e may be I n f e r r e d t o p r e s e n t when i t i s no l o n g e r i n r e l a t i o n t o u s , o r i s c o n s i d e r e d i n r e l a ­ t i o n t o s o m e th in g e l s e . "2 I t is

I n te r e s t i n g to n o te t h a t t h i s c o n c e p tio n o f

p o s s i b i l i t y a s s u b s t a n c e was g r o s s l y m i s u n d e r s t o o d by L e w es’ c r i t i c s .

P e r r i n ' s comment t h a t "Lewes was u n a b l e

t o o f f e r a p o s i t i v e s o l u t i o n o f t h e m e t a p h y s i c a l p r o b le m b ecau se o f h i s t e n t a t i v e a c c e p ta n c e o f th e th e o r y of an u n k n o w a b le , w h ic h i m p l i e s a f u n d a m e n t a l m y s t e r y , "3 i s t h e c le a re st m isin te rp re ta tio n .

L e w es' "som ew hat" a s a p o s s i ­

b i l i t y o f f u r t h e r e x p e rie n c e c o u ld o n ly b y s h e e r ex ag g er­ a t i o n be c o n s i d e r e d an " u n k n o w a b le " i n t h e K a n t i a n o r tra n sc e n d e n ta l sen se.

R e c e n t p h i l o s o p h e r s s u c h as C. I .

Lewis an d J o h n Dewey h a v e r e v e a l e d t h e I m p o r ta n c e t h a t p o s s i b i l i t y o f f u r t h e r e x p e r i e n c e h a s f o r an y im m e d ia te e x p e rie n c e .

Nor d o e s H a r r i s o n r e v e a l a n y d e f i n i t e u n d e r ­

s t a n d i n g o f L e w es' c o n c e p t i o n , s i n c e h e c o n f u s e s L ew es' n o t i o n o f an u n e x p l o r e d r e m a i n d e r w i t h t h e m e t a p h y s i c a l 1. F o u n d a tio n s , I I , p . 392. 2 . IF I 3 T 7 T T T 0 4 . 3 . Raymond S t . James P e r r i n , The E v o l u t i o n o f K no w ledg e, p . 270.

154 c o n c e p t i o n o f a n o u m e n a .^

G r e e n 's i d e a l i s m i s t o o com­

p l e t e l y b e w i t c h e d b y t h e m a g n i f i c e n c e o f t h e Ego f o r him t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e s u g g e s t i v e n e s s o f L e w es' e m p i r i c a l m e ta ­ p h y s i c s * and h e i s ev en a l i t t l e ig n o rin g " . . . t h e

i n d i g n a n t w i t h Lewes f o r

a c t i o n o f a s u b j e c t w h ic h t h i n k s o f i t s

f e e l i n g s . "2 C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e f u l l im p o r t o f L e w es' p h i l o s o p h y d i d n o t p e n e t r a t e t h e E n g l i s h T ho ug ht o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n tu ry .

Even S u l l y , a c l o s e f r i e n d o f Lew es, was u n a b l e

t o s a y more o f t h e P ro b le m s t h a n " I t may b e d o u b te d w h e t h e r th e

’P r o b le m s ' c o n t r i b u t e t o p h i l o s o p h y any r a d i c a l l y new

c o n c e p t i o n w h ic h i s l i k e l y t o t r a n s f o r m t h e aim a n d m ethod o f t h i s s t u d y . "3

He e u l o g i z e s L e w es' " e f f o r t s a t e l a b o r ­

a t i n g a b i o l o g i c a l p s y c h o l o g y " 4 an d " h i s v iew o f th e l e g i ­ tim a te range o f h y p o th e tic a l c o n s tr u c tio n ." ®

B ut l i k e

S c o t t , who a m b ig u o u s ly c a l l s Lew is " a m e t a p h y s i c a l i n t e r ­ p r e t e r o f p h y s i o l o g i c a l phenom ena,"® a t no p o i n t d o es S u l l y m e n t io n t h e n o v e l t y e m p iric a l m e tap h y sics.

