THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION HELD BY HERMAN HARRELL HORNE

Citation preview

COPYRIGHTED

by EVELYN BIRKEL THOMPSON

1950

THE PHILOSOPHY OP RELIGION HEED BY HERMAN HARRELL HORNE

Sponsoring Committee: Professor Samuel L. Hamilton, Chairman; Associate Professor Louise Antz; and Professor Samuel J. McLaughlin

THE PHILOSOPHY OP RELIGION HELD Bx HERMAN HARRELL HORNE

EVELxN BIRKEL THOMPSON

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the School of Education of New jtork University

1950 Ijbeaig aocaptee

&

The student hereby guarantees that no part of the dissertation or document which she has submitted for publication has been heretoiore published snd(or) copy­ righted in the United States of America, except in the case of passages quoted from other published sources; that she is the sole author and proprietor of said dis­ sertation or document; that the dissertation or document contains no matter which, if published, will be libelous or otherwise injurious, or infringe in any way the copy­ right of any other party; &no that she will defend, inreranify and hold harmless New York University against all suits end proceedings which may be brought and against all claims which may be made against Ne w York Univer sity by reason of the publication of said dissertation or document.

Date : May 27, 1950

TO J« A* T.

PREFACE The problem and the procedure of this thesis will he stated in the first chapter.

The author* s own religious point of view,

which may be described in general as evangelical Protestantism, has unavoidably been the basis for some of the criticism, but an effort has been made to view Horne*s philosophy of religion objectively. Appreciation is due my Sponsoring Committee:

to Professor

Samiel L. Hamilton for invaluable assistance on t h e outline and on the thesis as a whole; to Professor Louise Antz, who has spent many hours with me in constructive criticism of both con­ tent and form; and to Professor Samuel J. M c L a u g h l i n for his helpful suggestions.

I am grateful also to Dr. Horne*s v/idow,

Mrs. Mary D. w. Horne; and to his children, Mrs.

George J.

Delany (Ida), Dr. William H. Horne, Miss B e t s y Worthington Horne, and Mrs. Herbert C. Hoagland (Julia, known professionally as Eve Tellegan) for their generous help in providing data on his life.

The University of North Carolina was m o s t helpful in

sending me relevant material on Horne*s academic career there. Miss Ethel Hamilton has rendered invaluable service in preparing the tables of contents given in Appendix A,

In organizing

the bibliography, and in helping to secure permissions to make quotations.

I am indebted to many other kind friends for help

In the preparation of this thesis, especially In proof-reading. Grateful acknowledgment is made to the following i n ­ dividuals for permission to quote from books for w h i c h they hold the copyright:

to Doctor william Horne for permission

v

Vi to quote from these hooks by his father:

Christ in Man-Making;

The Essentials of Leadership; Idealism in Education; Jesus as £ Philosopher; Jesus--Our Standard; The Philosophy of Education; Story-Te1ling, questioning and Studying; and Thi3 Hew Education; to Doctor Vergilius Perm for permission to quote from First Chapters in Religious Philosophy; to Mr. Harold Freeman for per­ mission to quote from Thornton Wilder’s play, Our Town; to Doctor Albert C. Knudson of Cambridge, Massachusetts for permission to quote the table of contents of his book, The Philosophy of Per­ sonalism; to Doctor Shailer V. Lawton and Mr. B. F. Bingham for permission to quote from Self Magazine; to Mr. John 0. Pyle of Chicago, Illinois for permission to quote from Religion, by Edward Scribner Ames; to Mr. Stephen Royce of Crystal Falls, Michigan for permission to quote the table of contents of his father’s work in two volumes, The World and the Individual. The following publishers have graciously permitted me to quote from certain copyrighted books and articles which are listed in the bibliography:

Abingdon-Cokesbury Press; Association

Press; The Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America; Charles Scribner’s Sons; Committee on Friendly Relations Among Foreign Students; D. C. Heath and Company; Doubleday, Doran and Company, Inc.; Fleming H. Revell Company; Harper and Brothers; Harvard University; Houghton Mifflin Company; The International Council of Religious Education; Kappa Delta Pi; The Macmillan Company; The National Society for the Study of Education; Hew xork University Bookstore; The Philosophical Review (Cornell University Press); Prentice-Hall,

vli Inc.; School and Society (The society for the Advancement of Education, Inc., New xork); University of Chicago Press; yale University Press.

E. B. T. New xork May, 1950

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Part I.

Introduction

Chapt er I. The Problem and the Procedure........................... 1 The Problem. ......... 1 Statement of the Problem ....... 1 Sub-problems ..... 1 Definitions....... 2 ................. 4 Delimitations Significance of the Problem......... 5 ................... 6 Procedure II. Sketch of H o r n e ’s L i f e . ........................ 11 Background....... 11 Early Life. .......................................13 ........... .13 University Education. Teaching Career and Family Life.....................15 Significant Contributions...........................26 III.

Part II. IV.

An Introduction to H o r n e ’s Philosophy of Religion 30 Horne’s Use of the Terras Philosophy and Religion...30 Philosophy and Science ..... .30 The Task of Philosophy......... ................ 31 Philosophy and Religion. ......... 33 The Nature and Importance of Religion.. ...... .34 Religion and Education......... ........... .....37 Horne’s Arguments for Religion.... ......... .39 Horne’s Philosophy: Idealism....... .............. .42 "What Idealism Stands F o r ”........... .....43 "What Idealism Stands Against"............ 46 Horne’s Religion: Christianity.................. ..49 The Father. ............... .50 The Son ...... 52 The Kingdom. .......... .53 An Exposition and Evaluation of Horne’s Philosophy of Religion God and the Universe ...... 59 God, the Inclusive Personality..................... 59 God as Absolute and All-Inclusive....... .60 God as Personality....... .61 God as Internally Transcendent. ..... 63 The Universe: the "Body" of G o d . ............... 69 God in Relation to Space, Time, and Progress,..,75 Man within God.......................... ....80 God, the Realization of Human Ideals.............. 84 The Ideals: Truth, Beauty, and Goodness...... ,85 The Antithetical Negatives........... .,88 God as Father and as Spirit........................93 God -- Unity or Trinity? ...... 94

viii

ix God, the Creator and Lover of M a n .............. .....*97 God, the Spirit, Teacher of M a n ....................... 99 The Son of God and Son of Man. .............. 1°° The Practical Divinity of Jesus. ............ .101 The Complete Humanity of Jesus....................... 108 J e s u s , the Standard of Men................ H O .114 Man*s Developing Concepts of God.•.. • ...... The Unification and Moralization of D e i t y . . . . .114 The Requirements of Deity..... ..... 115 V.

Religious Knowledge and Religious Experience......... ,.118 Is Religious Knowledge Possible?.......... .*118 How Religious Truth is Known and Experienced.......... 119 Experience and Reason............... 120 121 Emotion. ............ Action............. 124 Thought and Reason................................ .129 F a i t h .................................................. 144 Faith and Reason................................... 144 Faith and Doubt.................................... 145 Intuition and Mysticism............... 147 Conversion....... 151 Revelation. .............. 152 154 The Bible.............. External Authority.................. 157 The Need for Religious Education.................... 160 The Knower and the Known. .... ..•••...... 163

VI. M a n . ....................................................... 166 The Origin, Nature and Destiny of M a n ..........167 The Origin of Man: God.............................. 167 The Nature of Man: Freedom. .................. 167 Free will, Determinism, and theNature of Sin..168 ......... 175 Freedom of Mind. The Relation Between Body and Mind. ..... 177 The Religious Nature of M a n .................... ..178 The Destiny of Man: Immortality................... .179 The Factors in Man-making. ......................... 133 Heredity.......... 183 Environment .......... 184 W i l l .................................................. 186 The Individual versus Society ....... .186 The Contribution of Will to Man-making ..........188 Human Progress ...................... 189 VII* Summary, Evaluation, and Comparison. ............. 193 Summary of the Content of H o r n e d Philosophy of Rel Iglon ........ 193 Characteristics of Horne's Philosophy of R e l i gion . .. .194 Comparison of the Scope of Horne's Philosophy of Religion................ 198 Some Related Subjects of Study......................... 202 Appendix A

Tables of Contents of Selected Works in the Field of the Philosophy of Religion.. ...... 205

X

Appendix B

Reproductions of Three Unpublished Articles Written by Horne in the Field of the Philosophy of Religion.............. 216 "How Is Faith Related to Philosophy?".......... 217 "How Poaitlvlstic Thinkers Treat Religion"......227 "Some Educational Philosophers Neglect Religion.238

Bibli ography Major Works by Herman Harrell Horne............ 248 Works Edited by Herman Harrell Horne........... 249 Minor Writings by Herman Harrell Horne......... 249 Relevant Material on Horne’s Life and Work 253 Relevant writings in the Field of the Philosophy of Religion................................. .254

PART I INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I THE PR OB HEM AED THE PROCEDURE The P r o b l e m Statement of the Problem The prob l e m of this study is to discover the philosophy of religion held by Herman Harrell Horne, as evidenced explic­ itly or implicitly in his eduoational, philosophical and reli­ gions writings; and to evaluate his philosophy of religion according to selected criteria of philosophical judgment and compare its scope v/ith that of certain reoognized American Protestant philosophers of religion. Sub-problems The three sub-problems naturally involved in the solution of the main problem are to find bases for the selection of relevant data, religion,

for the evaluation of Horne’s philosophy of

and for the comparative study of its scope.

Since

it is no p r o b l e m to discover implications for a philosophy of religion in passages where Horne uses religious terminology, the first sub-problem is to determine whether references to value in Horne's written works have implications for a philos­ ophy of religion even where religious terminology is not used. The second sub-problem is to select criteria of philosophical judgment w h i c h are suitable for evaluating Horne’s philosophy of religion.

The third sub-problem is to formulate bases for 1

the selection of authors and works dealing with the problems of the philosophy of religion, in order that the scope of Horne's philosophy of religion may he compared with the scope of these works.

The procedure to he used in solving these sub-

problems and in undertaking other necessary tasks may be found later in this chapter. Definitions The term philosophy is not easy to define, as there has been much disagreement about its meaning, the love of wisdom.

literally it means

Yet philosophy is not only the love of

and, consequently, the search for wisdom, hut also the wisdom sought; it is both a process and a theory.

Douglas Clyde

Macintosh has modernized the original meaning in his definition 1 of philosophy as "the best wisdom of the lover of wisdom." Philosophy takes the facts of experience and the discoveries of Bcience as a whole and seeks an adequate, consistent prin­ ciple or principles to explain their meaning and relationships. The data of philosophy are all the facts known to man; the philosophical method is the rational method of critical analysis and synthesis; philosophy itself is the resulting world-theory. As Horne says, there is less agreement "about religion than

2 about anything except philosophy."

John Dewey holds that the

differences between religions are so great and so startling that no common element is discernible; there is no such thing as 3 religion, except in the sense of a miscellaneous collection.

1. 2. 3.

D. C. Macintosh, The Problem of Knowledge, p. 1. Herman Harrell H o m e , Idealism in M o o ax ion, p. 155. John Dewey, A Common ffaith. p p / T - ? !

3 Others have taken a less drastic view, but have not agreed on the nature of religion’s least common denominator.

A definition

or a description of religion in terms of a particular religion or philosophy— as, for instance, Hegel’s--obviously cannot g a i n wide acceptance.

Many have offered definitions of religion

which are weighted in favor of a single aspect of m a n ’s nature — mind

( j e , Ernest Troeltsch), will (Kant), feeling (Schleier-

m a cher)— or a single aspect of man’s experience— solitariness (James and Whitehead), sociality (E. S. Ames), relationship to environment

(V. P. Galverton), or relationship to the Supernatural

(Edwin Lewis).1

Hfiffding, Perm, and Brightman define the r e ­

ligious object in terms of value; others, in terms of p e r s o n a l i t y or of power.

Though there are many religious persons that it

will not satisfy, the following definition is here offered b e ­ cause of its comprehensiveness:

Religion is a way of life

(think­

ing, feeling, and acting) lived in response to a Person(s), Power(s),

or Value(s) regarded as so great as to be worthy of

worship or devotion.2 The philosophy of religion applies the method of philosophy to the subject of religion.

It may therefore be defined as the

critical analysis and synthesis of a. way of life (thinkin g , f e e l i n g , and acting) lived in response to a Person (s ) , Power (s ) , or Value (s) regarded as so great as to be worthy of worship or devotion.

1.

2.

For definitions of religion, see Vergilius Ferm, First Chapters in Religious Philosophy, Chapter IV, p p . 3 5 - 7 1 , and E. §.TJrightman, A Philosophy of Religion, pp. 15, 16. Adapted from Samuel L. Hamilton, lectures on the philosophy of religion, New lork University.

4 Theology, as distinguished from the philosophy of religion, is oonoerned with the philosophioal tenets of a particular reli­ gion,

such as Christianity,

such as Calvinism.

or of a particular branch of it,

Because Horne’s religion was Protestant

Christianity, muoh of his philosophy of religion was theology* H orne’s definitions of religion, theology, and philosophy will be given later in this study.

