The New Learning
The New Learning. Edited by F. J. E. Raby. (Nicholson and Watson. 8s. 6d.)
This book is one of the outlines of modern knowledge with which we have recently become familiar ; but it is an outline
with a difference. Its object is not so much to tell the truth— not, at least, to tell the whole of it—as to give a unified picture of the universe. Those parts of the truth, or of what appears to be quite possibly the truth, which fail to fit into the picture, are as a consequence ignored. The universe, in fact, has not been presented as a whole ; it has been sub-edited in the interests of a system.
That there is at the moment a supreme need for a unified conception of the universe nobody will deny. Science, from its very nature, is departmentalized. Working away in his own special compartment, the scientist pays attention to the area, add only to the area, of the universe which falls within
it. It is not to be wondered at if some of the results which reach us from these departmentalized laboratories of inquiry tend to clash. That they should do so is no criticism of the scientist ; cosmic correlation is not his business. But with voluminous reports reaching us from the special sciences at the present bewildering rate it is highly necessary that some- body should undertake the task of pooling and sifting, in order to provide us with a picture of the modern universe as a whole which is both consistent and all-embracing. That this is a current need of the times nobody will deny. As Dr. Mansbridge says in his foreword to the present volume :
he who thinks and consequently acts as though his own field of knowledge were background enough, in so far falls short of the requirements of an educated man." The human mind, moreover, has a natural need of synthesis, so much so that, as Mr. Raby points out, the individual's "intellectual and spiritual salvation lies in his ability to obtain a general view of the universe which is his home."
Of the need, I repeat, there is no doubt ; but have we the material to satisfy it ? The present book suggests to me that we certainly have not. "The aim of the editor," says Mr. Raby, "has been to test the possibility of some kind of unified view of things," and because the essays were written in independence, because the writers were not first examined as to their attitude to the universe and selected only if they gave the same answers, and because, nevertheless, these essays do tend to present some kind of unity, Mr. Raby seems to think that the modern universe has emerged triumphantly from the test. I have no wish to criticize the individual contributions to the book ; most are admirable. Professor Chapman gives a reasonably objective survey of Physics ; Professor McBride manfully takes up the cudgels on behalf of an unfashionable Vitalism ; modern Oxford is -represented by Dr. William Brown on The Human Mind, and Mr. Carritt on the Arts and Aesthetic Theory. Dr. Dingle, obviously influenced by Mr. Needham, writes admir- ably—it is the best essay in the book—on Science and Scientific Method, while the Reverend W. R. Matthews contributes articles on Philosophy and Theology. The contributions, I repeat, are in themselves excellent, but, as one passes from one to another, one finds it difficult to avoid the view that the apparently unified view which the book suggests is due to the fact that the writers tend to share certain general—albeit unconscious—pre-suppositions. The editor, in fact, has carefully selected his contributors, even if he has not censored their contributions, so that, although the world picture which emerges is reasonably consistent, it is much to be doubted whether it satisfies the second condition of being all-embracing. Too many strands in contemporary thought are left out.
The particular kind of tendenciousness of attitude which this book evinces will be immediately perceptible to the dis- cerning from the names of the authors whom the editor most frequently quotes : Christopher Dawson, M. Maritain, Von Hugel and Lawrence Hyde. The omissions of which it is guilty, and the principle which governs them, can be seen at a glance by studying the bibliography of books on philo- sophy appended to Dean Matthews' article. Only one by Bertrand Russell appears, and that is his early Problems of Philosophy, which he has superseded in at least half a dozen different ways in at least half a dozen different books. Modern Realism is practically unrepresented ; MaterialiSin iiiight never have been heard of. In fact, one gets the impression from reading Dean Matthews that modern philosophy is in the throes of an Idealist revival, is dominated by the con- ception of value, and is strongly theistic in tendency. The impression is misleading. All these elements are present in modern philosophy, but they are very far from being dominant.
As with Dean Matthews' contribution, so with the book as a whole. Its tendency .is to support the theistic hypothesis. That Theism may-be itue I for one do not wish to deny, but that there is something in what is vaguely called "the new learning" to support it is very far from being the case. Science, as Mr. Raby rightly says, "can no longer pretend to bar the way to such" (viz., a metaphysical) " an explanation. Philosophy and religion are therefore free to make their own claims, which they must put forward on their merits." Cer- tainly; but we are not, therefore, entitled to suppose that the claims are of only one sort, or that science supports them. Science may have cleared the boards of the universe for religion, but it has no contribution to make to the writing of the play. Hence, the general view of the world which "the new learning" is said to support will appeal only to those who already share the pre-suppositions from which its writers
Previous page
