I l.

" al ,,{
Oc'

rvs L5
.+" 1T06

Atl.l D N 5 t;

o..-{.13D a

i3* * \r , ^- f , R. g?- ( (
TEN NATUBE OF TBUTII. hq a reoent wchkrl Mr. Earolil Joaohin hrs erorninerl rt soms length oqafn opinims hdit by l[r. Gt. E. Moorc anil myselt I propoee his first to ilisoruss argummb ageinst thoe opinions,and a,re thsn to oonsidc hiefly whetbm any argrr.ments poeeiblewhioh ought to oppealto both siilesi! guoh e tlebote.s The difronrlty, ar queetion,liee in the hot thrt our tlifrerenoesEe rA'ards seoonal ths eo-fundsmsntllthaf,almoetall argummtr on eithc oiile neoeesarily sonethiug whioh the ot'hereiile denies. As Mr. beginby sssuy"ring Jcohin iustly obscru: "Il m areumptim nt tbo tnds of Blt it then ergumentsAinotil aSDiDst eppear,by o very naturcl Logire, to oo'n:fusion, ti ao,foroilevoiilof logiosloogsuoy. Theesnrmptioa in hot, getr eotrtrlisheil by a hinil of ontologioal lmof " (p. 89). lltis stlte qf things is voyuneotideotory,snil it is higtrly ileeirsbls to fin{ if we onn, some oonum grountl on whioh alisousdonis {, msdble. - Tbe assumptionwbioh Mr. Jmhim eets out to rofuts b thsf "erlnrienoinf makes no ilifrsooe to t'ho fmc" (p. 38). Whot, this Dreoieely. assumptb'nis to uon will rppear moreolesrlvin the iourse,if Us AgouEdon- lfr. Jmhin disfrngutsb two e;Ds of tbe asmmption,one of which, b *yt, ie'hre brut irrelevant,while the othc, whioh eloneis ailequrte to eul4mt ths thmry hs b oomanil bsting, "is hlss, oonfiots with oommon-s@se, is in the,enil unmeaning" O.41). Ia the edmissiblsense,tihe faots erc only inilepenitentof the expoienoeof thio or tbat parfouUr pmm, b'ut not ol ., bei'g expcimoeil " in g@msl. In th inadmissibloeenre, "tihe wholsconstitutilby 'the hota' rnil 'qlrodming' (in my ofi whole, bnrts mro extsnd ailiusb snso the tum) is no Seuruins ment. The .two hotors anq or moy be, rebteil; but tho relotimwhen, or as, it obtoing leoveomoh peoisely whet it wes, trda., in obeolutely itsli anil inilepeudent" (p. 41). We neeil not furtbsr rense,sinoo,as Ur. Jaohim omtenils Eit oonsiilc the admissible as f fuly aohowledge, it is ir$lsvaot to tbe iligortsion. As to the snsowhiob he regarrls s inrilmissibte, his stst@ent of it orlle rTlu Ndwcof thdh, Horil 1900. t Therelovaatportionof Un Janhiu'e bookir oontcined pn E1.60. in aaaunos o'pinionon the qu6itiong, his lio Therest of tibetioohsvowdly hie ilieDut:it is only in thesotwenty mes thcl he reeksto eiftoblish ofnion The virirs wbbh I p iden-ilincrill bc lounil in UnrD.N.S.. $podatry $$66,,i&fl0, Ifo 63,rnil in my P,rt'wipbs of Mothc*totdat, 12/"4,8,,

TEE NATI'BE OA TAIIIE.

