Metaphysics

Preface

THIS work is a revision of my earlier work on the subject. For " substance of doctrine " the teaching is the same. The chief changes are in the form and exposition. The fundamental doctrine is more systematically set forth, and is unfolded into more detailed inferences ; but the general view is unchanged. In spite of many well-meant critical washings, I still remain wallowing in the ancient metaphysical and idealistic mire, and am even confirmed in my error by further reflection.

The publication of the TTieory of Thought and Knowledge made it unnecessary to reproduce the epistemelogical matter of the previous editions. Apart from this fact, the most marked feature of the revision is the greater emphasis laid on the idealistic element. This has been made more prominent and more consistently developed. And, on the other hand, it is shown that on the traditional realistic view both thought and being are impossible.

At. the same time, I have sought to save idealism from the misunderstandings which are the great source of popular objections to it, and also to make a place for inductive science. This is done by the distinction between phenomenal and ontological reality. The latter belongs to metaphysics and must finally be viewed as active intelligence. The former is the field of experience and is perfectly real in that field ; that is, it is common to all and is no individual iv PREFACE

illusion. And anything we can do in the way of discovering uniformities of coexistence or sequence in that field is so much clear gain. The discovery of these uniformities is the great work of inductive science; and this study it can pursue without being molested or made afraid by metaphysics. Of course, when the scientist sets up these uniformities as self-sufficient and self-executing laws, he then becomes a metaphysician ; and criticism is in its full right when it reminds him that such doctrine is not science but bad metaphysics. But the distinction between phenomenal and ontological reality enables us at once to save the truth of appearances and such science of them as we may have, and also to go behind them to a deeper realm if thought should demand it.

At the same time, it must be noted that the final result is to deprive all concrete science of its absolute character. The successive phases of phenomena cannot be deduced from antecedent phenomena by any proper logical process. In every theory we have to find the ground of the seen in the unseen; and we have no insight into that hidden realm, which will lift our concrete science into anything more than a practical expectation which serves for living rather than for speculation. There is an agnosticism which springs from a sensational philosophy, and this can only be viewed as the apotheosis of superficiality. But there is an agnosticism, or anti-dogmatism, which springs from a real insight into the nature of reason itself. This agnosticism is more wholesome, both speculatively and practically, than the crude gnosticism of popular thinking. Such fictitious gnosticism is one great obstacle to progress in the world of thought. It is the prolific source of speculative conceits and of mischievous practical negations; and one of the chief duties of criticism is to show its fictitious character.

The method pursued in the discussion depends on peda-

PREFACE V

gogical reasons. A direct abstract discussion would be far shorter and, for the practised reader, more satisfactory. But it would be intelligible to only a few, and they would not need it. For the sake of being understood, to say nothing of producing conviction, it is necessary to start from the stand-point of popular thought and to return to it at each new start. In this way it becomes possible to show the thinker on the sense plane the dialectic which is implicit in his own position, and which compels him to move on if thought is to reach anything sure and steadfast. Unless this method is borne in mind it would be easy to find the discussion in constant contradiction with itself. A great deal of the argument is carried on on the basis of the popular realism, fcut only for the sake of showing the popular speculator the impossibility of reaching anything final on that basis, and thus preparing him to appreciate the more excellent way. This method involves much repetition, but it is pedagogically necessary in the present stage of speculative development.

That there is a place for metaphysics would be more generally admitted now than when the first edition of the work was published. Then metaphysics was to some a stumbling-block, and to others foolishness, and even a mark of mental degeneration. In King Bomba's army, it is said, 'a part of the drill consisted in making ferocious grimaces, which were expected to strike terror into the enemy. Faccia feroce was the word of command. Many of the opponents of metaphysics would seem to have adopted similar tactics and make ferocious faces whenever the subject is mentioned. But the device is fast becoming ineffectual. There is a growing insight into the fact that metaphysics underlies all thinking and all science. The important factor in both is not the bare fact of experience, but the metaphysical notions whereby we form and interpret experience. Most vl PREFACE

