FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157  
158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   >>   >|  
re from your own Professor Jacks--what he said about the philosopher himself being taken up into the universe which he is accounting for. This is the fechnerian as well as the hegelian view, and thus our end rejoins harmoniously our beginning. Philosophies are intimate parts of the universe, they express something of its own thought of itself. A philosophy may indeed be a most momentous reaction of the universe upon itself. It may, as I said, possess and handle itself differently in consequence of us philosophers, with our theories, being here; it may trust itself or mistrust itself the more, and, by doing the one or the other, deserve more the trust or the mistrust. What mistrusts itself deserves mistrust. This is the philosophy of humanism in the widest sense. Our philosophies swell the current of being, add their character to it. They are part of all that we have met, of all that makes us be. As a French philosopher says, 'Nous sommes du reel dans le reel.' Our thoughts determine our acts, and our acts redetermine the previous nature of the world. Thus does foreignness get banished from our world, and far more so when we take the system of it pluralistically than when we take it monistically. We are indeed internal parts of God and not external creations, on any possible reading of the panpsychic system. Yet because God is not the absolute, but is himself a part when the system is conceived pluralistically, his functions can be taken as not wholly dissimilar to those of the other smaller parts,--as similar to our functions consequently. Having an environment, being in time, and working out a history just like ourselves, he escapes from the foreignness from all that is human, of the static timeless perfect absolute. Remember that one of our troubles with that was its essential foreignness and monstrosity--there really is no other word for it than that. Its having the all-inclusive form gave to it an essentially heterogeneous _nature_ from ourselves. And this great difference between absolutism and pluralism demands no difference in the universe's material content--it follows from a difference in the form alone. The all-form or monistic form makes the foreignness result, the each-form or pluralistic form leaves the intimacy undisturbed. No matter what the content of the universe may be, if you only allow that it is _many_ everywhere and always, that _nothing_ real escapes from having an environment; so far
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157  
158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

universe

 
foreignness
 

mistrust

 

difference

 

system

 

pluralistically

 
absolute
 
environment
 

escapes

 

functions


nature

 

philosopher

 

content

 

philosophy

 

smaller

 
similar
 

dissimilar

 
Having
 

reading

 

history


working

 

matter

 

panpsychic

 
wholly
 

conceived

 

undisturbed

 

material

 

demands

 
inclusive
 

heterogeneous


essentially

 

pluralism

 
absolutism
 

monstrosity

 

result

 

monistic

 
pluralistic
 
leaves
 

intimacy

 

static


troubles
 

essential

 

Remember

 

timeless

 

perfect

 

momentous

 

reaction

 
thought
 

express

 
philosophers