629

only for the remark tbat the whole whioh, ts ho puts it, .. is no gonuinewhole,"is .m mloh r genuine th"t- this theory -whole-as "ry isill flilrl[; lYur ailmit; ror lt ut |r s[SretIIEUO for it ie a obCIraotoristio the thoorv-thst itr views ei of OI tno TrIlOOfy EDAEIt Ylgwg Og to the nature of whole and pa,rt are quite tlifiFnt from thos adopteil by the echool to whioh Mn J;sohin belongs. -that Mr. Jooohim's Joaohim's objeotion obieotionto this visw comes6o this: that if A is comosto 'hir: independeutof-B, A-oanno-t relsteil to B; thrt, oonsequently, b if the fuoteare indepentlent erpedonce they oonnotbe exierieo6eil: of t,g16snd (p. ?t *ll or* be hod:l. Thirs-hd say_s 49) i ams"gt$g is, foithe fr*y, an ultimato entity in [mi"ttt4, of ir"i"gs, whioh has its being abeolutalyin itseE.- Eow., under the ohsu;binc abeolutelv untler oirmrmatauoes, gmenness yet gometi-eg so far depart from its eaored oan sloofnss to be opprehended (seneatad oonceiveil); ancl how, as or .56p thir taksplm, ths seosating oonoeivhgsubj6otis assured or -e,requsstiond that its immaoulsteperwdtas gtill preeeilril-theao ig to whioh appa,rentlythe only answeris the dogmrtforeidration of tbe euppoeetl fact"' l[r. Jomhim ailes that the plqin 6an is sa hig gftIe. I have been tempted to dk some plaii man whst he thought greeuness was, but have been restraind by the Iea,r of beingthought insane. Mr. Jmhim, howvtr, eme have been to bolder. Coasidedncthe-tlifroultv of findins c resllv plain man nowadays, presundo esheil hii soout,wh6 rpparsitli replieil: I he -dmpht' fscG,the ie " Woll,-sr, greenness to me the nsnie of a ftotors of whioh eesutiially reciprooallviletermine-onea,uother. *nd Anil if you, sr, choos to-seleot ondfaauor'out of the oomplex,antl I . to csll it greenness, will aot rtis.puteabout the ttrm, fo I know ' my plme, sir; biutas thue isolrted,yonr greenness on abotractiou, is whioh emphatioally,in itsoll and, suoh,ieaot,tltcra riot &nEwhare." as At least,thie is what f gather from the opiuion of the plain man ,,ihat tlir is reportedon p.42. "Wf,o shdl Bay," be-oonoluiles, ths insigbt of a lying pophet, while gours bea,rs the tlivine stamp of tmth?" The answer to this quetion woulil require a whole tueetige; for the present, th'refonr I will oonffne;ysolf to ![r. Joachim'soontentibnl thitnAnois tho ineight of a lying prophet, while ftasbo,rs the cliviueetampof huth. ft is oviilent that the appenen:t foroe of l[r. Joaohim'garsument lies in the ueeof suohpf,;i{es &s .. saced aloohosa," iu rrf,ioh he assurns thst il glenuessis iuilepenilent of erperienoe, oaonot it be relstalto experience. For f do not meintein fhat greenneas, or "; anytbing else,hae any " saoredaloofoess I oontendmerely thet there is moh a thing, htving various relations,anong othcs relaF tioug of beingpEoeiveil. l&. Joaohim'srirgumentiin faot,,lepenrils upon the aseumption tbtt, in any oomplex,the mnstituents of the oomplexa,re aothing; d.a.,you oanuotfinil an entity A, antl say " A
merp '{ingight,".Binoohe hae a oriterion lor deoiilin*betweNr-rivalh. digbts, Mi rsdly is that hfu oriterion ig ecfabtsbed by ebaunbs.his and that thir assumtrrtbn,li.dptuF ,ti*y.gl.t a logioally- p'n9r qg_eqtigq ported by the ariterion to whtoh it l66ds.

r' r It uay be objected Mn Joaphim's position doesnot dcperd o{ thet

ii"