( t o s a y t h e v e r y l e a s t ) o f L ew es'

O nly L e s l i e S te p h e n a p p e a r s t o

h a v e r e c o g n i z e d t h e i n t r i n s i c w o r t h o f L ew es' m e t a p h y s i c s ; he a s s e r t s ,

" I c o n f e s s t h a t Lewes seems t o me t o be a

1 . F r e d e r i c H a r r i s o n , The P h i l o s o p h y o f Common S e n s e , p . 1 0 7 . 2 . Thomas H i l l G re e n , P r o le g o m e n a t o E t h i c s , p . 66. 3 . James S u l l y , "G eo rge H enry t e w e s , " Sew Q u a r t e r l y Maga­ z i n e , n . s . 2 ( O c t o b e r 1 8 7 9 ) , 3 7 4 -3 7 5 7 4 . I b i d . , p . 375. 5 . ^ b ld '« , p . 3 5 8 . 6 * P r i n c i p l e s o f S u c c e s s i n L i t e r a t u r e , I n t r o d u c t i o n by F r e d N. S c o t t , p . 12.

155 r e m a r k a b l e a c u t e m e t a p h y s i c i a n , and one who w i l l make h i s m a rk ." 1 We f i n d ,

t h e r e f o r e , t h a t Lewes h a s m a i n t a i n e d t h a t

t h e p r o b le m o f s u b s t a n c e i s made an e m p i r i c a l one i f we r e g a rd i t as th e p o s s i b i l i t i e s m an ifo ld .

t h a t a r e l a t e n t i n any g i v e n

S i n c e e v e r y p h en o m en al a p p e a r a n c e i s made u p o f

a s u b j e c t i v e - o b j e c t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n , an d s i n c e t h e r e ­ l a t i o n s h i p t h a t s u c h a c o n s t r u c t i o n i n v o l v e s i s a c h a n g in g one a s b o t h t h e s u b j e c t i v e a n d t h e o b j e c t i v e a s p e c t s c h a n g e , w h a t we d e s i g n a t e as " t h i n g " i s

" a g r o u p o f r e l a t i o n s . "2

The t h i n g i n i t s e l f i s " c h i m e r i c a l . " ®

S u b stan ce is th e

a d d i t i o n o f p o s s i b i l i t y to w hat i s p r e s e n te d .

I t is tru e

t h a t j u s t as we o f t e n s e p a r a t e t h e s u b j e c t i v e fro m t h e o b j e c t i v e a s p e c t , we l o g i c a l l y s e p a r a t e S u b s t a n c e from i t s q u a l i t i e s ; and t h i s when i t r e p r e s e n t s

"is a p e r fe c tly le g itim a te a r t i f i c e t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e tw e e n S u b j e c t an d

P re d ic a te s;

o r,

t o s p e a k more p r e c i s e l y ,

t h e g e n e r a l g ro u p

of q u a litie s

from any one s p e c i a l i t e m o f t h a t g r o u p . " 4

When we s a y i r o n i s s o l i d o r f u s i b l e , we mean t h a t s o l i d i t y o r f u s i b i l i t y may b e o b s e r v e d among t h e o t h e r p r o p e r t i e s o b s e r v e d i n t h e g r o u p named " i r o n . " The s u b s t a n c e , " i r o n , " h e re s ta n d s f o r th e u n s p e c if ie d p r o p e r t i e s ; t h e s p e c i f i e d p r o p e r t i e s s o l i d i t y an d f u s i ­ b i l i t y have a lr e a d y been o b se rv e d (o r i n f e r r e d )

1. In h i s l e t t e r to C h a rle s E l i o t N o rto n . O f. The L i f e an d L e t t e r s o f L e s l i e S t e p h e n , e d i t e d b y P . W. M a i t l a n d , p . 30(). 2. F o u n d a tio n s, I I , 24.