The initial letter of such philo­

sophioal terms as Idealism and Realism will be capitalized when they are used in a philosophical rather than a sooial, literary or artistic sense*

^ Delimitations

Of necessity this study cannot be so inclusive as the defi­ nition of the philosophy of religion above would imply.

It will

be limited to the critical analysis and synthesis of H o m e ’s religious thinking and feeling, as recorded in his written works* H o m e ’s actions as a religious person and his unrecorded thinking and feeling are obviously beyond the province of this study, if only because there would be no test of their objective reality. It is not within the author’s scope to investigate H o m e ’s personal or intellectual background, or his educational philos­ ophy, philosophy of Christian education, or theology except as they bear on his philosophy of religion*

neither is it the

purpose of this study to compare systematically Horne’s philos­ ophy of religion with that of other thinkers, although some com­ parisons will be made when needed to clarify Horne's own position*

Significance of the Problem Herman Harrell Horne, 1874-1946, was an influential American educator, a popular lecturer, and the author of a score of hooks in the fields of education, philosophy,

and religion.

He is best

known for his application of philosophic idealism to education. Horne was professor of the history of education and the philoso­ phy of education at Hew York University for thirty-three years. In his forty-eight years of teaching he taught more than ten thousand students and sponsored more than f i f t y candidates for the doctorate, many of whom were specializing in the field of religious eduoation. The titles of many of Horne’s published w o r k s evince his interest in the field of religion.

His books imply a philosophy

of religion which, however, ho nowhere specifically outlines or develops.

Ho one has made a thorough analytic

thought on this subject.

study of Horne's

Both because of his concern with

religion and his influence on religious educators a study of Horne's philosophy of religion hould prove valuable. There is another, related reason for undertaking this study of Horne's philosophy of religion.

As a teacher', Horne

did all that

was within his power to stimulate the independent 1 thinking of his students; but his dialectic w a s so convincing,

his epigrammatic speech so memorable, and the centrality of religion in his philosophy so satisfying to the philosophic

1.

What he said of himself was true: that he was far fr o m imposing his views on anybody, but that he had firm convictions of his own nonetheless. See The Leader, published by the students of the State formal "School at Hredonia, II. Y., Vol. XXKI, Ho. 33 (May 9, 1932), p. 1.

G neophyte v.ith religious convictions, that it was easy for such a student (and he had many such) to accent Horne's Philosophy 1 without realizing its implications. A close look at his philosophy of religion should afford the student a more objective "basis for judgment. Procedure The general method has been that of philosophical investi­ gation, which involves the logical analysis and synthesis of concepts.

The usual standard of logical coherence or consistency

has been maintained. The investigator first colleoted all the books and articles that she could find by Herman Harrell Eorne.

Use was made of

the card catalogs of the Hew York Public Library, the Widener Library of Harvard University, and the libraries of Hew York University (Washington Square, Hew York), Teachers College (Columbia University), Union Theological Seminary (Hew York), and the Biblical Seminary in Hew York.

Such guides to periodical

literature as the Reader *s Guide, the International Index, and the Bducation Index were consulted.

Bibliographies (such as

those given under Horne's name in W h o 's Who in America and in Leaders in Education) and private lists of Horne's books and articles also proved helpful. The next task was to examine Horne's writings v/ith the

1.

Horne points out that Dewey's influence has been both stimulating and blighting, and draws attention to Dewey's own warning against the abject imitation of a powerful teacher. Perhaps he did not realise that his own teaching was beset by the same danger. See his "An Idealistic Philosophy of Education."The Kadelpian Review, XII (November, 1932), p. 11.

7 purpose of discovering- his piiilo sophy of r el ipi on*

The writer

searched then for references to the problems ordinarily com­ prised v;ithin a philosophy of religion,

such as the existence

and character of God, the relationship between God and the physical universe, the nature and destiny of man, the problem of good and evil, the meaning of human history, the nature of religious experience and knowledge, and the survival of the 1 self after the death of the physical oody. Since Horne be-

O

lieved God to be "the Original and Originator of all values,” presumably any value-judgments which Horne made had some r e l i ­ gious significance, whether he specifically related them to God or not.

The problem of determining to what extent H o r n e ’s

references to value have implications for his philosophy of religion even where religious terminology is not used (sub-problem 1) has been attacked by comparing passages in which religious terminology is explicitly used with those in which religious significance is merely implicit,' ana thus determining what r e ­ ligious values Horne stresses*

Where the same ideas occur in

both a major and a minor work, the major work has been used, as it is more readily accessible to the reader. In order to evaluate H o r n e ’s philosophy of religion, criteria of philosophical judgment or truth were selected (sub-problem 2). These criteria had to be generally accepted standards,

in the

first place, and approved b y Horne himself, in the second place.

1. 2.

Jj’or the problems of the philosophy of religion see Appendix A, where are given tables of contents of the representa­ tive books listed at the end of the chapter. Horne, This Hew E d u c a t i o n , p. 267.

8 The Idealistic criterion of 3elf-consistency or coherence, the realistic criterion of correspondence or harmony with known fact, and the pragmatic criterion of practical influence or work­ ability all meet the two above requirements.

They are given

as the criteria of philosophical truth both by Charles A. Baylis under "Truth" in The Dictionary of Philosophy^and by Vergiliua Perm under "truth" in An Encyclopedia of Religion.^

Also, Horne

stated them clearly to a class in the philosophy of education at the Biblical Seminary in New xork in the fall of 1943 as the criteria by which a philosophy of life may be judged.

The author

attended this class and has verified her own notes by comparing them with those of other students in the class.3 w o r k s ^ Horne mentions these criteria

In tv/o of his

(self-consistency and

correspondence being Intellectual criteria, practical guidance being volitional), with the addition of the criterion of emotional satisfaction or Inspiration,

The criterion of emotional satis­

faction has been ruled out because it i3 not widely accepted as reliable.

The pragmatic criterion of workability has been used

with great caution, both because of disagreement among pragmatists over the meaning of "practicality" and " w o r k a b i l i t y , a n d because

1. 2. 3. 4.

5.

Edited by Dagobert D. Runes, New York: Philosophical Library and Alliance Book Corporation, 1942, pp. 321-322. Edited by Vergilius Perm. New York: The Philosophical Library, 1945, p. 796. The Rev. J. Charles Pelon; Professor J. Knox Coit, Jr.; and Miss Mary Elizabeth Fowler. Horne, An Idealistic Philosophy of Education, p. 141, and "Three Competing Philosophies of Education," The Educa­ tional F o r u m , IX (January, 1945), p. 138. CfTTPhe Philosophy of Education, p. 454. See !Edgar shefField Brlghtman, A Philosophy of Religion, p. 128.

of the danger of personal bias in the application of the c r i t e r i o n to a particular problem*

The criteria of self-consistency and

harmony with the known facts of experience have been applied to all the aspects of Horne's philosophy of religion* Before a comparative study of the scope of Horne's p h i l o s ­ ophy of religion could be made, suitable bases had to be d e t e r ­ mined for the selection of authors and works dealing w i t h the problems of the philosophy of religion.

The writer adopted the

following criteria for the selection of authors:

First, the

authors chosen should be American Protestants contemporary w i t h Horne, to insure a cultural background comparable to H o m e ' s . Second, they should be professors in recognized colleges, u n i ­ versities, or theological seminaries, to insure a high standard of scholarship.

Third, they should have published works in the

field of the philosophy of religion*

Fourth, to insure a

variety of emphasis and a breadth of scope, there should be a distribution of authors among the major philosophic schools, suoh as Idealism, realism, neodrthodoxy, and non-thelstlc humanism*

The criterion which the writer used for the choioe

of books is that they deal with the problems of the philosophy of religion comprehensively, as texts, or at least with a m a j o r aspect of these problems.

After consulting bibliographies and

library card catalogs and examining tables of contents, the investigator has selected the following authors a n d works a c c o r d ­ ing to the criteria given: Edward Scribner Ames (University of Chicago; N o n The is tic Humanist), Religion, seoond edition* New xork: H. Holt and company, September, 1930. Edgar Sheffield Brightman (Boston University; Personal Idealist), A Philosophy of Religion* New xork: Pr ent ice -Sail, IncT, 1950.

10 Vergilius F e r m (College of Wooster; Realist), First Chapters in Religious Philosophy. New lork: Kotina Table Pres 1, _Tnc77"T53V. A. Campbell Garnett (University of Wisconsin; Realist), A Realistic Philosophy of Religion. Chicago: Willett, Clark & Company, 1942? William Ernest Hoclcing (Harvard University; basically Idealist), Human Nature and Its Remaking. New printing with additions, New Haven: fale University P res 3 , 1923. ________

Experience.

, The Meaning of God in Human New Haven: faia Universit'yTress, 1912.

Albert Cornelius Knudson (Boston University; Idealist), The Philosophy of Personalism. New fork: The SHTngdon T ress ,1 927 :--------Eugene William Lyman (Union Theological Seminary; Realist), The Meaning and Truth of Religion. New fork: Charles Scribner's Sons, TU33. Douglas Clyde Macintosh (fale University; Realist), The Problem of Religious Knowledge. New xork: Harper a n d B r o t h e r s ^ 1940• Warren Nelson Nevius (Wilson College; Idealist) Religion as Experience and Truth. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1941. Reinhold Niebuhr (Union Theological Seminary; Neotrthodox), The Nature and Destiny of Man (Gifford Lectures, 19 3 9 T . 2 v o l s • New xorlc: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1941, 1943. Josiah Royce (Harvard University; Idealist), The Sources of Religious Insight. New xork: Charles Scribner *s ~ ■Sons, 1912. New xorlc:

, The World and the Individual. 2 vols. The Macmillan Company, 1900, 1901.

Henry Nelson WIeman (University of Chicago; NonTheistic Humanist), The Source of Human Good. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press-, 1946. The final task has been to compare the scope of Horne’s philosophy of religion with that of the volumes selected above in order to discover the major emphases and deficiencies in Horne's treatment of this subject.

CHAPTER II A SKETCH OF HORNE *S LIFE Although an account of Horne’s life Is not a necessary part of an exposition and criticism of his philosophy of religion, a biographical sketoh is Included here for two reasons•

First,

little has been published about his life; and second, his life inevitably influenced his philosophy of religion.

In this sketoh

the facts of Horne’s life and work are given, with emphasis on those contributing to his religious development. been made at detailed psychological analysis.

No effort has

Data h a v e been

selected from H o m e ’s own writings and from what others have written about him.*

Horne’s relatives and close friends have

been consulted in person and by correspondence.

Material about

which there has been some doubt has been carefully weighed and, for the most part, omitted. Background Herman Harrell Horne, the only son of Hardee and Ida Carol­ ine Horne, was born on November 22, 1874 at Clayton, N o r t h Carol­ ina.

His father’s family was of Scottish ancestry.

His father,

the youngest of eight children, ran away from home at the age of

1.

Including sources footnoted In this chapter, and accounts of his life and work In W h o ’s W h o in America; in New York newspapers for August- 17, (the d a y after his death); in The Newsletter, Kappa Delta PI, N e w Y o r k University .“ Spring, 194 7; In The Biblical Seminary Bulletin, XV, No. 1 (Fall, 19ltT,"pp. S, 4 ? T n Th e Universlty of North Carolina Alumni Review, (April, 1942 and October, 1946); in the~kelXenian, T895 (University of North Carolina student annual)• Also, H o r n e ’s a c a ­ demic record at the University of North Carolina was consulted.

11

12 fifteen to 3oin the Confederate army, and was taken prisoner sometime during the "War "between the States." Hardee after a favorite Southern general.

He named himself

Only Hardee and one

or two of his brothers returned from the war, to find that their c ’ father*s land have been devastated by the fighting. Herman Home

often told intimates how his grandfather divided his land

a m o n g his sons,

saying that all he had for them was a few aores

of poor land; so it was either "root hog or die."

As a yonng

oouple Herman Horne*s parents struggled against poverty, but Hardee was a thrifty farmer and eventually made a good living f r o m his share of the land.

The family was quite comfortable

later in life. Herman Horne*s mother was the daughter of a Baptist preaoher of English descent, the Reverend william Bernard Harrell, and A n n Judson Battle

of Pre n o h lineage, a talented woman with

considerable dramatic ability.

Harrell held a medical degree

f r o m the University of Maryland, but preferred evangelistio w o r k and teaching to the practice of medicine. eleven children. tive imagination.

The Harrells had

Ida Caroline was gently rearedy and had a sensi­ After her marriage, she wrote verses at the

suggestion of friends.

They first appeared in various north

Carolina papers under the pen-name, Carine, and later under her own name,

Ida Caroline Harrell Home, were collected and edited

1 b y h e r son as Simple Southern Songs

2 and Songs of Sentiment.

The v erses in these volumes are, true to the titles, simple and

1. 2.

Privately printed in Hew York, 1916. Pp. 198. H e w York: The Heale Publishing Company, 1917. Pp. 155.