630

B. BUggEIrIr:

is a ooustituontof this oomplex". Tbis view ie ooDnsstoal the with opinion thftt sll rel*tioqs arc bssoil upon ths .'lstsr6 " of tbe releted terms. Thus he ssyE (p. 43) : " Clea'rly,tbe gontionoe to which greenuess be rel&td 'vioionr'uot 'hoaring'. But we oa,D iE are to understantlthat thib reshiction is not baseilupon the nature of greenness euoh,but ir just s ftot." I ilo not Enow whet the oe ss may bo; it eomr " nsture " of greenneos, opposd to gmenness, to be the ghootof the soholastio es6cmco.Tbie olei; that rel&tions a,reto be rroundeil in the neturos of their terms is nallv a olaim thst all propooitions to be of the subjeot-predioote are foru-, so that instad of saying " A snd B have euoh-a,uil-suoh rela,tionr"we I shoulalB&y"A has suoh.snil-suah property and B hee suoh-aJrda euohanothc; thepropenties beiugpa,rtof the naturee of A snd 8 ". Analas to the rslrtion being ,' just I hot," so, on tbe opposito " view, ir the " uaturre of greenness;for why shortcl it not have " had o difreqnt" nature "? Whrt emorges,in Mr. Joaohim'stlisouesion,is, as he himgdl pointr out5thet the viewe he is ettaoking a,r,o only teueble on the msumptionthet relatims a,ro"extemal," i.e., thot thffe is no such. thing ss tho "nsturr" ol the rslttoil terms in ome in whioh these terms Bre simple,anil thct relateiluessis no evidenoeof inkineic complexity. Thte is tbe funilamutrl iloohine of the visw whioh he ie oritieis'ng; the opinion that '. experienainc moke6no difrerenceto the faotg"-is meosly a speoial ipplioatioi o1 '\ir fonilrmental dootrine. Esving b{nght ihe argufient to t\is point, one expects to fnd reasons allgedrtrrinst thdtlootrlne in qu&tion, hrt ednge to say, Doraosonwheteverie given exaopt thst it eoemsinorodi[e to M;. Jooobim. fhe ourious-thiDgis [hlt, elsewhem, protests he egainstimmeilirte inspotion as e-ttrt of trutb" holcling thrt ooherencain a eystem is both the teot anrl the ueaninc-of baltb. Nevertheless, this instanae,althoughhe admih l*het (d.g.,p.1?8) il thai the eystom resultinc from his assumptionis ,wt'oilmnletnlv oobsrent,io that nothin! exoept innsainn inspection ie ieft 6 mcommentlib he is oontdt to rcgard his view asfrrdv antl inevooably eetablishetl the faot t^hat osnnoti-a+"e it hlse. by [b But to support thie stetemont,f will quote someof the prinoipat sntonaeg the pagee(pp. a6a9) whioh deal ex$icitly with this in funtlamentel point. ',Thstaa4r I'mple shoun ombine" is ,,a,n arbitrary irrationel hot, if it be c 6t at &ll. . . . ow oan yod tureat them as eaohebeolutelysimple and indepenilent,ofi ahi s relstealto one anothu to firrm d oonplex?"- Afi!Eeottinc ftrtb thet, in my opinion, ,, the c&rnpgrwttuu antl , precieelyihd numciaelly the sa,me'relationsenter as omstituentl inb an-inilefinite number of clifrere[t oompleree (p. 4T) he proceedls:" "In thig aaoorrntof ihe unioi ot SimpieEntities tofum Compleres, f can esnothing but r ststment-ot tbe problom in terme whioh rendc its solutiou inoonoaivrlbl'a If vor toii me thrt a nenav F my trmket is 'tihe esme' ooinas a penny iu youra, I egr6 tht:t in b dBnso iB hrueenougb. But if for the peruy you nrbetitute this

L_ __

TEB IfITUR,E OF.TBIIXE.