beliefs are but implications of a system of metaphysics, consciously or unconsciously held ; and they run back to that system for their justification. The great debates of the time are essentially metaphysical. The debaters seldom suspect it ; and yet both parties are busy with the nature of being, and with the antitheses of matter and spirit, necessity and freedom, mechanism, and purpose, appearance and reality, finite and infinite. The phenomena of the system are the same for all ; the dispute concerns their interpretation; and this, in turn, depends entirely upon our metaphysics. And, wittingly or unwittingly, we all have a metaphysics. Since, then, we must use metaphysical conceptions, whether we will or not, It is well to make these notions the subject of a special inquiry, with the aim of fixing their value and significance. This is all the more desirable from the fact that the pretended renunciation of metaphysics always has the practical result of assuming without criticism a very Definite system of metaphysics generally a mechanical and materialistic fatalism. This work is meant as such an Inquiry. It is by no means a " mental philosophy," which is the common understanding of metaphysics ; it is rather an exposition of our fundamental philosophical concepts, their contents and implications. The clearing up of these concepts is the supreme condition of philosophical progress.

"We note this first in cosmology. Every one familiar with cosmological speculation will recognize that the bulk of it has rested upon the crudest possible metaphysical conceptions, and that it would vanish of itself if these conceptions were clarified. Popular theories of evolution, the "new philosophy," etc., operate with vague notions of nature, mechanism, continuity, necessity ; and of course the lower mechanical categories are accepted as first and final without the slightest suspicion of their confusion, and contradio-

PREFACE vii

tion when thus regarded. Out of this speculative chaos we can emerge only by subjecting these fundamental notions to a searching criticism.

But the need of this criticism is most marked in psychology. Current psychology, especially of the " synthetic " sort, has erred and strayed from the way, beyond anything possible to lost sheep, because of the unclear or inadmissible metaphysical notions with which it operates. We have, first, an attempt to construe the mental life in terms of mechanism or of the lower categories. This has led to the most extraordinary mythology, in which mental states are hypostasized, impossible dynamic relations feigned, logical identities mistaken for objective temporal identities; and then the entire fiction, which exists only in and through thought, is mistaken for the generator of thought. Here again nothing but criticism can aid us. "We must inquire what our " synthesis " is to mean, and what the factors are which are to be "synthesized," and what are the logical conditions of such a synthesis. This inquiry cannot be dispensed with by issuing cards of questions to nurses and young mothers, or by rediscovering world-old items of knowledge by the easy process of constructing new names for them. The dictionary may be enriched in this way, and charming stories gathered concerning the age at which " our little one began to take notice," but this journalistic method is more likely to contribute to the " gayety of nations" than to psychological insight. Neither can we long dispense with the inquiry by the severities of quotationmarks, or by assuming a superior manner and claiming for the new psychology everything in sight. This method also is losing its effectiveness.

The metaphysics and logical structure of psychology are in great need of critical examination. Its practical applications are in equal need of illumination. The mechanical

Vill PREFACE

psychology of sense-bound thought has overflowed, with no small damage, into the field of popular education. In many cases sheer fictions and illusions are taught for truth, or are made the basis of educational procedure. And when no positive damage is done, the result is still barrenness and waste of time. Much of the information given seems to be about on a level with that which M. Jourdain received from his teacher in philosophy. He learned that there are two classes of letters, vowels and consonants, and two kinds of composition, prose and poetry, and that he had been talking prose all his life without knowing it, and that when he pronounced the vowel O he pursed his lips into a circular form, and elongated them when pronouncing A. He also learned how to tell by the almanac when the moon was shining. M. Jourdain was so enchanted with this information that he thought hardly of his parents for neglecting his instruction in his youth, and also gave himself great airs, on the strength, of the new education, when he met Madame Jourdain and Nicole, the domestic. Not a little of popular pedagogics is of this barren and inflating sort. Knowledge still puffeth up.

And sometimes the matter is even worse. This thing having become the fad, the intellectually defenceless among teachers and those who would be thought wise are intimidated into accepting it. Hans Christian Andersen's story, a little modified, well illustrates the situation. Two knaves set up a loom in the market-place and gave out that they were weaving fabrics of wondrous beauty and value. To be . sure, nothing could be seen; but they set forth that whoever failed to see the goods was thereby shown to be unfit for his place. Accordingly everybody, from the king down, saw the things and praised them ; and nobody dared to let on, for fear of being thought unfit for his place. And they bought the goods, to the knaves' great profit, and ar-

PREFACE ix

rayed themselves, and marched in procession in their imaginary attire. And still nobody dared to let on, until a small boy , of unsophisticated vision, called out : "Why, they haven't got their clothes on !" This broke the spell. Intimidations of this sort are all too common in the pedagogical world at present. And they will remain until an era of criticism sets in. Then we may hope to be freed from the mythologies of the mechanical and synthetic psychology and from the misleading or sterile formulas of popular pedagogics.