13 sentimental? many of them Indicate a deep religious faith*

A

third book, Romantic Ramb l e s ,3. is a compilation of her letters •written to the Clayton News during her eight months abroad In 1924 to 1925 with her son and his family* Early Life xoung Herman received his early education from his mother and from the public schools In Clayton* the greatest Influences in his life.

His mother was one of

The family was devoutly

Baptist, and at the age of twelve Herman joined the local Baptist church.

In a Thanksgiving verse that was probably biographical,

for It was written on November 15th, 1886, a week before her son*s twelfth birthday, Mrs* Horne told about her prayers for her son and about his self-dedication to God.2 At the age of fourteen he went to Davis Military Academy,3 which was first located at La Grange, North Carolina, and later moved to Winston-Salem*

The rigorous training he received there

in the form of such habits as early rising and doing his duty thoroughly, and the respect for authority which was demanded stayed with h i m throughout life.

At Davis he was made captain

of Company A, the school*s highest honor*

He was graduated

three years later with the rank of second lieutenant. University Education In the fall of 1891 he matriculated at the University of

1. 2. 3.

Also edited b y Herman Harrell Horne* Raleigh: Edwards & Broughton Company, 1926, pp. v / 165. Simple Southern S o n g s . p. 56. This is the age w h i c h accords best with the other dates of his life, although ages ranging from nine to four­ teen have been given b y relatives. Records cannot be checked, as the school is no longer In existence*

14 North Carolina.

There he studied mathematics, science, history,

psychology, philosophical subjects, and the history of education, and specialized In ancient and modern languages.

Sixty-five of

h i s seventy-four grades were itoat would now he known as A.

He

received Sophomore and Junior honors, and medals in debating and oratory.

The fact that in his senior year he was president

of the honor society whloh later became the local chapter of Phi Beta Kappa indicates his academic standing, for according to the by-laws of the society, the president was automatically the senior w i t h the highest academic average.

In four years at

the university he earned both the Bachelor of Arts degree (Summa cum Laude) and the Master of Arts degree, finishing in 1895.

F r o m 1894 to 1896 he assisted there in the Department of

Modern Languages, serving as Instructor in French.

This was h i s

first experience as a teacher. H o r n e ’s extracurricular activities are worthy of note. Though maintaining membership in the Clayton church, he served as superintendent of a Baptist Sunday School in Chapel H i l l and often did substitute preaching.

He would drive to outlying

churches in a buggy drawn by a mule.

During the summers h e

w orked in his bachelor uncle’s large country store— Sam H o r n e ’s Store— at Morrisville.

He was good at practical arithmetic.

At the University of North Carolina, Horne was influenced b y the Zde&llsm of his philosophy professor, Horace Williams.^One finds later in Horne’s writing and teaching some of the same emphases that were characteristic of Williams’ teaching:

1.

Horne. "Valedictory,” Sohool and Society, LVI (August 29. 1942), p. 154.

15 emphases, for Instance, on the principle of unity in variety, the pre-eminence of Spirit, the effectiveness of the dialectic method, the compatibility of faith and reason, and loyalty to truth, goodness, and beauty. It was Williams who encouraged him to go to Harvard for further graduate study.

Because his mother wanted him to become

a minister, Horne took a preministerial course there.

The course

Included Hebrew and Greek, both of Which Horne learned to read fluently.

However, his own major Interest at Harvard was philos­

ophy, and he studied philosophy under Palmer, Royoe, James, Santayana, and Hdnsterberg.

In 1897 he received his A. M. degree

from Harvard, and two years later, his Ph. D.

He spent three

y e a r s 1 study on his doctoral thesis, "The History and Philosophy of the Problem of Sin."

William James and Josiah Royce were two

of the three members of Horne*s committee who signed their approv­ al of the thesis on June 1, 1899.

Horne acknowledged his intel­

lectual debt to the Idealist, Royce, In particular; Royce probab­ l y Influenced his thinking more than any other single philosopher. At Harvard, considerable of Horne’s expenses were covered by tutoring and other work.

He felt the condescending attitude

of the wealthy students toward the students who had to work. Since there was no Baptist church in Cambridge, he attended a Congregational church while he was there. Teaching Career and Family Life In the fall of 1899, he joined the faculty of Dartmouth

1.

Robert Watson Winston, Horace Williams, Gadfly of Chapel H i l l . Chapel Hill: ~Th'e"Tbiversity oFTJorthUarolina Press, 1942. Pp. 119, 126, 134, 135, 140, 145, et passim.

16 College as an Instructor in philosophy.

Believing that a teacher

should become part of the community, he u n i t e d w i t h a local Congregational church, there being no Baptist c h u r c h in Hanover. A year later he became Assistant Professor of Philos o p h y and Pedagogy at Dartmouth, and served In that capacity for five years.

Prom 1905 to 1909 he was Professor of Ph i l o s o p h y there.

Horne married Alice Elizabeth Herbert Worthington, of Wilson, North Carolina on August 29, 1901 in the M i s s i o n a r y Baptist Church in Wilson.

Miss Worthington, of aristocratic Southern lineage,

was a young music teacher whom he had met ten years before*

A

graduate of Chowan College (Murfreesboro, N. C.) in the field of music, she was well-educated, artistically talented, a n d actively interested in the work of the church. by Horne's mother.

The m a t c h w a s encouraged

He and Bessie, as his wife was called, had

four children, Julia, Betsy, William, and Ida. reared as an only child himself

He h a d been

and considered it a "calamity”

to have an only child and a "worse calamity" to be one.® In 1909 Horne took a year's leave of absence f r o m Dartmouth for study at the University of Berlin.

There h e was introduced

to a number of different schools of philosophy, a n d at the same time his knowledge of Idealism was increased.

A b r a h a m Flexner,

the social psychologist, was a fellow-student and a friend there. One of his professors was Earl Stumpf.

The Ho r n e s went to Berlin

with two small children, and there the son was b o r n * duties undoubtedly Interfered somewhat w i t h study.

1. 2.

Family Later Horne

His sister, Bessie, died in Infancy. Horne, "A Parent's Philosophy of Life, One of F o u r Radio Talks, I. Expecting the First B o r n , ” p. 3. Reprint from New xork University Alumnus, March, 1924. The word 1Tcalamityr is modified to ’‘h a n d i c a p " in Jesus as a Philosopher, p. 206.

17 told a colleague that his Berlin landlady, seeing him wheeling the perambulator, doubted that he was a professor in America. Surely that sort of thing was beneath professors I

His landlady

and other Germans he met were not only class-conscious, but also very anti-Semitic, and he was surprised that anti-Semitism did not boil over before Hitler's time. More than two-thirds of Horne's teaching career was spent at H e w York University.

In 1909 he began teaching there as

Professor of the Philosophy of Education in the School of Pedagogy and the Graduate School.

When the School of pedagogy became the

School of Education in 1922, Horne severed his association with the graduate school and became Professor of the History of Educa­ tion and the Philosophy of Education in the School of Education. He served as chairman of both departments until his retirement in 1942.

In the year of his retirement he recalled his try-out

lecture thirty-three years before, ostensibly to Dean Balliet's class but actually to the whole School, in the large Boom 908 of the Main Building, with the presses of the American Book Company

1 rumbling two flights below. H o m e was one of the most popular teaohers at the univer­ sity.

His skill in the classroom was unparalleled.

His lectur­

ing, usually aooompanied by an outline on the blackboard behind him, was clear, logical, and epigrammatio; but his most effective teaching tool was the Socratic method.

He would stimulate the

the stndent to think independently by requiring him to organize

1.

Horne, "I Remember ,'1 Hew York university Alnmni Bulletin, VI, Ho. 2 (Winter, 194’2T7 p T U .

18 and evaluate in the form of an oral report the reading assigned; then he would test the logio ana the depth of the student’s thinking by asking him incisive questions.

He quoted freely

from the masters of education and philosophy; his own opinion he gave only when asked for it.

E v e n in his largest classes he

made it a point to know each student hy name, and to treat each one as na person in the making,

a unique self to he discovered

1 and liberated into a full life".

His timing was masterly: w h e n

the hell rang, by a deft summary or a thought-provoking question, he had reached his goal for the period.

It was his lifelong

habit to prepare for each class as though he had never taught the subject before. Louise Antz, former student, friend, and a colleague of Horne in the department of the Philosophy of Education at H e w York university, writes that his greatest influence undoubtedly came through his artistry in the classroom.

She pays tribute to

his careful lesson preparation, his Socratic craftsmanship, and his ability to bring "wit, humor, even when he was tired or ill.

and sympathy" to the discussion,

Then she adds these significant

words: Deeply religious and a confirmed idealist, pro­ fessor Horne expressed his own views in his many writings. But in the classroom his devotion was to the intellectual life itself, and he believed his best service to philosophy, to religion, and to education was in helping students uncover their own presuppositions and in leading them to the widest philosophic horizons of which they them­ selves were capable. Intensely practioal, he

1.

J. Donald Butler, "Herman Harrell Horne, 1874-1946: Scholar, Teacher. Man of Faith." School and society, LXIY (October 19, 1946), pp. 273, 274.

19 never encouraged the learner’s remaining too long in the realm of the abstract bat insisted on his thinking throagh the possible implications for life and education of any theoretical positions he might be studying.^ There is an illuminating paragraph in H o r n e ’s article,

2 ’’Again the Hew Education,”

in which, having described and

evaluated the new education, he compared his own teaching with its method and spirit.

He estimated that his own work was

about fifty percent in harmony with the new education.

He

feared that in his own teaching there was much formal instraotion unrelated to any sense of need, and admitted that some of the study was motivated extrinsically, by grades.

He described him.

self as ’’certainly something more (or less) than the guide of p u p i l ’s activities, unless 'activities’ be construed as mental

3 as well as manual".

He did not apologize for the fact that

some effort was not based on interest, believing that texts with a logical arrangement were justified, and that so was some ooer4 cion in requiring "themes, theses, examinations, and attendance." In short, in Horne's teaching the old doctrine of effort was com­ bined with the new dootrine of interest. He was interested in every educational method that would enable more people to live a richer life.

In 1923, under the

auspioes of the Hew York University School of the Air, he was the first professor to broadcast a classroom lecture by radio.

1. 2.

3. 4.

Louise Antz. memorial notice, Proceedings and AddresseB of The American Philosophical Association, XTTr^f5^l947), p. 543. H o m e . "Again the Hew Education," Educational Beview, LXIV (February, 1928), p. 98.

Loo. oit. Uoo. oTI?.

to When radio was still in Its infancy, he had great faith in its future for education and predicted that eventually students v/oold he able both to hear and to see their teacher although they were not in the room with him.

Radio was to Horne, among other

things, a "prophecy of universal knowledge," a "herald of social progress," and a tie binding together "the citizens of the Ameri-

1 oan Republio and the nations of our little earth." many radio addresses, form*

He delivered

some of which were later published in book

In one address, he tells of receiving one hundred and five

2 letters that day from his radio listeners. When he took up his duties at Hew York university, Horne and his family moved to Leonia, Hew Jersey, where they purchased a house.

He joined the Presbyterian Church in Leonia, and remained

an aotive member until death.

Although he left the Baptist d e ­

nomination for geographic and not for theological reasons,

it is

true that he did not approve the conservative Baptist practice of dosed communion or hold that immersion is the only effective f o r m of baptism.

He said that he had chosen to join the Presby t e r i a n

Churoh because he felt most at home there and believed that he oould best make his own contribution through it.

On the whole,

he found Presbyterian ministers better educated, more intellectual, and more liberal in outlook than the Baptist pastors he had known. It must be noted here that he was critioal of claims to final truth made by any institution, religious or otherwise,

perhaps

because of the combination of his early religious training and

1. 2.

Horne, Jesus as a Philosopher, p. 187. Horne. ^Success Tor My flhild," The Colgate Clook, (published by Colgate & Co., Jersey City, H. J. j , April, 1924, p. 8.

his later education, Horne held both fundamental and liberal theological beliefs, whether consistently or not* Horne believed in b o t h the individual and the sooial gospel, even as he believed in both the first and the second commandment of love to God and love to man.

For him, sonship to God meant

citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.

Accordingly, by

making an addition to the Apostle's Creed, he would have had the third paragraph of it read: "I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the coming of the kingdom; the resurrection of the body; ancT"the li'fe everlasting ."1 A s the heavenly Kingdom is without national boundaries, Horne would introduce an international note into the patriotic anthem, "America," by adding the following new stanza which he himself wrote: Father of every r a c e , l?iver of~~every grace, gear as we p r a y : Let every land be free H S y a n men brolEers b ft°w and~for a y e .2 Because of his family of four ohildren, Horne did not serve with the armed forces during the First world War; but he would have been called if there had been one more draft.

Horne

was a Pacifist at heart; however, when the First world War broke out, he concluded, after an internal struggle, that

1. a

Home, -TK* a

The philosophy of Christian Eduoation, pp. 101, 102.

sr ■ t m r—

•

*• —

-----

■

..■ —

■■-

■—

22 Christian young men had no choice but to fight for God and country.

In regard fco the second war, he considered the Nazi

Ideology ridiculous in Itself and fighting it necessary only because of the great mechanized army behind it.1

In h i s last

years particularly, he was deeply concerned about world con­ ditions.