681

s simple tcnol mdty, anil then go on to mshtain thlt thb d*G self-identiool entity ie both in my trnotet enil in yours, and also'in no plre aril at no tine I oan onlv protest that e simplioitv of this lini ig too rleep for me to bthdn" Nsr aloosit nfoke ine beet ilifrerrco if you aall, your simple entity a 'universal'. Anil if, finalln you insist that the relation of tho simple entity to tbe pointe of Bpacewhioh om rry pmket, is 'Tnadacby ottil riameriully the sarna' N its rolttioa to the points of Spane whioh sre gwr puket, f muet ailmit that I om unabb to itistiuguish a ,preoiie nuhsioei iilentiw' of this kinatfoomuumeioel ilivosit'r " (D: 48). I hive quoteil tbis paragraph in full, 6oode it'omtaing the whole of what Mr. Jooohin hee to sav on the funtlamentalouestion at issire.r Ee paseeson inmertia'taly to otbsr views, oonbdering the view in queetionsufroiently refutd. BsfG oofriaetbg the main'point, it geeme Doelsa,ry oleor up to two misunalrthodiogg. First, I ghoultl not sry thet a pony in your pooket was tho s&moaa I penny in ninq unlessit was the seme psnny, d.a.,unhes you heil taken it out anil givenit to me. For a panny is a piec of mlttr, and its ialltity ooneistsin being compoeeal the sene portiols. But the qdtlitis in virtue ol of whioh we ooll it a pmny (quelitfuewbiob it mdy lae withoutlosing its mltsill iilentity) a,re,I shoulil soy, numcioollythe ssme i! so fur as they a,re not difromt qualitatflvely. Secondly, I do not msintein thet greenneee (a.C.), " dso ir no plaoeanil st no tine ". is f mrin++inthot rreeoneeri bo oosnqa fuithout rsgara to the osn Bpaooa timeJin whioh it is, sDd thst in so oo$iilqinl it ws do anil not altc it; d.e.,it is possitrlein thought to isoltts it5-onil in so iloing we-merelyiliaegalA ite Flstims without in my way mutilat" bg it iteelf. Comiry now to ffts rndn qustio!. whst ig the osseDoc Mr. of Josohintomtention? ',In tlis mount, . . ..I oan Eenothinc but e stotementof the problem." t' A nimnlioitv of thig bnil is to; iloep for me to !rthod." ',f a,a unable-toatistilggishs,prois numcioel itlotity' d this kintl from numeriool divsrsity." The iliffioulty ig that-none of thme a,reof tbe uotule of erlumente. Th"y rnb aimply st{itenentsae to what Mr. Jooohin oan oi cannot inagin. It is, ol oours,inplied thri wb*t he oonnotimagineie notbing; but this oan ba'nlly be ta&e to be on of the funebmentsl premisresof all philosophy. lthe importaneeof the point is vory great; fc, exoeptcqtlin histodoalportions,and o fuw paragrspha of tihe od in whioh funila,mentrl doubts a,re dirsussd,tb@r ig ha,nlly anything in the boofr whioh iloee not assumthat *ll the sonstitunts of a compler must bo oobpler. ft semss pity, lThere is elsoa noterp.4Tq wbiohofrerg e ililemmo;butthlr me (whiohir no sinoethe horn oi the dilemma Drovides argurnent, 'retutil geoond f,he oue I aooDt) is merelv bv the qoecti@: t! Eoi' oan it entfty-enter into iliffereat fcronnetsl-o ddple nunerioallv i,i-on$ioa,l iirtent odmobreel? No ottedpt ig madeto ifiow t'hrt tt oaunot:thc imporeibilityls regldoalaerelf-odalnt

692

A. BUSSEIII..:

thcdore, that no grounalswhrtever shoilil hove been sll%d G oppam bvour d this yiow, oxoeptthst to Mr. Jcchim the oppoeite inoonoeivabls. The surious and disoouraging thiug about this diepute is, tbst f oonversely oannots6owhat tho 'problem' ig vhioh f am ouppoeetl to be merilv re-stating. Thet the ssmem&n,in the ehbtest sngo of the wori 'B&86,'ihoulil b both tbe eon of one mrn enil the brothsr of aaothor,or thrt he shoulil be the bnotherof two men, or ord thri geeonessehoul,ilhrve r resombllno to bluensE also to velloiaes---$roh bote ilo not soemto me to oall fc tnv explanato fron. The ilemanil for an expbnatiolr geems tlepentl ripon-some law cupnosal of eufroient nssaon-uD@ the notion that evervthiqr miit have a rseson for beiry as it-is ruil not otherwis. 6uoh I view orn be supportetlby.th&u or by any tolol%ioolphiloeophn thouch eventhen it ie diffioult to assim a suffoient rsosonfor Gotl. I But ipa,rt t'om somesuohassumpfroil, oannotseewhy we should erpeot & noosonfor everything. ADil in spite of many efuts, f oannot undmtand why it ehoulil be thought th&t rlltilness iuplias oomplexity; and, unfortunaaly, l[". Joaohim, though he not holtle thst thereie I rmsou fc everything,doee oftr any rsason fc his opinion aboutrelationg. The aigumentsin the pogswe have beenoonsiilerirg eru, thertfom. suoli as will onlv dpp=ear ooeent to thoe who a[reatlvadmit the-oonolusions wlioh tUeirryunei'ts are intenileil to prove. thi$ leqdsto the furthc question: What orgumsats,on suoha question, a,n oooaivrble, whioh tlo not asume questionelreeily ateoiila? the t think the onlv poosible srsnmut of this Enil, ou all fuuila,mental questions,ig sbme forn oi other of lhe r&tctip ad frst ifu"n. Tho,t is to ssv. a poeition oan be duteit in the eves of one who previouslymffi-it if-,assuming to behrre, and usingouly inleronoeg it of of o kinil whioh it silmits to bo volid, the fulsohooil someessontirl pa,rtof the poeitioncan be tleduoal. This, of oourls, assumes tihat whrtever inplis its owir hlshooil must b frlm; bnrtthis esenrpFtim is medeby all phihsophers. The Eegelianiliclotiois in pa,rt rn argumentof this nature: the inrilequmy of the thssisis shown with b th" faot thst it implieeths entithsil, whioh is inconeisturt it. trfr. Joeohim himgelf suppliee qn a,rguuent of this type, by (in showing ihst, if ooheranoe his smsol is the essonoo huth, of tho it-oaunot be quite brui. thrt ooharnoe (in his snse)ie the essonoo trntb. lnd if he bad intendil tir refute the-view of of hnrth advoooteilbv l[r. Moore and mvsslf. it would hsve been nooessenr aooepf provisionsllv.anil 6.rbs-ve it ehowntbst it til to to mnsequftoee with i6olf. Shis metbod is, of ourse; ilifroult, beoouse ie difrordt to reo[s6ihe poeitionof an ailversery it so olruly m to be able to rvoiil rssumptions whioh he rejeot* Anil ss qgainetEegelionism,ct lea6t in e form whioh it ft,equently sssurnos &rnone disoiolo. method sms itg the s$ntiallyinaapable of employmentl For wierwa a oonhndiotion ilemoniurtefl tbe is Eegafia,u- o"ly to rriss an dta,r " to the Un*nown S;atbeds," b"s