For this desirable pedagogical reform, it is necessary that we distinguish more carefully between theoretical and practical psychology. Most theoretical psychology is practically barren. If necessary as a sufficient reason for the facts, it nevertheless often leads to nothing. Power over the facts, whether in education or in society, is not gained by studying psychological theories, but by observation and practice and by experience of life and men. Preparing for an athletic feat by a detailed study of anatomy would not be more hopeless or irrational than preparation for teaching, or for practically influencing men, by a devout study of psychological theory. By insisting on this distinction we shall put an end to the pathetic and costly illusion which has led to so much misdirected and wasted effort on the part of young teachers. And this is to be desired, even if some chairs of pedagogy have to be declared vacant.

My previous work, the Theory of Thought and Knowledge, finds its completion in this. The two together give an outline of the problems of speculative thought, and " set forth a general way of looking at things, which, I trust, will be found consistent with itself and with the general facts of

experience."

BOBDEN P. BOWIOJ.

BOSTON, May, 1898.

Contents

PAGE INTRODUCTION 1

Aim and Field of Metaphysics, p. 1 ; Theoretical and Practical Importance of the Study, p. 2 ; Relation of Metaphysics to Experience, p. 5 ; Appearance and Keality, p. 7 ; Different Kinds of Reality, p. 8.

Chapter I The Notion" Op Being Is

Different Meanings of Being, p. 13 ; Pure Being a Logical Abstraction and Impossible in Reality, p. 14 ; Phenomenal and Ontological Reality, p. 16 ; Only Active Being is Ontologicai, p. 17 ; Doctrine of Inherence, p. 19 ; Power an Abstraction, p. 20.

Chapter II The Natube Of Things 29

Terms Defined, p. 29 ; Nature not Found in Sense Qualities, p. 31; Herbart Criticised, p. 83 ; Meaning* of Quality, p. 34 ; Qualities in General cannot Express the Nature of a Thing, p. 36; Nature Found in the Law of Activity, p. 39.

Chapter III

Change Defined, p. 46; Being as Flowing Process, p. 47; Attempts to Reconcile Change and Identity : Popular View, Physicists' Yiew, Herbart's View, p. 50 ; Meaning of Sameness, p. 54 ; A Changing Thing a Series of Different Things, p. 56 ; Criticism of

Xii CONTENTS

the Heraclitic Yiew, p. 60 ; Irreconcilability of Change and Identity on the Impersonal Plane, p. 62 ; Solution Possible only in Conscious Intelligence, p. 63 ; Intelligence cannot be Understood through its own Categories, p. 66.

Chapter IV Page

Inductive and Productive Causality Distinguished, p. 68 ; Logical Presuppositions of Interaction, p. 71; Popular Explanations of Interaction, p. 74 ; Interaction of Independent Things a Contradiction, p. 79 ; The Interaction of the Many Possible only through the Immanent Action of the One, p. 81; Causality in Succession, p. 84 ; Contradictions in the Idea, p. 85 ; Unity and Causality both Impossible on the Impersonal Plane, p. 88.

CHAPTER Y THE WORLD-GROUND 94

The Infinite not Substance but Cause, p. 94 ; The Finite not a Part or Mode of the Infinite, p. 96 ; Impersonal Things only Phenomena, p. 99 ; The Finite Spirit a Creation, p. 99 ; Difficulties in Pantheism, p. 102 ; The Nature and Purpose of the Infinite the Sole Determining Ground of the Finite, p. 104 ; Truth itself Dependent on the Infinite, p. 107; Nothingness of Non-Theistic Schemes, p. Ill ; Origin of such Schemes in Sense Thinking, p. 113 ; Personality of the Infinite, p. 115.