He realized that a third world war, if it came, would

necessarily be an atomic war. As a child, like other Southerners, Horne had played with both Hegro and shite children.

In his later years he was con­

cerned about the problem of race relations in this country, especially about cruelties to Hegroes In the South.

In his

personal relationships he contributed toward better understand­ ing between the races. Horne's children and friends tell of the cultural heritage passed on from parents to children in the home in Leonia.

The

Hornes enjoyed relaxing to classical, and particularly t o operatic music played on the Viotrola.

Horne played the recorder well and

for a time took up the flute.

His wife sang and played the piano,

and the children played various musical instruments. were encouraged to perform in public. did a dance for friends in the evening.

T h e children

Julia and Ida sometimes Occasionally after sup­

per H o m e would read one of his new manuscripts to the family for their criticism.

Grace was said or a hymn sung at meals, and

prayers were said at bedtime.

The parents attended ch u r c h

faithfully every Sunday, Mr3. Horne until illness prevented.

1.

Horne, "The Crazy Ideas We Fight," The International Committee of xoung Hen's Christian Associations, copyright 1943, p. 3.

23 T h o u g h church attendance iras not compulsory for the children, S unday School was.

Card playing, gambling, jazz, and cheap

literature wore not permitted in the home.

The parents ab­

stained from tobacco and alcoholic beverages; in fact, Horne even avoided coffee and tea, Horne was ambitious for his children and reared them as individualists.

T h e y were encouraged to discover their own

talents, determine their own values, and make their own de­ cisions, with a certain amount of parental guidance,

Julia (now

known as Eve Tellegen) went into dramatics professionally; Betsy became a college teacher of modern languages; William took his Ph. D. In chemistry and became a research chemist; Ida received an M.A. from New xork University in philosophy and studied philosophy for two years in Germany. Among Horne*s practical virtues were careful planning, thrift, Industry, and punctuality.

He was always living today

for tomorrow; he planned in advance for his trip to Europe, his retirement, and his death. w h e n times were hard.

Thriftiness stood him In good stead

He believed in saving money against the

p roverbial r a i n y day, and spent it willingly only on cultural and educational advantages, and on friends who were in need.

The

f a m i l y did not t r y to keep pace with the community materially. F o r Instance, they d i d not own a car.

Horne worked hard, rising

at f ive-thirty to do writing before breakfast. punctual, neither e a r l y nor late.

He was always

After he was emeritus, he

t o l d on himself this amusing story, entitled **A Professor's Nightmare": I a m due to get examination papers from the office for a nine-o'clock exercise. I start out in ample time

24 bat somehow I cannot find the office* New buildings have been erected* The buildings of my old college cam&us get confused with those of the present insti­ tution* People are unable to direct me. The harder I try to reach the office the more remote it seems. I find myself climbing, or rather sliding, down a tall tree* Time is getting shorter and shorter. X may be late. Hurrying is vain. It is already 9:05. I go into a panic— and awake. Despite this nightmare, I was never actually late at an examination, and it has been more than three years since I last called for examination papers *1 In addition to music, Horne had other recreations*

He

could quote page after page of Shakespeare and other poets, both classical and modern. calls*

He was a lover of nature, and knew bird

Gardening was one of his avocations.

Because of his

smooth muscular coordination, it was a pleasure to watch him golf, swim, paddle a canoe, or to observe his exceptional skill on the tennis court* In September, 1924, with his mother, his wife, and all of the children except Julia, he left for the European tour which has already been mentioned*

During their eight months in Scot­

land, England, France, and Italy he was family bursar, guide, and interpreter*

In addition to making the usual tourist round

of cathedrals, museums, art galleries, and places of historical interest, the family visited more than a dozen universities and heard lectures at the University of London and the Sorbonne* Horne thought the lecture method u s e d b y European universities was not comparable to the democratic discussion method*2

Busy

as the Hornes were, they took time t o lay flowers on the tombs of such great philosophers of the past as Abelard (in the Pere

1* 2*

School and Society, LXIII (March 23, 1946), p* 212* Sortie, bur Sabbatical xear 1924-1925.” New iork University Alumnus, December 2, 1925, pp. 9, 10.

26 1 Lachaise) and John Stuart Mill (in Avignon).

In Mrs. H o r n e ’s

letters there are evidences of her son’s kindliness and generosity. There w a s "something about him” whioh led oonfused tourists of various races--and even some natives— to ask for his assistance; and he never failed them, for he always carried guide hooks and

£ maps. One of Horne's great ideals was physical health, and he care­ fully guarded his own health and that of his family.

Though for

most of his life his physioal oondition was excellent, in later years his many family and professional responsibilities led to in­ creasing weariness and nervous tension.

A serious thyroid condition

developed, and in the fall of 1938 he underwent a thyroidectomy. A l t hough his illness was critical, he recovered fully, except that his heart had been permanently weakened.

He had a leave of absenoe

f r o m H e w York University from February, 1938 to June, 1939; but it is a n indication of his conscientiousness that he did not retire until he had given the university a year and a half beyond the expected retirement date, in order to make up for his absence. A fter a long illness, his wife died in 1934 of pneumonia. T en years later, on Easter Sunday, he married Mrs. Mary Dowell Williamson, a nurse who, years before, had been a student of his. They first met at a Missionary Education Movement Conference at Blue Ridge, North Carolina in the summer of 1920. Dowell,

There M i s s

a graduate of Richmond College, was so well impressed b y

h i s teaching that she enrolled at New York university for the winter of 1920-1921 in order to study under him.

1• 2.

Ida Caroline Harrell H o m e , Romantio Rambles, p p . 51, 100• I b i d . , p. 56.

26 On the evening of August 6 , 1946, H o m e suffered a heart attack.

It had long been his hope that his mind would remain

olear as long as he lived.

This hope was well-nigh fulfilled,

for in spite of severe suffering he did not lose his mental keenness, or even, for long, his sense of humor, until he lost oonsoiousness on August 15. in Leonia.

He died the next day in his home

The funeral service was held at the Presbyterian

Church there, and burial took place in the family plot in Clay­ ton. Significant contributions Luring his teaohing career, which spanned forty-eight years in three universities. H o m e

taught more than 10,000 students

and sponsored more than fifty doctoral candidates.

Among his

students were Harry Yfoodburn Chase, later chancellor of Hew York University; Edmund Ezra Day, later president of Cornell Univer­ sity; and Frank Porter Graham, later president of the university of north Carolina, and now United States senator. He wrote twenty books, some of which are listed in Who's Who in America, and numerous articles for such magazines as School and Society. Education, The Educational Forum. The Philosophical H e v i e w . The International Journal of Religious Education, and The Methodist Review.

His most scholarly books

are in the fields of philosophy and the philosophy, history, and psychology of education, though he wrote popular books in the religious field also.

His best-known work, The Democratic

Philosophy of E d u c a t i o n , is an excellent section-by-section ex­ position and critiq.ua, from the idealistic point of view, of John Dewey's pragmatic Democracy and Education.

More than 30,000

27 oopies of this textbook have been sold, and it has b e e n trans­ lated into several foreign languages.

Home

has a b l y presented

the idealistio position in eduoation in The p h i l o s o p h y of Eduoation. Idealism in Education. The Psyohologioal Prinoipl e s of Eduoation. This Hew Eduoation; and in "An Idealistio philosophy of Eduoation” (The Forty-first Yearbook of the n a t i o n a l Society for the Study of Eduoation. Part I, P h i l o sophies of Education, pp. 139-195).

His major work on educational m e t h o d o l o g y is

Jesus, the Master leaoher.

In the field of general philosophy

H o m e has written Free Will and Human R e s p o n s i b i l i t y and also Philosophy for Beginners, not yet published.

His b o o k s on

religion include The Philosophy of Christian E d n o a t i o n , Jesus— Our Standard. Christ in Man-Making. and Modern p r o b l e m s as Jesus Saw Them, the last of whioh he planned to revise in the light of the Second World War, but was prevented by death. Throughout his years of teaching H o m e

was m u o h in demand

as speaker, leoturer, and short-term teacher.

He taught in the

summer schools of Harvard, the University of n o r t h Carolina, Columbia, the University of California,

and several other schools.

At Southern Baptist Theological Seminary he was H o r t o n Leoturer in 1923; at Hartford Theological Foundation,

C a r e w Lecturer in

1935; at Union Theological Seminary (in Virginia),

James Sprunt

Leoturer in 1937; and at Ohio Wesleyan university, McDo w e l l Lec­ turer in 1943.

He taught at The Biblical Semi n a r y in H e w York

at various times during the period, 1923-1944,

and for awhile

was a member of its board of trustees. H o m e held honorary LL. D. degrees f r o m W a k e Forest College (Horth Carolina), Muhlenburg College ( P e n n s y l v a n i a ) , the univer­ sity of Borth Carolina, and Hew York university.

He was a

28 fellow of the Society for the Advancement of Education and of the American Association for the Advancement of science.

His

other memberships included the American Philosophical Associa­ tion. the Religious Eduoation Association, the American Acaemy of Political and Social Science, the society of college Teachers of Education, the Philosophy of Education Society, Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Delta Kappa, Kappa Delta Pi, Authors (Hew York), and Scholia. What factors in Horne's life made him the man he was?

At

the risk of oversimplification, he wrote that five great ideals

1 were largely responsible.

The first and greatest ideal was

the Christianity of his mother, who lived the Christian life before her neighbors, and who would say, "'Son, do right because

2 it is r i g h t T h e

second, which he found at the university of

Horth Carolina, was the code of honor of the Southern gentleman, a heritage of the ante-bellum aristocracy.

The third was the

independence of the soholar, an ideal whioh came to him at Harvard and in study abroad. hood,

The fourth was the ideal of man­

stressed at Dartmouth when he taught there.

The ideal of

cosmopolitanism, the fifth ideal, came through his thirty-three years of teaching at Hew York University.

In his teaching, his

writing, and his friendships, Horne proved himself to be a loyal Christian, a thorough gentleman, a sound scholar, a man of self-reliance and efficiency, a citizen of the world. One of the finest tributes yet paid to Horne was a

1. 2.

Horne, The Philosophy of Christian Education, op. 13-15. Ibid., p T “13:-------------------------------- -

29 memorial written by Samuel

1. Hamilton and read by Him at the

Hew York University faculty mee t i n g on December 16, 1946*

It

was signed by Samuel L. Hamilton, Louise Antz, and Adolph E. Meyer, three of Horne’s f e l l o w faculty members who had once been his students* He had our respect without ever demanding it*.,. . He was calm and poised, not because he was cold and indifferent, but rather because of the depth of his spiritual reserves and because his quick vitality and lively imagination were under the control of a disciplined intellect* His courtesy was that of the genial, gracious "gentleman of the old school". He never had to assert his personal dignity, nor .to stand upon it, but no one ever dreamed of transgres­ sing it* In class, on the platform, in the chair at a meeting, or at a university dinner we enjoyed his sallies of wit and humor w h i c h were always "with malioe toward none". He laughed with us, but his reverenoe for personality m a d e us sure he was not laughing at us. He was interested in all sorts and conditions o? men, women, and children, but he never gossiped about anybody* What a joy it was to us who studied under him to w a t c h his craftsmanship in the class­ room - as he drew out the shy student, rephrased the "contribution" of an earnest but inarticulate student and made what he said seem w o r t h while; and b y his skillful but kindly dialectic left the superficial student self-convicted of ignorance or lack of p r e p ­ aration. He was w a r m l y sympathetic, rejoicing w i t h those who rejoiced and weeping with those who wept* He praised our successes and regarded our failures with charity. He was extraordinarily loyal. Mien once he had given allegiance to a person, an institu­ tion, or a movement he did not lightly withdraw it* We who worked olo s e l y w i t h h i m could not fail to disoover that his supreme loyalty was to truth, beauty, goodness and holiness* All his qualities seemed but the outward expression of a deep religious faith in Sod and in his f e l l o w - m e n .1

1.

Eaoulty Minutes, School of Education, Hew York University, December 16, 1946* Mimeographed only. Much of this tribute was adapted f r o m an earlier document writte n b y Professor Hamilton, signed b y h i m and by thirty-seven other ministers who had b e e n Dr* H o m e ' s students, and presented to Dr. Horne at a dinner in his honor in H e w York on Hovember 2, 1942*

CHAPTER III AH INTEODUCTIOH TO HORNE’S PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION A sketoh of H o r n e ’s life and work has "been given, with emphasis on the faotors which throw light on his religious philosophy.

The present chapter is a further introduction to

his philosophy of religion: it discovers his own use of the terms involved and gives brief characterizations of his philos­ ophy and his religion. H o m e ’b Use of the Terms Philosophy and Religion "Science is concerned with what we know,

or may know;

philosophy with what we may reasonably think; and religion with what we do as an expression of our need and our f a i t h . s o H o m e differentiates between three of the major areas of human investigation.