3. THutton and Co. I n c . , 1912. Dewey, J o h n , L o g i c : The T h e o ry o f I n q u i r y , New Y o r k : H enry H o lt an d Company, 1931H Doremus, R o b e r t , G eorge H enry L e w e s: A D e s c r i p t i v e B io r a p h y , an u n p u b l i s h e d d i s s e r t a t i o n , H a r v a r d , 1 9 4 6 . V olum es.

f

E s p i n a s s e , F r a n c i s , L i t e r a r y R e c o l l e c t i o n s and S k e t c h e s , London: H odder a n d S t o u g n t o n , 1889. F i s k e , J . , O u t l i n e o f Cosmic P h i l o s o p h y , New Y o r k : H o u g h to n , M i f f l i n and Company, 1 9 0 3 , 4 V olum es. F r a n k , P h i l i p p , Modern S c i e n c e and i t s P h i l o s o p h y , H a r v a r d U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , l9 4 § . G re e n , Thomas H i l l , W orks, E d i t e d b y R. L. N e t t l e s h i p , London: Longmans, G reen an d Company, 1 8 8 8 , 3 V olum es. , P ro le g o m e n a t o E t h i c s , O x fo rd a t t h e C la r e n d o n P r e s s , 1&90. T h i r d E d T t i o n . H a i d a r , H i r a l a l , N e o - H e g e li a n is m , L ondon: H e a th C r a n to n L t d . , 1927. H a m i l t o n , E . , "Mr. L e w es’ D o c t r i n e o f S e n s i b i l i t y , " Mind, IV ( 1 8 7 9 ) , 2 5 6 - 2 6 1 . H a r r i s o n , F r e d e r i c , The P h i l o s o p h y o f Common S e n s e , New Y o rk : M acM illan and Company, 19077 ______________________ , " O b i t u a r y f o r G eorge H enry L e w e s ," Academy, Xlv1 ( 1 8 7 8 ) , 5 4 3 - 4 . H e g e l , L o g i c , t r a n s l a t e d by W i l l i a m W a l l a c e , O x fo rd a t t h e C laren d o n P r e s s , 1892. Hem pel, C a r l G . , " S t u d i e s i n t h e L o g ic o f C o n f i r m a t i o n , " Mind. LIV ( 1 9 4 5 ) , 1 - 2 6 , 9 7 - 1 2 1 . S c ie n c e ,

, "V ag u en ess and L o g i c , " P h i l o s o p h y o f (193§), 163-180.

247

H o b h o u se, L. T . , The T h e o ry o f K n o w led g e, New Y o rk : M acM illan and Company, 1 8 ^ . H o f s t a d t e r , A l b e r t , "A C o n c e p tio n o f E m p i r i c a l M eta­ p h y s i c s , " The J o u r n a l o f P h i l o s o p h y , XLV ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 4 2 1 -4 3 5 . Hume, D a v id , T r e a t i s e o f Human N a t u r e , e d i t e d by T. H. G reen and ‘i*. H. G r o s e , L ondon: Longmans, G reen and Company, 1 8 7 8. New E d i t i o n , 2 V olum es. I n t e r n a t i o n a l E n c y clo p ed ia o f U n ifie d S c ie n c e , e d ite d by Ot t o N e u r a t h , n u d o lp h C a rn a p , an d C h a r l e s W. M o r r i s , t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C h icag o P r e s s , 1 9 3 8 -1 9 4 6 . Jam e s, W i l l i a m , The P r i n c i p l e s o f P s y c h o l o g y , New Y o rk : H en ry H o l t and Company, 1 9 0 5 . 2 Volumes7 K am insky, J a c k , " A n a l y t i c an d S y n t h e t i c M oral J u d g m e n t s ," The J o u r n a l o f P h i l o s o p h y , XLVI ( 1 9 4 9 ) , 6 9 3 -7 0 2 . K a n t, C r i t i q u e o f P u r e R e a s o n , t r a n s l a t e d b y P . Max M u l l e r , New "York: TheHMacM illan C o ., 1 9 34 . S eco n d E d i t i o n , re v ise d . ___________, P r o le g o m e n a , e d i t e d by P a u l C a r u s , I l l i n o i s : The Open C o u r t P u b l i s h i n g C o ., 1 9 4 5. K i t c h e l , Anna T h e r e s a , G eorge Lewes and G eorge E l i o t , New Y o rk: Jo h n Day and C o ., 1953. Ladd, G. T . , A T h e o ry o f R e a l i t y , New Y o rk : C h a r l e s S c r i b n e r ' s S o n s , 1 8 99 . L a n g e , P . A . , H i s t o r y o f M a t e r i a l i s m , T r a n s l a t e d b y E. C. Thomas, New York* i l a r c o u r t , B ra c e an d Company, 1925. Lew es, G. H . , P r i n c i p l e s o f S u c c e s s i n L i t e r a t u r e , e d i t e d b y P r e d N. S c o t t , B o s t o n , A l l y n an d B ac o n , 1 8 9 4 . T h ird E d i t i o n . L e w is , C. I . ' , Mind and t h e W orld O r d e r , New Y o rk : C h a r l e s S c r i b n e r 's Sons, 1929. L i n t o n , E l i z a Lynn, S to u g h to n , 1899.