PAET II Cosmology

Chapter I Space 128

Three Views of Space, p. 126 ; Difficulties in Popular View, p. 128 ; Space as Order of Independent Relations, p. 134 ; Space as Ideal, p. 137 ; Misconceptions of the Ideal View, p. 137 ; Objections drawn from Epistemology, p. 149 ; Identity of the Object not Secured by Being in Real Space, but by Being a Factor of the Rational World, p. 152 ; Space of W Dimensions, p. 152.

CONTENTS xiii

Chapter II Page Time 164

No Proper Intuition of Time, p. 164 ; Unclearness of Popular View, p. 167 ; Standing and Flowing Time alike Contradictory, p. 169 ; No Assignable Relation between Time and Events, p. 171 ; Unsuccessful Attempts to Reach Timelessness, p. 175 ; Idealistic View Expounded, p. 180 ; Failure of Ideal View so long as Extra-Mental Reality is Allowed, p. 183 ; Time must be Construed with Reference to Self -Consciousness, p. 184 ; Relativity of Time, p. 188 ; Relation of the Infinite to Time, p. 189 ; Result, p. 193.

Chapter III Matter, Foecb, And Motion 195

Matter, p. 195 ; Plausibility of Atomism, p. 196 ; Source of the Illusion, p. 197 ; Varieties of Atomism, p. 198 ; Strength and Weakness of Corpuscular Atomism, p. 200 ; Force, p. 205 ; Confusion in the Notion, p. 206 ; Laws of Force -Variation, p. 210 ; Action at a Distance both Necessary and Absurd, p. 213 ; Motion, p. 217; Laws of Motion no Necessities of Thought, p. 227; Theoretical Mechanics an Abstraction, p. 241 ; Mechanics only a Science of Phenomena at best, and largely only a Device of Method, p. 241.

Chapter IV

Nature as an Idea of the Reason, p. 244; Nature as Matter and Force, p. 247; Nature as Mechanism, p. 248 ; Complexity and Barrenness of Ontological Mechanism, p. 251 ; Nature as the Order of Law, p. 257 ; Nature as Continuous, p. 263 ; Confusion in the Notion of Continuity, p. 263 ; Continuity of Law the Only Continuity, p 267 ; Evolution, p. 271 ; Double Meaning of Evolution, p. 271 ; Evolution as a Theory of Causation is Bad Metaphysics Produced by Bad Logic, p. 276 ; Natural Selection, p. 279 ; Nature as the System of Finite, p. 283 ; Natural and Supernatural, p. 285 ; Miracles, p. 289 ; Nature as Idea, p. 294.

PAET III. Psychology

Chapter I The Soul 299

Meaning of Materialism, p. 300 ; Difficulties of Materialism, p. 303 ;

CONTENTS

Monism, p. 314 ; Difficulties of Monism, p. 314 ; Psychology of Materialism, p. 316 ; Epistemology of Materialism, p. 319 ; Natural Selection as a Principle of Belief, p. 821 ; Kant's Objections to Rational Psychology Considered, p. 332 ; Scruples Concerning the Being and Identity of the Soul, p. 336 ; Result, p. 344.

Chapter II Soul And Body 349

Interaction of Soul and Body as Concomitant Variation of Both, p. 350 ; Conservation of Energy, p. 352 ; Body as Organism, p. 355 ; Origin of the Organism, p. 356 ; Mechanism and Vitalism, p. 357; Difficulties in Both, p. 357; A Special Subject Needed for the Apparent Mental Life, p. 367 ; The Infinite the Source of both Soul and Body, p. 368 ; The Concomitance of the Physical and the Mental Series not Absolute, p. 370 ; Origin of Souls, p. 372 ; Untenability of Traducianism, p. 373 ; Heredity, its Difficulties, p. 375 ; The Future of Souls, p. 378 ; Speculation Destroys Knowledge but Makes Room for Belief, p. 379.

Chapter III

No Mechanical Representation of Mental Activities Possible, p. 383 ; Difficulties in the Notion of a Mental Mechanism, p. 384 ; Herbart's View Criticised, p. 388 ; The English Associationalists, p. 390 ; Reproduction, p. 391 ; Memory Explained by Nothing but Itself, p. 393 ; Cerebral Reproduction, p. 396 ; Mechanical Explanation in Psychology purely Fictitious, p, 399.

