About It and About
DISAGREEMENTS in philosophy are disagreements concerning the fundamentals of the human mind, its nature and its function. Dis- agreements which involve the acceptance or the rejection of a supernatural order are themselves fundamental ; and there is no possibility of compromise or adjustment, except through a casuistry which no reasonable creature can endorse, between two concepts which are 'so irreconcilably opposed to each other. Dr. Joad believes that one cannot behave decently without a conscious par- ticipation in the supernatural. This theory can only be maintained on a dogmatic, as distinct from an empirical, basis; but this is by no means a fatal objection, in view of the absence of any tenable synthesis concerning the nature of the universe as a whole. It is, however, a theory which derives no support from logic, and Dr. Joad is here concerned with proving the insecurity of the logical position. He is on firm ground when he criticises the positivist refusal to examine honestly the case for a metaphysical inter- pretation of events, and, in particular, of mental events. The ground is less firm when he draws attention to the discrepancies or vagueness of positivism and its failure to establish an unassailable canon of reference. These objections apply with equal force to the position of Dr. Joad himself, and, indeed, to that of every neo- Platonic philosopher.
But the purpose of Dr. Joad in this book is to show that logical positivism is likely to have a baleful effect upon the minds of the young or of those who at any age are susceptible to the influence of such a doctrine. He calls for a statement of " results." Here, I venture to think, he does not always remember that logical posi- tivism is only a new name for a system as old (at least in funda- mental thought) as the Ionian school ; it is only the latest form of a recurring and unavoidable argument concerning the nature of things and the management of words. He accuses Professor Ayer. the leading exponent of logical positivism, of assuming a finalist attitude and of offering the system as a key to ultimate knowledge. I do not think this is fair ; but, if it is, we can only say that it applies with equal relevance to the neo-Platonist or the Christian. He says that philosophy has had " the dual purpose of revealing truth and increasing virtue." Is this a valid account of the philosophic impulse, applicable to every system ? Without any .hint of deprecation, one may perhaps venture to suggest the possibility of dissent. It may well seem that such a description is relevant only for those doctrines which are built upon a moralistic foundation and which denounce, as worthless or even perilous, toa close an examination of the natural order. It is therefore a descrip- tion which is deeply involved in prejudice. Whatever Dr. Joad writes is to be treated with respect, but this book will appear to many as a • mere conflict of dogmas in which the methods of scholasticism are not always revived with the happiest consequences. Professor Ayer is in many ways the philosophical descendant of Locke and of Hume, while Dr. Joad is the philosophical descends of Descartes—at least in so far as he maintains a dualism whi can accommodate what he calls " non-sensory experience."
The danger of logical positivism, according to Dr. Joad, is If . it represents an extra-moral system, a system which is likely thwart, or even to destroy, the better impulses of humanity. Su impulses, on this view, depend upon our acceptance of "u observable metaphysical entities." Is it unreasonable to assur that such a statement requires modification ? Metaphysical art ment is a luxury beyond the reach of the ordinary man ; but ordinary man, more often than not, is a, very decent and likal fellow. Be that as it may, no one can deny the brilliance a acuteness of Dr toads writing, and this is undoubtedly one of t best, if it is not one of the most convincing, of his many bool
C. E. VIULLIAMy.
Previous page