L i t e r a r y L i f e , L on do n: H odder and •

Locke, J o h n , An E s s a y C o n c e r n in g Human U n d e r s t a n d i n g , a b r i d g e d , e d i t e d oy A. S. P r i n g l e - P a t t i s o n , O x f o rd a t t h e C la r e n d o n P r e s s , 1 9 3 4. M asson, D a v id , R e c e n t B r i t i s h P h i l o s o p h y , London: M acM illan Company, 186V. S eco nd E d i t i o n .

248 Mead, G. H . , Movements o f T h ou gh t i n t h e N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y , U n i v e r s i t y oT C h icag o P r e s s , 1 9 3 6 . M era, J . T . , A H i s t o r y o f E u ro p e a n T h o u g h t i n t h e N in e ­ t e e n t h C e n t u r y . London: Blackw ood a n a S o n s , 1911*1 4 V olum es. M i l l , Joh n S t u a r t , A S y ste m o f L o g i c , L ondon: Longmans, G r e e n , R e a d e r, an d D y e r, TH7£>. N i n t h E d i t i o n . 2 V olum es. M organ, C. L lo y d , The Em ergence o f N o v e l t y , London: W i l l i a m s and N o r g a te L t d . , T9331. N a t u r a l i s m and th e Human S p i r i t , e d i t e d , b y Y e r v a n t H. K r i k o r i a n , C olum bia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1944. O p a r i n , A. I . , The O r i g i n o f L i f e , T r a n s l a t e d by S e r g i u s H o r g u l i s , New Y o rk : M acM illan Company, 1 9 3 8. P a t o n , H. J . , K a n t 1s M e ta p h y s ic o f E x p e r i e n c e , New Y o rk : M acM illan Company, 1 9 3 6. 2 V olum es. P e i r c e , C. S . , C o l l e c t e d P a p e r s , e d i t e d b y C h a r l e s H a r t s h o r n e and P a u l W e is s , H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 3 1 -1 9 3 5 , 6 Volum es. P e p p e r , S te p h e n C . , W orld H y p o t h e s e s , U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1948. P e r r i n , Raymond S t . J a m e s , The E v o l u t i o n o f K now ledge, New Y o rk : C h a r l e s S c r i b n e r an d S o n s , 1 ^ 6 . P o i n c a r e , H ., The F o u n d a t i o n s o f S c i e n c e , t r a n s l a t e d by G eorg e E ru c e H a ls t e d , L a n c a s t e r , P e n n s y l v a n i a : The S c i e n c e P r e s s , 1 946. P u b l i c a t i o n s o f t h e Modern Language A s s o c i a t i o n , LXIV (1 9 4 9 ), R esearch in P r o g r e s s . Read, C a r v e t h , "G eorge H enry L e w e s' P osthum ous V o lu m e s," Mind, VI ( 1 8 8 1 ) , 4 8 3 - 4 9 8 . R i b o t , T h e o d u le , E n g l i s h P s y c h o l o g y , London: H enry I . X ing an d CompanyJ 1 8 7 7 . S eco nd e d i t i o n r e v i s e d . R o g e r s , A. K . , E n g l i s h and A m erican P h i l o s o p h y S in c e 1 8 0 0 , New Y o rk : M acM illan Company, 1 0 2 3. R u s s e l l , B e r t r a n d , "On V e r i f i c a t i o n , " P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n S o c i e t y , N .S . XXXVIII ( 1 9 3 7 - 8 ) 7 1 - 2 0 .