Chapter IV Freedom And Necessity 404

Freedom Defined, p, 405 ; Freedom in Intelligence, p. 406 ; Significance of Freedom for Science and Philosophy, p. 407 ; Metaphysics of Necessity, p. 410 ; Mistaken Notions of Freedom, p. 410 ; Freedom and Science, p, 413 ; Freedom and the Law of Causation, p. 414.

CONCLUSION .... 421

Introduction

THE problems of speculative philosophy may be summed up in two questions: How is knowledge possible? and, What is reality? The former question belongs to epistemology ; the latter belongs to metaphysics. The first question has been discussed in a previous volume, the Theory of Thought and Knowledge. The second question is now to be considered.

The nature of reality, then, is our subject. But we do not aim at a detailed knowledge of particular things, such as the special sciences might give, but rather at an outline conception of reality, within which all knowledge of particular things must fall, and by which such knowledge must be judged. There are certain general conceptions which make up at once the framework of knowledge and the framework of existence. Such are the categories of being and cause, change and identity, space and time; and our knowledge of particular things will depend on the conception we form of these basal categories. Epistemology has shown them to be principles of thought; metaphysics inquires into their real significance. Our work will largely consist in a study of the ontological meaning of the categories, either in themselves or in their specifications. Thus we mark off our field from that of the special sciences.

The need of the metaphysical inquiry has a double root.

In the first place, the categories are primarily principles of thought. Kant claimed that they are only such principles, and have no significance for reality in itself. In this way he overturned his own system ; for reality becomes only a form of words when the categories are denied all objective validity. At the same time, it is clear that there is a great deal that is purely formal and relative in the use of the categories, and that by no means corresponds to any objective fact. "We may also be quite sure of the validity of the formal principle, without being clear as to the form in which the principle must be objectively conceived. Thus, we may have no doubt respecting the objective reality of causality or identity, and still be very much in the dark as to the form in which real causality or identity exists. Hence, after epistemology has established the formal principles, it remains for metaphysics to fix their ontological form and significance.

In the next place, these fundamental notions are always loosely and often contradictorily conceived in popular thinking. There is a natural metaphysics in spontaneous thought ; but it is not wrought out into any clearly conceived and harmonious system. Our practical thinking is moulded by practical needs; and we never spontaneously give any greater precision to our ideas than practice calls for. Moreover, these ideas, in unreflective thought, largely take their form from our sense - experience, and thus acquire a mechanical and materialistic character. This does little harm while thought remains instinctive ; but when reflection begins, and these loose and one-sided notions are taken for the fact, then their parallax with reality is magnified until there results some grotesque absurdity or some pernicious untruth. Then extended matter tends to become the typical and exclusive conception of substance, and mechanical action becomes the sum of causality. The result is a reign

INTEODUCTION 3

of materialism, or a conflict of science and religion, or some other such unprofitable aberration. These things arise almost exclusively from imperfect conceptions of the categories, and especially from determining their contents by appeals to sense experience.

Thus the metaphysical inquiry appears to be a matter of both theoretical and practical importance. It is theoretically important, in order to escape a shallow dogmatism on the one hand, and a self -destructive subjectivism on the other. It is practically important, in order to lift popular thought from the sense-plane, where it is perpetually tempted to run off into necessity, mechanism, and materialism. The aberrations of philosophy are largely due to misconceptions of the categories; and both the reform and the progress of philosophy depend on a profounder insight into their true meaning and implications.

The question, What is reality ? can only be answered by telling how we must think about reality. "We have no means of dealing with reality other than through the conceptions we form of it. This fact has led to the sceptical suggestion that we can never tell whether our conceptions correspond to reality. To this the answer is that this " correspondence " is itself a very crude and obscure notion. The only correspondence which our conceptions can have consists in their validity for the things. There can be no correspondence in the sense that we can first know things by themselves, and then form conceptions of the things already known, and finally compare the things and the conceptions in order to note their correspondence. This would indeed be a roundabout way of knowing, and would involve works of supererogation. The validity is the only correspondence, and this can be determined only by the self - evidence or necessity with which the conception imposes itself upon the mind.