Let us examine further the distinctions which

Horne makes between the fields of philosophy and religion and other related fields. Philosophy and Science Science is descriptive; philosophy is speculative.

"Phil­

osophy evaluates the assumptions, and interprets the findings, o of science.” The field of science ends with knowledge, which is proved to be fact by the method of experimentation, or with hypothesis and theory,

in the absence of complete proof.

When

a theory becomes a doctrine, without becoming a fact, science

1. 2.

Horne, Christ in Man-Making, p. IS. H o m e , fflie democratic Philosophy of Education, p. 488.

30

hands tho reins to philosophy.

As an example of a theory w h i c h

has heoome a dootrine, H o m e oites the theory of evolution. Since the scientist can never know all that there is to know, the philosopher will always have the task of synthesizing and reflecting on the known.

This does not mean that the

philosopher, w i t h hi3 "improvable speculations," is free to

1 trespass

on the territory of the soientist,

.

or that the problems

2 of humanity can be solved without the aid of the scientist.

It

does mean that science alone is insufficient. "Philosophy gives as the ends of living, science the means 3 for their realization." Science lacks the power to determine the purposes of life.

Why?

As Horne writes, "The reason is

that there is no ought in the vocabulary of science; only is, was, or will b e , in a universe of law, force, and matter."

He

oontinaes, "When we determine our ends, we call upon our p h i l o s ­ ophy.

And our ends determine our means. • • It is impractical 4 to be only practical, to be devoted only to means." The Task of philosophy The task of philosophy in relation to science has already been shown.

Because of its concern with the purposes of living, 5 "philosophy has been called the pilot of life." Plato d e ­ scribed the philosopher as the synoptic man.

poll owing the

famed words of Matthew Arnold, H o m e adds that the p h i l o s o p h e r ’s

6 business is "to see reality steadily and to see it w h o l e •"

1. 2. 3.

H o m e , This Hew Education, p. 153. Home, Idealistio Philosophy of Education," The K a d e l p i a n Review, 211 (November, 1932), p. 6 . Loo. Clt. ..

32 In other •words, the philosopher seeks to find "the nature and meaning of the whole

(world, view or w e l t a n s h a u u n g ) S o m e

basic problems faced b y the philosopher are "how the reality we know came to b e so well ordered, what we can know, how we g can know it, and what may we hope.” Among the other questions the philosopher seeks to answer, besides the above questions of cosmology,

ontology,

epistemology, and eschatology, are: What

is beauty?

(aesthetics) and What is goodness? (ethics).

_

tZ jhe

fact that the philosophical quest is largely intelleotual is indicated in Horne* s most dramatic definition of philosophy: "Philosophy is the mind of man wrestling with the universe."^ To discover the nature of reality, the philosopher depends on the findings of the sciences and on "his own best thinking."® He also depends on what he knows of the whole of man’s experience. Pacts and experience are the data of philosophy; thought is its instrument.

"Philosophy has no new facts of its own to consider,

it has only to oonsider the old facts in its own new way.

Given

such fragments of experience a s men possess, to restore the whole,

that is the problem of philosophy ."6 philosophy asks,

"What must the final truth be in order to do justice to this fragmentary bit of experience as n o w known?"^

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

H o m e , "An Idealistio Philosophy of Education." The ffortypirst Yearbook of the National Society for the~g‘tudy of S S u o a ti'o'n ," T 5£ 3T ~ Sart'"i; P."'1*^----------------Horne, This Hew E d u o a t i o n . p. 153. Horne, "An Idealistio philosophy of Education," The PortyPirst Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of llduoation, i 9 4 2 • Part T, p. 14(37 Ibid. , p. 139 S o m e , This Hew Eduoation. p. 153. Horne, The PFIToso'p'hy c£ feduoation. p. 257. Loo. o i t V

33 H o m e maintains that no value-experience that is real to the majority of men con rightly he excluded f r o m the province of one's philosophy, regardless of one's personal v i e w of the matter.-*-

For example, he criticizes Dewey for omitting impor­

tant elements from his philosophy of education.

"Dewey's

philosophy of education," he says, "relates man to his fellows hat in no ultimate way either to the cosmic process, a s dis­ cussed in cosmology, or to God, as discussed in ontology ."2 Philosophy and Religion "That part of philosophy which treats of things divine" Horne terms theology,3 though it is usually called the philos­ ophy of religion.

He does not make the

usual distinction

between the two terms.^ H o m e makes the following distinction between philosophy and religion in general:

philosophy "is, or ought to be, the

intellectual interpretation of life ,"6 while religion is " the aense of ideal human values as d i v i n e This statement and the first sentenoe in this main section 7 indicate that, to Horne, philosophy is primarily a matter of the intellect, while religion requires the will and the emotions as 'veil as the

1. 2. 3.

6. 6. 7.

H o m e , This New Eduoation, p. 103. Of. Horne, The psycho­ logical Prinoiples of Educatioxu" p. SO. Ho m e 7 Je sub as a Philo sopher. p . 159. Of.Horne, This Hew gduoatron. pp. 1027 103. Horne, Free Will and Human Responsibility, p. 8 . TiTa Caroline Harrell H o m e , Simple Southern Songs, intro­ duction (by H. H..H o m e ) , p v '£'• H o m e , Jesus— Our Standard, p. 42. Of. ante, p.30."

34 intelleot •

Furthermore, religion is necessarily oonoerned

with the human in relation to the divine, while philosophy is not necessarily so* Which, then, should take preoedenoe, philosophy or religion? Should reason determine faith or faith determine what is reason­ able?

H o m e favors neither "blind credulity" nor what may be - 1 "equally blind faithlessness." He holds that it is right to

believe only what the reason sanctions, and to revise belief in the light of new knowledge*

He also holds that it 1b

necessary to believe what is reasonable and what is supported b y the experience of the race, even though such belief cannot be proved to b e valid; for to live, one must aot, and action implies belief*

Home

calls philosophy "the sister of faith. 2 PHILOSOPHIA GEBMAHA FIDE I." The Hature and Importance of Religion Home

holds that by nature man is "as truly religious as 3 he is intellectual, or emotional, or volitional, or social." He refers to Sabatier's statement that man is "incurably

4 religious."

Religion, Horne believes, "is one of the inalien­

able attributes of the human spirit, a universal phenomenon of 5 man." What then is religion?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5*

It is "the life of God in the soul

H o m e , "How I b Faith Related to philosophy?" unpublished ms*, .p* 7. See Appendix B. Ibid., p. 9; Appendix B. H o m e , The psychological principles of Education; A Study in the Science of mucation, p. 343. IbicTTT p.'Iff:--------------I b i d * , p. 363.

35 1 of man, a real, present, living foroe."

It is, in other

words, "the response of man as a unit to divinity. • • Man's religion is his thought about God, his feeling toward God, and

2 his conduct in relationship to God."

H o m e continues:

Man's thought about God is responsible for mythologies, cosmologies, faith, doctrine, creed, belief, eto.; his feeling toward God is respon­ sible for his experiences of fear, awe, dependence, reverence, trust, humility, love, etc.; and his conduct in relationship to God is responsible for his ritual, ceremonies, sacrifices, and such action as his religion sanctions. Thus religion is not reducible to one of the elements of human nature as its basis, but writes itself large upon human life in its integrity.® 4 Religion is "the natural blossoming of human nature.” Though it is not reducible to a single aspect of human nature, 5 it is "the most important element in human life." it achieves this importance because it brings man into relationship with

6 God, "the most real Being."

It is "the total integration of^

life, or, the integration of life w i t h the whole Theethical is a n important aspect, b u t

of Reality."

only one of the

aspects

8 of life with which religion is o o n o e m e d . Religion is universal.

"All nations and all normal men 9

are religious, that is, are conscious of an invisible presence."

1. S.

H o m e , This New Eduoation, p. 200. H o m e , The Psychological ~pr±noiple 8of Eduoation: in fEe~Soienoe of W u o a t i o n , p.351.

3.

L ocT oU T

4.

A Study ""

Horne7 The psychological Principles of Education: A Study in tEe“ Soienoe" of Educatio'n, p. 3437 -----------------5. I b i T 7 , ~ 6 . loor oit. 7. H o m e T n i s New Education, p. 196. 8. Ibid. p -rzsr.------------9. H o m e . The Psychological Principles of Education: A Study in tFe~"S'ole'noe of Setucati o n , p .stf9. “*

J?or Horn©, God is inesoapable:

He is to be found in ©very

reoess of human nature and a like in the nearest and the remotest

1 parts of man's environment. If asked what religious people mean by the noun God or the adjective divine. H o m e would admit wide differs uses in the oontent given to these terns.

Por example, while Horae

defines religion as "the sense of ideal human values as divine," he defines Christianity as "the sense of Jesus as Divine"; for, he says, the Christian recognizes Jesus "as the embodiment of ideal humanity, . . . as God's idea of what a man ought to be,

2 and as such revealing God's own nature."

Different religions

look to different souroes of revelation, and presumably it is these whioh determine their character.

"The Brahman sees God

in everything; the Buddhists, in Buddha; the parsis, in Zoroaster the Confucianists, in Confuoius; the Mohammedan, in Mohammed; 3 the Jew in the law; end the Christian, in Jesus." Though he recognizes that there is muoh disagreement 4 about religion, H o m e himself does not hesitate to make c o n ­ fident

assertions about its nature.

In this respect Horne Is

at the opposite pole from his fellow-professor, John Dewey, who, though agreeii^ that all known peoples have had some kind of religion, holds that the differences have been so gre a t that

1. 2.

H o m e , The Psychological Principles of Education; in the’"'Science' ox Eduoa tion, p . #417 Horne.T e s u B — our Standard, pp. 42, 43.

3. 4.

H o m e , Idealism in Eduoation, p. 155.

Ibid., p. 42.

A Study

37

1 it is meaningless to speak of religion in general* In an address to a student group in International House, New York City, in 1937, H o m e deplored the faot that in the American classroom "religion is often not treated as a reality*

2 That it is passed hy;

that it is ignored*"

Students have a

right, he said, "to demand that religion "be treated with the 3 dignity to which its histoiy and its content are entitled." To the religious,

God exists, the world is God's world, the

universe is a spiritual universe*

He who, in the name of science

or philosophy, teaches that these tenets are false is saying more than he knows, giving his opinion as though it were faot, 4 and so "engaging in anti-religious propaganda*" H o m e held that for Boienoe to deny that the truth is God 1s is as arrogant 5 as it is ridiculous for religion to deny scientific truth* Religion and Eduoation Since H o m e

was primarily an educator, it would be. unfair

not to show the relationship of his views on philosophy and religion to his concept of eduoation.

One of Horne's many

definitions of eduoation is that it is "the realization of the

6 values of life, of the ends of living."

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

What these values and

John Dewey. A Common Faith, p.8 * Cf* ante, pp. 2, 3. "If I Were a^Sfudenf Again," The Korean~gWdant Bulletin, 271 (October-November, 1937)', p. B* Loo. oi t * loo. oTE* S o m e , The Psychological Principles of Education: A Study in the Science at Sduoation. p. 336. H o m e .'TjEis ilew*T5dueation, p.~~103.

38 these purposes are depends on one's philosophy a n d one's r e ­ ligion.

Philosophy Is essentially theoretical;

education Is

essentially praotioal. Another, and more popular, definition that Horne gives is the following:

“Education is adjustment.

W e shall not be far

wrong in considering true education as the process of becoming even better adjusted inwardly and outwardly, that is to say, in our relations with ourselves, w i t h our fellows, with nature, with God.”-1- H o m e lists and describes thirty-three character­ istics of the educated person.2

W i t h slight change, they could

also be given as characteristics of the truly religious person .3 The thirty-third, and most comprehensive, is this:

"He senses

his kinship with all men and with the R e a l i t y of w h i c h they are an express part. • • His adjustment In thought, feeling, action, embraces his relationship to the all of existence, and this is his religion."4

Horne would make education "the perfecting of

humanity in the image of divinity."®

Thus, for him, religion

and education are inseparable.

Horne '8 views of the nature of philosophy and religion, of their interrelationships, and of their rela t i o n t o the fields of solence and eduoation have been presented briefly.

Arguments in

favor of the study and practice of p h i l o s o p h y and of religion

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Horne, This Hew Education, p. 125. Ibid., pp. l£SPl36. flr. Horne's twenty-five tests of Christian living, Ibid., pp. 221-235. Ibid., p . 136 • Horne, Idealism in Education, p. 177; Horne, Jesus as a Philosopher, p. 162. *“

39 have appeared casually thus far in this obapter.

In Chapter

X I of This Mew Eduoation Horne marshals more formally his reasons for believirg in the validity of religion.

These

reasons will he considered now. H o m e 's Arguments for Religion Horne asks, "Why not he content, as humanists, communists, and some sixty million unchurched in our country seem to he, w i t h secularism?

Why have religion?"^

He then gives five

arguments in defense of religion, and answers five objections. His positive reasons for placing a high value on religion are as follows:

First, religion is a reality of life; it is

a n experience of the religious of all ages, and must he recog­ nized as such hy those Who are truly scientific.