249

___________ , "V a g u e n e ss," A u s t r a l a s i a n J o u rn a l o f P s y c h o lo g y and P h i l o s o p h y , I ( 1 9 2 3 ) , 8 4 - 9 2 . S c h l i c k , M o r i t z , " C a u s a l i t y i n E v e ry d a y L i f e and S c i e n c e , " U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c a t i o n s XV ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 9 9 - 1 2 5 . S o r l e y , W. R . , A H i s t o r y o f E n g l i s h P h i l o s o p h y , Cam bridge a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y - P r e s s , 193 1? . S t a c e , W. T . , The T h e o ry o f K nowledge and E x i s t e n c e , O x f o rd a t t h e C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1 9 3 2 . S t e p h e n s , L e s l i e , "G eorge H en ry L e w e s ," D i c t i o n a r y o f N a t i o n a l B i o g r a p h y , Volume X I. , The L i f e and L e t t e r s , E d i t e d b y P . to. M aitland, New Y o r k : 1 . Putnam Sons, 1 90 6. S u l l y , Jam es, My L i f e and F r i e n d s , L ondon: T. F i s h e r Unwin L t d . , 1918^ _____ _____ , "G eorge H e n ry L e w e s ," E n c y c l o p e d i a B r l t a n n i c a , Volume X I I I . T r o l l o p e , A n th o n y , "G eorge H e n ry L e w e s ," F o r t n i g h t l y R ev iew , XXXI ( 1 8 7 9 ) , 1 5 - 2 4 . V a i h i n g e r , H . , The P h i l o s o p h y o f " Aa I f ", t r a n s l a t e d by C. K. Ogden, New Y o rk : H a r c o u r t , B r a c e and Company, 1 9 24 . W ard, Jam es, E s s a y s i n P h i l o s o p h y , C am bridge a t t h e U n i­ v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1927. W a d d in g to n , M. M., The D evelop m ent o f B r i t i s h T h ou gh t fro m 1820 t o 1 8 9 0 , W ith S p e c i a l R e f e r e n c e t o German I n f l u e n c e s , T o r o n t o : J . M. L e n t and S o n s , T518T W e r k m e i s t e r , W. H . , A P h i l o s o p h y o f S c i e n c e , New Y o rk : H a r p e r and B r o t h e r s . P u b l i s h e r s , 1 9 4 0 . W hew ell, W i l l ia m , On t h e P h i l o s o p h y o f D i s c o v e r y , L ondon: J . W. P a r k e r ancT-S o n , I 860 . W i l l e y , B a s i l , N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y S t u d i e s , New Y o rk : Colum bia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 4 9 . Wisdom, J . 0 . , "The D e s c r i p t i v e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S c i e n c e , " P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n S o c i e t y , N .S . XLIV ( 1 9 4 3 - 4 ) , 9 1 -1 0 6 .