Again, the sceptical suggestion is out of place Lere. Before we can decide whether our thought of reality is valid for reality, we must first find out what that thought really is. We have just pointed out that the natural metaphysics of spontaneous thought is loosely and carelessly conceived. It serves for practical purposes as long as we confine ourselves to the daily round, but it by no means gives us the final results of the reflective and critical reason. Hence, before we raise the sceptical question, we must make a critical study of thought itself, with the aim of clarifying our ideas, adjusting their mutual relations, and determining what the essential utterances of reason are in matters of metaphysics. To consider the sceptical question before making this inquiry is to open the way to endless paralogism and logical inconsequence. And when the final utterances of reason have been reached, if they prove, clear and consistent among themselves, and cogent in their evidence, there will be little difficulty in getting them accepted in spite of the sceptic.

What is reality? How can we answer this question otherwise than by opening our eyes and telling what we see ? or by looking into experience and reporting what we find? This is a very natural question, and for all those on the sense plane it is decisive. But, at a very early date in the history of reflective thought, it became clear that the conceptions we spontaneously and unreflectingly form are not those in which we can finally rest. If we attempt to rest in things as they appear, we find ourselves involved in all manner of difficulties; and thus we are compelled to revise our conceptions until we make them mutually consistent and adequate to the function they have to perform in our thought system. In this way arises the distinction between appearance and reality, or between things as they appear and things as we must think of them; and thus.

INTRODUCTION 5

finally, the problem of metaphysics becomes a question for thought, and not one which can be answered by sense intuition.

Nevertheless, the facts of experience furnish the data of the problem. We have no way of creating reality, and we also have no such a/priori insight into its nature that we can tell in advance what reality must be. Some speculators, indeed, have fancied that some such thing might be possible, but this dream now finds few upholders. We must wait for reality to reveal itself, and our utmost hope is to understand it.

Our method, then, is critical, not creative. Experience, as a whole, is our datum, and the question is, How must we think about reality on the basis of this experience as interpreted by thought ? We take, then, everything as it seems to be, or as it reports itself, and make only such changes as are necessary to make our conceptions adequate and harmonious. The reasons for doubt and modification are to be sought entirely in the subject-matter, and not in the possibility of verbal doubt. This method allows reason its full rights, and it also saves the natural sense of reality, which can never be needlessly violated with impunity. We take the theory of things which is formed by spontaneous thought, and make it the text for a critical exegesis in the hope of making it adequate and consistent. The method is one of faith, and not of scepticism.

This thought deserves further emphasis. Oversight of it is at the bottom of the popular notion that philosophy leads to scepticism, and also of the popular scepticism of philosophical conclusions. Neither science nor philosophy denies anything which the senses give; though both find reason for denying that the senses give as much as uncritical thought assumes. Both make the data of the senses a starting-point, and on them they build up a rational system.

But this system is never a matter of the senses, but an inference from their data. Both physics and metaphysics carry us at once into a world of realities whose existence and nature can be assured only by thought. The conclusions drawn in both cases seem monstrous when judged by the standard of the senses ; but, then, they are not to be judged by that standard. And, upon reflection, it turns out that the two sets of views are not properly contradictory. The sense view furnishes the data, the rational view interprets them. In so doing it assumes the truth of the sense view within its own sphere. The visible heavens and the astronomical heavens are not in contradiction. The astronomer makes the visible heavens his starting-point, and he finds that they force him to affirm the astronomical heavens. Each view, in its place, is correct, and neither denies the other. But if the rustic should attempt to demolish the Copernican theory by appealing to the senses, no one would pay any attention to him, for every one now recognizes that the senses have no jurisdiction in the matter.

The application to philosophical theory is evident. Here, too, we begin with the data of experience, but we do not end with them. We find ourselves compelled to transcend them by giving them a rational interpretation. And as it is no objection to physics and astronomy that the atoms and the ether cannot be seen, or that the heavens seem to contradict Copernicus, so it is no objection to philosophy that its theories cannot be verified by the senses. If, then, in the following discussions, many things are found which are violent and even monstrous paradoxes, when measured by sense-appearance, the reader is begged to remember that we do not recognize that standard as a measure of rational truth, any more than the physicist recognizes it as a test of his theories. In both cases, if the conclusions are soundly