Second, it is

n o t likely that religion is merely a delusion of the human race.

"Everywhere in organic or social progress," Horne argues,

"environment and function have corresponded.

There are either

vibrations for the seeing eye, food for the hungry mouth, water for the fin of the fish. . ."2

There are truth, heauty, and

goodness for the mind to know, enjoy, and will; "and is there not God for the soul to worship ?"3

Horne adds that the environ­

ment precedes the function; without it, he says, there would he no funotion.

It is the sand whleh sets the speoifications for

the c a m e l s spreading hoof, rather than the reverse.

Similarly,

it is God that mates the soul of man rather than man's soul that

1. 2.

3.

H o m e , This Mew Education, p. 196. Ibid.. p. 197; Of. H o m e , " An Idealistic Philosophy of Education." T h e Forty-First Yearbook of the National Sooiety for tEe“ Stuay of "Education. 1 9 ^ . Fa'rf "I. p|p. I60,~T51. Loc. cit.

40 makes God.

Man's search for God is "so universal,

so c h a r a c t e r ­

istic, so permanent" that "it is reasonable to soppose

this

variation too is a n adaptation to environment aiding survival";

1 to suppose man's environment to he, in one sense, God* second support to t h e claims

Home's

of religion is closely related to

the traditional ontological and teleologioal arguments for Third, Horne argues that,

God*

"if religious experience is a s c i e n ­

tific fact, and if this experience reasonably suggests an o b ­ jective reality corresponding to it," religion is needed t o make human life complete*

The spiritual inspires and unifies the

other aspects of human life, the physical, the vocational, intellectual, the emotional,

the moral, the social.

religion supplies satisfactory goals for education*

the

Fourth, The g o a l s ,

corresponding to the aspects of experience listed above, are health as oonformanoe to God's physical laws, skill as c o o p e r ­ ation with God, truth as God's thought, love and b e a u t y as evidenoe of God's perfection,

goodness as God's will, and " r i g h t 3 human relationships as the kingdom of God among men*" There are evidences of H o m e ' s philosophical Idealism and of his O h r i s t i a n interpretation of religion in the above list*

Fifth, and last,

religion is a neoessary support of man's moral l i f e , a o o o r d i n g to Home*

Man "needs the strength of God that oomes through 4 prayer to help him do the right*" He also needs G o d vs f o r g i v e ­ ness to help him up after a fall, God's warnings of the traps

1*

Home, This Hew Education, p. 198.

2*

l o o . hy of Christian Education,p. 86. Horne, Tesus— our standard,' p. 249. H o m e , The Philosophy of (/hr1stlan Education,pp. 30, 31.

51 Jesus -thinks of God "as the loving gather of all m e n , the prodigals as well as the righteous elder brothers, the publioans and sinners as well as the Pharisees.”*1’ it is to "Our Father" that Jesus teaches the disciples to pray, expectantly, with the assurance that He will give good gifts to those that ask,

and

will reveal Himself to those who approach Him with childlike receptivity* spirit.

The Father is Spirit, and should be worshiped in

The Father is h o l y , and expects his children to h e pure

internally and externally.

The Father is perfect in His Impartial

beneficence, sending sun and rain alike on the just and on the unjust; and He expects similar perfection of his children, r e ­ quiring them to love their enemieB, return good for evil, and forgive seventy times seven times.

The gather works unce a s i n g l y .

"As lord of heaven and earth, He beautifies His world; He olothes the grass of the field and arrays the lilies with a b e a u t y s u r ­ passing the robes of Solomon.

. . He numbers the hairs of the

head and enters into all the tragedies of life, even marking the sparrow’s fall."2

Therefore man, who is worth more than the

grass and more than many sparrows, need not be anxious about what he shall eat, drink,

or wear on the morrow;

the Father

knows all these needs and w i l l supply them to those who seek first His Kingdom and His righteousness. all power and all knowledge.

The gather possesses

With Him all things are possible.

Even that foroe in the world whioh operates against the w i l l of

1. 2.

Ibid.. p. 32. TETcT. , p. 33;

Italics mine. Matthew 6:28-30; 10:29.

68 God Jesus recognized as "given f r o m a b o v e •" man need not fear the outcome of the battle.

With God in control, The father has all

knowledge; it is only He who truly knows the Son, Jesus; and who knows the time of the Son's second coming to earth.

The

Father is "the only true God."

Jesus thus gives nany evidences

of the nature of the Father and

of His lore for His human ohildren.^

H o m e finds Jesus' thinking to be "theistio— God is; and monotheist!o— God alone is God; and personalistio— God kncws and loves and acts."8

He might have added that Jesus' thinking is

Patrioontrio, describing further the nature of God. The Son Of the many evidences of the Father's love for His ahildren, the greatest evidence is the gift of His beloved Son, Jesus. "What is it that Christianity has which the other religions of the world laek?"

Home

a&s.

uniqueness of His personality,

The answer is, "Christ. that is His originality*

The He is

the Son, revealing the Father, sent by the Father, that men might be sons.

The originality of Jesus roots itself in the

I n o a m a t i on •" 3 Jesus'

strong sense of mission,

growing out of His oonsoious

Son ship to the Father, He expressed in many ways.

"We hear Him

saying that He came that msn may have life, and have it mare abundantly; that He came to give His life a ransom for many; that He came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentanoe; that He came to b e a r witness to the truth."*

1. 2. 3. 4.

Many great teachers

This paragraph is b a s e d on Horne, The Philosophy of Christian Education, pp. 30-34. Ibid., ¥>.' 'gg. TBTTT., p. 50. T W U T . , p. 49.

53 have pointed oat a good way of life far men;

Jesus alone pointed

to Himself, saying, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one oomes to the Father except hy mei*1

Jesus presented

Himself nas the fulfillment of the great Messianic h o p e ” of the 2 Hebrews. . . a s one ’meek and lowly of heart,* and as *he that serveth, * He oould affirm without the semblance of egotism or blasphemy, than Jonah,*

that the Son was *greater than the

temple,*

»greater

‘greater than Solomon;* that the Son is lord even

of the Sabbath,

that He was the light of the world,

was before Abraham, that

that He

He and the Father were one."®

More remarkable than His teaching, than e v e n His teaching about His own mission and nature, is the fact that Jesus lived v

folly what He taught.

"The very works that I a m d o i n g , ” Jesus

said, "bear witness of me, that the Father has sent m e . ”4

He

lived selflessly, a life of devotion to the Father and service to man.

His death, at the hand of men He came to save, w a s the

supreme and final sacrifice, the means of reconciliation between God and man.**

in Jesus* resurrection, as well as in the Father's

promises, Christians down through the centuries have b e e n assured of their own eternal life.6

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

Ibid., p. 50; John 14:6. H o m e . Jesus— Our Standard.p. 123; Luke 4:18.21; M a t t h e w 16. 17; John 4:257 2$t CSorae The philosophy of Christian Education, p. 110.). H o m e , The Philosophy of Ohrlstian Ed.uoat i o n , p. 29. H o m e . Uesus— Our Standard, p. 118; John 5:36. Cf. John io:2srr*:ir: Ibid., pp. 129, 133, 137, 169; H o m e , The Philosophy of “ Christian Education, pp. 69. 135; Bforne, Jesus as a 3?hilos' opHer.“"pV Tffg. ----------H o m e . The Philosophy of Christian E d u c a t i o n , p. 166; H o m e , Jesus as a p E H o s o p n e r . "p. l$0 •

54 "His leading ideas--Patherhood, Sonship, the Kingdom and its v i r t u e 8 - -spring.

. . out of Jewish soil, hat they hear

other than Jewish fruit.

The reasons were that ha lived them,

and so individualized them, and taught them for all, and so universalized them."-1The Kingdom The two preceding sections on the nature of the Pather and the Son not only describe divinity, hut also suggest the nature of man. less.

They suggest that the value of man is measure­

"The divine tragedy is in his hehalf.

God loves man,

the Son sacrifices Himself for man, and a fact not yet dis­ cussed in this chapter the spirit witnesses to the truth in the heart of man."**

They suggest that man has a spiritual as

well as a physical nature; that he has freedom of choice; that he has responsibilities toward God, his fellow-man, and him­ self; and that he has hope for the future.

Jesus1 view of

man, however, comes to complete fruition in His doctrine of the Kingdom. "My Pather*s Kingdom," "The KjLngdom of God," "The Kingdom of Heaven," or simply "the Kingdom"— that is central in Jesus1 thinking and teaching where man is ooncerned. think of men as isolated individuals:

"Jesus does not

there are no suoh.

neither

does He think of man as a society without individuality. • •

1*

Zm

Horne, Home,

Jesus— our Standard, p. 249. ffhe Philosophy of Christian Eduoati on. p. 37.

55 Bather He thinks of man as being in society, and of sooiety as oonaisting of individualized men, and of this whole sooiety of men as in idea, not yet in fact, exemplifying the will of God."l Horne oompares the ideal sooiety about which Jesus spoke with the ideal society about vfoich Plato wrote four centuries earlier. "Take Plato," he says, "about whom Jesus in the flesh apparently did not know, make the heavenly idea of justice a Person, stress the inner life as cause and the outer life a s effect, and in general form, not in special content, the Republic of Plato would become fulfilled in the Kingdom of Christ."® What does Jesus mean by his best-known reference to the Kingdom, in the lord’s Prayer:

"Thy kingdom come"?

The meaning

is given in His next breath, "Thy will b e done, on earth as it is in heaven."® the Kingdom.

All i&o do the will of God are

citizens of

"The conception outs across all boundaries and

barriers, national, social, olass. in that no one is excluded except

It is a universal conception, those who are ignorant of,

or neglectful of, the will of God for man."4

The gospel of

the

Kingdom is "both individual and social:"6 first individual, for God’s will is done on earth by individual persons; then sooial, for those who do G o d ’s will on earth are social leaven,

1. 2. 3.

Home, The Philosophy of Christian Education, p. 87. Loo. cit. gorneTlEhe Philosophy of Christian Eduoati o n , p. 89; Matthew

4.

Home, The Philosophy of Chrlstian E d u c a t i o n , p. 89* mine. Loo. cit. Italics mine.

6:10. 5.

Italics

96 the salt of the earth.

The Kingdom Is both in you and among you.*

It is both inner and outer:

like planted mustard seed, or lilce

leaven placed in meal, it is small and hidden at first, b u t when revealed it reaches great proportions.

It begins in the world

of spirit and is manifested in the worlds of sense and sooiety. It is no particular economio, social, or political order; rather, it works through and purifies the existing order.

It is not

t e m p o r a l ; it is "outer" only in the sense that it influences the temporal, much as conscience influences behavior. The Kingdom is "not of this world;" it is not subject to moth, rust, and thieves. present, and future.

It is eternal, existing in the past,

"The membership of the kingdom on earth

oonsitutuee a blessed fellowship, continuing in heaven when earth shall be no more. Father.*

That too,Is 'the kingdom of their

The Father is 'in heaven.1

In that heavenly Ki n g d o m

the righteous shall shine forth as the sun."1

prom east and

w e s t the citizens come to join Abraham, iBaac, and Jacob and enter into the

joy of the lord.

The Kingdom is valuable; It is

like a costly pearl found by a pearl merchant who sold all that he had in order to buy it.

For the privilege of entering that

Kingdom, even the excision or amputation of a sinful eye or hand is not too great; suoh drastic sacrifice is preferable to the loss of the whole body in hell. the K i n g d o m is double-faoeted:

Thus Jesus' ooncept of

to Him, the Kingdom is "the

righteous leaven on earth and the redeemed company of heaven.

1. 2*

Horne, The Philosophy of Christian Education, p. 91. Loo* o i T 7 “

57 No price Is too great to pay for membership in the Kingdom. Jesus condenses m a n fs responsibility in two great command­ ments:

utter love to God; and to men, love equalling self-

love.

These do, and thou shalt live.2

Horne concludes:

"There is no complete and abundant life for man apart from sonship to God.

And there is no adequate sonship to God, apart

from membership in the Kingdom of Heaven on the earth among men."3 The great truths of the Christian religion Horne summarizes as "God, freedom, and immortality, the incarnation and the atone­ ment, liberty, equality, and fraternity."4

In the Christian

message, he believes, there is "inherent power."3

He gives the

following practical definition of the word Christian: control of life by the spirit of Christ."®

"the

Thus there are de­

grees of Christianity, and becoming a Christian requires con­ stant effort during an infinity of time.

"The Church is the

prime agency for transmitting the Spirit of God in Christ to man.

It is of God and it is of man."^

This chapter treats Horne*s use of the terms philosophy and religion, their interrelationship and their relation to other fields of thought; H o r n e ’s arguments for religion; the nature of Horne’s philosophic Idealism; and the character of his religion,

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

Matthew 22:37-39; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28. O f . Horne, The- Philosophy of (fhristian Education, p. 100. ----------------------LukeHToTS'gb S o m e , The Philosophy of Christian Education, p. 100. Horne, The Psycho 1 og 1 cal Principles of Education, p. 378. Ibid., p T “232\ S o m e , This New Education, p. 221. H o m e , The PEITohophy of Christian Education, p. 166.

which is Christianity.