250

APPENDIX I Lewes ' R u les o f P h i l o s o p h i z i n g ^ -

(1 ) No P ro b le m t o b e m oo ted u n l e s s i t be p r e s e n t e d i n te rm s o f E x p e r i e n c e , and b e c a p a b l e o f e m p i r i c a l in v e stig a tio n . (2 ) Any c o n t r a d i c t i o n o f f u n d a m e n t a l e x p e r i e n c e s o f S en se o r i n t u i t i o n t o b e t a k e n a s e v i d e n c e o f some f la w e i t h e r i n t h e d a t a o r th e c a l c u l a t i o n . (3) N e w to n 's T h i r d Rule - The Q u a l i t i e s o f b o d i e s w h ic h a d m it n e i t h e r o f i n t e n s i o n n o r r e m i s s i o n o f d e g r e e s , and w h ic h a r e f o u n d t o b e l o n g t o a l l b o d i e s w i t h i n th e r e a c h o f o u r e x p e r i m e n t s , a r e t o b e e s te e m e d t h e u n iv e rs a l q u a litie s o f a l l b o d ie s. (4 ) No A gent t o b e a d m i t t e d u n l e s s i t h a v e a s e n s i b l e b a s i s ; n o r any Agency u n l e s s i t b e v e r i f i a b l e o r c a lc u la b le . (5 ) N e w to n 's F i r s t R ule - We a r e t o a d m it no more c a u s e s o f n a t u r a l t h i n g s t h a n s u c h a s a r e b o t h t r u e , and s u f f i c i e n t to e x p l a i n t h e a p p e a r a n c e s . (6 ) E ach c a u s e m ust a l tt a y s arid e v e r y w h e r e h a v e t h e same e f f e c t ; an d n e 'v e r 'm o r e t h a n t h i s . (7 ) No p r o o f c a n b e v a l i d b e y o n d t h e r a n g e o f i t s d a t a ; no c o n c l u s i o n i s e x a c t w h ic h s h u t s i n w hat i s n o t in c lu d e d In i t s p re m is e s . (8 ) B ec au se t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f a phenomenon l i e s w h o l l y i n i t s r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r phenom ena we m u st n e v e r i s o l a t e I t fro m t h i s r e l a t i v i t y , and draw c o n c l u s i o n s re sp e c tin g i t per s e . (9 ) We a r e n o t t o c o n c l u d e t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f e l e m e n t s fro m t h e p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e g r o u p s t h e y f o r m ; n o r v ic e v e r s a . (1 0 ) The v a l i d i t y o f c o n c l u s i o n s r e s t s on t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f h o m o g e n e ity i n t h e te rm s and t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e i r ra tio s .

1 . C f. Foundat i o n s , I , p p. 8 1 f f .

251 (11) S c i e n c e i s b u i l t up fro m A b s t r a c t i o n s , a n d t h e s e a r e b u i l t up fro m C o n c r e t e s . No A b s t r a c t i o n m u st c o n t a i n more t h a n i s w a r r a n t e d b y i t s C o n c r e t e s . (1 2 ) C a r e f u l l y to d i s c r i m i n a t e b e tw e e n t h e a b s t r a c t o r a n a l y t i c a l p o i n t o f v ie w and t h e c o n c r e t e o r s y n t h e t i c a l p o i n t o f v ie w . (13) P h i l o s o p h y , b e i n g t h e h arm ony b e tw e e n t h e c o n c r e t e and a b s t r a c t , t h e s y n t h e t i c and i t s e x p l a n a t o r y a n a l y t i c , demands t h a t e v e r y w h e r e t h e a b s t r a c t b e s u b o r d i n a t e d t o t h e c o n c r e t e i n r e s p e c t t o v a l i d i t y , th o u g h i t i s s u p e rio r in p o in t of d ig n ity . (14) N e w to n 's F o u r t h R ule - I n e x p e r i m e n t a l p h i l o s o p h y we a r e to l o o k u p o n p r o p o s i t i o n s c o l l e c t e d b y g e n e r a l i n d u c t i o n fro m phenom ena a s a c c u r a t e l y o r v e r y n e a r l y t r u e , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g an y c o n t r a r y h y p o t h e s e s t h a t may b e i m a g in e d , t i l l s u c h tim e as o t h e r phenom ena o c c u r b y w h ic h t h e y may b e made more a c c u r a t e o r l i a b l e to e x c e p tio n s . (1 5 ) C o m te 's f i r s t law o f P r im a r y P h i l o s o p h y - Always t o p r e f e r th e s im p le s t h y p o th e s is co m p atib le w ith a l l th e o b serv ed f a c t s .

^

U H in r op MBP TOM 0HIV1 R8 ITY U1IITKSITT HEIGHTS

iA