TEE NATI'BE

OF TBIITg.

588

$nil it is wy for him to show thot, aooordingto his philosophy, trhem must'be a syntheia unhown to hid as a {ilito Grl. Eegolimism is, thersfor,not iutuorlly rstutabl,eo long aa it [s oonlent to edmit thst aa yet it knows nothing at all--*n rtniesion whioh it is apt to makein ite l$t ohrpterr, but whiohueverprevnh rbsolutelv o&tsitr hnowleilsethat itgi,ilvsgarieg are -iebkAq. 8o fsr-s I[r. Jmhin's booh coos,it would appo,r thrt the views advooateil M". Mooreantl nyfrlf acealsonot in-tfllslly refutrbls : by *t last, this book tloee not ottempt suohr refutrtion. Thie gbto is of things, it must bo admittal, very unrotiehotor5r, aod,eeemsto mnilen the progreesof philoeophy almoet hopelese. Ard at tho beet, even when the reihrchiod frwrilann oan be suoossdtrlly frootoil, its result is p'tusly negative: it mcoly ilistrrcvee eome opidon, without therrby ebowbg that someot'her opinion b dght to ft some me thst the only hope liee in a more da,rfuleorufiny ol the premiemethrt arc apt to be employeilunaonsoiously, i a,ud attention to funtlrmentals,in the hope thrt rradumore pr,olonged olly th" a're-of egreement mey be snhrgil. Eitherto it hae-tnen the fsghion to ertol oonghotion rt the orpmso of citiaisu snd hava omaidercit ondysis, antl until vrry reoentlymoet philoedphere it an CIssntitl psrt of their busiDess pr',oviile to sometihing thsi coulil bo oslloil a proof of tbe existenoo ffi. of Eenoeprcmissos hlve beenecoepteiiat haphara,ril, almost without refloti6n; antl atteur*ion bas beenalmo6twholly omoenhateilon regults. This habit is' espocillly foet!4 it eemgto me, by the Eegolirn philoeophn anil .'whioh ilenies tbtt it has any premisses, thrirdore lerves to its 'ooponenta the tosL of iilsdvxine wbat itg rrremissos a,re. In c rfrdrt o "the noturc of hnth," orib mi8lt hrfe hoperlto ffnil gome defenoeof the premissg;but at anv rate it is s rsro medt in Mr. Joaohin's book-thrt it ma,kes comeof the premissc erptrioibwhioh fu pehrfs rs muoh rs.o philoeophioal work op' be erpmteil to ilo. B. Russret.

j1