Many of his tenets whioh are introduced

here will he further explained in the next part of this study. Let us proceed to the exposition of Horne’s philosophy of religion, beginning with his view of God and

the universe.

PART II AN EXPOSITION AND EVALUATION OP HORNE'S PHILOSOPHY OP RELIGION

CHAPTER IV GOD AND THE UNIVERSE On the subject of God Horne wrote no volumes and no chapters:

his view of God must be culled from short passages

and scattered statements.

Xet this does not mean that he

gives the subject slight attention or considers it of little importance*

Rather, because Horne is religious in the broadest

sense of the word,1 the thought of God enters into every aspect of his writing— >whether philosophical, educational, historical, or religious in the narrow sense— and Divinity is mentioned often where the reader would least suspect it.

In fact, the

student of Horne comes to realize that the full comprehension of Horned view of God would be the open-sesame to an u n d e r ­ standing of his whole philosophy of life. This chapter is not titled simply "God” because Horne has little to say about the nature of Deity except as it is revealed in the relationships of God.

Similarly, there 19 no

separate chapter on H o r n e ’s view of the physical universe because he seldom thought of the universe apart from God. God, the Inclusive Personality Philosophically, Horne was an Idealist of the right-wing Neo-Hegelian school.®

1. 2.

Religiously, he was a Protestant

Horne, The Psychological Principles of Education, p. 333. 11Valedictory,11 School and Society, LVT [August 29, 1942), p. 154.

59

60 Christian, at first a Baptist and later a Presbyterian.1

Both

the philosophy of his teachers and the religion of his mother led him to affirm two major tenets about God:

God is One, and

God is a Person, a Spirit* God as Absolute and All-Inclusive Horne is a monotheist, believing that there is one God, and there are no others*2

Horn© is also a monist, for he

believes that reality is one unitary whole.3

The Hegelian

philosophy is necessarily monistic; Christian philosophy is not necessarily so, contrary to the assumption of some Christian Idealists.

Horne has a typically Idealistic abhorrence of

dualism and pluralism. facts unread. it:

Dualism, he thinks, leaves half the

Pluralism, he holds, has still less reason in

it makes the universe resemble "a badly bound magazine in

several languages, with some pages misplaced and some missing.1'4 God is one; reality is one.

Horne goes a step farther.

For him, all enduring reality is within the being of God.

In

his own words, God is "the whole of experience, all reality, the Absolute."3 self-moving,

The Absolute is complete, unchanging, and

"the infinite free being, the adequate explanation

of all force, energy, and movement that appear in time."6

1. 2.

Horne. Idealism in Education, pp. 156, 175; Horne, The

Cf. ante, Chapter I.

3. 4. 5. 6.

Philosophy of HSclucatlon, p. 268. Horne, Idealism in Education, p. 149. Ibid., p 7 U E [ TBIcC., p. 167. Horne, The Philosophy of Education, pp. 268, 269. Of. Horne, Jesus--6ur Standard, p. 256.

61 Within God occur time, progress, and trall natural and human processesThe

true immanence is of man in God, rather

than of God in man*2

Eorne calls this view "real monotheism,”

hut he apparently stretches the term to imply the inclusive­ ness as well as to denote the singleness of God*5

This

description of God sounds pantheistic, if by pantheism is meant the belief that all is God.

Let us look further, however.

God a3 Personality What is the basic nature of this absolute reality that in religious language is called God?4 Idealism is this:

The heart of Horne*s

that reality, 1. e., "the enduring sub­

stance of the world,” is of the nature of mind, and "the u n i ­ verse is an expression of intelligence and will,” the material being explained by the mental.5 is Absolute Hind*

Horne*s Absolute, like Hegel*s,

By mind (a term which he uses interchangeably

with soul) Horne does not mean intellect exclusively; he means intellect, emotions, and will*®

Like Royee, he would conceive

of the Absolute as Thought, Will, and other aspects of Experience*?

Horne refers to God variously as "the permeating

Universal Life,” "the Infinite Intelligence,” and, combining the intellectual and the volitional, "the Conscious Will of

1. 2. 3* 4. 5* 6. 7.

Horne, The Psychological Principles of E d u c a t i o n , p. 340. L o c. c i t . - Also Horne. fllhe Philosophy of E d u c a t i o n , p. 270. tforneTTTdeallsm In Education, p . 175. Horne, The PhiTosophy or Education, p. 268. Horne, < 1T5n Idealistic TEilosophy of Education," The F o r t y First Yearbook of theNational Society for theStudy of Education, 1942, Part I, p. 139. Horne, Jesus— Our Standard, p. 26. Josieh ffoyce, The World and the Individual,Vol. I, p. ix.

62 the world."^

Horne here differs from the Absolute Idealists

Bradley, Boaanquet,

and Hoernle, who think of God as "Impersonal"

or, rather, as above p e r s o n a l i t y . ^

The question, must not God

change w i t h His changing universe? will be discussed later in connection with progress. Since mind and will are attributes of personality, it is not surprising that Horne also refers to God as "the Ideal Self," "the absolute Person.

.

and "the Infinite Person in

the u n i t y of whose consciousness all things exist."3

Thus

Horne finds In God the qualities of singleness, all-inclusiveness, and personality. It Is difficult to conceive of a God vftio is all-inclusive and who yet has a quality as particular as personality.

Never­

theless, there is no mistaking the fact that Horne attributes Individuality to God, for he declares, with traditional Christian thelsts, that God Is "a personal individual conscious­ ness."4

It is impossible to use the adjective individual

without implying the existence of someone or something other than the person or thing referred to; individuality has no m e a n i n g If there Is only one reality with independent existence. A n individual is limited by the existence of other individuals, and yet has a measure of Independence that an all-inclusive being necessarily lacks.

A being that Is the sum total of all

1.

Home,

Idealism In E d u c a t i o n , p. 175; Horne, The Philosophy of Christian Education, p. 161; and Horne, ~"TcTeallsm In

2.

Discussed in E. W. Lyman, The Meaning and Truth of Religion,

3.

Horne, The Psychological Principles of Education, pp. 206, 340 a n d Borne,I n e philosophy of Education, p. 270, respectively. Horne, The Psychological Principles of Education, p. 341.

Education, p. J.Y4, respectively. pp. 220, 221.

4.

63 actual being, though it Is infinite and unlimited, can be nothing in particular because it is everything in general. Thus traditional pantheism, the doctrine that all is God, necessarily denies both individuality and personality to God.1 Horne repudiates pantheism precisely because it conceives of God as a vague, Impersonal essence.2

What is more important,

he rejects pantheism also because it declares God to be absolutely immanent,3

That is to say, Horne rejects pantheism

both because of its impersonalism and because of its pan-theism. Horne's rejection of pantheism on two counts solves one problem and creates another.

It implies that, to Horne, God is more

than the totality of all actual being; thus it offers a possible basis for the solution of the problem:

h o w does Horne

reconcile his two apparently conflicting doctrines of God as the all-lneluslve Being, on one hand, and as an individual Personality, on the other hand?

The problem raised is:

in

what way does Horne effect this reconciliation, or, to put it differently, what is his view of the transcendence of God? God as Internally Transcendent Horne objects not only to pantheism, but also to other views of the relationship between God and the world*

He

rejects the deistie eoneept of God as "an abstract inaccessible

1. 2. 3.

Of. Charles Hartshorne, "pantheism," in P e r m (ed«), An Encyclopedia of Religion, pp. 557, 558. Horne, Uhe Psychologic ax ! p t Inc iple s of Education, p. 341; Horne, The philosophy of EductrETon. p. 270. Horne, TheTEiTo sophy of Education, pp. 269, 270.

64 being.Neither

can he accept "artificial dualism, nor

degrading materialism, nor impotent parallelism, nor hesitant agnosticism, nor anthropomorphic theism. "2 The phrase ‘'anthropomorphic theism" is particularly inter­ esting, since four years earlier (in 1906) he wrote that his view was

"the coneretest theism," in contradistinction to

"vague pantheism,"3 and six years earlier (in 1904), he termed his philosophical system "Idealistic Theism."4

Possibly his

attitude toward theism changed, for at one period he uses the term to describe his own view, and later (in 1910), includes it in a list of philosophies which he repudiates.

However, he

described himself as a theist still later, in 1932.5

Another

p o s sibility is that he objected to anthropomorphism rather than to theism, for on the page preceding his expression of approval of theism he writes that God is not "a supernatural anthropo­ morphic bei n g . " 6 Jesus'

let in 1937 Horne heartily endorsed both

theism and his anthropomorphism, which "uses man's

h i ghest terms to bring God near to man."^

Horne's colleague,

Louise Antz, believes that he rejected the Old Testament a n t hropomorphism of the body, but accepted the New Testament a nthropomorphism of spirit.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

At any rate, the evidence is

Horne, The Psychological Principles of Education, p. 340, C f . Horne, Jesus— Jur Standard, p. 2sT7 footnote. Horne, Idealism in "Education, p. 175. Horne, 'iftie Psychological Principles of Education, p. 341. Horne, fhe Philosophy of Education, pp. xi and 570, 271. The L e a d e r , published Uy the students of the State Normal School at Fredonia, N. *., XXXI, No. 33 (May 9, 1932), p. 1* Horne, The Psychological Principles of Education, p. 340. Horne, *The fhllosopny of Christian Education, p. 34.

65 decidedly in favor of the fact that Horne considered himself a theist. What does Horne mean by theism?

He calls Jesus a thelst

because Jesus believed in a personal God.3-

He calls himself a

theist because he believes, in contrast to pantheism, that God is "a personal individual consciousness."2

It is true that

thelsts traditionally believe in a single, personal God.

How­

ever, in contrast to both pantheism and deism, they also hold God to be the Creator-Sustainer of the world, distinct from it (transcendent) and yet active in it

(immanent).

This view

Horne rejects as dualistic, because it draws a definite line between God and the universe.

Having rejected "immanent

pantheism," he also rejects this "transcendent dualism."3

For

him, God is in His world in a more metaphysical sense than was the God of the Old Testament.

As Horne says about his own view

of God, This conception of God is not that of the transcendent Jehovah of the ancient Hebrews, for God is in His world; neither is it that of the immanent Deus 3ive Natura of the great Jewish philosopher, Spinoza,' for the world and we are in God, living and moving and having our being. Our conception is neither a transcendent dualism, nor an immanent pantheism, but an idealistic theism. God is the self-conscious u n i t y of all reality. Within His life falls the life of nature and of man. We are the content of His consciousness, and not we only, but all that which is, whether the heavens above, or the earth beneath, or the waters under the earth, — all that we know is a part of the infinite fulness of the content of His con­ sciousness.

1. 2. 3.

Horne, Jesus— Our Standard, p. 257, text and footnote. C f . Horne, Jesus as a philosopher, p. 53. Horne, The PsychologTeaT Principles of Education, p. 341. Horne, Jhe Philosophy of Education, p. 269.

66 The error of pantheism consists In saying, ▲11 Is God, Instead of saying, All Is God*s. The ultimate reality is not to be spoken about as It; but to be spoken to as Thou. The error of t r a n s ­ cendent dualism consists in supposing the world Is without instead of considering it as within, the life of God.1 Though middle-of-the-road theists refuse to minimize either the transcendence or the immanence of God even at the risk of dualism, theists range all the way from the neo-supernaturalists (e. £., Karl Barth), who believe in transcendence so extreme that it has been mistaken for deism,2 to the idealis­ tic theists (£. £., Joslah Royce), who believe in immanence so extreme that it has been mistaken for p a n t h e i s m , 3

Horne belongs,

with Royce and the other objective idealists, t o the latter school. There is a close resemblance between the t h e i s m of Horne and that held by his teacher, Royce,

Royce*s theism is the

result of years of growth; Horne's appears full-blown, perhaps taken over in toto from Royce.

As has been said, b o t h p h i l o s o ­

phers emphasize the immanence of God.

Both also think of God

as transcendent— not externally, that is, not outside His creation, but internally, that is, rising above the finite existences within His own being. Although as far as the writer has been able to discover, Horne himself does not use the term, his view might be called,

1. 2. 3.

Ibid., pp. 269, 270. The designation of his own p o s i t i o n as "Idealistic Theism" occurs also on p. xi and on pp. 270, 271. E. S. Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion, pp. 145-147. Paul E. Johnson, """Joslah Royce— Theist or Pantheist?" The Harvard Theological Review, XXI (July, 1928), pp.

197-2(5?.

67 to be technically accurate, a form of panenthei3m.

This is

the doctrine that all things are within the being of God, who yet is more than the whole of the actual world; and that therefore God, though all-inclusive, has a self-identity independent of particular existents and their t o t a l i t y . I t is an intermediate position between pantheism and theism.

The

term panentheism, which is well known in Europe but not In America, is attributed to K. C. P. Krause, a contemporary of Hegel.

