1
/
of
1
Leila's Books
The Distinction Between Mind and Its Objects
The Distinction Between Mind and Its Objects
Regular price
$0.99 USD
Regular price
Sale price
$0.99 USD
Shipping calculated at checkout.
Quantity
Couldn't load pickup availability
Scanned, proofed and corrected from the original hardcover edition for enjoyable reading.
***
An excerpt from the beginning:
What I desire to consider with you to-night may fairly be described as a new situation in the philosophical world. And I may begin by saying that it is satisfactory that there should be a new situation. It is a testimony to the inexhaustibleness of reality, and, what is really the same thing, to the fecundity of the human mind. And in the next place, I shall attempt to shew that the nature of the new appearance constitutes a real advance. There is, indeed, always, I believe, a double interpretation possible in face of new attitudes of mind. The novelty may be satisfactory in itself, or it may be satisfactory because of its suggestions. I shall touch upon such a problem of interpretation this evening.
But the first and principal matter to which I wish to call your attention is that we have before us in twentieth century philosophy something which, whether unsatisfactory or not, is definitely new. Of course I do not mean that it is wholly without precedent. You can find much that has led up to it; but I do not think it has before been propounded and defended consciously and on its merits.
What is it, then, that I am speaking of? and how is it connected with the subject of this lecture?
What I am speaking of is twentieth century Realism; and the point of novelty about it,—on the whole, though not in every case, and throughout—is its contrast of principle with Materialism. Or, speaking in terms of our subject, the novelty is this; that the realism in question, though it gives much less to Mind than Idealism, gives much more to Reality than Materialism. Whether the position will prove untenable is a question to be discussed. But that the position, if tenable, would go far to rearrange the whole battlefield of, say. Idealism and Materialism, is, I think, indisputable.
We all know pretty well what is meant by Materialism. Its popular aspect is summed up in a phrase of James Hinton, which I quote from memory, and shall recur to below. "What a world is that which science pronounces real; dark, cold, and shaking like a jelly." Of course there is a sheer confusion in the statement; but perhaps it embodies popular materialism none the worse for that. The idea is, in general, that such characters as shape and motion are self-existent properties of things, while colour and sound for instance are effects produced in our minds through our sense-organs, and bear no resemblance to anything in the real external objects. Now I do not say that this theory need necessarily give us a narrow view of the world; but it very naturally did so, and I believe always will do so. The reason is, that it makes us think all the things we live with and care about most, faces, voices, music, light, taste, smell—all these things are, if not illusions, yet in a sort of way on a lower level of truth and reality than things like atoms and gravitation. You can explain this result away; but man will always honour the self-existent, and you cannot really destroy the worship of matter as long as you hold this doctrine.
In terms of our subject, this theory treats some objects of mind, the sensation of colour, and so on—as mental in nature, or, roughly speaking, as products or bits of mind; while other objects of mind, like perceived shapes or resistance, it treats as self-existent realities. And when this is believed, the products or bits of mind will always be disparaged by comparison with what we suppose to exist in its own right. And then, on such a doctrine, what are you going to do with such realities as universals—general facts? They don't seem to fit well into space; while, as bits of mind, they seem impotent.
Then, of course, comes the return match—what is known as subjective idealism. Someone points out that, as objects of mind, space, and motion, and so forth, are just on the same level with sound and colour; if, therefore, the latter set are to be called products of mind, or bits of mind, so ought the others to be. Then you may conclude to subjective idealism, in which all objects of mind without distinction are absorbed into mind, become either minds or bits of mind, or products or states of mind.
***
An excerpt from the beginning:
What I desire to consider with you to-night may fairly be described as a new situation in the philosophical world. And I may begin by saying that it is satisfactory that there should be a new situation. It is a testimony to the inexhaustibleness of reality, and, what is really the same thing, to the fecundity of the human mind. And in the next place, I shall attempt to shew that the nature of the new appearance constitutes a real advance. There is, indeed, always, I believe, a double interpretation possible in face of new attitudes of mind. The novelty may be satisfactory in itself, or it may be satisfactory because of its suggestions. I shall touch upon such a problem of interpretation this evening.
But the first and principal matter to which I wish to call your attention is that we have before us in twentieth century philosophy something which, whether unsatisfactory or not, is definitely new. Of course I do not mean that it is wholly without precedent. You can find much that has led up to it; but I do not think it has before been propounded and defended consciously and on its merits.
What is it, then, that I am speaking of? and how is it connected with the subject of this lecture?
What I am speaking of is twentieth century Realism; and the point of novelty about it,—on the whole, though not in every case, and throughout—is its contrast of principle with Materialism. Or, speaking in terms of our subject, the novelty is this; that the realism in question, though it gives much less to Mind than Idealism, gives much more to Reality than Materialism. Whether the position will prove untenable is a question to be discussed. But that the position, if tenable, would go far to rearrange the whole battlefield of, say. Idealism and Materialism, is, I think, indisputable.
We all know pretty well what is meant by Materialism. Its popular aspect is summed up in a phrase of James Hinton, which I quote from memory, and shall recur to below. "What a world is that which science pronounces real; dark, cold, and shaking like a jelly." Of course there is a sheer confusion in the statement; but perhaps it embodies popular materialism none the worse for that. The idea is, in general, that such characters as shape and motion are self-existent properties of things, while colour and sound for instance are effects produced in our minds through our sense-organs, and bear no resemblance to anything in the real external objects. Now I do not say that this theory need necessarily give us a narrow view of the world; but it very naturally did so, and I believe always will do so. The reason is, that it makes us think all the things we live with and care about most, faces, voices, music, light, taste, smell—all these things are, if not illusions, yet in a sort of way on a lower level of truth and reality than things like atoms and gravitation. You can explain this result away; but man will always honour the self-existent, and you cannot really destroy the worship of matter as long as you hold this doctrine.
In terms of our subject, this theory treats some objects of mind, the sensation of colour, and so on—as mental in nature, or, roughly speaking, as products or bits of mind; while other objects of mind, like perceived shapes or resistance, it treats as self-existent realities. And when this is believed, the products or bits of mind will always be disparaged by comparison with what we suppose to exist in its own right. And then, on such a doctrine, what are you going to do with such realities as universals—general facts? They don't seem to fit well into space; while, as bits of mind, they seem impotent.
Then, of course, comes the return match—what is known as subjective idealism. Someone points out that, as objects of mind, space, and motion, and so forth, are just on the same level with sound and colour; if, therefore, the latter set are to be called products of mind, or bits of mind, so ought the others to be. Then you may conclude to subjective idealism, in which all objects of mind without distinction are absorbed into mind, become either minds or bits of mind, or products or states of mind.
Share