Krause used it to describe his own philosophy, which

was an attempt to synthesize the subjectivism of Kant and Fichte with the absolutism of Schelling and Hegel.2

Among

modern philosophers in America who are inclined to think of themselves as panentheists are Paul Tillich3 and Charles Hartshorne.4

It should be observed that philosophers who hold

a panentheistic view of God and the universe differ widely in many respects; for instance, they may be Realists or Idealists. The Realism of Hartshorne Is in striking contrast to the Idealism of Royce and Horne. One difficulty with panentheism Is that It is unstable; it can easily become pantheism.

The question arises, if God

Is the Whole, what is left for Him to transcend?

1. 2. 3.

4.

To say that

Cf. Charles Hartshorne, 0£. cit., p. 557. For article on Krause, see Friedrich Veberwegs, Grundrl3s der Geschlchte der Philosophic, Vol. IV, p. 66. In a conversation with “me in New xork City on November 16, 1@49, Doctor Tillich said, ’’Everything I have published about God Is panentheistic.” When a3ked whether the Objective Idealists, such as Royce, could be called panentheists, he agreed that they could, and that panentheism was Royce*s position. Charles Hartshorne, The Divine Relativity, pp. vii, XV, 88-92.

68 He transcends Himself is meaningless. answer:

Royce and Horne would

The transcendent aspect of God is His Personality.

As the human mind transcends its parts, consciousness of God.1

so does the Self-

Even though transcendence in this

sense be granted, it may be argued that panentheism, in denying that God has external transcendence, is open to some special problems:

the problem of change within the unchanging God;

the presence of discordant elements within God, Including evil; the problem of human freedom within the all-inclusive Absolute. The way Horne deals with these problems will be discussed later in this chapter and in Chapter VI. Horne not only thinks of God as transcending the universe (though internally rather than externally) ; he also thinks of God as transcending raan*s social values.

Here he strikes at

"immanence not of a pantheistic but of a social type."^

The

view that God is Identical with social values 13 the basis of non-theistic humanism and is "in harmony with the positivism of Auguste Comte and his

f o l l o w e r s . " 3

"such a God, lacking transcendence,

Horne maintains that

lacks self-consciousness,

lacks personality, lacks conscious union w i t h man In prayer."4 Thus Horne rejects the social immanence theory and pantheism for similar reasons.

1. 2. 3. 4.

Paul E. Johnson, oj>. cit., p. 203 and Horne, The Essentials of Leadership, pp.“W , 100. Horne, 'me Assentials of Leadership, pp. 99, 100. Ibid., “ 9T. Loc. cit.

69 In the foregoing discussion, the emphasis has been on Horne's view of the nature of God.

Let us now turn to his

v i e w of the nature of the world, which is in God. The Universe;

The Body of God

Horne strikes out against the mechanistic interpretation of the world, popular in his day.

The universe is "no vast

machine grinding out little and big creatures.. .but a Life, a purpose, a system of purposes in itself, expressing itself in m a n y lesser l i v e s . T h e hut not enough.

mechanistic theory explains much,

Variety, irregularity, variation in the world,

just like fleeting impulses and passing thoughts in the individ­ u a l person, escape mechanical description.

The fact that man's

scientific duty is to explain the behavior of nature

does not

rule out his moral duty, which is to recognize personalities. Horne sums up his view in a sweeping statement:

"Mechanism

describes the behavior of Nature, teleology explains mechanism, m a n with intellect and will explains both mechanism and teleol­ ogy, the Conscious Will of the world explains man and all."2 Horne recognizes all four of Aristotle's classes of causes: the material cause, the efficient cause (the maker), the formal cause

(the pattern), and the final cause (the purpose).3

Mechanism recognizes only the first two. What Horne says of Jesus might equally well be said of Horne:

1. 2. 3.

"...As regards the physical order, he was no solipsist,

Horne, Idealism in Education, p. 173. Ibid., p 7 “T 7 3 “ Eorne, The Democratic Philosophy of Education, pp. 486, 487.

70 denying any existence beyond bis own ego, and no subjective Idealist, denying the reality of the external physical world, Other people really exist, and the world Is as real as our senses would have us believe.

Do not these beliefs create a

dualism of God and the world, or a pluralism of God, the p h y s i ­ cal world, and the w o r l d of persons--the very dualism and pluralism that Horne seeks to avoid?

Horne answers for Jesus,

"The dualism of God and the world is merged In the thought of a spiritual monism, In which God is the constant cause of the world and of its changing processes."**

This primary, purposive,

and continual Cause of the world is a universal Providence, Father of mankind.

the

Thus there is no oocasion for secondary

eauses or for special providence.

It is interesting to note

that, though Horne considers Jesus' philosophy to be Idealistic, he does not go so f a r as to claim for Jesus his own view that the world Is part of God.

To Horne, the world is not only c o n ­

stantly caused by God, but "all things temporal and spatial exist as His thinking and feeling and willing.., (and) embody Him according to the grade of their capacity."3

Consequently

Jesus' objective Idealism, if Horne's interpretation be correct, is qualitatively but not necessarily quantitatively monistic; while Horne's is completely monistic.

1. 2. 3.

Horne, Jesus— Our Standard, p. 266. Of. Horne, The Phil­ osophy of Christian Education, p. £3. Horne, tfhe~RiTloaophy of Christian Education, p. 43. From "liy i*hilosophy of'"'Cife," a brief, unpublished s t a t e ­ ment written at Dartmouth on May 27, 1909 and given to Mrs. Mary D. W. Horne in 1944.

71 Horne is In aeoord with a view which he attributes to Jesus, that,

“though real, the world of sense is not so real

as that of spirit,” and that the former is "a kind of parable'1 of the latter.^

The phrase,

"not so real" is ambiguous.

It

is difficult to think of reality in comparative termsj a thing either is or is not.

As William Pepperell Montague says,

reality or truth, unlike beliefs, is like straightness: tive, and without comparative or superlative.^

posi­

The value of

H o r n e d comparison lies in its suggestion that the temporal world Is not real independently of the existence of God, or that It is not ultimately real, or that, though both are equally real, the spiritual world is of more value. own position clear in the following passage:

Horne makes his "Matter is the

objective thought of the infinite consciousness, no less real, substantial, and solid on that account than it shows Itself in man*s experience, but nevertheless ultimately a process of thought in the consciousness of God*"3

The appearance of the

physical world depends on the o b s e r v e r ^ point of view.

"Prom

the point of view of the speculative physicist, matter disappears into some form of energy, like electricity; from the point of view of the speculative philosopher, energy disappears into some form of consciousness, like attention .1,4 Horne explains

1.

3*

Horne, Jesus— Our Standard, p. 266. C f . Horne, The Phil­ osophy of Christian E d u c a t i o n , p. 33. W. ^. Montague, tfhe Ways of t h i n g s , p. 267. Cf. P. H. Bradley, Appearance ancT"Reality, Chapter X3TV. Horne, The Philosophy of Education, p. 270.

4.

Ibid., “

2.

235:

72 further: The only energy whose nature man really knows through Immediate experience is that which his own consciousness exerts when he voluntarily or in­ voluntarily attends. Here is energy at first hand; other energy, like electricity, appears at second hand in what it does, not at first hand in what it is. The energy of the world thus in the last analysis may be held to be the attentive aspect of the consciousness of God.l Horne and the other objective Idealists agree with the Realists that the physical world really exists; but the Realists would not agree with the Idealists that its existence depends on the mind of God.2 Since, to Home, God is all reality and God is a Person, the logical conclusion is that all reality i3 also a Person. Here Horne is clear and self-consistent:

All philosophers must

admit the possibility of life in the so-called inanimate world, for the limits of mind are far from certain.

Like Royce, Horne

not only admits the possibility of life in the so-called in­ animate world, but he holds that it Is a probability.3 only we knew the whole truth about the world, he

say3,

If it would

likely be found "throbbing with life and significant w i t h m e a n ­ ing."^

Referring to the artificial fertilization of the ova of

a sea-urchin by Loeb and of the eggs of a frog by Betaillon,

1.

Loc a cit .

2.

For Horne1s view that the existence of the world of objects

3. 4.

is in a sense dependent on the thought of the finite thinker as well as of the infinite Thinker, see his "An Idealistic Philosophy of Education." The F o r t y First yearbook of the National Society for the study of Education, 1942. Fart I, p. l4in I)iscussed p o s t , encT" of c!hap ter V. Horne, Idealism in Education, p. 2; Horne, Free W i l l and Human Res pons ihllliy, p. 112. Cf. Josiah Royce, The World and the Individual, Vol. TT, pp. 225, 226. Horrie, Idealism in Education, p. 169.

73 Horne says that when and if we are able to produce life Itself artificially it will probably be recognized that the very chemical elements which g o into the making of the ova have always been alive, though we are not aware of it,1

Conscious­

ness m a y be present both in the infinitely great and the in­ f i n itely small.

"The electron may turn out to be, as Leibniz

might have supposed, a point of conscious force, and the whole stellar universe may be only the body of a wondrously beautiful s p i r i t . "2

if this is true, the world may be thought of as the

"body" of God.

The element of doubt is present, however:

Horne

does not go so far as Fechner, who thinks that we have enough evidence to affirm the actuality of panpsychism.3

Horne does

a f f i r m that "the whole system of reality is organic."4 The objection that if everything is conscious, conscious­ ness loses its meaning, and the major distinction between animate and so-called inanimate objects is blurred, is partially answered by saying that for practical and scientific purposes the distinction must be made, but the dichotomy does not actually exist.

The question then arises, what is the actual difference

(since a difference is commonly recognized) between the animate and the "inanimate?"

Perhaps Horne at one time accepted Royce’s

theory that there are varying degrees and types of consciousness, and that we recognize only the types which go on at a time-rate

1. 2. 3. 4.

Horne, Free Will and Human Responsibillty, p. 112. H o r n e , IdealTsm^lnTrducation, p. 2. L o c . c i t . k'or H o r n e 1s reconciliation of ontological monism w i t h metaphysical dualism, see The pemocratic Philosophy of E d u c a t i o n , p. 485, and post, Chapter f . Horne. ^?he democratic Philosophy of Education, pp. 72, 73.

74 similar to ours.-*-

Not only to Realists and Naturalists, but

also to some Idealists, R o y c e 1s theory is unconvincing. William Ernest Hocking, for example, believes that the hypothe­ sis of universal animation, while possible,

"errs by excess.”2

Late in his career (in 1942) Horne himself appeared to reject panpsychism altogether.

In describing matter as being

qualitatively different from mind, he writes:

"The mind that

thinks matter cannot itself be matter, and matter, being un­ intelligent, cannot think Itself.

Mind has a remembered pa3t

and an anticipated future, and matter In Its continuing exist­ ence neither remembers nor anticipates.

The mind has meanings;

...but matter has meaning only for a mind that knows It..., and has no meaning to Itself.”3

He goes on to describe matter as

insensate, knowing nothing, conscienceless, and unperceiving of qualities.

In this passage, Horne expresses the conviction

that not only is mind not matter; but also, in effect, that matter, though "objectified mind,” is not subjectively mind: it has no consciousness.

Louise Antz, who knew Horne well

both as a friend and a philosopher, cautions that in this passage Horne Is describing matter as it appears to man rather than in its ultimate character, and Is "rejecting the idea that this part of m a n !s experience Is the clue to reality."

Accord­

ingly, this description of matter would not be inconsistent with panpsychism.

1. 2. 3.

Royce, loc. cit. W. E. Hocking, Types of Philosophy, p. 256. Home, "An IdealisticT!hllosophy of Education." The Forty-First Yearbook of the National Society for the 3tudy of Education, ISf?2. Part 1, p. l43.

75 God In Relation to Space, Time and Progress If the ship to God

physical world is within God, what is the relation­ of space, time, and progress?

First of all, space

and time are real to Horne, in the same sense that the world is real to him.

About space Horne says little, except what he

says about it in connection with time.

He would have agreed

w i t h the point of view which he attributes to Jesus, that space is real and vast, encompassing all matterj and that it holds man's body,

but not his soul.*

Horne says more about the problem of time.

No one, h e

says, has doubted that time is real except certain theologians and certain philosophers

(among the latter, Kant).

To Horne,

time is an important part of the whole of experience*2

He

argues that the theologians who disconnect earthly time f r o m h e a venly and timeless eternity still think of heaven, rather inconsistently, as including events which take time for granted.^ He agrees with his interpretation of Jesus' view, that time Is a part of eternity, and therefore events in time are eternally significant.^

Time, for Horne, exists within God, though God

"does not exist in time."5

Time for him is a real experience

of the Absolute, and thus is one of the realities.®

It is

limited In the sense that, though all of time lies within e x ­ perience, the whole of experience may not be In time.

1. 2• 3. 4. 5. 6.

Horne, The Philosophy of Christian Education, p. 44. H o r n e , T3ealism in Education, pp. 166,164. I b i d ., p. 164.“ Borne, The Philosophy of Christian Education, p. 44. also~Borne, Jeaus--